Sachem budget draft keeps levy under cap but relies on reserves and uncertain state aid

Budget Draft No. 5 presented to the Sachem Central School District Board of Education on March 26 proposes a tax-cap–compliant tax levy increase of 2.2005 percent and a $380.9 million spending plan that relies in part on transfers to capital and anticipated, but not guaranteed, revenues.

Business official Michelle Serakis told the board the levy submitted to the state comptroller on March 1 includes a $9 million transfer to capital. She said removing that transfer would also require removing the $9 million of revenue and therefore would not close the district’s projected budget gap.

Serakis said the district has not yet received a final state budget. The district is planning for a reported 83-student drop in the BEDS (Basic Educational Data System) enrollment count that underlies foundation-aid allocations; Serakis said the district reduced its foundation-aid projection by about $559,000 to reflect that possible enrollment change. She characterized that reduction as a proactive adjustment in case the state budget is delayed or final numbers differ from the governor’s proposal.

The business official also said the district removed $1 million of E-Rate reimbursements from the revenue side because the reimbursement is not guaranteed and must pass a review by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC). Serakis told the board that accepting E‑Rate funds could jeopardize other cooperative funding through Eastern Suffolk BOCES and therefore the district removed the line until funding certainty arrives.

Serakis described other revenue changes: interest earnings were restored to $3 million based on stronger-than-expected recent performance, and the budget includes $21,000 in donations earmarked for specific programs. On the expenditure side, the largest line item remains salaries at about $178 million (a 1.89 percent increase). The draft trims BOCES commitments, particularly technology items, after closer review of usage and portal access, and restores some coaching stipends that will be funded in part by donations.

Nut graf: The draft aims to balance the immediate year’s budget while flagging several risks — a possible $559,000 foundation-aid shortfall tied to enrollment, an uncertain E‑Rate reimbursement that was removed from revenues, and a proposal (Proposition 2) that would change transportation limits and save about $1.75 million if approved by voters. If Proposition 2 fails, the district’s plan as presented uses roughly $11.9 million of appropriated fund balance plus about $1.75 million of restricted reserves in the near term, increasing reliance on reserves to cover recurring operating costs.

Board questions and clarifications

Board members pressed for detail on specific lines. Serakis explained a projected $867,000 reduction in “public high cost excess cost” aid — the state reimbursement for very high-cost special-education placements — and said this reflects both an increased state threshold (the amount after which the state aids expenses) and a declining state share as the district’s wealth ratio has changed.

The board discussed reductions of about 16 full-time-equivalent positions in the draft, changes to custodial substitute and unemployment budgets, and modifications to chaperoning and after‑school security arrangements. Serakis and other administrators said the district expects some underspending this fiscal year (she estimated about $6 million on the expenditure side plus $6–7 million in unanticipated revenues) but warned that unanticipated revenue is not guaranteed year to year.

BOCES Arts & Education and PTA donations

A major topic of the discussion was BOCES Arts & Education funding and how PTA donations interact with BOCES aid. Serakis said BOCES officials had previously told the district PTA donations were not aidable but then told the district, after consulting attorneys, that PTA donations could be aidable and BOCES would be able to provide aid on prior-year expenditures (roughly 51 percent). She explained the mechanics: historically the district budgeted the full Arts & Education allotment and PTAs donated afterwards; if the district budgets only the expected BOCES aid and PTAs supply the remainder, PTA donations would need to be collected and accepted earlier in the year so the district can pay contracted programs when bills arrive.

Several PTA leaders in public comment and at the meeting urged the board not to remove the Arts & Education line because prior-year expenditures feed into the aid formula and cutting the district line could eliminate programs that are effectively funded in part through BOCES aid and PTA donations.

Tax levy scenarios and reserves

Serakis presented alternative levy scenarios that would “pierce” the tax cap: a 3.5 percent scenario would raise about $2.7 million more than the cap‑compliant levy and reduce the district’s reliance on reserves; a 3.7 percent scenario would yield slightly more. Board members repeatedly noted that even a pierced levy at those levels would not fix the district’s multi-year structural gap (administrators said the district faces roughly $10–13 million of recurring shortfall pressures in coming years) and cautioned against using reserves for day‑to‑day operations.

Votes at a glance (routine approvals recorded later in the meeting) - Minutes: Board approved the prior meeting minutes (motion carried). - Consent agendas: The board approved revised consent agenda items (motions carried) and personnel consent agendas for teachers, support staff and administrators (motions carried). - Contracts and donations: The board approved contract items and accepted several donations that restored some extracurricular stipends and senior‑trip aid; motions carried. - Field trips and CSE reports: Field trips and Committee on Special Education items were approved (motions carried).

Ending

Administrators told the board they can provide a more detailed list of reductions and an updated breakdown of one‑time versus recurring revenues and recommended mitigations ahead of the planned budget adoption meeting on April 9 (the board may adopt as late as April 22). The board scheduled an additional tentative meeting on April 2 to review follow‑up materials. The district emphasized that final state aid, voter decisions on transport proposition(s), and unanticipated revenues will materially affect fund‑balance decisions for 2025–26.