Three Village board adopts 2025‑26 budget after removing later secondary start‑time plan; fourth‑grade IG cut remains

The Three Village Central School District Board of Education on April 9 adopted the district’s recommended 2025‑26 budget and property tax report card while voting to remove a previously approved plan to delay middle‑ and high‑school start times.

Deputy Superintendent Jeffrey Carlson told the board that the budget the trustees approved complies with the state tax‑levy limit and uses a set of staffing and program reductions to close the gap between projected revenues and rising costs. “When the board adopts…what they’re adopting is the dollar amount of the expenditures,” Carlson said during the presentation on the budget process.

Why it matters: the adopted budget increases total spending by 0.84% year‑over‑year and sets a 2.78% increase in the tax levy, officials said. Administrators and board members said the package is designed to fit the district’s tax‑cap calculation and projected state aid but requires cuts that will raise average elementary class sizes and reduce some program staffing.

Budget details and district rationale Administrators said the district faced higher costs for health insurance, retirement contributions and vendor contracts that together drove the need for cuts and program changes. Carlson and other administrators described the sequence of choices that produced the final dollar amount: a reduction in planned capital projects from $3.0 million to $1.5 million lowered the district’s tax‑cap calculation; the board and a budget advisory committee factored in an anticipated state aid increase (the administration said it was projecting roughly $275,000 more than the governor’s initial proposal); and the district applied program and staffing reductions to close the remaining shortfall.

Dr. Scanlon, who presented staffing impacts, said the district opened an additional pre‑K section and used state UPK funding to shift some costs, but still must reduce other positions. “We are opening up an additional section now over at Arrowhead for pre‑K…This has allowed us to decrease from 14 teachers in the elementary level being accessed to 13,” Dr. Scanlon said. He also said teaching assistant cuts moved from 29 to 28, and that the district reduced SCA positions from 15 to 7. Administrators said the package of cuts and savings allows them "to cover our entire budget, as it stands, the $7,600,000 with all of these cuts put into place,” language used in the presentation to describe the magnitude of adjustments needed.

Start‑time initiative removed from the budget Board members debated whether to keep funds for the later secondary start‑time plan that the board had endorsed in prior meetings. A motion to remove the later start‑time provision from the 2025‑26 budget passed during the meeting; the motion was made by Board member Sue and seconded by Board member Vizzo. The motion carried after a vote recorded as “all in favor; no opposed; no abstentions.” A subsequent, separate proposal to take money from reserves to cover the start‑time cost failed for lack of a second.

Administrators had said implementing the later start time was included in the board’s plan and that the item’s fiscal impact in the current budget was about $1.014 million. The board discussion made clear that restoring that amount later would require tradeoffs in other areas of the budget or the use of district reserves; a board member noted that spending reserves this year would create recurring budget pressure in future years.

Program and staffing consequences Board members and administrators outlined where the district will apply reductions if the budget remains as adopted. Those included larger average elementary class sizes in nine grade levels (board members described averages of about 26–27 students in affected sections), reductions in noninstructional hours and summer programs, and cuts to some co‑curricular offerings with low average participation. Administrators also discussed the district’s efforts to maximize grant and other revenue sources and to negotiate with unions for concessions.

Community response at the public comment period was focused on two themes: the later start‑time initiative and preservation of the district’s intellectually gifted (IG) program at the elementary level. Multiple speakers urged the board to preserve IG programming for younger students. Alumnus Sean Fontana told trustees the IG program was “fundamental” to his development and urged the district not to eliminate it. Student Oliver Wu said eliminating fourth‑grade IG “without putting anything else in its place…is very harmful” and urged the board to ensure enrichment opportunities for gifted students.

Board actions and next steps The board adopted the 2025‑26 recommended budget and property tax report card as presented and took several procedural votes at the meeting. Board members also approved a walk‑in stipulation of settlement and release related to an item listed as 9B, and they later approved the consent agenda.

The board’s approval of the budget sets the dollar amount that will appear on the public ballot on May 20, when district voters will vote on the budget. When asked during the meeting about the expected household effect, Carlson gave an approximate figure: “Approximately $336…that’s the average tax increase for next year,” he said.

Board members said they expect follow‑up work over the coming weeks to refine program restorations or further reductions depending on final state aid numbers, any community input, and whether the district elects to use reserves. Administrators repeatedly noted that several choices — from capital spending to personnel decisions — affect the tax‑cap calculation and the district’s options in future years.