Hudson School District outlines April operational referendum, says construction spending comes from prior capital votes

Hudson School District trustees and staff outlined plans for an April 1 operational referendum and fielded public questions about why construction projects are visible while the district seeks operational funding.

The referendum question being presented to voters would fund ongoing, operational costs — salaries, class sizes, extracurriculars, intervention programs, transportation and cybersecurity — while construction projects under way are paid from a separate capital referendum and bond proceeds. District staff stressed the two revenue streams are legally and practically distinct.

At a board meeting where several community members spoke, Kathy Roberts, a former teacher and longtime resident, urged the community to understand how state levy limits and voucher programs affect local taxes, saying she supported the referendum but had questions about how long levy limits and vouchers have been in place. Kristen Kessler, a parent of current students, said the community must understand that failing to pass the referendum would force “very difficult decisions” affecting technology, programming, teacher salaries and class sizes.

Superintendent (district staff) and other staff described the referendum materials and outreach. A one-page flyer circulated by the district and posted online lists estimated household impacts (the district used an example of about $4 per $100,000 of property value, or about $20 for a $500,000 home) and links to more detailed financial documents. The district emphasized it will explain the reasons for the request but, per state rules and district policy, cannot use public funds to campaign for or against the measure.

District staff said operational referenda differ from construction referenda: the construction work currently visible in schools stems from previous voter-approved capital referendums (not the April operational question) and from bond proceeds that by law can only be used for construction. The construction projects, staff said, required planning and design time after voters approved funding in prior years.

Board and staff also reviewed budget reductions already made and ones under consideration. The district reported about $1.9 million in reductions over the last two years and about $3.5 million over four years, including administrative and position reductions. The district described projected structural deficits for next year of roughly $2.5–$2.6 million and said it is targeting $1–$1.5 million in additional reductions largely through attrition rather than layoffs.

Officials discussed two district properties the board is marketing. One property is listed with interest but no final offer; another (referred to as the UU property) has a contingent offer around $2.9 million, subject to city annexation. Staff said proceeds from property sales are one-time funds and cannot be used to solve ongoing structural shortfalls.

The board also clarified the limits on district participation in referendum campaigns. The district will provide factual information and “explain why the district is asking for the money” but will not use public dollars to advocate for a vote. Staff and board members may volunteer on private vote committees but district facilities and events are restricted from hosting advocacy during school-sponsored activities.

Ending: The board noted there are about seven weeks until the April 1 referendum and encouraged voters to consult the district’s flyer and website for the full financial and program details. The board will continue to pursue budget reductions in coming work sessions regardless of the referendum timetable.