Sachem board faces $6.5 million gap; considers school closure, transportation vote and program cuts

Sachem Central School District officials told the Board of Education on Feb. 26 that the district’s required operating budget for 2025–26 stands at about $380.4 million, creating an immediate shortfall and prompting consideration of program cuts, changes to transportation eligibility and the possible closure of a school.

Budget presenter Michelle Sarakis said, "The proposed tax levy for the 2526 school year, we're looking at a 2.2005% increase. That is within the tax cap. We are not looking to pierce." She told the board the proposed levy must be submitted to the state comptroller by March 1 and can be revised if there are material changes.

The district projects roughly $378.6 million in revenue against $380.4 million in expenditures, leaving a revenue gap of about $1.8 million under the draft that includes only required and mandatory expenditures. Sarakis told the board that when discretionary items excluded from the draft — athletics, many clubs and arts-in-education programs, and certain field-trip transportation — are added back, the shortfall increases to about $6.5 million.

Why it matters

Board members said the shortfall forces hard choices for programs that affect students across the district. The administration presented a set of potential reductions aimed at closing the gap in 2025–26 and lowering recurring costs thereafter, and urged the board to decide on timelines for any action that requires voter approval or state notification.

Key figures and drivers

- Total proposed budget: $380,400,000 (1.63% budget-to-budget increase). - Projected revenues: $378,600,000. - Gap on required/mandated line items: ~$1,800,000. - Gap if discretionary items are restored: ~$6,500,000. - Projected state aid in the draft: about $140,000,000 (awaiting final state budget). - Appropriated fund balance (surplus) currently estimated at roughly $11,000,000 based on January reports.

Sarakis and staff identified programs and cost drivers that are already included or rising in the draft. Salary projections for 2025–26 were presented at roughly $177.4 million for about 1,900 staff, a 1.22% increase over the current year that already factors retirements and replacements. Special education and BOCES placements and services are among the largest non-salary drivers; Sarakis noted a roughly $1.7 million increase in BOCES placements and a $384,000 increase in private-placement tuition within special education codes.

Proposed reductions and expected savings

Administration outlined specific proposals and estimated savings for 2025–26: - Increase elementary class size by two students: ~$800,000 savings. - Eliminate middle school clubs and late buses: ~$740,000 savings. - Eliminate certain middle school sports (gymnastics, swimming, girls and boys tennis): ~$42,100 savings. - Combine junior varsity and varsity high school teams (consolidation of North and East teams): ~$1,051,000 savings (administration later cautioned this figure does not yet account for added travel/busing costs between campuses). - Revise transportation eligibility by voter proposition (raise some distance thresholds to reduce bus eligibility): potential recurring savings of ~$1,750,000 if voters approve; the proposition would need to appear on the ballot and would only apply if approved.

Larger structural options presented included closing an elementary or middle school. Administration estimated closing an elementary building could save roughly $2,000,000 and produce about $600,000 in potential recurring rental revenue if the building were leased. Closing a middle school could save about $3,200,000 with about $1,500,000 in potential rental revenue. The administration said those larger options would require redistricting and would be phased rather than immediate.

Board response and priorities

Board members debated which cuts to accept, noting programmatic and community impacts. Several trustees argued against consolidating high school identities and varsity programs, saying it would take years to rebuild participation and could remove constructive after-school options for students. Others urged focusing on transportation eligibility and reduced bus runs as a major recurring savings that would minimize program losses.

Timing and next steps

- Sarakis said the district must file the proposed tax levy with the state comptroller by March 1. - Budget presentations are scheduled March 12 and March 26; the board must adopt a budget by April 9, hold a budget hearing May 7 and the budget vote is set for May 20. - The administration flagged that if the board seeks to close a building for 2025–26 it must notify the state by March 1; naming a target school was discussed at the meeting.

Board action taken

The board voted to suspend Policy 7-800 (the district policy governing a formal, multi-step process for closing facilities) so administration could proceed on an expedited timeline. The suspension was passed by the board at the meeting. Administration and trustees discussed naming a target building for state notification; administration indicated that, without a redistricting plan, Merrimack Elementary was the practical option to report for further review by the state.

Votes at a glance (major items recorded at the Feb. 26 meeting) - Approval of minutes (Feb. 5): motion passed (all in favor). - Consent agendas (multiple items: business, personnel, contracts, donations, CSE matters): motions passed (all in favor). - Settlement of litigation (agenda item): motion passed (all in favor). - Suspension of Policy 7-800 (closing of facilities): motion passed (board vote recorded at the meeting).

What the board asked administration to provide

Trustees requested details the administration said it would provide publicly: bus-utilization counts, the number of private/parochial students who would lose district-provided transportation under proposed limits, cost breakdowns for multiyear IT contracts (including annualized comparisons), and maps showing the geographic effect of any transportation-limit proposition so voters can see which addresses would be affected.

Context

Board members and administration framed the conversation as part of a wider funding question they said needs state-level action: trustees noted differences in state aid among districts they called similarly situated and urged collective advocacy for more equitable aid. The district’s legislative and advocacy committee said it will pursue outreach to state representatives and hold a public advocacy push following the meeting.

Ending

The board left the meeting with a short window to act: the tax-levy filing deadline and the state-notification deadline for a possible facility closure both fall in early March. Trustees scheduled further budget work and asked administration to circulate tentative meeting dates to finalize decisions before the budget adoption timeline.