Carmel board faces $6M–$9.5M gap; trustees debate cuts, capital bond scope and timeline

Trustees at the Carmel Central School District work session on Feb. 27 confronted a preliminary budget shortfall and debated both program cuts and a proposed $14.9–15.0 million capital bond described as focused on safety and security.

Administration presented a preliminary rollover budget of roughly $151.8 million for 2024–25 and said closing the gap at a 3.52 percent maximum levy would require approximately $6 million in reductions; lower levy levels would require larger cuts, and a contingent (0 percent) budget could force roughly $9.5 million in reductions and eliminate bus purchases, equipment leases and many discretionary items.

Trustees asked for concrete, line‑by‑line or component‑level scenarios showing what would be lost at each levy level. Mr. Fink provided illustrative figures for some “big ticket” items (approximations provided as administrative estimates): kindergarten program ($1.7M), athletics ($1.1M), bus purchase/lease program ($810k), one guidance counselor ($215k), and one assistant principal position (approx. $180k, salary and benefits). He cautioned these are working estimates and that personnel implications depend on seniority, contractual obligations and state mandates.

A central cluster of comments focused on a proposed capital referendum described in board materials as safety and security work (estimated cost $14.9–15.0M). Several trustees said including items not clearly security‑related (for example, electronic school signs, kitchen air‑conditioning units and gym partitions totaling roughly $407,480 in the draft list) would undermine public trust and urged the board to present a narrow, itemized security referendum. Other trustees and staff said some building‑condition items are safety‑related (staff working conditions in hot kitchens, ventilation) and could be defensible in a security‑branded project; administration said the district will seek a written scope and cost confirmation from the security consultant Alteris and from fiscal advisers before finalizing any referendum language.

Trustees asked administration to: (a) produce multiple budget scenarios tied to specific program and staffing changes; (b) consult bargaining units about potential concessions or alternatives; (c) collect firm cost estimates for security items such as a VoIP/panic‑button integration (administration estimated an additional $60k–$80k for integration on top of a planned VoIP upgrade); and (d) make ARP/ESSER and CRRSA use reporting readily available on the district budget webpage. The board agreed to prioritize budget work at a March meeting (March 12) and to limit other agenda items that night to allow extended discussion.

No formal votes on taxes, cuts or the capital referendum were taken at the session; the meeting concluded with a motion to enter executive session to discuss personnel matters.