Voters in Northern New York approve over $1 billion in school spending, elect board members -- full results here
Voters also approved a $79.8 million capital project for Massena Central School and a $70.5 million project at Indian River Central School.
Voting results reported as of late Tuesday include:
JEFFERSON COUNTY
Alexandria Budget $17,101,403 Yes 195 No 22
Proposition to buy two gas buses Yes 195 No 21
Nicole Langridge (177) and Eric Heath (192) elected to board
Belleville Henderson Budget $13,253,283 Yes 286 No 155
Library proposition Yes 322 No 119
John M. Gleason (374) elected to five-year board seat
Carthage Budget $77,511,700 Yes 288 No 82
Proposition to establish capital reserve fund Yes 282 No 87
Library proposition Yes 282 No 86
Robert Sligar (271) and Sean McHale (256) elected to three-year board seats
General Brown Budget $30,272,783 Yes 379 No 101
Library proposition Yes 372 No 93
Tiffany Orcesi (233) and Michelle Peckham (310) elected to three-year board seats
Indian River Budget $107,220,000 Yes 262 No 34
Capital improvement project $70,500,000 Yes 258 No 34
Proposition to establish capital reserve fund Yes 266 No 28
Library proposition Yes 257 No 38
Lori Tuttle (197), Kathy Hutchinson (184) and Jennifer Bleam (219) elected to board seats
LaFargeville Budget $12,806,741 Yes 69 No 3
Matthew Duffany (60) elected to five-year board seat
Lyme Budget $9,561,594 Yes 183 No 48
Proposition to purchase one gas bus Yes 188 No 43
Library proposition Yes 183 No 48
Cassandra Shuler (116) elected to five-year board seat
Sackets Harbor Budget $10,675,885 Yes 212 No 43
Bus proposition Yes 218 No 33
Travis Downey (130) elected to five-year board seat
South Jefferson Budget $44,006,306 Yes 339 No 88
Proposition to purchase six buses Yes 337 No 90
Library proposition Yes 316 No 112
Elizabeth Reed (283), Erin Gaffney (294) and Ellen Moculski (344) elected to board seats
Thousand Islands Budget $23,099,995 Yes 283 No 43
Library proposition Yes 272 No 57
LeAnn Hill (289), Bruce Mason (289) and Jennifer Bach (279) elected to board seats
Watertown Budget $103,909,155 Yes 574 No 282
Proposition to establish capital reserve fund Yes 663 No 186
Proposition to establish furniture reserve fund Yes 632 No 214
Security proposition Yes 689 No 162
Melanie Stano (305) and Culley Gosier (512) elected to three-year board seats
LEWIS COUNTY
Beaver River Budget $23,255,669 Yes 285 No 146
Ian Gilbert (332) and Jamie Zehr (318) elected to three-year board seats
Copenhagen Budget $12,679,726 Yes 60 No 6
Gabrielle Thompson (65) elected to five-year board seat
Proposition to provide Head Start transportation Yes 60 No 6
Harrisville Budget $11,531,744 Yes 211 No 60
Proposition to purchase two buses Yes 215 No 57
Brian Schrodt (109) elected to five-year board seat
Lowville Budget $31,425,533 Yes 352 No 81
Proposition to purchase three buses Yes 349 No 85
Proposition for Head Start transportation Yes 394 No 38
Joseph Lawrence (242), Benjamen Manning (237) and Bethany Munn (379) elected to board seats
South Lewis Budget $31,837,132 Yes 213 No 61
Patrick D'Ambrosi (167) and Richard Venturi (175) elected to school board seats
ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY
Brasher Falls Budget $31,711,501 Yes 185 No 20
Bus proposition Yes 179 No 26
Sarah Ashley (159) and Seth Belt (153) for board seat
Canton Budget $42.03 million Yes 313 No 97
Proposition to purchase three buses and a van Yes 320 No 96
Library proposition Yes 323 No 35
Rob Larrabee (349), Denise Sero (330) and Susan Toshack (329) elected to board seats
Clifton Fine Budget $12,099,420 Yes 153 No 50
Proposition to purchase to EV buses Yes 103 No 109
Proposition to establish capital reserve fund Yes 152 No 62
Judy Benzel, Nicole Curry and Parker Perrault elected to three-year board seats
Colton Pierrepont Budget $14,025,310 N/A
Proposition to establish capital reserve fund N/A
Karen Peck elected to four-year board seat
Edwards-Knox Budget $18,663,253 Yes 126 No 39
Proposition to purchase two diesel buses Yes 144 No 21
Proposition to establish capital reserve fund Yes 125 No 38
Jennifer Benson-Baxter (100) elected to five-year board seat
Gouverneur Budget $47,840,977 Yes 218 No 76
William Cartwright (235), Tina French (224) and Lisa McGregor (179) elected to three=year board seats
Hammond Budget $10,267,964 Yes 58 No 51
Proposition to purchase one diesel bus Yes 66 No 43
Library proposition Yes 78 No 30
Heuvelton Budget $19,207,526 Yes 85 No 38
Brent Phillips (98) and Amy Perkins (82) elected to board seats
Herman-DeKalb Budget $14,561,880 N/A
Proposition to establish capital reserve fund N/A
Proposition to purchase two buses N/A
Lisbon Budget $18,341,298 Yes 166 No 74
Proposition to purchase two diesel buses Yes 173 No 67
Nancy Fox (181) elected to five-year board seat
Madrid-Waddington Budget $21,500,940 Yes 142 No 14
Bus proposition Yes 146 No 8
Capital outlay proposition Yes 145 No 9
Ryan Hayes and Christopher Pryce elected to five-year board seats
Proposition to purchase one bus and one van
Massena Budget $74,402,939 Yes 461 No 145
Capital project $79.8 million Yes 429 No 159
Proposition to establish capital reserve fund Yes 469 No 131
