The Locust Valley Central School District held its fifth presentation focusing on the proposed 2026-27 budget Wednesday night, outlining a $100.25 million spending plan that officials said balances fiscal restraint with continued investment in student programs and safety.
The presentation focused on employee benefits, debt service, interfund transfers, revenue and a final budget summary.
“Our goal remains the same: to educate the whole student and to inspire lifelong learning,” Karen Horoszewski, the district’s assistant superintendent for business, said at the meeting. “Our budget mission is to support those educational goals while remaining fiscally responsible.”
The proposed budget totals roughly $100.25 million, a 2 percent increase over the current year. It includes a tax levy increase of 2.1 percent, well below the district’s maximum allowable increase of just under 3 percent, according to the state’s tax cap formula.
Several cost-saving measures helped keep the tax increase below the cap, Horoszewski explained. They included a shift to a six-day instructional cycle, which eliminated the need to hire an additional music teacher; standardizing Chromebooks to reduce licensing and maintenance costs; and refining scheduling at the middle and high schools to maximize classroom use.
The district’s fund balance, a key indicator of financial stability, has $3.9 million in unassigned funds, or roughly 4 percent of the operating budget, the maximum allowed under state law.
“These reserves are the bedrock of our financial health,” Horoszewski said. “They provide stability, allowing us to protect our classroom programs from sudden economic shifts or delays in state aid.”
Spending in several areas will increase — particularly employee benefits. Health insurance costs are projected to rise by 10 percent next school year to roughly $13.9 million.
Retirement costs will be mixed, with Employees Retirement System expenses increasing and Teachers Retirement System expenses declining. Horoszewski attributed fluctuations in retirement contributions to broader economic conditions.
The district is also proposing an increase in its summer recreation program budget from $55,000 to $77,000, based on anticipated enrollment.
On the capital side, administrators plan to continue a shift away from borrowing, and the attendant interest costs, toward a pay-as-you-go model, using annual transfers to fund projects rather than issuing bonds. For 2026-27, the district will allocate $2.5 million to capital improvements focused on safety and security.
Projects include replacing classroom doors and locks at both the elementary and secondary levels, with upgrades of 230 doors and installation of 277 swipe card access locks and automatic locking systems. Additional magnetic locking mechanisms are planned for the following year.
Horoszewski emphasized that the district is maintaining or increasing the scope of capital work while reducing reliance on debt.
“This means we are doing more with less,” she said.
To balance the budget, the district anticipates $8.2 million in non-property tax revenue, including a projected 6.4 percent increase in state aid, in addition to roughly $92 million from the property tax levy. Officials cautioned that state aid figures remain estimates pending final adoption of the state budget.
The presentation also addressed a projected 21 percent decline in interest income due to expected reductions in interest rates. “We need just to be really careful and not overestimate our interest,” Horoszewski said. “We make our best educated estimate over where we think it’s going to be.”
After the presentation, Board of Education President George Vasiliou reminded attendees of the cost of rejecting the spending plan, citing concerns that residents have raised to board members in recent weeks. If voters were to reject the proposal twice, the district would be required to adopt a contingency budget with no tax levy increase, forcing major reductions in spending to offset rising costs.
“In the event that … the community votes no, we then need to expend the resources, the time, the expense … to run a second vote,” Vasiliou said. “If that vote fails, then we immediately … essentially adopt this year’s budget for next year.”
He added that mandated cost increases, such as health care and retirement contributions, would still need to be covered under a contingency budget. “You absorb that through cuts,” he said. “You absorb that through austerity, and the district as a whole will feel that.”
Despite those concerns, district officials expressed confidence in the proposal and emphasized its alignment with the schools’ tradition of fiscal prudence.
The board is scheduled to adopt the budget on April 21. The public vote and school board election will take place May 19.
