The board unanimously opted for the plan that increased the tax levy by 5.8 percent, which is the maximum allowed. Had they chosen to go with the 6.94 percent increase, it would have required 60 percent approval from the voters.
But closing the $2.58 million budget gap recently discovered and attributed to using financial planning software incorrectly for the past ten years does not come without sacrifice. Interim superintendent Brian Bailey outlined those sacrifices. Twenty-seven positions will be cut--six fewer than originally proposed.
The cuts to instructional and support staff are not quite as deep as originally proposed. The new proposal cuts two fewer teachers and four fewer aides.
The proposal also reduces by half the number of "executive level" positions in the Central Office.
The proposal also involves having a single principal of the junior and senior high schools rather than two, although there would still be two assistant principals, one for the junior high and one for the high school.
The videorecording of tonight's BOE meeting can be viewed here. The public hearing on the budget happens on Tuesday, May 5. The budget vote and BOE election will take place on Tuesday, May 19.
COPYRIGHT 2026 CAROLE OSTERINK
No increase is acceptable. Next year it will be another 15 million dollar gap. State mandates are ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteAccording to my son, a student at the high school, teachers are already understaffed. Cutting teachers as a means to balance a budget is a bad idea. It would be better to cut the highest salaries across the board and keep more of the teachers in place. The cost of living is not that high in the area, many of these administrators / teachers do not even live in Hudson, but reside in lower cost areas. So why does a local, public school administrator need to be paid over $200,000? Does a local public school teacher need a salary over $150,000? It seems a bit extravagant.
ReplyDelete100% agree. It make complete sense to eliminate the most expensive and least student facing staff. Each one of these back office “email job” administrators are paid several times the area media income and we could keep more teachers and aides instead. The board needs to be more hands on with the budget process and not just sit back and decide between two budgets created be the same back office that protecting their own above teachers and, ultimately, the students. Send the budget back to the drawing board. A “no” vote from the voters will do just that. Until the people and taxpayers send a message this will happen every year. The elimination of only one back office administrator to 20+ teachers is abhorrent. Don’t fall for their crocodile tears at last night’s meeting. This budget shows they are not serious.
Deletere:
ReplyDelete"But closing the $2.58 million budget gap recently discovered and attributed to using financial planning software incorrectly for the past ten years does not come without sacrifice."
1. Who specifically made this massive error?
2. Was this an annual recurring error? I.e. were there similar deficits in previous years and they just hid it?
3. If finance professional made a multi-million dollar error, how do we know there aren't other errors soon to be discovered?
4. Was this an error or was it an intentional effort to add more administrative bloat without the knowledge of the board and greater public?
Delete