Bedford officials present $98 million budget draft, discuss staffing reductions including ASL
Loading...
Summary
Administrators presented a $98 million all‑funds draft, a $94 million base general fund, and a roughly 10‑cent tax‑impact gap. The board examined possible staff reductions (including an ASL 0.8 FTE at the high school), CEP cuts, and reserve/health‑plan options to shrink the gap.
District administrators presented the near‑final operating budget at the Dec. 15 Bedford School Board meeting and detailed proposed reductions, the tax impact, and possible personnel changes to close the gap between the proposed and default budgets.
Lisa Ambrosio, the district business administrator, said the all‑in budget stands at about $98,000,000 and the base general fund is roughly $94,000,000. Lisa told the board that the difference between the base and the default budget equates to about a 10¢ tax‑rate difference and that special‑education aid (state estimate expected by Jan. 1) will materially affect the final numbers.
On program cuts and personnel, administrators said they removed several one‑time CEP items and smaller requests (for example, $3,000 for graduation filming and $10,000 for LEGO robotics) and retained an intensive needs teacher. The administration proposed several personnel reductions as potential levers: eliminating or reducing certain FTEs at elementary schools, removing a McKelvey position and converting an academic support role at McKelvey from two full‑time teachers to one teacher plus a paraprofessional, and considering reducing the ASL high‑school offering (the ASL position is currently 0.8 FTE). The district emphasized it would defer final ASL decisions until after course selection and further review. “I think the place I'm most comfortable is in the event that the board is comfortable with the numbers that Lisa presents tonight that we maintain ASL for now,” an administrator said.
Board members probed the tradeoffs: administrators noted that moving to fractional FTEs (0.6/0.8) is an increasingly used cost‑management method and highlighted that retirement and New Hampshire retirement contributions add about 19.23% to salary costs. The board also discussed whether to reallocate food‑service reserves and how reducing vacant positions (for example, custodians) could lower projected health‑insurance costs; administrators cautioned that food‑service funds are restricted for food‑service use and cannot be moved to general fund expenses without operational consequences.
The board asked staff to refine numbers before the January public hearing and to model impacts on the default budget if vacant positions are left unfilled or cut. The administration said they expect updated special‑education aid information by Jan. 1 and will return with adjusted projections.
Next steps: staff to finalize modeling on ASL options, vacant positions, and health‑insurance scenarios and present updated budget slides ahead of the January deliberative session.
