At a glance
The Hudson City School District Board of Education met Monday for its third budget workshop. The district faces a $4 million gap between projected expenses ($63.1 million) and expected revenue ($59.1 million) for the 2026-27 school year, driven by a 20% increase in health insurance costs and flat state aid. Administrators presented a detailed reduction plan that includes cutting 14 teachers and student support staff, eliminating 15 aide positions, moving IT and tutoring services to BOCES, reducing transportation runs by nine, and eliminating one central office administrator. The board discussed whether to use an additional $300,000 from the assigned fund balance or attempt a tax levy override above the 5.8% cap. Several union leaders and community members spoke during public comment, questioning the level of central office cuts and urging the board to preserve direct student services. No votes were taken; the board will finalize the budget proposal at the April 21 meeting.
Opening and Context for the Budget Crisis
The meeting opened with the pledge of allegiance and roll call. The Superintendent explained how the district arrived at a $4 million budget gap, tracing the problem to rising health insurance costs, flat state aid, and the use of $3 million from savings to balance the current year's budget.
Key points
- Health insurance costs have increased significantly; the district just received a $900,000 adjustment for pharmaceuticals alone.
- State aid has remained flat while expenses have continued to rise.
- Last year, the board allocated almost $3 million from the bank account to balance this year's budget, pushing the structural deficit forward.
- The district finished last year with only $200,000 left in unassigned fund balance, far lower than usual.
- Even with a 5.8% tax levy and $4 million in cuts, the district will still need to use $2.3 million from savings to balance next year's budget.
YouTube auto-caption transcript. Speaker names are not reliably present; most are omitted.
Revenue Plan and Budget Position
The business office presented the proposed revenue plan. The district expects $59.1 million in revenue for 2026-27, including a 5.8% tax levy, flat state aid, and $2.3 million from assigned fund balance and reserves. This leaves a $4 million gap to close.
Key points
- Proposed tax levy at 5.8% (the maximum allowed under the cap) would generate an additional $1.5 to $1.6 million.
- State aid is projected at $26.97 million, essentially flat from last year.
- The district plans to use $1.79 million from assigned fund balance and $531,000 from reserves.
- Initial proposed expenditures were $63.1 million; expected revenue is $59.1 million, leaving a $4.03 million gap.
- The revenue plan represents a 0.9% increase from the previous year's budget.
Reduction Strategy and IT Services to BOCES
Administrators explained the strategy for closing the gap: start from the outside, protect instruction at the center, and look for high-impact savings. The first bucket was moving IT services to BOCES and shifting student tutoring to a virtual BOCES program.
Key points
- The district will move some IT services to BOCES, saving $235,000 immediately and reducing the IT budget from $647,000 to $412,000.
- The district would retain some on-site IT staff; BOCES would provide a virtual help desk and additional support.
- New York State is raising the BOCES salary cap for the first time in 30 years, which will increase reimbursement rates in future years.
- The student tutoring center would move to a 3-hour virtual BOCES program, eliminating transportation costs and saving $102,000 in the first year.
- Total savings from BOCES-aidable services: $337,586.
Hudson's BOCES aid reimbursement ratio is 36%, one of the lowest in the state. For every $100 spent on BOCES services, the district receives $36 back the following year.
Board members questioned the effectiveness of virtual tutoring compared to in-person instruction, especially for students with disciplinary issues. Administrators acknowledged the concern but emphasized the need to reach $4 million in reductions.
Program Reductions and Electives
The district proposed reducing one elective at the junior high school, eliminating the AVID program contract (but continuing the work internally), reducing restorative practices staff, and eliminating a currently vacant teaching assistant position. These changes would save $233,000.
Key points
- The district would reduce one junior high elective, with the goal of better utilizing shared access to high school facilities.
- The AVID program contract costs $14,000 annually; the district proposes continuing the organizational and self-regulatory skills work without the AVID name and materials.
- A reduction in social-emotional learning (SEL) staff specifically refers to restorative practices positions.
- A teaching assistant position that is currently vacant would be eliminated.
- Total savings from program reductions: $233,000.
Staffing Reductions: Teachers, Support Staff, and Aides
The largest reduction category includes eliminating 14 teachers and student support staff positions, 15 aide positions (both part-time and full-time), one clerical staff member, and one vacant custodian position. These cuts would save $2.4 million. Administrators emphasized the impact on class sizes, caseloads, and support services.
