Superintendent Glass presents options for growth

By JEFF MORRIS

In his first budget presentation since the resignation of Assistant Superintendent for Business and Operations Thomas Cole, Superintendent Robert Glass followed through on what he had described back on Feb. 5.

At that meeting, he had proposed revising the budget calendar so that a presentation on Feb. 26 would focus on what the budget would look like if it were moved forward without any changes. Then, he said, they would have a discussion on March 12 focused on what is recurring, what is non-recurring, what is budget neutral, and how those items affect and move the budget. Subsequent sessions would depend on what was talked about March 12, and give opportunity for board discussion and community input. 

Cole gave the Feb. 26 budget presentation as intended — excepting his subsequent resignation — and as promised, at the March 12 board of education meeting, Glass presented a listing of additional considerations and what he called “straw designs” for non-recurring and recurring items.

Glass described what he presented as a way to “help the board help me” have a sense of how much of district reserves they might want to use to accomplish their goals. They can do that, he said, because they are financially stable and reserves have grown, which he said is a “new set of dynamics compared to where we’ve been the last two years; we’ve climbed out of a pretty steep hole.”

The options and possibilities Glass presented were based on what he deemed key information: that if the 2024-25 budget were to be rolled over as-is to 2025-26, expenditures by major area would not change much; that the 2025-26 baseline is projected to require use of about $315,000 in reserves, and any items added to the budget will also come from reserves; that the tax cap calculation is 3.44 percent; that reserves have grown by about $7 million over the last five years; that enrollment and sections are relatively stable overall; and that the district’s range of school sizes can create unevenness in class sizes when allocating sections according to established guidelines.

Glass also noted that Mount Kisco Elementary is the one school entitled to federal Title I funds, which were applied in 2024-25 to lower class sizes in two sections at MKES; he said they had 82 general fund sections plus two from Title I, to equal 84 sections total. He noted this 2025-26 proposal assumes using only the general fund to staff all elementary sections. 

“We can technically meet our class-size standards with 80 sections,” he said, “however some outlying conditions likely warrant using two additional sections from the general fund (totaling the same 82 sections as last year) to address one class at Bedford Village Elementary School with an outlying projected size, and one class at MKES where data indicate the need for extra support.”

Glass listed “other considerations” including being slightly ahead of schedule on the district right sizing plan; that significant capital facilities needs exist; that budget stability remains a priority; that they need to sustainably fund Success Plan priorities in a way that distributes opportunities across a broad spectrum of student cohorts.

He proceeded to break down things they could do if they “elected to use more reserves in a recurring and non-recurring fashion,” and pointed out some potential near-term impacts that “give me pause about investing too much in recurring costs.” 

He said the Special Education Study Action Plan may potentially require significant investments to achieve its goals; a Dual Language Bilingual Education study is to be conducted in 2025-26, and may result in needed investments to achieve outcome goals; and state/federal aid may not be maintained at current levels.

Glass then presented his “straw design” for non-recurring items: refurbish elementary playground equipment, prioritized based on assessed condition, and establish a future maintenance schedule with a $200,000 annual estimate; classroom phones, starting with West Patent Elementary ($80K est.) and FLHS ($120K est.), and create a schedule for future installations at MKES, BHES and FLMS; installation of PA systems and integrate into lockdown systems, starting with PRES ($120K), and establish a schedule for the future where needed. 

Additional items he listed include system notification alarms to notify maintenance staff of any outages or failures 24/7 ($50K est.); one vehicle and one backhoe for facilities and one bucket vehicle for technology to share with facilities ($225K est.); AED replacements ($30K est.); other capital investments ($225K additional to fund most necessary items); and a DLBE Independent Review ($70K est.). He also listed a number of other capital needs that are not on any schedule.

Glass went on to present a straw design for recurring items, ranging from support for the Northwell Health Adolescent Mental Health Clinic ($65K after aid) to an additional ESOL teacher for MKES at an estimated $120,000, as well as multiple other potential recurring items, including “a partial list of potential items for future consideration but not proposed as part of this straw design.”

“I know I gave you a lot of detail,” he said. “I did it because I want you to understand the scope of the issues and some of the value propositions for some of these individual things.” But, he said, he wanted to give the board ideas they could consider: “Do you want to spend this much out of reserve? Do you want to spend nothing out of reserve?” 

Glass said he wanted to remind everybody they were talking about reserves, and it’s been a pattern that they’ve had more money coming in than they’ve been spending over the years. He wanted the board to consider what they are comfortable with.

After the presentation, board members engaged Glass in discussions about a few specific aspects of his suggestions, with Steven Matlin expressing his long-standing discomfort with overdoing the use of reserve funds, Robert Mazurek saying the district has long run surpluses and it would be a shame to not use that money, and much talk about variations in elementary class sizes.

A number of parents then spoke, with repeated comments about the use of Title I funds.

Glass gave a presentation to the Pound Ridge Town Board on Tuesday in which he recapped the budget process. He said he was originally going to present his recommended budget March 19 after hearing more from board members, but has postponed that presentation until March 26, with further budget deliberations Wednesday, April 9.