West Islip outlines 2.5% tax‑levy increase and $4.5M reserve draw to balance 2026–27 budget

At its fourth budget workshop, district presenters for the WEST ISLIP UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT said the 2026–27 tax levy would be $98.7 million, a 2.5% increase from the current year, and that the district plans to draw roughly $4.5 million from restricted reserves to help close a significant budget gap.

The presenter (identified in the meeting as Mrs. Potty) said the district follows the tax‑cap budgeting formula implemented in 2012: the restricted tax levy, anticipated state aid, other revenue, appropriated fund balance and reserve appropriations together determine the allowable expenditure budget. Because town‑provided assessed values and homestead percentages are finalized in October, the district used an estimated tax rate of $21.72 per $100 of assessed value for planning.

Why it matters: property taxes are the district’s primary funding source, the presentation said, accounting for roughly 60% of local revenue. Using current assumptions, the district estimates the average homeowner would see about $246.15 more per year (about $20.51 per month), though the presenter emphasized that final assessments may change the figure.

Officials highlighted pressure on the budget from inflation and limited levy growth: the presenter cited a four‑year consumer price index increase of 4.4% compared with the district’s average levy growth of about 2.2% over the same period. The district projects some revenue increases from the state; for planning it assumed a 2% increase in foundation aid, producing a modest net revenue bump.

Reserves and expense management: the presenter reported audited restricted reserves of approximately $18.8 million as of June 30, 2025, and said the district appropriated $4.4 million in the current year. She said those reserve balances are projected to decline to roughly $14.4 million by year‑end and that the district plans to appropriate an additional $4.5 million for 2026–27 to offset pension and employee‑related costs. The presentation warned that using reserves is a finite, not a long‑term, solution.

To reduce recurring costs with minimal student impact, the district summarized a range of budget adjustments: staffing reductions through attrition across custodial, maintenance, clerical and instructional roles; elimination of one administrative position and three teaching positions; scaled‑back noninstructional safety coverage and lowered discretionary spending; and changes to program fees, including discontinuing district payment of IB and AP exam fees and introducing a participation fee for an elementary summer program.

Programs added or expanded: the district plans to add a psychologist who will chair the CPSC, expand Foundations to grades 4–5, introduce the Story Champs language intervention in K–5, and add several high‑school courses and extracurricular teams (including IB design technology II, culinary arts II, financial literacy, and JV golf). The presenter said class‑size projections are estimates and may change as student needs are finalized.

Ballot items and capital projects: two propositions will appear on the May ballot—(1) the annual budget and (2) authorization to use capital reserves for facilities work. The presenter described capital projects totaling $1,880,000 to be funded from existing capital reserves: magnetic door holders and electronic locks/card access at middle and high schools, and elementary fire‑alarm replacements at Bay View; unspent funds would return to reserves and the proposition would not raise taxes directly because the money already exists in reserves.

Calendar and next steps: nominating petitions for two board seats are available at the district office and are due April 20 at 5 p.m.; the board is scheduled to adopt the final budget on April 21; the public budget hearing is set for May 5; and the district’s budget vote will be held May 19 in the high‑school gym, 7 a.m.–9 p.m.

Board reaction and closing: an unnamed board member thanked district staff for minimizing student impacts and noted uncertainty about the final state budget figures that could affect pre‑K expansion plans. The presenter closed the session with reminders about upcoming deadlines and the vote.

Notes on record clarity: the audio transcript contained garbled numeric readings for the total expenditure figure and one instance where '4.5 million' was transcribed as '4.5 billion'; this article treats those as transcription errors and uses the consistent figures reported elsewhere in the presentation (approximations noted above).