Key points
- The reduction of 14 positions includes three classroom teachers, with the remainder being student support staff such as speech pathologists, social workers, psychologists, and academic intervention services (AIS) teachers.
- Instructional coaches would return to the classroom, except for one coach required by the digital promise grant.
- The 15 aide positions represent staff across the district, including those who assist with lunch, playground supervision, bus duty, and classroom support.
- One clerical staff member and one currently vacant custodian position would be eliminated.
- The reductions would increase class sizes in AIS programs, adjust caseloads for speech and social work services, and may require reconsidering the scope of services provided.
Administrators acknowledged the district is moving from a model of helpful additional resources toward a model focused on compliance and mandates. Board members and community speakers raised concerns about the impact on students with high needs.
Class Size Projections
A slide showed projected class sizes for kindergarten through eighth grade if the proposed reductions are made. The reductions would eliminate three sections at the elementary level (in grades K, 1, and 3) and move one teacher from fourth grade to sixth grade at the junior high.
Key points
- The slide compared current class sizes (2025-26) to projected sizes (2026-27) after reductions.
- Four green squares marked the changes: one section each in kindergarten, first, and third grades, and one teacher moving from elementary to junior high.
- The exact placement of the three elementary reductions would be determined by building leaders based on the needs of specific grade cohorts.
- The projections do not include students in self-contained special education classrooms.
- Administrators emphasized this is a suggestion of what the reductions would look like, not a final decision on specific grades.
Attrition, Software Reductions, and Transportation Savings
The district identified additional savings from retirements, software reductions, and a major change to transportation routing. Combining students on the same buses would save $841,000, nearly offsetting the impact of one million dollars in staffing cuts.
Key points
- Five retirements are expected this year; two positions would not be rehired through attrition, and three would be refilled at lower salaries (breakage), saving $261,000.
- One vacant clerical position would not be filled, separate from the clerical position mentioned in staffing reductions.
- Software and contract reviews identified $80,000 in reductions, with the possibility of more savings after further consultation with staff.
- Changing transportation routing to combine students on the same buses would eliminate nine bus runs, saving $841,000. Each bus would have a monitor.
- Field trip and materials/supply budgets would be reduced by $20,000 across the district, bringing the total to $860,981 in operational savings.
The board approved the transportation routing change at the previous meeting. The new routing will combine K-12 students on the same buses, a shift from the longstanding practice of separating younger and older students. Monitors will be provided on each bus to address concerns.
Additional Expenses: Deans, APPR, and Unemployment Insurance
The proposed budget includes funding for part-time deans to help with discipline, additional support for the annual professional performance review (APPR) process, and increased unemployment insurance reserves. These additions total $166,000.
Key points
- Part-time deans would be teachers who also handle disciplinary referrals, helping to offset the reduction in administrative positions. This would require negotiation.
- The reduction of two administrators means fewer people available to conduct APPR evaluations; the district added aidable funding for external support if needed.
- Unemployment insurance reserves were increased to cover the cost of layoffs; the district is responsible for paying unemployment when employees are laid off.
- The total for additional expenses is $166,000.
- The Superintendent emphasized these are estimates and the district will need flexibility depending on actual hiring costs and needs.
Total Reductions and Financial Uncertainty
The combined reductions total $4.03 million, meeting the board's target. The Superintendent warned that next year will be financially precarious, with little room for error. The district will not have the usual $1-2 million cushion that comes from conservative budgeting.
Key points
- The total reductions across all categories equal $4,028,343, closing the gap between revenue and expenses.
- Even with these cuts and a 5.8% tax levy, the district will still use $2.3 million from savings to balance the budget.
- The district typically finishes the year with $1-2 million left over from conservative spending; that cushion will not exist next year.
- The Superintendent described the coming year as nerve-racking, with little flexibility if unexpected expenses arise.
- The best hope is discovering additional revenue sources during the year to reduce the draw on the fund balance.
The district does not yet know the final fund balance as of June 30, 2026, which is two months away. Interest income, propane tax revenue, and other line items are estimates. The starting point for next year's calculations is uncertain.
Contingency Budget Scenario
The Superintendent explained what happens if voters do not approve the budget. If the budget fails twice, the district is required to adopt a contingency budget, which would mean an additional $1.5 million in cuts and severe restrictions on spending.
Key points
- If voters reject the budget, the board can revise and put it to a second vote, or move directly to a contingency budget.
