Eastchester trustees weigh lower bus‑mile options to avert mass layoffs ahead of June 16 revote

Eastchester Union Free School District Superintendent Dr. Villanueva outlined to the board on June 1 how different outcomes on the June 16 revote would affect staff cuts, transportation and community programs.

Dr. Villanueva said the district reduced its proposed tax levy from an initial 6.31% to a 2.35% proposal and now faces a $4,122,766 gap. To close that gap the district considered multiple options: one scenario relied heavily on personnel reductions (as many as 32.9 full‑time equivalents), while another pairs smaller staff cuts with transportation‑related savings. "This is the worst‑case scenario," Dr. Villanueva said, describing a contingency budget that would occur if the 2.35% levy fails.

The June 16 ballot will carry two questions: approval of the 2.35% school budget and a separate transportation‑mileage proposition that would change eligibility for bus service. Dr. Villanueva reviewed New York State mileage guidance (2 miles for kindergarten–8 and 3 miles for grades 9–12) and contrasted it with Eastchester’s current, more generous rules (about 0.25 miles for early elementary, 0.4 miles for intermediate grades and 0.8 for secondary grades). He said adopting state guidance could capture roughly $2.28 million under earlier estimates; a mid‑road option (high school 2.0 miles, elementary 1.5 miles) was estimated to save about $2 million while preserving transportation for more families than the state maximum.

Trustee Rob Krakowski reported the district received 228 community communications during the prior week — including 18 emails supporting a teacher, 17 supporting the budget, 86 asking questions about the revote and 34 about the bus proposal — and urged continued dialogue. "We received over two or a total of 228 communications from the community," Krakowski said, summarizing the engagement.

Dr. Villanueva emphasized distinctions between the two ballot questions: passing the 2.35% levy is the single action that prevents a contingency (0%) budget; the transportation proposition is separate and, if approved, would reduce the number of layoffs required to reach the target savings. He said one outcome would maintain roughly 29.9 FTE reductions already planned, while the combination of the budget and a favorable transportation outcome could limit additional reductions to about 4.5 FTE.

The superintendent also reviewed other fiscal details the public asked about: state foundation aid was recently adjusted from 1% to 2%, which Dr. Villanueva said increases Eastchester’s estimated foundation aid from about $112,000 to roughly $224,000 next year; expense‑based state aid, he noted, fluctuates with the district’s spending and comes a year in arrears. Dr. Villanueva said the district is pursuing conversations with state legislators for possible one‑time aid but called any such money "not guaranteed."

On personnel issues, Dr. Villanueva explained the PEL (preferred eligibility list) that governs recalls after reductions in force: laid‑off certified staff may remain eligible for recall for up to seven years if positions open in their certification area. He also described program reductions already under consideration, including elimination of all second modified teams, freshman teams and cuts to some arts and specialty high‑school courses.

Trustees pressed operational and community implications. When Trustee Christine asked whether the state could "override" local mileage policy, Dr. Villanueva replied the state would not set local mileage but could require the district to maximize bus capacity if in contingency; that operational approach could lengthen routes and increase ride times. On the effect of a contingency budget on community groups, Dr. Villanueva warned that state rules would require charging full fees for facility rentals, potentially making local use by Little League, Girl Scouts and other organizations financially infeasible; he gave an example that full cost recovery could equate to roughly $65,000 for an organization’s seasonal use under contingency charging rules.

Trustees also asked about procurement and contracts for bus service. Dr. Villanueva said the district does not own its fleet and typically runs multi‑year contracts (4–5 years) with private bus companies; the current contracting structure allows some flexibility to adjust fleet size. A trustee asked whether the ballot could present two mileage options for voters; Dr. Villanueva said that is atypical, would require legal review, and the board faces strict 30‑day ballot‑preparation deadlines.

Next steps: the district plans a moderated community Q&A (virtual) on June 4, a budget hearing on June 9 and the revote on June 16. Dr. Villanueva urged continued public engagement and said the board may consider amendments to the transportation proposition before finalizing ballot language.

What happens next: if voters approve the 2.35% levy, the district avoids a contingency budget; if they also approve the transportation proposition or a compromise mileage amendment, the district could substantially reduce the number of layoffs. If the levy fails, the district would face a 0% contingency budget with wider program reductions and stricter rental fees for community users.