Robert LaBlanc (322), Bruce Beckstead (382) and Timothy Hayes (452) elected to board seats
Morristown Budget $11,742,305 Yes 125 No 34
Library proposition Yes 127 No 42
Joshua Hunter (149), Kristy Simmons (128) and Lawrence Kring (138) elected to three-year board terms
Norwood-Norfolk Budget $30,280,541 Yes 205 No 43
Proposition to purchase three buses Yes 213 No 33
Katherine LaVigne (169), Kimberly Smith (154), Mary Ellen Todd (189) and Susan Mackey (143) elected to board seats
Ogdensburg Budget $56,092,979 Yes 279 No 175
Library proposition Yes 232 No 219
Connor Sutton (396) and Elizabeth Testani (387) elected to five-year board seats
Parishville-Hopkinton Budget $13,585,904 Yes 168 No 53
Cassie Hayes (113) and Bonnie Marston (103) elected to school board seats
Potsdam Budget $43,229,127 Yes 413 No 74
Bus proposition Yes 417 No 68
Ralph Fuller (268), Rachel Wallace (315)and (Sara) Rivka Eckert (214) elected to board seats
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
2 days ago
- NBC News
Hundreds of groups push back on Trump denying lawful immigrants access to Head Start, other programs
The Trump administration's expanded ban on immigrants' access to social services, such as Head Start and Meals on Wheels, could have a 'devastating' impact on children of immigrants, including U.S. citizens, hundreds of opponents told the federal government Wednesday. A total of 372 organizations have coalesced to oppose the administration's decision to make more federally funded health and human service programs off-limits to immigrants with some form of permission to be in the country. The groups say the administration wrongly promotes the expanded restrictions as part of its efforts to target illegal immigration. The policy actually 'directly targets lawfully present immigrants' by turning early learning centers, community health centers and mental health and addiction treatment programs 'into immigration checkpoints' where providers would have to check a person's immigration status, according to the groups. 'Undocumented immigrants already are not eligible for most federally funded programs. This is another case where the administration is lying to the public,' said Adriana Cadena, director of the Protecting Immigration Families coalition, which led the organizations' opposition to restrictions to be implemented by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). As a result, the restrictions will harm millions, the groups stated in official comments filed in response to the administration's expanded restrictions, published in the Federal Register July 14. The deadline for public comment on the new restrictions was set for 11:59 p.m. Wednesday. One in 4 children in the U.S. are in a family with at least one immigrant parent. In 2023, 86% of those children were born in the U.S., making them U.S. citizens, according to Migration Policy Institute, an immigration think tank. (President Donald Trump also wants to change such birthright citizenship.) Even if a U.S. citizen child is entitled to use a program, the Trump administration's restrictions are likely to cause confusion and misunderstanding, Cadena said, because of the many children who are in families whose members have different types of immigration status. "This is going to have long-term consequences we cannot begin to grasp," she said. In response to an NBC News request for comment, the White House sent a link to a July 10 news release by HHS announcing the new restrictions. The administration said in the release that it was ensuring that public benefits were not 'diverted to subsidize illegal aliens.' 'For too long, the government has diverted hardworking Americans' tax dollars to incentivize illegal immigration,' HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., stated in the July 10 release. 'Today's action changes that — it restores integrity to federal social programs, enforces the rule of law, and protects vital resources for the American people.' Expanding the programs restricted to 'qualified' immigrants The 1996 Personal Responsibility Reconciliation Act restricted the eligibility for federal public benefits to certain 'qualified' immigrants, according to KFF, a health policy group. Qualified immigrants have been defined as those lawfully present in the U.S. and do not include people with Temporary Protected Status, those who have Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and others, KFF reported. The HHS has added 13 more programs to the list of programs open only to qualified immigrants. Those newly added by the administration include Head Start, some of the funding for community health centers, family planning services, child welfare prevention, kinship guardian assistance, substance abuse prevention, treatment and recovery and mental health services and the Community Services Block Grant, the groups said. The federal government has said the list is not comprehensive and more programs could be added later. The groups argue that the programs and immigrants' access to them have a larger benefit to society as a whole and that "reducing access to these vital programs will make all of our communities less healthy, less safe, less stable, less able to