At a glance
The Board of Education gave most of Tuesday night to the fourth of its 2026-27 budget presentations, and the picture that emerged was a preliminary budget of $63.1 million against revenue that tops out near $60.6 million even at the highest allowable tax levy and with most of the district's unassigned fund balance spent. Student services opened with a walkthrough of special education programs and enrollment, including the roughly $4.5 million the district pays to educate 31 students outside the district. Dr. Bailey then listed places savings might come from, including retirements, BOCES program slots, transportation routes, software subscriptions and athletics, and said staff would return with dollar figures attached to each. No budget votes were taken. The board added two more budget sessions, March 24 and April 14, ahead of a planned April 21 adoption, and heard that 17 people have applied to be superintendent.
Board Goals, Board Documents, and How the Public Reaches the Board
The board reviewed its own mid-year goals, polled itself on printed versus digital board packets, and talked through how community members should route questions and complaints.
Key points
- Most members said digital documents are fine; the board settled on printing a small number of copies, around three, for members who prefer paper
- Goals still open include completing the superintendent search, finishing a board member communication handbook, and building an engagement log of community events members attend
- One member volunteered to draft a template for how academic and climate data gets reported back to the board and how often
- The board is still looking for a way to involve students and teachers in board presentations, and for a business or nonprofit to host a board meeting off district property
- Policy 1400 is the only policy that speaks to public complaints and suggestions, and it points people to the existing chain from teacher to principal to superintendent to board
- Rather than write a new policy, the board agreed to add written guidelines to the communication handbook covering who to contact first and how quickly the board responds
- A member suggested running a Zoom alongside the YouTube stream so people could comment remotely; staff said that would be an IT question
This transcript was produced by automated speech recognition from the meeting audio and does not identify speakers by name. Attributions are omitted unless a name was clearly spoken. The first ten minutes of the recording, which would include the call to order and roll call, contain no recognizable speech, so the opening of the meeting is not in the record this summary was written from.
Student Services: Staff, Programs, and New Partnerships
Ms. Deanna James-Hughes presented the student services department, its staffing, and a set of programs and partnerships added or restored this year. She also explained the district's continuum of special education services.
Key points
- Student services covers special education teachers, psychologists, speech language pathologists, social workers, counselors, occupational therapists, aides, teaching assistants and nurses, plus a contracted physical therapist
- The district regained its designation as an opioid prevention site, which equips nurses and health staff with Narcan materials and training
- A partnership with Just Write Reader provides an eight week reading program at no cost to the district, running in the three self-contained classrooms at the elementary school
- An inaugural group of upperclassmen is taking part in a Regional Bilingual Education Resource Network program on the state legislative process, also at no cost to the district
- The district is working to become a CPSE evaluator site under contract with Columbia County, so preschool students would no longer have to be evaluated in another district
- The continuum runs from consultant teaching and integrated co-teaching through resource room, self-contained classes at various ratios, life skills, and out-of-district placement
- New York State pushes districts toward the least restrictive environment, and staff noted that adding another adult to a classroom can inadvertently make a placement more restrictive
Special Education Enrollment and Out-of-District Placements
Slides broke down students with disabilities by building, class type and grade, and showed what the district spends to educate students it places outside its own buildings.
Key points
- One continuum slide put total students with disabilities at 109, with 54 in self-contained special classes and 55 in integrated co-teaching classes
- The high school slide showed 92 students with disabilities
- 31 students are currently placed out of district, with tuition for 2024-25 at $2,250,719
- A board member put the combined out-of-district cost at almost $4.5 million including transportation, and staff confirmed that figure
- Residential placements cost more than day programs, and when the district's own committee recommends an out-of-district placement, Hudson pays rather than the county
- A board member noted that about 2% of the student population is sent out of district; staff said the number is high and that the district wants to keep students closer to home
- Board members questioned the slides directly, including 23 sections of integrated co-teaching at the junior high that staff agreed could not be right and may be a coding error in the district's e-school system
- Staff said several positions are coded to the wrong building in payroll, a mismatch they are still working through
The high school slide was described twice in the discussion with different splits between self-contained and integrated co-teaching students, and the totals do not add up the same way. Only the total of 92 students with disabilities at the high school is reported here.
