Sands Point Proposes $16.7M Budget, Earns Clean Audit

Sands Point residents got two pieces of financial news Tuesday night: their village earned a clean audit and is proposing a $16.7 million budget for the coming fiscal year. But not everyone left the meeting satisfied.

External auditors from R.S. Abrams and Co. opened the Board of Trustees meeting with a glowing assessment of the village’s finances. The firm reported no material weaknesses, no significant deficiencies, and issued an “unmodified opinion,” the highest level of assurance an auditor can give. Village Mayor Peter Forman welcomed the report, telling the auditors, “We appreciate you keeping our feet to the fire and letting us know when we’re doing good, or great or bad, and thankfully it’s mostly good.”

Forman also read from a written statement prepared by the village’s accountant, which described Sands Point as “at the very top” among Long Island municipalities in management, operational efficiency and financial performance. The village carries an Aa1 bond rating from Moody’s Investors Service, the second-highest investment grade tier. Forman said he is pushing to improve that rating further.

The board opened and closed a public hearing on the tentative budget for fiscal year 2027 without a single comment from the public. The budget totals $16,672,739 and stays within New York State’s property tax cap, with a 1.26% tax levy increase. The actual tax levy from the previous fiscal year came in at $11,290,715. The allowable levy for 2027 sits at approximately $11.86 million.

Consistent operating surpluses have helped keep the village’s finances steady, according to the accountant’s statement. For a community of Sands Point’s size, that track record is notable.

The more animated portion of the evening came during a separate public hearing on proposed updates to village code chapter 82, which governs fees and deposits for applicants seeking zoning and other municipal approvals. Resident Michele Nudelman pushed back on the process before the substance had even been addressed.

“I understand this is a public hearing,” Nudelman said, “but if they’re not published in advance, what are we discussing?”

Her concern was direct: residents should have access to proposed changes before they are asked to comment on them at a public meeting. Without that, she argued, the hearing is a formality rather than a genuine opportunity for input.

Nudelman also raised a legal challenge to a proposed $25,000 zoning-related fee. Under New York law, municipal fees of this kind must reflect actual administrative costs rather than function as flat charges. She cited existing case law and warned the board it could be creating financial liability for the village.

“There’s case law saying that the fees have to be related to the cost of review,” Nudelman said. “I am worried, as a citizen of this village, that you are incurring liabilities that are not necessarily legal.”

The village’s current fee structure already requires applicants to cover real costs, including engineering, legal, inspection and other review expenses, typically through deposits reconciled after the fact. If initial deposits fall short, applicants must make up the difference before approvals are finalized. Excess funds may be returned.

Forman acknowledged Nudelman’s concerns and said the board would take them up outside the meeting. “It’s the first I’m hearing of it, and I appreciate that,” he said.

That response will likely not fully satisfy residents who want to see a clearer process for public review before hearings are held. Nudelman’s questions about transparency and legality reflect a broader tension that shows up in municipal meetings across Long Island: residents who are willing to do the homework and show up to ask hard questions deserve more than a promise to follow up later.

Sands Point’s strong financial position is real and worth acknowledging. Clean audits and high bond ratings are not accidents. They reflect consistent management and fiscal discipline. But sound finances do not make transparency optional. Residents have every right to review proposed changes to village code before they are asked to weigh in on them, and the board would be wise to close that gap before the next public hearing.