Huntington budget presentation outlines tax‑levy choices and $3.6 million in proposed capital work

HUNTINGTON — School business officials presented the Huntington Union Free School District’s preliminary property tax‑cap calculation, state aid developments and capital‑project priorities during the Board of Education’s regular meeting on Feb. 10, 2025.

District staff reported that, using the components shown in the Feb. 10 presentation, the district’s allowable levy for 2025–26 would be $120,953,894 — a 3.34% ceiling relative to the current levy that equates to roughly $3.9 million of additional levy authority. Under the district’s summary, levying at or below that amount would require a simple majority (50% plus one) on the budget vote; exceeding it would “pierce the cap,” require a 60% supermajority and would make residents ineligible for certain state tax rebates described in the presentation.

Officials reviewed the state executive budget proposals discussed at recent advocacy meetings. Highlights presented included a headline education funding increase the presenter described as about $1.69 billion (4.8%) statewide, which the presenter noted becomes about $1.55 billion if universal prekindergarten (UPK) funding is excluded. The presentation also flagged proposed methodological changes — for example, replacing some census inputs with Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) and substituting “economically disadvantaged” for free‑and‑reduced measures — and identified a possible universal‑meals allocation of roughly $160 million to reach the remaining 10% of students not covered by current subsidies. The district’s business official also told the board that Huntington appears on the state’s prior‑year aid claim list for about $540,000.

On capital work, staff reviewed projects already completed with ARPA and other funds and previewed work tied to prior voter propositions. Bid openings for May 2023‑vote projects were expected in March 2025, with many items planned as summer 2025 work. The board packet identified approximately $3.6 million in priority capital items proposed for a May capital proposition; examples called out in the presentation included:

- continued Jack Abrams (STEM) flat‑roof replacement (phase 4), estimated at about $1.0 million; - outdoor field bathrooms and related site work at the high school, estimated at about $1.6 million; - life‑safety and fire‑rating work such as stair enclosures and interior rated walls at the high school, and kitchen/tray pass fire alarm tie‑ins at several primary and intermediate schools.

Staff also recommended placing a Proposition 3 on a future ballot to establish a new 10‑year building improvement capital reserve (the presenter suggested $15 million as the likely authorized maximum, noting the board may choose a different amount). The presentation emphasized that creating the reserve is a voter authorization to allow future deposits; it does not itself move money into the reserve.

District officials reminded the board how state aid formulas and data snapshots can change final numbers: foundation aid depends on “beds” and enrollment snapshots, and some expense‑based aid only arrives after districts report spending. The presentation warned that one commonly proposed state change — a database freeze at the state snapshot date — would lock districts at the snapshot numbers and was something district leaders said they continue to oppose.

The presentation session included board questions about how the state counts “beds” versus enrollment, timing of state reviews for capital projects, and items such as upper‑balcony auditorium seating and the district’s remaining small debt service. The presenter told the board that the district’s final levy decision — and whether to include the proposed capital proposition and the capital‑reserve proposition on the May ballot — will be returned for board action in subsequent meetings.

If the board proceeds with a tax levy at or below the presented ceiling, the presenter said residents would still be eligible for any state tax‑rebate programs tied to the levy threshold. If the board seeks to exceed the allowable levy growth factor, the presenter said the district would need a 60% affirmative vote at the May budget referendum and that state rebate eligibility would be affected.

The board did not adopt a final levy or vote language at the Feb. 10 meeting; staff scheduled follow‑up budget hearings and presentations through March and April to firm up numbers for the May 2025 budget vote.