The Special Education Budget
Ms. Ferry began the preliminary expenditure walkthrough with the program for students with disabilities, which she described as one of the least flexible parts of the budget because spending follows student needs and legal requirements.
Key points
- Salaries in the program for students with disabilities rise $234,592, or 4.83%
- $515,028 in special aid grants offset district costs; staff confirmed this is a repeating offset from IDEA 611 and 619 grants, not new money
- Contractual services, materials and tuition lines are projected flat at 0%, with some room built in for new students and new designations during the year
- Total funding allocated for special education including grants and transportation is $11,679,496, a 3.04% increase, described as roughly $41,417 per student
- A board member asked whether the BOCES services line could be trimmed given current spending; staff said it depends on committee on special education outcomes and cannot be assumed
- Board discussion noted that the gross figures overstate the district's real cost, because high cost aid, private excess cost aid and transportation aid come back the following year, roughly $2 million against the out-of-district total
Who the District Serves, and the Cost of Transporting Homeless Students
Staff used comparison data to argue that Hudson's costs are shaped by who it educates, then walked through the transportation obligation that comes with students who lose their housing.
Key points
- About 10% of students are English language learners and 67% are economically disadvantaged, higher in each category than the districts Hudson was compared against
- 56 students have been homeless at some point during this school year, nine of whom lived outside the district at some point
- Federal law requires the district to keep transporting a student who moves out of the district so they can finish at their home school, up to 50 miles
- Daily transportation cost for those students ranges from $122 to $550; the district paid $550 a day on one route until a contractor finally bid $122
- Because the district does not own its buses, it is exposed to whatever the market returns when it has to arrange a route in 24 to 72 hours
- Amanda read the state definition aloud during the discussion: a child or youth lacking a fixed, regular or adequate nighttime residence
- Staff said the district is just under 1,500 students
The transcript also reports a percentage of students who are or have been homeless during 2024-25 that cannot be squared with the 56 students named later in the same discussion. That percentage is left out here rather than repaired.
Building Budgets: Elementary, Junior High, and High School
Ms. Ferry presented preliminary instructional budgets building by building. Salary increases written into contracts drive the growth even where positions were eliminated.
Key points
- The elementary budget totals $6,063,174, an increase of $145,855 or 2.53%
- The elementary administrative line drops 25% because one of two assistant principal positions was eliminated, a reduction described as about $100,000
- Board members worked through why the building still comes in higher: contractual year over year salary increases outweigh the eliminated position
- The junior high budget is just under $3.3 million, a decrease of about $4,600
- The high school preliminary budget is $4,799,479, an increase of $392,924 or 9.28%
- Textbook, contractual and supply lines are flat; staff said the textbook line is kept stable because state aid reimburses at that level
- Full-time substitutes, a practice expanded with grant money during COVID, remain at three in the elementary school and one at the junior high
- A board member found what looks like a duplicated books and magazines line for the high school; staff agreed to check it
The percentage stated alongside the junior high decrease does not match the dollar figure given with it and appears to be a transcription error, so only the dollar amount is reported here.
Central Office, Employee Benefits, and the Three-Part Budget
The walkthrough closed with central office departments, the benefits lines that staff found hardest to project, and the administrative, program and capital split the district must publish.
Key points
- The superintendent's office line is $303,740, a decrease of 2.77%
- The business office rises $73,020 or 13.65%, which staff attributed mostly to coding expenses where they actually belong rather than to new costs
- Human resources totals $334,034, a decrease of $2,771.82
- The curriculum line totals $386,500, a decrease of $71,582 or 15.63%, most of it in instructional salaries
- Health insurance is the largest single jump, close to $2 million, against a current appropriation of $10,322,000, and staff said the number is still fluid
- A new line, 9089, was added for 403B contributions, retirement incentives and sick time payouts that the district has been expensing without a budget line
- The three-part budget splits out administrative costs of $8.77 million, roughly 13.9%, and capital of $10.9 million, with program the largest share
- The director of curriculum and instruction title approved in the fall has not been posted, pending a new superintendent's input
A $63.1 Million Budget and Where the Money Comes From
With every line presented, the preliminary total lands at $63.1 million, a 7.78% increase in expenses. Roughly half the district's revenue is state aid that is not growing, which leaves the tax levy carrying the increase.
