Horseheads district seeks 60% voter approval for 2025–26 budget that uses $1.3M in reserves to avoid staff cuts

The Horseheads Central School District on May 8 presented a proposed 2025–26 budget that would increase the district’s tax levy by 7.4% and rely on $1.3 million drawn from the district’s debt service reserve to avoid cuts to staff or programs, administration told the public during a required hearing.

Dr. Douglas, a district administrator, told the audience, “This is our public hearing on the 2526 school budget. This is a requirement under New York State Education Law.” He said projected state aid at this point “is actually a negative point 4% or $192,210 less than last year,” and described the figures the board used to balance the budget.

The nut graf: The board approved the proposed budget to go before voters as Proposition 1, which the administration characterized as a “challenged” budget that requires 60% voter approval under state rules. Proposition 2 would permit the purchase of school buses not to exceed $1,900,000, funded through bonding and state aid as part of the district’s five-year replacement cycle.

Administration presented the key mechanics of the proposal: a 7.4% levy-to-levy increase, use of $1.3 million from the debt service fund reserve to offset the local share, and a projected tax-rate change of about 3.3%. The administration provided a conservative estimate that the maximum increase would be roughly $48 for a $100,000 home, and noted actual taxpayer bills can vary with changes in individual property assessments.

Officials said the district has already reduced administrative staffing during the prior year, noting the budget for the coming year reflects the removal of five administrative positions. The administration also described internal reallocations intended to preserve programs: $40,000 to sustain the formerly grant-funded summer learning academy, reallocation of teaching assistants to increase classroom support, and the reallocation of funds to hire two additional intervention teachers for elementary grades (administration characterized these hires as reallocation rather than additional spending). The board also discussed consolidating elementary assistant-principal roles into one assistant elementary principal who would work districtwide across three elementary buildings.

Dr. Douglas explained the board’s choice between two budget paths: pursue a levy within the 2% tax levy calculation and make roughly $1.3 million in reductions requiring only a 50% voter approval, or use debt-service reserve funds to keep staffing and programming intact and request 60% voter approval. “The board chose to go out and ask the community for 60% approval,” he said, adding that both options would require raising about the same amount of total funding from year to year.

On Proposition 2, the administration emphasized that the proposed bus purchase does not include zero-emission electric buses. “There is no 0 electric based buses included in this purchase,” the presentation said, and the district noted it has communicated with the state about that requirement.

During the public comment portion, Angie Finlayson, a district taxpayer and parent of two students, said she reviewed budget materials and budget hearings and expressed frustration that board requests for budget runs prioritizing more teaching assistants over administrative hires were not advanced. “I’m frustrated that the board wouldn’t as a whole seize the opportunity to explore something that the community is requesting,” she said. Finlayson said she would vote for the budget because she feared program and staffing cuts if it failed: “I will be voting yes on this round of the budget because I worry about programs and staffing being cut if it fails.”

The board clerk opened the hearing for public comment and closed it after receiving one speaker; the board then asked for a motion to adjourn, which was taken by voice. The budget and propositions will be decided by voters on May 20; administration said polling places will be open 7 a.m.–9 p.m. at the high school North Gym.

The district repeatedly described its figures as projections: state aid projections are not final until the state budget is settled, and the district said final tax impacts will depend on assessed values and any changes in state aid later this spring.