Saugerties board adopts $79.876 million 2025–26 budget at state tax cap; approves SEQR, BOCES items

The Saugerties Central School District Board of Education adopted a $79,876,153 budget for the 2025–26 school year and authorized submission of the property tax report card at the state tax cap at its meeting. The board approved the budget on a roll-call vote, 8–0.

District business staff presented the proposed budget and a suite of reductions and targeted additions intended to close a projected gap of roughly $2.8 million. The presenter recommended using $2,800,000 from the district’s unassigned fund balance to cover this year’s gap: “My proposal would be to use the unassigned fund balance of $2,800,000 to make the gap this year,” the district staff member said during the presentation.

Why it matters: the adopted plan preserves most core instructional positions while making reductions in administrative and extracurricular staffing, shifting some one-time purchases into the current year and maintaining services the district identified as priorities. The board and members discussed trade-offs between dipping into reserves and asking voters to exceed the New York state tax levy cap.

Key proposals and changes - Reductions and efficiencies: staff presentations listed multiple reductions including cuts to modified and varsity coaching stipends (district staff said the plan reduces some coaching positions but allows restoring staff if participation increases), fewer interactive display purchases, reductions in software and supply lines, and reevaluation of data-reporting contracts. - Transportation: the director of transportation proposed rerouting private-school runs to bring students first to the high school for transfers; staff said other districts use a single centralized pickup but did not provide exact added minutes and offered to supply transit-time estimates later. - One-time purchases and AC compliance: staff described spending roughly $50,000 to finish portable cooling units now rather than in next year’s budget to meet a state classroom temperature mandate; the district also is evaluating ductless units and other capital options for mandated cooling thresholds. - Staffing moves: the proposal includes three administrative cuts (director of HR, elementary project coordinator, and a combined athletic director/assistant principal position), and several targeted additions: increasing an English as a New Language position from 0.4 FTE to 1.0 FTE; reintroducing modified sports funding; adding a part-time nurse and a part-time social worker at Woodstock Day School (staff said the district must provide equivalent services upon private-school request); and continued special education expansions, including an academic/behavior communication program in junior high for neurodiverse students. - Instructional supports: the budget maintains four Wilson-trained reading specialists, school psychologists in each building, school advocacy specialists, art/music/library offerings, and professional learning tied to the district’s instructional blueprint.

Revenues, reserves and tax-rate scenarios District staff reported projected revenues of about $77.0 million without using reserves and a proposed budget around $79.9 million, leaving a gap of roughly $2.8 million. Staff recommended using $2.8 million of unassigned fund balance as the primary means to close this year’s gap, noting the district is awaiting final state budget figures and insurance details that could change the picture.

Staff presented alternate scenarios, including seeking voter approval to exceed the tax levy cap by $500,000. That scenario was modeled as increasing the typical $300,000-home tax bill by about $170 annually (staff estimated $170 for a $300,000 home under a $500,000 over-cap levy). The board discussed the political risk of asking voters to exceed the cap after the district’s prior attempt in the previous year.

Board debate and concerns Board members split on strategy. Several members urged a long-term fiscal plan that reduces recurring reliance on reserves; others warned the current economic climate and household financial strain make a tax-cap override a difficult public sell. Board members emphasized the need to preserve instructional quality while rebuilding reserve levels over time.

“Going over the tax cap ... would require a concerted community effort,” a staff member said when describing the practical implications for the board if it pursued an override. Board members repeatedly asked for more detail on program impacts (for example, precise travel-time changes for rerouted private-school transportation) and requested ongoing updates if participation numbers change for athletics or other programs.

Votes at a glance - Adoption of the 2025–26 budget, $79,876,153, property tax report card submitted at the tax cap — Roll-call: William Ball: Yes; Christine Melarosa: Yes; Katie Emerson Hawes: Yes; Shakina Irizarry: Yes; Carol Kelder: Yes; Michael Meyer: Yes; Jeffrey Azzi: Yes; Timothy Wells: Yes. Outcome: approved. - Riccardia Elementary School SEQR resolution — motion moved and seconded (second by Carol Kelder); voice vote recorded: all in favor. Outcome: approved. - Ulster BOCES administrative budget — motion moved and seconded; voice vote recorded: all in favor. Outcome: approved. - Ulster BOCES annual election of members — the board voted to cast the district’s votes for the listed BOCES candidates (two unopposed seats and two at-large selections). Outcome: approved.

Other notes and timeline Staff reiterated uncertainty in state aid until the state budget is finalized and noted the district could reallocate or reduce reserves later depending on outcomes. The presentation confirmed the district’s public hearing is scheduled for May 6 and the voter budget vote on May 20; the board also noted a possible revote date of June 17 if needed. The staff presentation included a comparison to last year’s approved budget ($77.0 million) and reported the current proposal represents an approximate 3.49% increase over last year’s adopted budget.

Ending Board members left the meeting with direction to provide additional program-level details requested during debate (for example, bus-time estimates, participation thresholds for restoring coaching stipends, and refined reserve projections) so the board and public can evaluate longer-term fiscal choices ahead of the voter meeting.