Key points
- Preliminary expenses are up 7.78%, against recent years that ran from about 0.7% to 3.6% and last year's 5.29%
- Named drivers include employee benefits up almost $600,000, electricity, fuel costs for transportation, three professional and three support positions moved off an expiring grant into the general fund, and extended school year programming for students with disabilities that was not budgeted before
- State aid is flat, held up by hold harmless provisions; staff said the formula left to move freely would have cut the district
- Because the budget is roughly half state aid and half taxes, a 7% increase in expenses would need about a 14% increase in taxes to cover it
- A board member said the state's foundation aid formula reads Hudson's rising property values as capacity to raise taxes, even as the student population does not change
- Board members pressed on two lines flagged as unaccounted for in the current year, summer programming and about half a million in staffing, and heard that positions the district had planned not to refill were filled anyway without being budgeted
- Dr. Bailey said the district has now created and abolished positions through the board this year, which generates a job control number and puts each position into the accounting
- A board member said the tax conversation lands on households whose assessments were already raised, and that her own school tax doubled this year
Tax Cap Options and the Fund Balance Question
Staff laid out two versions of the tax cap depending on whether the district takes an exemption for an energy performance contract interest payment, then showed how much revenue different levy increases and fund balance draws would generate.
Key points
- The estimated levy limit without exemptions is 3.44%
- Taking the exemption for a $401,000 EPC interest payment would allow a maximum levy increase of 7.33%, but would also require putting that $401,000 into next year's budget
- Without it, the maximum levy increase is 5.8%, for a maximum levy of $27,892,359
- A 2% levy increase would generate $26,888,000; staff said roughly 1% on the levy is about $300,000, so raising a million dollars takes about 3.33%
- Unassigned fund balance stands at $6.1 million, of which about $2.3 million represents the 4% the state points to, leaving about $3.7 million the board could spend
- The district used about $2 million of unassigned fund balance to balance the current year, which Dr. Bailey described as spending more than the district earns
- A board member showed the arithmetic: the district budgeted $55.5 million of external revenue against a $58.5 million budget this year, spending $3 million of savings, $900,000 from reserves and $2.1 million from unassigned fund balance
- The same member said the maximum that can effectively be raised is $60,600,000, implying about $2.5 million in cuts even before any judgment about whether that tax rate is passable
- Board members noted the cap sets what passes with a simple majority; going above it would need a 60% vote
The board set no tax levy percentage and no fund balance figure at this meeting. Staff described the scenarios as benchmarks and said the board can choose any number between zero and the cap.
Where Savings Could Come From
Dr. Bailey presented a list of places the district could look for savings or new revenue, with the caveat that it is not exhaustive and that staff will come back with dollar values attached.
Key points
- Possible new revenue includes tuitioning students in to under-filled special classes and renting space to BOCES
- Retirements and resignations are the first place staff would look, followed by staff reductions, which Dr. Bailey called emotional and difficult
- Reducing BOCES program slots saves slowly because BOCES averages costs over five years; the district sends about 62 students to those programs and gets back about 36% in aid the following year
- Transportation efficiency, equipment and materials, field trips and conferences, reduced club and athletic offerings, and more efficient use of grant money are all on the list
- A board member said transportation has gone from $4 million three years ago to a projected $6 million next year and called that growth unsustainable, asking for a longer term look through the finance committee
- One bus run costs about $75,000
- A board member asked for a review of job titles and descriptions to find overlapping duties before any positions are cut
- Another asked staff to confirm that the $63.1 million figure assumes no added positions, and was told it reflects only people currently paid
- Staff said they began reviewing software usage in January and have already identified subscriptions to drop
- Dr. Bailey said the district promised its unions that any discussion touching identifiable employees will be raised with them before it is raised at a board meeting
Dr. Bailey said staff will translate these options into monetary amounts so the board can see what each choice is worth, rather than working from hundreds of pages of budget lines.
Two More Budget Meetings, and the Superintendent's Report
After an executive session, the board returned to a superintendent's report and agreed to add two working sessions before the April 21 adoption vote.
