Bedford Central School Board adopts budget for 2025-26

By JEFF MORRIS

The Bedford Central Board of Education voted April 23 to adopt a 2025-26 budget totaling $160,905,500. It also heard that the Phase 2 bond construction project will be proceeding as scheduled.

Spending plan

After an hour and a quarter of discussion, the board voted 5-2 in favor of adopting a budget that largely reflected the one proposed by Superintendent Robert Glass, but with several notable revisions. The budget total of $160,905,500 is $60,000 less than the superintendent’s initially proposed total of $160,965,500. The $60,000 reduction is reflected in the amount to be appropriated from the fund balance, down to $404,018 instead of the $464,018 that was originally proposed. The tax levy will remain $145,659,209, still under the tax cap. Actual tax rates in each municipality were still to be determined.

The board removed a $120,000 budget line that had been earmarked to fund changing to a five-day elementary rotation, and added in $60,000 for a Mount Kisco Elementary School safety monitor, thus leading to the net reduction of $60,000.

The five-day rotation had been advocated as a positive change that would lead to educational improvements, as the current four-day rotation was noted to cause noncompliance with state-mandated physical education minutes every other week. It was questioned by both parents and board members critical of not only the added cost, but a reduction of art and music time that would also result. Meanwhile, the proposal for an MKES safety monitor received enthusiastic support from the board.

A key sticking point in budget discussions, which ultimately led to the adoption vote not being unanimous, was Glass’ recommendation that a section be cut at MKES. Going all the way back to his presentation on March 12, Glass had noted that MKES was the one school entitled to federal Title I funds, which were applied in 2024-25 to lower class sizes in two sections there, and a keystone of his proposal was using only the general fund to staff all elementary sections. He maintained that class sizes at MKES met the district’s practice guidelines, with the fourth grade having three sections of 23 students and one of 22, and that administrators and professional staff were in agreement that this was acceptable.

Trustee Lisa Mitchell disagreed, asserting that because there were 25 total sections at MKES in 2024-25 but only 24 total sections in the proposed budget, the district was actually cutting a section from the school with the greatest need. Trustee Robert Mazurek joined her in that objection, and ultimately they were the two “no” votes on adopting the budget. The remaining board members said they were inclined to accept the professional assessment of Glass and his staff, and that these kinds of class size decisions and reductions were common and not limited to MKES. 

A number of Mount Kisco parents later spoke out during a public forum, harshly criticizing the decision and claiming there was a belief prevalent in the community that because MKES did not have the economic resources of other parts of the district, it was not entitled to as much support. Indeed, one speaker who called in, Vincent Morrow, said he had studied enrollment in detail for the past 15 years, and that “the narrative that continues to be told is one that is true: 40 percent of the students in BCSD come from Mount Kisco. At its highest point, Mount Kisco’s apportionment of the tax base was 21 percent; in this current estimated budget, it is 19 percent.” He said he would leave it to the board to decide what they wanted to do with “factual numbers that are backed up by 15-plus years of data.”

Erika Charpentier of Mount Kisco subsequently asked for clarification about how public schools are funded, and if a municipality should receive less services because it contributed less financially. Glass clearly rejected that notion, saying “we are one district, and we strive to give every school what it needs and every student what they need.”

Glass later responded to some public comments that had been made about use of Title I funds that had used terms such as “misappropriation,” saying such language suggested that there was illegal activity. He strongly rejected use of such language, noting that there could certainly be disagreement over choices that were made, but there was absolutely no basis for implying that the district had done anything against the law.

The public will vote on the budget Tuesday, May 20.

Phase 2 bond construction

Concerns expressed at the prior board meeting about whether bids coming in for Phase 2 of the district’s bond project would be problematic turned out to be unfounded, and the project is on track to begin at the end of the year. 

Trustee Steven Matlin reported that they had received Phase 2 bids, which they had a “very lengthy and productive discussion about” at the previous day’s bond construction committee meeting. He said they will be discussing those bids and hopefully approving them at the committee’s next meeting.

“We are on track to start construction literally the day school ends this summer,” Matlin said. “We will have a plan that Dr. Glass and the administrative team and the leaders of both the middle school and the high school have been working on to show the community what it’s going to look like next year, because there will be some impact on the campus and certainly in the buildings. But we’re very confident that our construction management firm will do a great job of managing this process so that there’s as little disruption as possible to the students.” He said there would be more to come at the next board meeting.