Hendrick Hudson board reviews $102 million draft budget and discusses an 8.24% levy scenario

Hendrick Hudson Central School District Board of Education · March 22, 2026

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At a March 21 line-by-line budget review, district administrators presented a proposed $102.0 million budget and explained options to close a roughly $6.6 million gap, including a draft 8.24% tax-levy increase, use of $6.6 million in reserves, and potential program or staffing changes. Final state aid remains pending.

The Hendrick Hudson Central School District board spent much of its March 21 meeting on a detailed review of the district's draft 2026-27 spending plan and the choices available to cover a multi-million-dollar revenue shortfall.

Administrators presented a proposed total budget of about $102.0 million and said the district is exploring a combination of three levers to close a roughly $6.6 million gap: further expenditure reductions, additional use of reserves and a local property-tax levy increase. The draft materials included a working parameter showing an 8.24% levy increase as one scenario, though officials said the allowable state tax-cap calculation for this year would permit an increase of about 2.82% without an override and that final state aid figures have not been certified.

"Once the board adopts the budget, it will become the board's proposed budget leading to the community vote on May 19, 2026," the presenter said, framing the day's line-by-line review as part of a transparent process. The business office noted that the figures in the budget book reflect printing on March 19 and could change as final state aid and other updates are received.

Jill Figueroa, who led the revenue-and-expenditures presentation, said the draft package assumes about $17.6 million in preliminary state aid and includes a planned $6.6 million use of the tax-mitigation fund. She described the budget makeup: roughly half the proposed spending is salaries and about 26% is employee benefits.

Board members and administrators repeatedly cautioned that a range of outcomes remains possible. "If we know we lost 25% of our revenue, we have to figure out how to make that up on the expense side, or increase our revenues," the presenter said, referring to long-term revenue effects after the power-plant shutdown that reduced local receipts.

Administrators said they will run projections showing how different levy and reserve choices affect the district over several years. They warned that reserves intended to mitigate the fiscal shock would be exhausted in about three to four years under current parameters if new revenue sources or state relief do not arrive.

The next formal steps: the board will continue refining figures at follow-up meetings, finalize the proposed budget at a board adoption meeting in April, and place the proposition and any related ballot measures before voters on May 19.

Article provenance: the board's presentations and question-and-answer exchanges during the March 21 line-by-line budget review were the source of the figures and process described above.