Thursday, October 1, 2026
The Locust Valley Central School District unveiled a revised $99.99 million budget proposal at the Board of Education meeting on Monday, outlining spending reductions and a smaller tax levy increase — as well as the potential consequences if voters reject the plan in a June 16 revote.
The revised spending plan comes after residents voted down the district’s original 2026-27 budget last month. District officials said the new proposal was crafted to address community concerns while preserving academic programs, extracurricular activities and safety initiatives.
Karen Horoszewski, assistant superintendent for business, said that the revised proposal reflects an effort to reduce costs without affecting students. “Following our initial vote, we heard the community’s message clearly,” Horoszewski said. “Tonight we are presenting a balanced plan that reduces the tax burden while maintaining the core educational programs and safety measures our children rely on.”
The revised budget is 1.73 percent larger than this year’s spending plan. It reduces spending by roughly $286,000 from the budget voters rejected, and includes a tax levy increase of 1.78 percent, roughly 0.4 percent smaller than the increase in the initial proposal.
Horoszewski noted that under the state’s tax cap formula, the district was permitted to increase the levy by as much as 2.84 percent. Instead, she said, “We are passing along $955,000 in direct taxpayer savings compared to what the state allows.”
According to Horoszewski, spending on administrative professional development, facilities equipment purchases and business office contracts was reduced. Additional state aid, made available after the late adoption of the state budget, also helped offset costs.
Responding to questions from school board Trustee Kristina Tomlinson, Horoszewski provided details on the reductions.
“The first budget line item I looked at is going to be the business office,” she said. “I looked at our contractual expenses, one being our financial advisers … that I was able to cut.”
She added that the district identified roughly $20,000 in maintenance equipment reductions, $20,000 in professional development savings and cuts to administrative conference travel expenses.
Horoszewski emphasized that district leaders specifically targeted areas that would not affect students.
A proposed $2.5 million transfer to capital funds for infrastructure and security projects remains a significant component of the spending plan. District officials defended the expenditure, describing it as part of a longstanding strategy to avoid borrowing costs. Horoszewski explained that as older bond debt was retired, the district shifted toward funding capital improvements directly rather than issuing new debt.
Board President George Vasiliou also stressed the importance of planned security upgrades, particularly building doors and locking systems.
“Our doors and our locks are outdated,” Vasiliou said. “Being able to hit essentially a panic button and lock down the doors in the building, that gives law enforcement that much more time to get in and to protect us. That’s why these are really critical.”
Much of the presentation focused on what would happen if voters were to reject the revised budget on June 16. Under state education law, a second defeat would require the district to adopt a contingency budget. That would freeze the tax levy at its current level and prohibit spending on non-contingent expenses, Horoszewski said.
Among the programs that could be eliminated are elementary school clubs, before-school band and orchestra programs, late buses, overnight and international field trips, driver’s education, the after-school EMT program, summer academic intervention services and planned weight room upgrades.
Community programs would also be affected. The district would discontinue its financial support for local senior centers, eliminate the summer recreation program and halt subsidized community use of athletic fields and school facilities.
Horoszewski repeatedly stressed that those restrictions would be mandated by state law. “The district is legally prohibited from spending frozen taxpayer funds to subsidize or operate these nonessential programs,” she said.
She also explained that community groups that use district resources and facilities would have to reimburse the district for all associated expenses, such as custodial salaries andutilities and facility wear and tear.
Board Trustee Matthew Barnes questioned how such costs might be offset in other ways. Horoszewski acknowledged the complexity of the process, and said that district officials were already exploring their options.
The board also discussed transportation costs. Horoszewski said that the district recently negotiated a favorable five-year busing agreement, but acknowledged that a contingency budget would force the district to limit contracts to one year. “Year two to five [would] no longer be on the table,” she said.
During the public comment portion of the meeting, residents raised questions about which cuts would be mandatory under a contingency budget, and what additional community outreach could be conducted before the revote.
Addressing broader concerns about long-term spending growth, Vasiliou said that district leaders plan to begin discussing future budget strategies with the community this fall.
The budget revote is scheduled for June 16. Polls will be open from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m.
