New Rochelle schools propose 3.95% tax-levy override, plan up to 200 staff reductions to close $20.2 million gap

The New Rochelle City School District presented a draft 2025-26 budget proposal that would increase the property tax levy by 3.95% and reduce the district workforce by up to 200 full-time equivalent positions to close a budget shortfall the administration quantified as roughly $20,216,317.

Superintendent Dr. Reynolds said the district ‘‘is faced with a $20,200,000 hole in our budget to fill’’ and described the shortfall as the product of multiple factors including rising transportation and health insurance costs, changes to the state foundation aid formula and the end of one-time federal pandemic-era grants. Dr. Reynolds said the district is ‘‘planning for what we know now’’ while continuing advocacy to state lawmakers in Albany.

The draft budget forecasts a total operating budget in the roughly $359 million–$360 million range. Assistant Superintendent for Business Carlos Leal and Business Administrator Joy Mike laid out specifics: the draft assumes a 3.95% levy (which the presenters noted requires a 60% voter approval as an override), would rebalance class sizes, implement a two-tiered elementary bus schedule to reduce transportation runs, and shrink contracted services and overtime. Leal said the district expects the proposed package to close a $20,216,317 gap; draft documents presented a proposed tax levy of $240,741,929 and a projected tax rate of about $901.48 per $1,000 of assessed value.

The administration said the workforce reductions—described as a ‘‘middle’’ estimate—could affect up to 200 positions across categories including classroom teachers and teacher assistants, building operations and support staff (clerical, custodial, lunch monitors), district administrators and district operational support (technology, trades). Leal presented a categorical snapshot showing proposed reductions equal to roughly 10.2% of current district positions in the summed scenario. The administration emphasized that special-education classrooms are protected by law and would not be reduced.

The presentation also described a planned transportation change intended to save an estimated $2.5 million annually by staggering elementary start times so contracted buses can complete two runs instead of more. The district said some before- and after-school providers are in discussions to align with the staggered schedule. Administrators warned that if voters reject the proposed budget and a revised budget also fails, the district would be required to adopt a contingency budget that would limit the tax levy to the previous year’s amount and could force deeper cuts and restrictions on community use of school facilities.

Public commenters at the meeting voiced concerns about the fiscal choices and the human impact of layoffs. Latilla Tanner, who identified herself as a district employee and taxpayer, urged the board to examine outside contracts and legal fees before cutting local jobs. A resident who gave his name as Mr. Malfitano urged unions to consider concessions; Keith Singletary urged the board to preserve ‘‘high quality’’ instruction as class sizes change. Administrators said they are notifying bargaining units and will follow statutory layoff/recall rights.

Votes at a glance: the board took routine procedural votes on meeting business during the session. Motions recorded in the meeting transcript that were approved included a motion to go into executive session to discuss employment history (mover: Vega; second: Louis; outcome: approved), reconvening the public session (mover: Castellano Minaya; second: Ross; outcome: approved), acceptance of several sets of minutes dated 02/04/2025, 02/11/2025 (Committee of the Whole) and 02/25/2025 (movers and seconds noted in transcript; all approved), and approval of consent-agenda personnel and general resolutions (personnel resolutions 25-2891–25-2911 and 25-2921–25-293? as read from the transcript; general resolutions 25-293–25-305; outcome: approved). The transcript records motions but does not provide roll-call tallies for these routine approvals.

The administration emphasized that even with additional state aid, they expect reductions will be necessary without voter support for the override. Leal and Joy Mike presented a timeline: the board will adopt a budget in March, hold a public budget hearing in May, and the district’s voters would decide on May 20; the budget would take effect July 1 if approved.

The district encouraged the community to submit questions by email and to contact state legislators to advocate for changes to the foundation-aid formula. The presenters told the board and the public that while one-time federal funds helped mask structural issues after the pandemic, the district must now make long-term corrective changes rather than short-term ‘‘band-aid’’ fixes.

Closing: Administrators said they plan follow-up budget presentations and line-item detail in subsequent meetings; board members asked for further breakdowns of functional budget codes and of the proposed personnel reductions if and when legally permissible.