Mahopac board rejects awarding universal pre-K vendor contracts after debate over funding and rent waiver

The Mahopac Central School District Board of Education voted against awarding vendor contracts for the district’s new universal pre-kindergarten program on March 19, after trustees and members of the public pressed administrators on program costs, provider payments and facility leases.

Superintendent Christine Tona said the district planned to run 148 UPK seats by lottery and that the program would be “truly at no cost to our taxpayers,” funded with a state-designated UPK line. She told the board that the district set the per-student payment in the request-for-proposal at $5,400 — the state limit cited in the presentation — and that providers who could not operate at that rate were not awarded contracts.

The motion to award the vendor contracts (item Y on the consent agenda) prompted questions about whether UPK providers would be charged rent for use of district space. Trustee Lucy asked whether the district was accepting an income loss by waiving rent; she said she was concerned that the board had not fully considered the revenue impact. “I was finding out tonight that there is now an income loss also,” Lucy said during the debate.

Resident Marie Frankl, speaking during public comment, had earlier voiced broader objections to the expansion, telling the board: “Financially and philosophically, I sort of don’t agree with it.” Frankl questioned how a program reimbursed at $5,400 per child could be sustainable when private providers in the area charge “somewhere around $10,000 a child.”

Administrators said logistics were in place for a first-year launch if the board approved the awards: parents would provide transportation and meals, UPK would be hosted at Mahopac Falls School where preschool providers already operate, and awards were contingent on providers meeting state facility and program criteria. The superintendent said some providers combine UPK seats with full-tuition students and that rent arrangements could be prorated for non-UPK children.

When the board took a roll-call vote, recorded comments in the transcript show Trustee Monaghan saying “No,” while Trustee Fafaro and Trustee DeLillo recorded “Yes”; several other trustees’ votes were spoken but not cleanly recorded in the public transcript. The president announced that “the motion does not carry.”

Board members discussed next steps: whether to revisit the question of charging rent to providers, whether to issue a new RFP if state UPK funding rises, and how to communicate timing to families. Administrators noted state deadlines tied to UPK implementation (applications and a lottery timeline were described) and said they would provide updated information on the district website.

The vote leaves the district without awarded UPK providers for the 2024–25 school year at this time; board members indicated they may return to the item for further discussion and possible rework of provider terms.

What’s next: administrators said they will follow up with the board on provider-rent policy and next procedural steps; the transcript records the board discussing further deliberation but no new action was taken that night.