Hendrick Hudson presents new HR and safety budgets, warns of $1.5M shortfall and proposes $5M capital reserve

Superintendent Michael Trombley and district administrators presented newly itemized budgets for human resources and for safety and security and warned the Board of Education about a preliminary $1.5 million gap between proposed spending and revenue estimates for 2025–26.

The presentations explained that functions previously housed in other budget lines have been carved into separate program budgets for clarity and oversight. Dr. Steven Garcia, assistant superintendent for human resources and leadership development, outlined a new HR budget code that consolidates recruitment, personnel services (including Frontline and other tracking services), professional memberships, background checks and related personnel expenses. He said some lines show large increases compared with last year because funds were reallocated from other budget areas into the new HR code.

The district also presented a newly defined safety and security budget led by a full-time safety coordinator, Amanda Dolce Moscalo (presented by Greg Trombley). Proposed items included increased two-way radios for building emergency response teams, expanded camera coverage, a mobile visitor-management kiosk for scanning visitors against criminal databases at events, numbering of exterior windows to assist responders, ongoing training, and continued consulting through Alterus Security (purchased via BOCES). Vendors mentioned included “Goose Town” for radios and Day Automation for camera work.

Jill Figueroa and district business staff reviewed overall revenue and expenditure projections. The district’s current expenditure total proposed for 2025–26 is $95,300,000. Using state aid figures finalized for tax-cap calculations, the district’s current revenue estimate including the allowable tax cap would yield roughly $93,800,000, producing an approximate shortfall of $1,500,000. To meet the board’s target to use less fund balance, administrators proposed narrowing the use of fund balance to about $3,700,000 (down from an earlier $5.2 million projection). That change will require about $1.5 million in additional expenditure reductions or other adjustments.

Figueroa said the district currently projects an unrestricted fund balance of about $29,000,000 for 2023–24 and, depending on year-end results, expects roughly $30,000,000 at the close of 2024–25. With the proposed $3.7 million drawdown, projected fund balance at the end of next year would be roughly $28,000,000. Administrators cautioned that those numbers can change before final budget adoption: the tax-cap filing will be submitted March 1 and some state-aid components can still change.

Separately, the district will place a capital reserve proposition on the May ballot that would authorize up to $5,000,000 over 10 years to set aside money for future capital projects. Jill Figueroa said the district is proposing a modest $5 million figure because community support may be more likely for a smaller initial reserve; she noted the proposition does not ask taxpayers for new money on the ballot but allows the district to set aside remaining funds or budgeted amounts into a restricted capital reserve for future projects.

The board was also briefed on next steps in the budget calendar: a line-by-line budget review is scheduled for March 15, starting with an 8 a.m. executive session and a 9 a.m. public line-by-line review expected to run into the afternoon. Principals and program leaders will attend that session to answer code-specific questions.

Administrators said they will continue to pare proposed spending — for example, removing a proposed district communications staff allocation and proposed funding for elementary extracurricular clubs — unless the board directs otherwise. District leaders said some cuts require union negotiations and could not be implemented immediately without starting discussions this fall.

Budget presenters recommended that the board provide clear guidance on any remaining parameters and directed the cabinet to return with specific staffing and contingency proposals for the next meetings.

Ending: The board did not adopt a final budget at the meeting; administrators said the March 15 line-by-line review and subsequent meetings would refine the numbers before a proposed budget is presented for adoption and public vote.