The Pelham Union Free School District Board of Education received an early briefing on district finances and budget planning during its Oct. 21 meeting, with administration and finance committee members urging prudence and tax-cap compliance in the 2026–27 budget amid rising program costs.

Finance staff presented early data showing long-term cost pressures, including sustained increases in special education spending, transportation costs and employee benefit expenses. Presenters said the district’s transportation budget has grown from under $1 million a decade ago to more than $2 million annually and that medical insurance costs have ticked up sharply in the last two to three years.

“Need has increased over the years,” the finance presentation said, showing a rise in student need factors — economically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities and English language learners — from roughly 680 (10 years ago) to about 780 in the most recent year. Finance committee members said increased need requires additional resources even while the district operates under New York’s property tax levy limit (often called the tax cap).

Finance presenter Jim (title not specified) said early indicators suggest Pelham should not expect additional ongoing state aid and that one-time federal pandemic funding levels will not recur. He briefed the board on the district’s long-range planning process, revenue assumptions, and the use of fund balance in recent budgets. The district’s first-quarter forecast anticipates about a $1 million drawdown of fund balance at year end, Jim said.

Facing those pressures, the finance committee’s guidance to the board was clear: remain tax-cap compliant while preserving instructional programs where feasible. “The overall discussion, the guidance was really, let’s stay tax cap compliant,” one board member summarized during the meeting.

District leaders also provided a capital update tied to borrowing for the voter-approved capital improvement bond. Board materials noted that architects estimate more than $99,000,000 in bond projects and said building aid currently stands at roughly 51.5% for eligible portions; presenters said they expect more than 70% of the $99,000,000 in projects to qualify for aid. The district said it is working with capital market advisors to design borrowing and review timing, and that some projects (Prospect Hill roof replacement) include historic-preservation-minded materials recommendations (slate).

Board members discussed the potential for other districts to “pierce” the tax cap and for some to have already taken such action. Several trustees cautioned against large-scale staffing reductions, describing them as “painful” measures to be avoided if possible.

Administration outlined next steps and calendar items: budget requests to departments, internal reviews in January and February, superintendent’s presentation in February and continued committee work through May. The board said they will finalize long-range assumptions (health-care cost trend, interest-rate assumptions, collective bargaining assumptions) and return to the board with a public long-range plan prior to formal budget adoption.

Formal actions: The meeting adjourned by voice vote at the end of the session; a motion to adjourn was moved and seconded and the motion carried by voice vote.

Ending: No budget resolution or tax-levy decision was made at the Oct. 21 meeting; the session provided early guidance and data to inform the 2026–27 budget development process.