Sachem board narrows budget response, removes school‑closure option and directs administration to pursue Option 2

The Sachem Central School District board on Wednesday removed from consideration an option to close an elementary school and directed administration to pursue a revised budget plan the district said would close a $6.5 million shortfall.

Administrators presented three options to close the gap; the board voted to remove “Option 3,” the plan that included closing an elementary school and recognizing rental income from that closure, and then asked administration to move forward with “Option 2” while the district awaits updated state aid numbers and further detail on voter approval for a transportation change.

District officials said all three options are designed to close a $6.5 million gap the board discussed last week. The package the board endorsed for further work (Option 2) combines proposed program reductions and revenue changes the administration said would reduce the deficit without closing a school immediately.

Why it matters: The district projects a multi‑million dollar shortfall driven in part by lower enrollment and uncertainty in state aid, and trustees said they want changes the community can sustain without repeatedly restoring and cutting services. The board’s decision removes the option of an immediate elementary closure for the upcoming review cycle but directs officials to continue planning possible building consolidations for later years.

Most important facts

- The administration presented three options to close a $6.5 million gap. Option 1 and Option 2 share a set of cuts and revenue changes; Option 3 added the closure of an elementary school and related rental income. The board voted to remove Option 3 as a choice.

- The administration told trustees it will place a proposition on the ballot to revise the district’s transportation distance policy; the district estimates that change could save about $1.75 million if voters approve it. Under the proposal, the K–8 threshold would change so that students living more than 1 mile from school (instead of the current 0.5 mile) would qualify for transportation; for 9–12 the proposal would create a 1.5‑mile threshold for eligibility. District staff said these proposed limits are about half the state maximums cited by the administration.

- Other line items shared across the options include eliminating late middle‑school activity buses (estimated savings $740,000), increasing elementary class sizes by two students (an administrative estimate that would eliminate eight full‑time equivalent positions), reducing materials and supplies districtwide by 25% (administration estimated $586,000 in savings for supplies), and using contracted security at some high‑school athletic events rather than all chaperones.

- Option 2 differs from Option 1 by converting several multi‑year IT license agreements to one‑year agreements to gain roughly $498,000 in immediate savings; staff said the change increases annual costs after the one year but preserves near‑term budget relief.

- The administration reported updated fund‑balance projections and said the district expects to use appropriated fund balance and proceeds from the anticipated sale of the Union Avenue property as part of its fiscal plan. The administration said the state has approved demolition permits for the Union Avenue building and the town of Brookhaven will handle demolition under an agreement; sale proceeds were discussed as a source to pay consultants to study longer‑term building consolidation/redistricting.

Board discussion and votes

Board members debated the fairness of cutting transportation for families who pay taxes but choose private or parochial schools, the educational impact of increasing class sizes and the difficulty of repeatedly cutting programs. Several trustees said they preferred Option 2 as a way to preserve flexibility while staff seeks voter support for the transportation proposition and waits for a second run of state aid estimates. One trustee urged the board to prepare materials modeling the effect of seeking a temporary override of the tax‑cap (a so‑called “pierce the cap” scenario) so the community could compare outcomes.

The board formally removed Option 3 from consideration and, after discussion, directed administration to proceed on the package represented by Option 2 with the caveat that the board will revisit the plan once final state aid numbers arrive and additional detail is available about voter outcomes and other adjustments.

Public comment and next steps

Dozens of residents and PTA leaders spoke during public comment, urging transparency, asking for reinstatement of a formal school‑closure policy (policy 7,800), and asking trustees to press state lawmakers for changes to how districts are funded and to short‑term borrowing rules. Several speakers also urged the board to consider the implications for students with special needs before any school consolidation.

Administration said it will provide the board with additional financial scenarios next week, including comparisons of one‑time tax‑cap override options and the projected household tax impact for at least one option that would close the full gap. The board also asked staff to provide the exact counts of students who would lose busing under the proposed transportation thresholds and to return with details about the one‑year IT licensing approach and any renegotiation efforts.

The board’s action does not finalize a budget; trustees said the district will continue to refine numbers, pursue state and legislative advocacy, and ask voters to consider the transportation proposition as one element of the budget strategy.