Key points
- Dr. Bailey asked the board to meet again rather than absorb the budget in one more sitting, and the board agreed to a special meeting Tuesday, March 24 at 5:30 PM and a workshop Tuesday, April 14 at 7:00 PM after the policy committee
- The budget must be adopted by Friday, April 24, tied to the district's tax report card filing; the board meeting is April 21
- A member recalled that the board did not adopt at its April meeting last year and held a special meeting days later, so it can be done, but said that is not the goal
- The boys basketball team is headed to Binghamton Thursday for the class A championship; the district is paying for hotel rooms and transportation and expects the section to reimburse part of the transportation cost
- A board member raised social media fundraising to offset the team's costs and asked that the district's own funding be stated publicly
- A bus company has offered to cover the cost of a spectator bus, which would have to be recognized as a donation accepted by the board
- The communications committee ran a survey in late December and January and will bring the results back as a slide deck, along with a who to contact sheet planned for next year's wall calendar
- Friday is a recess day for the recognition of Eid and the end of Ramadan
The board entered executive session at 8:46 PM. The stretch of the recording covering the return from that session, including the start of the public comment period, contains no recognizable speech, so a short portion of the meeting is missing from the record this summary was written from. The transcript picks up mid-answer, and the next audible item is the statement that nobody signed up to speak.
Consent Agenda, Policy Updates, and the Superintendent Search
The board approved its consent agenda, worked through five policies including a contested line in the wellness policy, and reviewed where the superintendent search stands.
Key points
- The board moved, seconded and voted on consent agenda items A through Q, which included a Whole Foods Market Foundation grant for the garden program
- Policies discussed: a new inventory policy added for grant compliance, an update to policy 0150 on HIV and AIDS adding privacy language, an update to the 0105 DEI regulation and exhibit, and a consolidation of two sexual harassment policies into one on NSBA's recommendation
- The DEI update revises reporting structures and removes the DEI committee as an oversight committee; a member said that does not make the work less important but moves it into hiring, attendance and academic conversations
- The student wellness policy came back on a third reading over one line. A lawyer's recommended language about promoting healthy body image was replaced with language about supporting overall wellbeing and a positive relationship with their bodies
- The board did not vote on the wellness language; it asked for a sense of the room and agreed the revised line reads better, with the item going back to the policy committee before a vote
- Superintendent search: HYA ran 7 in-person and 8 virtual focus group sessions, 15 in total, with 82 participants, plus an online survey that closed Sunday the 15th with 301 participants
- There are 17 interested applicants; the application deadline is March 31
- The board will meet with the consultant, Dr. Adams, to review applicants and prepare interview questions, with a draft report due March 27 and the leadership profile presented publicly April 21
- First round interviews were proposed for May 3 or May 9; several members have conflicts and the board asked whether weeknight interviews are possible
- The board chose a confidential stakeholder group format and will build out who sits on it, drawing on the earlier search's mix of union representatives, building administrators, families and community members
- The board moved and voted to approve its board activity calendar, and noted it should be set in July or August going forward
- The board entered executive session at 9:39 PM for pending litigation, collective bargaining negotiations and the employment history of a particular person or persons, with no further public business after
Board members spoke at length during the policy and search discussions. The automated transcript does not identify speakers, so positions are described without attribution except where a name was spoken aloud in the room.
About this page
FUTURE HUDSON is an experiment in civic engagement: every public meeting of the City of Hudson since January 2026, transcribed and made readable, so any resident can follow what the city is deciding without attending every meeting. This page covers one meeting; see the full archive.
How it was made
The meeting video was transcribed automatically; the transcript was then organized into sections and summarized. The raw transcript is above, every claim can be checked against it.
What to be skeptical of
The transcript is automated and contains speech-recognition errors; names and numbers may be wrong. This page has not been reviewed by a human. Nothing here is an official record, the school district's official minutes are authoritative.
About coverage of this body
Board of Education meetings are livestreamed by the Hudson City School District to its own YouTube channel. The school district is a separate government from the City of Hudson. If a meeting is missing from the archive, the recording was likely not posted. See the archive index for the full coverage note.