- A contingency budget requires the tax levy to remain exactly the same as the previous year, eliminating the $1.5 million from the 5.8% tax increase.
- This would require an additional $1.5 million in reductions, bringing the total cuts to around $5.5 million.
- Contingency budget rules prohibit new capital expenditures, equipment purchases (except emergencies), public use of buildings if it incurs additional costs, and salary increases for non-union employees.
- The board would have to make decisions about every single restricted item, with the help of outside consultants. About 10 districts statewide went to contingency last year; one or two ended up adopting it.
A contingency budget would represent a 1.71% decrease from the previous year's budget and would require the board to determine which operations are essential for health, safety, and preserving property. It is highly restrictive.
Board Discussion: Using More Fund Balance or Overriding the Tax Cap
Board members debated whether to use an additional $300,000 from the assigned fund balance to reduce the number of layoffs, or to attempt a tax levy override above the 5.8% cap. The discussion weighed the immediate impact on staff against the risk of depleting reserves and the likelihood of voter approval.
Key points
- One board member suggested using an additional $300,000 from the assigned fund balance to preserve more positions.
- The district has approximately $2.3 million in unassigned fund balance above the required 4% reserve; using all of it this year would allow the district to do it one more time before reserves are depleted.
- Another board member argued for attempting a tax levy override first, saying the district should try to increase revenue before draining the fund balance further.
- A tax levy override requires 60% of voters to approve; the district last attempted this in 2011, when the budget failed.
- One board member expressed concern that raising taxes by more than 5.8% would be a hard sell to residents, especially those on fixed incomes.
- Another member pointed out that using fund balance this year only delays the problem, as expenses are expected to continue rising and revenue will remain flat.
The transcript does not reliably attribute statements to specific board members, so names are omitted from this summary.
Public Comment: Union Leaders and Community Members
Five speakers addressed the board during public comment, including the presidents of the teachers' union, clerical union, and aides' union. Speakers questioned the level of cuts to central office, urged the board to prioritize direct student services, and shared concerns about the impact on the most vulnerable students.
Key points
- One community member urged residents with resources to step up and help close the gap, noting Hudson is not a poor community.
- The second vice president of the Hudson Teachers Association said the district is more than its cost per pupil and urged community members to visit classrooms to see what the numbers mean in practice. She questioned why only one central office position is being cut when more than 35 direct service positions are being eliminated.
- The president of the Hudson Teachers Association said these are dedicated, talented, passionate people who work with students every day. She emphasized that maintaining a program on paper at minimum legal compliance is not the same as maintaining its effectiveness.
- The vice president of the clerical union said the district has already quietly absorbed the loss of four critical positions since July 2025 that were never filled. She noted that five clerical positions are gone no matter what the slides say, and urged the board to take a hard look at the central office organizational structure.
- The president of the aides' union said six aide positions are already open and not being refilled, meaning the total loss would be 21 aides, not 15. She noted aides start at minimum wage and most do not take health insurance because they cannot afford it. She questioned how it would work with just the legally required aides.
A retired teacher submitted a proposal to keep the tutoring center open four days a week with two teachers instead of three, saving $23,000 and eliminating bus routes. He noted that about 60% of students in the tutoring center are not suspended; they are sent there by administrators to catch up on work. He said the difference between his proposal and the BOCES virtual program is only $5,000 after reimbursement.
One student spoke briefly, emphasizing that suspended students often come from vulnerable situations and their routines should not be disrupted. The student did not think remote tutoring would be feasible for students getting suspended.
Upcoming Meetings and Executive Session
The board announced upcoming meeting dates, including the April 21 meeting to finalize the budget proposal, voter registration day on April 23, and the budget vote on May 19. The board then entered executive session to discuss employment matters. No further business was conducted after the executive session.
Key points
- Tuesday, April 21: Board of Education meeting at 6:00 PM in the high school auditorium to finalize the budget proposal.
- Thursday, April 23: Voter registration day from 4:00 to 8:00 PM in the junior high cafeteria.
- Wednesday, April 29: Nominating petitions due by 5:00 PM for those interested in running for the Board of Education.
- Tuesday, May 5: Budget hearing at 6:00 PM in the high school auditorium.
- Tuesday, May 19: Budget vote and board member election from 11:00 AM to 8:00 PM, followed by a board meeting at 8:00 PM in the high school auditorium.
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.