Beaverton School Board adopts 2025–26 budget after public comment; vote 6-1

The Beaverton School Board on June 10 adopted the district's 2025'26 budget resolution, including appropriations and tax levies, following a public hearing and public comment. The motion to adopt passed by a 6-1 vote.

At the meeting, Associate Superintendent Mike Scofield and budget manager Jessica Jones were cited as having previously presented budget details to the board; they were available during the meeting for questions. Public commenter Sherry Arthur, who identified herself as a former district employee and student, said staff and teachers were worried about the cuts and urged the board to "keep the kids and the classrooms and the money in the classrooms as much as we can." Arthur said some elective classes, including choir and theater, were being cut and said losing long-serving staff members was painful: "We're losing a really good employee," she said, referring to an assistant principal the commenter had worked with.

Board member Tammy Carpenter raised concerns during deliberations about surveillance spending in the budget, saying staff had reached out about how surveillance "can be weaponized against them." Carpenter noted the district's school resource officer program and planned expansion of campus video cameras and said she was considering how she would vote because of those concerns: "I'm still not sure what I'm going to do on my vote on the budget," she said.

A motion "to approve the resolution adopting the 25-26 budget, making appropriations and imposing taxes as presented" was offered and seconded. The board chair called the vote; the resolution carried 6-1. The record of individual yes/no votes was not fully read into the transcript at the moment of passage, but the chair announced the tally and later remarked on the district's budget process and statewide context, thanking staff for preserving programs at the building level compared with deeper cuts in other districts.

The board heard that the budget had been reviewed and recommended by the budget committee earlier in the process; no statutory citations or ordinance numbers were stated during the discussion. No additional formal amendments to the resolution were recorded during the meeting.

The meeting packet previously provided to the board (and referenced by the chair) included supporting materials presented at an earlier session; the associate superintendent and budget manager were available to answer follow-up questions after adoption. The board adjourned the special meeting at 6:20 p.m.

The board's discussion included both formal action (adoption of the budget) and continuing concerns raised by at least one member about expansion of surveillance tools and their oversight; those concerns were recorded as discussion rather than conditions attached to the budget vote.