Board hears $1.1M projected shortfall under cap, directs 9-diesel-bus ballot proposition and to use fund balance to close gap

John McPhillips, presenting the district’s 2026–27 budget overview, told the Bethlehem Central School District board that the early baseline gap of about $3.6 million had been reduced through proposed position eliminations, vacancy savings and other measures but that, if the board maximizes the allowable 2.61% tax levy, a remaining shortfall of approximately $1,100,000 would persist.

McPhillips outlined reductions (including removal of several vacant positions totaling roughly $1.2 million) and additions across four categories — safety, operational, enrollment, and program enhancements — totaling about $757,000. He said projected food-service carryover and other one-time adjustments reduce the pressure this year but cautioned the board about a multiyear cumulative deficit projection of roughly $10.3 million over the next four years if no structural solutions are found.

On capital needs, the business office recommended a bus proposition to replace nine buses (the ‘‘9-bus’’ proposition), estimated gross cost near $1.6 million and a net cost after state aid of about $579,800 over a five-year payback. McPhillips described options for mixes of electric-vehicle (EV) and diesel buses and noted long lead times (roughly 11–12 months) for delivery. He also explained that scrappage tied to certain EV grant programs can reduce secondary-market sales revenue, leading the business office to propose removing an anticipated $135,000 of bus-sale revenue from the 26–27 projections.

Board members debated EV reliability and policy trade-offs. One board member described recent EV operational problems, saying EVs have been unavailable at times for routes. Another board member emphasized health and environmental reasons to continue adopting EVs and urged placing at least one EV bus on the ballot as a measured step. The chair and several members supported the business office recommendation for nine diesel buses this year because of operational concerns; the board’s stated direction at the meeting was to proceed with the 9-bus diesel proposition while allowing further consideration for EVs in future procurements.

The board also discussed operating-budget choices. The most substantial proposed addition was an elementary instructional coach to expand embedded coaching across K–5; several members supported including the coach, while others cautioned that ongoing personnel additions create recurring obligations in future years. After discussion, the board adopted a majority direction to include the instructional coach among the recommended additions, approve the proposed reductions, and use undesignated fund balance to cover the immediate shortfall rather than exceeding the tax cap for this year.

McPhillips outlined next steps and deadlines: he will prepare the authorizing resolution for the April 1 meeting, the public hearing on the proposed budget is scheduled for May 6, and the budget vote is set for May 19 (7 a.m.–9 p.m. at the high school). He also noted that the district will work with bond counsel to finalize ballot language for the bus proposition and that petitions for three board seats and one library trustee are due to the district clerk by April 20 at 5 p.m.

The board split and voted on several action items later in the meeting: finance item 1 was approved, finance item 2 was tabled for follow-up, professional personnel and support personnel action items were approved, and other action items were carried as recommended.