A controversial budget plan from the South Country Central School District has ignited sharp backlash from residents, with critics condemning both the scale of the proposed tax increase and the leadership behind it.
The Board of Education has recommended a $150,516,580 spending plan for the 2026–27 school year that includes a 13.45% tax levy increase—far exceeding the state’s 5.52% cap and requiring a 60% supermajority for voter approval on May 19. District officials argue the increase is necessary to eliminate a $5.67 million deficit, but many in the community see it as the result of years of financial mismanagement.
Prior to the district’s budget presentation, former trustee Greg Miglino and local attorney Lee Snead held a press conference calling for the resignation of the entire board and Superintendent Antonio Santana. They accused the leadership of fiscal incompetence and alleged wrongdoing in financial reporting.
“They are tone deaf and feel there is nothing they can do that will ever be stopped,” Miglino said, arguing that the only path forward is a complete leadership change.
Those allegations were echoed and amplified by Bellport resident Thomas Senefelder, who said he has taken the matter to federal authorities. Senefelder reported the district to the Securities and Exchange Commission, alleging that officials used falsified financial data when securing Tax Anticipation Notes and other forms of borrowing. “This is a crime,” Senefelder stated.
District officials have maintained that the current budget is based on accurate, verifiable figures. Assistant Superintendent for Finance John Belmonte said the proposed 13.45% increase would fully erase the deficit, describing it as the most direct path to financial stability. The figure was slightly reduced from an earlier 13.76% projection through cuts that included administrative positions.
One of those belongs to Amy Karp, the district’s English as a New Language (ENL) Secondary Chairperson, who noted that 800 students are enrolled in the program. “Not all cuts are equal,” she told the board. “This will create permanent problems; rebuilding the program will be difficult.”
Superintendent Santana has defended the plan as a necessary reset after what he described as structural financial challenges. He has emphasized efforts to preserve core programs and avoid deeper cuts that would impact classrooms.
But for many residents, those explanations have done little to restore confidence.
A petition titled “Step Down Santana: A Petition for Fiscal Accountability” has garnered more than 150 signatures. It paints Santana as “ineffective and incompetent” in managing the district’s budget since his arrival in 2022 and calls his resignation “a necessary and urgent step” in addressing the crisis.
Public comment at the meeting underscored the divide within the community. Some teachers and supporters of the district urged caution, warning that deeper cuts would harm students. Others, however, sharply criticized both the budget and the board’s handling of dissent.
One resident described the atmosphere as “very frustrating,” praising a handful of board members who acknowledged the budget’s unpopularity but condemning what they saw as heavy-handed behavior from others.
“When you’re elected, it gives you the privilege to serve your community—not the right to rule with an iron fist,” the resident said, accusing a board member of reprimanding both colleagues and the public.
Critics also questioned the district’s priorities, pointing to declining enrollment and arguing that staffing levels and administrative costs should be reduced further before turning to taxpayers. Suggestions ranged from cutting transportation and non-essential services to implementing a contingency budget, which would freeze the tax levy at current levels but require significant spending reductions.
The board has argued that such measures would amount to “cutting into the meat and bones” of the district, potentially undermining educational programs.
Still, the anger remains palpable, fueled by reports that the district overspent prior budgets and relied on one-time funding sources for recurring expenses—issues flagged by state oversight officials.
With the May 19 vote approaching, the budget battle has become a referendum not just on spending, but on trust. Whether voters accept the steep tax increase or reject it in favor of deeper cuts, the outcome is likely to shape the district’s leadership and financial direction for years to come.