Shoreham-Wading River board previews 0.8% budget hike, flags staffing reductions and ballot measures

The Shoreham-Wading River Central School District’s proposed 2026–27 budget would rise 0.8% over this year — $710,660 in additional spending — while reflecting a tax-levy growth of about 2.843%, district finance presenter Arcuri told the board on April 14.

Arcuri said the plan preserves current programs but includes strategic staff reductions achieved through attrition and internal reassignments, and reduces reliance on the fund balance by about 22%. “A 0.8% increase, which is $710,660 over the 25–26 budget,” Arcuri said, and the budget uses $2,300,000 in one-time reserve funds (about 2.58% of total revenue) to smooth the levy impact.

Why it matters: the board must adopt the budget before the May 19 public vote. Arcuri said the district is using executive-budget state-aid numbers provided in January because the state budget process remained unsettled; he said there is no sign of a reduction in state school aid and any increase would likely be nominal (perhaps ~1%), but until the governor signs the final budget the figure is variable.

Key details and trade-offs

- Enrollment pressure: Arcuri reported declines at the high school (70x7 → transcript wording reflects drop to 602 in 26–27) and flagged kindergarten registration at 96 to date versus last year’s 116 at the same time and a cohort of 151, which affects staffing needs and class-placement planning. He urged families to register to support accurate planning.

- Staffing: The administration identified eliminations through attrition including one assistant director of technology (following the director’s retirement), one clerical vacancy, three monitor positions and three teaching assistants. Arcuri said those changes are not layoffs but, where possible, internal vacancies were used to avoid job loss.

- Reserves and transfers: Arcuri explained reserve use examples: a $1,000,000 transfer from the employee retirement reserve in the prior year and another planned transfer for 26–27; interest on reserves had not been finalized for the current year. The budget includes a transfer-to-capital line that feeds into the tax-levy limit calculation.

- Local revenue/pilots: Local “pilot” payments (payments in lieu of taxes) represent a material portion of other local revenue (Arcuri cited roughly $3,200,000 in local revenue that includes pilots). The administration said it budgets pilot receipts conservatively based on prior-year payments; the board discussed advocacy to secure or revisit pilot calculations if needed.

Ballot propositions: what voters will see

Arcuri described three propositions on the May 19 ballot. Proposition 1 is the operating budget (the 26–27 proposition). Proposition 2 is a land-conveyance/turning-lane and traffic-signal project at the middle school intended to improve pedestrian safety; Arcuri said there is no cost to the district for the work and the district will not lose buildable land, other than moving the LED sign and limited tree grubbing.

Proposition 3 would establish a pass-through levy to collect and forward $40,000 annually to the newly chartered Wading River Historical Society and Museum; Arcuri said the society’s charter was approved by the Board of Regents earlier that day and that New York State Education Law 2589 governs the mechanism for placing the assessment before voters.

Contingent budget scenario

Arcuri summarized the contingent budget rules if the May vote and, if necessary, the June revote fail: the district would be held to the prior year’s tax-levy value, requiring $1,708,086 in reductions under the contingent formula; equipment and transfer-to-capital lines would be reduced and larger program reductions could be required.

Next steps

Arcuri said he will present a final budget adoption for the board on April 21, and he will update the board if the governor’s final budget changes state-aid values before adoption. The district scheduled public budget hearings and outreach dates ahead of the May 19 vote.

End note: the board’s discussion included repeated requests for clarity around pilot revenue schedules, prevailing-wage figures for facility rentals, and protections in the energy contract (covered elsewhere on the agenda).