Sachem board reviews $381.6 million spending plan, weighs cuts, reserves and tax-levy options

The Sachem Central School District board on Wednesday reviewed a proposed $381,600,000 expenditure budget for 2025–26 and discussed a menu of reductions, use of reserves and tax‑levy scenarios to close a remaining gap.

The district’s staff presented what they described as the updated baseline and the changes since the February 26 presentation. “We are at $381,600,000 expenditure budget right now,” the district presenter said, adding salaries were the largest single category at $178,400,000 and employee benefits were budgeted at about $97,000,000.

District administrators said the proposed tax levy would rise 2.2005% under the board’s current plan and that figure is within the state tax‑levy cap. “We are not looking to pierce on this tax levy,” the presenter said. Board members also reviewed a scenario that would pierce the cap and restore many cuts: staff said a 5.21% tax levy would close the immediate gap but would require a supermajority vote and still leave the district appropriating fund balance.

Why it matters: The presentation showed the district balancing choices among program reductions, transferring $9 million to capital projects, using an anticipated $12 million of year‑end surplus and reserving money against a Proposition 2 transportation question that must go to voters. Board members and residents pressed for details about how the cuts would affect programs, what reserves remain and whether any restored spending should be targeted to classroom teachers or to extracurriculars.

Key figures and options - Expenditure budget presented: $381,600,000. - Salaries: $178,400,000 (about a 1.8% budget‑to‑budget increase shown by staff). - Employee benefits: about $97,000,000 (staff noted a 0.08% increase). - Revenues shown in the presentation: $379,800,000, leaving a $1,750,000 shortfall connected to a transportation Proposition 2 that must be voter‑approved. - Anticipated appropriation from fund balance: $12,000,000 (staff said this is an estimate made from current underspending and unanticipated revenue). - Underspending/unanticipated items presented: an estimated $7,100,000 surplus on expenditures and about $4,900,000 in unanticipated revenue as of the end of the prior month, district staff said. - Transfer to capital shown in the levy: $9,000,000; staff said removing that transfer does not reduce the budget gap because capital transfers are excluded from the levy calculation and would require a revenue offset.

Board concerns and public questions Board members repeatedly returned to the size and sustainability of reserves and to a 2017 Office of the New York State Comptroller report the board said had previously warned the district about relying on reserves. Several board members said continued use of reserves without structural reductions risks repeating past problems.

“How would that affect us in coming years? Because we don’t wanna be here every year,” a board member asked during the discussion, reflecting concerns about repeated appropriations from fund balance. District staff explained that although the district currently holds more than $52 million in reserves overall, much of that sum is restricted to specific uses (for example, workers’ compensation and retirement liabilities) and only a portion is available for general appropriation.

Board members also pushed staff for more scenario runs showing different levy percentages and for priorities if the board decides to seek additional revenue. One board member asked administration to show what partial piercings (for example 3.5%) would restore versus what a full 5.21% pierce would restore.

Program changes under discussion Administrators and the board described a list of proposed reductions that had been pulled together after a prior special meeting. Those reductions included elimination or consolidation of some non‑mandated extracurriculars, revised staffing structures, reductions to certain facilities and supply lines and changes to athletic participation and travel practices. Staff said the board had previously selected “option 2” reductions and those were reflected in the current $381.6 million figure.

Examples discussed in public comment and by staff included: trimming invitational travel for some middle‑school and JV teams, combining girls’ swimming teams at some sites, eliminating girls’ gymnastics at a school with low enrollment, reducing practice days for some programs and eliminating some late‑bus runs. Administrators emphasized that some items (for example transportation limits tied to a Proposition 2) require voter approval.

Class sizes, closures and capital projects Several board members and parents raised an additional concern: proposed changes to elementary staffing that could raise class sizes. One parent and union/teacher advocates warned that higher class sizes could push more students into special‑education services (and thus increase future costs). Board members discussed the district’s long‑term enrollment trend and acknowledged that a demographic study and possible school‑closure analysis would begin in June 2025 if the board ultimately pursues consolidation; staff estimated potential one‑time closure costs in the low millions depending on the building.

On capital spending, staff presented a $9 million list of projects they said the district needs to maintain building condition. The business official reiterated that removing capital transfers from the proposed levy would not close the operating budget gap because capital amounts are excluded in the levy calculation.

Public response and next steps Public comment at the meeting focused heavily on extracurriculars, student mental‑health services, transportation and class size proposals (see separate article on athletics and public comment). The board scheduled additional workshops and flagged March 26 and April 9 as key budget dates: March 26 for additional budget discussion and April 9 for tentative adoption (with the legal date for adoption later in April if the state adjustments require it). The annual budget vote is scheduled for May 20.

The board took a series of routine approvals later in the agenda, including approval of meeting minutes and a package of consent items; those votes were recorded as carried.

Ending: The board emphasized the process remains active. Several members urged patience and participation while staff run additional levy scenarios and more detailed line‑by‑line information is prepared for future meetings. The board said it will continue reviewing both revenue and structural changes until the adoption deadline.