Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
North Merrick school board reviews $42.6 million proposed budget, schedules May 20 vote
Summary
District officials presented a $42,638,849 spending plan for 2025–26 — a 3.51% increase — and warned voters that a failed budget would force a contingent budget that freezes the tax levy and restricts nonessential spending; the budget vote is set for May 20 at the North Merrick Public Library.
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The North Merrick Union Free School District presented a proposed $42,638,849 budget for the 2025–26 school year, a 3.51% increase from the current year, during its April board meeting. Ms. Donnelly, who led the district's budget presentation, said the plan projects a 2.87% tax-levy increase that remains compliant with the local tax-cap calculations presented earlier in the year.
"Our proposed budget for the 20 five-twenty 6 school year is $42,638,849," Ms. Donnelly said while walking board members through expenditure and revenue charts. She described the three components required by New York State reporting — administrative, program and capital — and noted the program portion (instructional spending) is the largest part of the expenditure budget.
Ms. Donnelly outlined the district's revenue mix, naming the tax levy as the largest revenue source followed by state aid, PILOTs and other local revenues. She described reserve accounts, including the employee retirement reserve (ERS), and said state-aid figures shown reflect January estimates the district is still awaiting final confirmation for.
The presenter also reviewed the ballot items voters will see, including the district budget and trustee elections, a proposed capital reserve (Proposition 2) and an expenditure from the 2019 capital reserve (Proposition 3) for planned building work. She told the board the budget vote will be held May 20 at the North Merrick Public Library.
Officials warned about the consequences if voters reject the budget on the first vote. Ms. Donnelly explained a contingent budget would hold the tax levy at last year's amount as presented to the board during the meeting (the figure cited at the session was $26,000,001.45) and would force cuts. "Under a contingent budget," she said, "there are things we cannot do: no new equipment purchases that are nonessential, limited capital expenditures except for health-and-safety emergencies, and potential limits on pay increases for certain non-instructional employees." The district explained contingent rules are prescribed by state regulation.
The board did not take a final vote on the budget at the meeting; Ms. Donnelly said the district will post the full presentation on its budget website and urged the community to review the materials before the May 20 vote.

