Port Washington board adopts $199.0 million 2025-26 budget; approves audit transfer authority and policy change

The Port Washington Union Free School District Board of Education on April 22 adopted a proposed $199,007,128 budget for the 2025-26 school year and approved an auditor-recommended resolution allowing limited budget transfers after the fiscal year close, the board said during its meeting.

The proposed spending plan, presented to the board as part of the meeting's consent agenda, is 2.28% higher than the prior year and remains $6,000 below the district's allowable tax‑levy limit as provided by the Office of Real Property Tax Services (ORPS). Board members approved the consent agenda, which included the budget resolution, by a 6-0 voice vote. The community vote on the budget is scheduled for May 20, from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. in the Weber All Purpose Room.

The administration described three budget priorities: health and safety, instructional program enhancements, and long‑range efficiencies. Highlights the board discussed included adding classroom air conditioners and AED upgrades, increasing device charging stations, staff to reduce elementary class size where possible, a proposed guidance counselor at Weber subject to funding, a business teacher at the high school, additional science testing materials, support for disability‑awareness programming at all seven schools, and a proposed JV cheerleading team at Schreiber High School. Capital and transportation changes cited included a first‑year cost for a multi‑year pupil transportation contract, a proposed $4,200,000 transfer to capital, and plans to add a bus and driver to reduce contracted transportation costs over time. Administration said the draft budget assumes $2,000,000 in revenue to offset the tax levy and $800,000 from reserves.

The board also approved a resolution (consent agenda item 13.1 0.6) recommended by the audit committee and external auditors to permit the finance office to make limited transfers between line items after the June 30 close of the books and before the next available board meeting, with the transfers reported to the board at the following meeting. Audit committee chair Julie Epstein described the measure as an efficiency recommendation from auditors to allow timely accruals and corrections while auditors are on site. Epstein said the audit yielded “no recommendations” for material corrective action and that the district’s NIST cybersecurity audit is “making a positive progression.”

Several trustees asked questions about oversight and governance for the transfer authority. In response, administration and the audit committee said the practice would be used only for liabilities already incurred and that transfer requests would be reviewed by the treasurer and presented to district leadership before being implemented; the district’s attorneys had advised the board that the approach is permissible so long as the board reviews the transfers at the next available meeting.

Separately, trustees approved Policy 2245, governing the ex‑officio student board member, with a change removing a query paragraph and delegating the selection process to the Schreiber principal in the event of resignation or removal pending a new election. That motion passed 6-0.

Other routine consent‑agenda actions approved 6-0 included minutes approvals for prior meetings and several donor acknowledgments (including a Guggenheim HSA contribution for a fifth‑grade field trip). The board recessed to executive session earlier in the evening to discuss the employment of a particular person and reconvened in public session later; both motions passed 6-0.

During discussion the board also reviewed enrollment figures used in budget planning: district K–12 enrollment totaled 5,262 students (calculated April 11), 33 more than the prior year; incoming kindergarten was projected at 347 with 329 enrolled as of April 9. Administration noted the state budget status remains uncertain and that revenue estimates could shift; a trustee asked how any unexpected additional state aid would be treated, and administration said it would likely be added to revenue or reserves rather than immediately funding new positions.

The board set a budget hearing for May 6 and reminded residents the May 20 budget vote will also include the board election.

Votes at a glance: agenda adoption (6 yes, 0 no); recess to executive session (6 yes, 0 no); reconvene in public (6 yes, 0 no); consent agenda including adoption of proposed 2025-26 budget and related items (6 yes, 0 no); adoption of Policy 2245 (6 yes, 0 no); approval of minutes (6 yes, 0 no); adjournment (6 yes, 0 no).