thrive." Restrictions on the HHS programs announced in July were to be effective immediately. Groups said little guidance has been given to providers regarding their implementation, creating confusion and having a chilling effect on people who are eligible for the programs and benefits as well as on the nonprofits, local governments and others who provide them. Several states have sued over the changes, which they said would also affect programs such as Meals on Wheels, domestic violence shelters, housing assistance and more. A lawsuit also was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and others on behalf of parent groups challenging Trump's policies on Head Start. The administration provided a 30-day comment period for the new restrictions. "We do not necessarily expect that there is a real interest from the administration to seek comment on public policy that will impact millions of people," Cadena said. "This is all about the Trump administration's governmentwide attack on immigrant families, and to dismantle the safety net system that many Americans rely on," she said.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
California providers see 'chilling effect' if Trump ban on immigrant benefits is upheld
If the Trump administration succeeds in barring undocumented immigrants from federally funded "public benefit" programs, vulnerable children and families across California would suffer greatly, losing access to emergency shelters, vital healthcare, early education and life-saving nutritional support, according to state and local officials who filed their opposition to the changes in federal court. The new restrictions would harm undocumented immigrants but also U.S. citizens — including the U.S.-born children of immigrants and people suffering from mental illness and homelessness who lack documentation — and put intense stress on the state's emergency healthcare system, the officials said. Head Start, which provides tens of thousands of children in the state with early education, healthcare and nutritional support, may have to shutter some of its programs if the new rules barring immigrants withstand a lawsuit filed by California and other liberal-led states, officials said. In a declaration filed as part of that litigation, Maria Guadalupe Jaime-Milehan, deputy director of the child care and developmental division of the California Department of Social Services, wrote that the restrictions would have an immediate "chilling effect" on immigrant and mixed-status families seeking support, but also cause broader "ripple effects" — especially in rural California communities that rely on such programs as "a critical safety net" for vulnerable residents, but also as major employers. "Children would lose educational, nutritional, and healthcare services. Parents or guardians may be forced to cut spending on other critical needs to fill the gaps, and some may even be forced out of work so they can care for their children," Jaime-Milehan said. Rural communities would see programs shutter, and family providers lose their jobs, she wrote. Read more: California sues Trump for blocking undocumented immigrants from 'public benefit' programs Tony Thurmond, California's superintendent of public instruction, warned in a declaration that the "chilling effect" from such rules could potentially drive away talented educators who disagree with such policies and decide to "seek other employment that does not discriminate against children and families." Thurmond and Jaime-Milehan were among dozens of officials in 20 states and the District of Columbia who submitted declarations in support of those states' lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's new rules. Six other officials from California also submitted declarations. The lawsuit followed announcements last month from various federal agencies — including Health and Human Services, Labor, Education and Agriculture — that funding recipients would be required to begin screening out undocumented immigrants. The announcements followed an executive order issued by President Trump in which he said his administration would "uphold the rule of law, defend against the waste of hard-earned taxpayer resources, and protect benefits for American citizens in need, including individuals with disabilities and veterans." Trump's order cited the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, commonly known as welfare reform, as barring noncitizens from participating in federally funded benefits programs, and criticized past administrations for providing exemptions to that law for certain "life or safety" programs — including those now being targeted for new restrictions. The order mandated that federal agencies restrict access to benefits programs for undocumented immigrants, in part to "prevent taxpayer resources from acting as a magnet and fueling illegal immigration to the United States." California and the other states sued July 21, alleging the new restrictions target working mothers and their children in violation of federal law. "We're not talking about waste, fraud, and abuse, we're talking about programs that deliver essential childcare, healthcare, nutrition, and