Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Legislative committee asks Albany to boost foundation aid, lift UPK cap and cover school safety costs
Summary
Legislative committee representatives told the Shoreham‑Wading River Central School District board they want a minimum 4% boost in foundation aid for 2026–27, relief to the UPK per‑pupil cap, and state action to let school safety costs qualify for aid or tax‑cap exclusions.
The Shoreham‑Wading River Central School District’s legislative committee presented three priorities to the board, urging state action to shore up school funding, expand UPK capacity and make school safety costs eligible for state aid or tax‑cap exclusions.
Gina Benton Hauser, a legislative committee representative, said the district is asking Albany for a minimum 4% increase in foundation aid for the 2026–27 school year to keep pace with rising transportation, insurance and operational costs. "Our district has experienced unprecedented increases in transportation, insurance and all operational costs," Benton Hauser said, adding that the requested increase would help maintain programs that support students academically, artistically and athletically.
The committee asked that the state lift the current UPK per‑pupil cap (cited in the presentation as $5,400) and make better use of unspent UPK dollars. The presentation cited a December 2024 State UPK report that, the committee said, found $58,000,000 of state UPK funding went unspent in 2024–25 and that nearly $500,000,000 has remained unutilized since 2020. "By lifting the cap, it would allow more seats to be opened and the money to be utilized," the presentation said.
The committee also recommended that the state amend education law (presentation referenced "education law section 1954‑d(2)(a)") to explicitly allow BOCES or shared services to receive aid for school security and to permit annual increases in security costs to be excluded from the tax cap when state aid is not provided. Examples listed as security‑related expenses included security personnel, mental‑health professional salaries, infrastructure and technology upgrades, emergency response equipment and training, and surveillance and monitoring systems.
Board members thanked the committee for the clear presentation and noted the committee will review these priorities with local legislators in January. The board did not take a formal vote on the legislative priorities; the committee will carry the presentation forward to meetings with state representatives.