education assistance, programs that have for decades been open to all," California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said. In addition to programs like Head Start, Bonta said the new restrictions threatened access to short-term shelters for homeless people, survivors of domestic violence and at-risk youth; emergency shelters for people during extreme weather; soup kitchens, community food banks and food support services for the elderly; and healthcare for people with mental illness and substance abuse issues. The declarations are part of a motion asking the federal judge overseeing the case to issue a preliminary injunction barring the changes from taking effect while the litigation plays out. Beth Neary, assistant director of HIV health services at the San Francisco Department of Public Health, wrote in her declaration that the new restrictions would impede healthcare services for an array of San Francisco residents experiencing homelessness — including undocumented immigrants and U.S. citizens. "Individuals experiencing homelessness periodically lack identity and other documents that would be needed to verify their citizenship or immigration status due to frequent moves and greater risk of theft of their belongings," she wrote. Colleen Chawla, chief of San Mateo County Health, wrote that her organization — the county's "safety-net" care provider — has worked for years to build up trust in immigrant communities. "But if our clients worry that they will not be able to qualify for the care they need, or that they or members of their family face a risk of detention or deportation if they seek care, they will stop coming," Chawla wrote. "This will exacerbate their health conditions." Greta S. Hansen, chief operating officer of Santa Clara County, wrote that more than 40% of her county's residents are foreign-born and more than 60% of the county's children have at least one foreign-born parent — among the highest rates anywhere in the country. The administration's changes would threaten all of them, but also everyone else in the county, she wrote. "The cumulative effect of patients not receiving preventive care and necessary medications would likely be a strain on Santa Clara's emergency services, which would result in increased costs to Santa Clara and could also lead to decreased capacity for emergency care across the community," Hansen wrote. The Trump administration has defended the new rules, including in court. In response to the states' motion for preliminary injunction, attorneys for the administration argued that the rule changes are squarely in line with the 1996 welfare reform law and the rights of federal agencies to enforce it. They wrote that the notices announcing the new rules that were sent out by federal agencies "merely recognize that the breadth of benefits available to unqualified aliens is narrower than the agencies previously interpreted," and "restore compliance with federal law and ensure that taxpayer-funded programs intended for the American people are not diverted to subsidize unqualified aliens." The judge presiding over the case has yet to rule on the preliminary injunction. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
2 days ago
- Los Angeles Times
California providers see ‘chilling effect' if Trump ban on immigrant benefits is upheld
If the Trump administration succeeds in barring undocumented immigrants from federally funded 'public benefit' programs, vulnerable children and families across California would suffer greatly, losing access to emergency shelters, vital healthcare, early education and life-saving nutritional support, according to state and local officials who filed their opposition to the changes in federal court. The new restrictions would harm undocumented immigrants but also U.S. citizens — including the U.S.-born children of immigrants and people suffering from mental illness and homelessness who lack documentation — and put intense stress on the state's emergency healthcare system, the officials said. Head Start, which provides tens of thousands of children in the state with early education, healthcare and nutritional support, may have to shutter some of its programs if the new rules barring immigrants withstand a lawsuit filed by California and other liberal-led states, officials said. In a declaration filed as part of that litigation, Maria Guadalupe Jaime-Milehan, deputy director of the child care and developmental division of the California Department of Social Services, wrote that the restrictions would have an immediate 'chilling effect' on immigrant and mixed-status families seeking support, but also cause broader 'ripple effects' — especially in rural California communities that rely on such programs as 'a critical safety net' for vulnerable residents, but also as major employers. 'Children would lose educational, nutritional, and healthcare services. Parents or guardians may be forced to cut spending on other critical needs to fill the gaps, and some may even be forced out of work so they can care for their children,' Jaime-Milehan said. Rural communities would see programs shutter, and family providers lose their jobs, she wrote. Tony Thurmond, California's superintendent of public instruction, warned in a declaration that the 'chilling effect' from such rules could potentially drive away talented educators who disagree with such policies and decide to 'seek other employment that does not discriminate against children and families.' Thurmond and Jaime-Milehan were among dozens of officials in 20 states and the District of Columbia who submitted declarations in support of those states' lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's new rules. Six other officials from California also submitted declarations. The lawsuit followed announcements last month from various federal agencies — including Health and Human Services, Labor, Education and Agriculture — that funding recipients would be required to begin screening out undocumented immigrants. The announcements followed an executive order issued by President Trump in which he said his administration would 'uphold the rule of law, defend against the waste of hard-earned taxpayer resources, and protect benefits for American citizens in need, including individuals with disabilities and veterans.' Trump's order cited the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, commonly known as welfare reform, as barring noncitizens from participating in federally funded benefits programs, and criticized past administrations for providing exemptions to that law for certain 'life or safety' programs — including those now being targeted for new restrictions. The order mandated that federal agencies restrict access to benefits programs for undocumented immigrants, in part to 'prevent taxpayer resources from acting as a magnet and fueling illegal immigration to the United States.' California and the other states sued July 21, alleging the new restrictions target working mothers and their children in violation of federal law. 'We're not talking about waste, fraud, and abuse, we're talking about programs that deliver essential childcare, healthcare, nutrition, and education assistance, programs that have for decades been open to all,' California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said. In addition to programs like Head Start, Bonta said the new restrictions threatened access to short-term shelters for homeless people, survivors of domestic violence and at-risk youth; emergency shelters for people during extreme weather; soup kitchens, community food banks and food support services for the elderly; and healthcare for people with mental illness and substance abuse issues. The declarations are part of a motion asking the federal judge overseeing the case to issue a preliminary injunction barring the changes from taking effect while the litigation plays out. Beth Neary, assistant director of HIV health services at the San Francisco Department of Public Health, wrote in her declaration that the new restrictions would impede healthcare services for an array of San Francisco residents experiencing homelessness — including undocumented immigrants and U.S. citizens. 'Individuals experiencing homelessness periodically lack identity and other documents that would be needed to verify their citizenship or immigration status due to frequent moves and greater risk of theft of their belongings,' she wrote. Colleen Chawla, chief of San Mateo County Health, wrote that her organization — the county's 'safety-net' care provider — has worked for years to build up trust in immigrant communities. 'But if our clients worry that they will not be able to qualify for the care they need, or that they or members of their family face a risk of detention or deportation if they seek care, they will stop coming,' Chawla wrote. 'This will exacerbate their health conditions.' Greta S. Hansen, chief operating officer of Santa Clara County, wrote that more than 40% of her county's residents are foreign-born and more than 60% of the county's children have at least one foreign-born parent — among the highest rates anywhere in the country. The administration's changes would threaten all of them, but also everyone else in the county, she wrote. 'The cumulative effect of patients not receiving preventive care and necessary medications would likely be a strain on Santa Clara's emergency services, which would result in increased costs to Santa Clara and could also lead to decreased capacity for emergency care across the community,' Hansen wrote. The Trump administration has defended the new rules, including in court. In response to the states' motion for preliminary injunction, attorneys for the administration argued that the rule changes are squarely in line with the 1996 welfare reform law and the rights of federal agencies to enforce it. They wrote that the notices announcing the new rules that were sent out by federal agencies 'merely recognize that the breadth of benefits available to unqualified aliens is narrower than the agencies previously interpreted,' and 'restore compliance with federal law and ensure that taxpayer-funded programs intended for the American people are not diverted to subsidize unqualified aliens.' The judge presiding over the case has yet to rule on the preliminary injunction.
