Byram Hills proposes $107.3 million budget; officials warn tax-rate shifts will vary by town

Byram Hills Central School District officials on March 25 presented a proposed $107,327,289 budget for the 2025–26 school year, a 3.73% increase over the current $103,464,726 budget, and said the district plans to use $1.7 million in reserves to help balance the plan.

District staff told the board that the district will seek the maximum allowable tax-levy increase of 2.43% next year and outlined why homeowners in the district's four towns can expect very different tax-rate changes even though the dollar increase in the levy is spread across the whole district.

The presentation matters because the district collects roughly 88% of its revenue from property taxes, and the state's equalization rates determine how the levy is apportioned among North Castle, Mount Pleasant, New Castle and Bedford. Board members and administrators said those statewide equalization changes caused a large shift in full value in North Castle over the past three years and a substantial drop in full value this year, moving a bigger share of the tax burden to the other towns even with the same districtwide levy.

At the hearing, Kelly Seibert (staff member) summarized the budget figures and calendar. "Our budget this year, $103,464,726 and our proposed budget for 25 26, 107327289 dollars, budget to budget increase of 3.73%," she said. Seibert also told the board that the district expects the tax-levy maximum for 2025–26 to be 2.43%, which she described as an increase of about $2.2 million in levy capacity.

Administrators walked the board through major spending and revenue lines. Rob Costagna, director of athletics, said the athletics portion of the budget supports 20 sports, about 60 teams, roughly 100 coaches and one athletic trainer; new turf field construction will drive a portion of near-term equipment purchases such as goals, benches and safety padding. "The 2526 proposed budget supports all of the programs that are currently in place," Costagna said.

John Baxter, the district's operations and maintenance lead, outlined projected capital and maintenance work: replacement of the roof above the recently renovated learning commons, paving projects, courtyard adjustments, LED lighting and an on-campus turf field expected to begin construction within weeks. On the district's capital asset preservation account, Baxter said the current $1.1 million allocation "has kept us on track" but acknowledged the district must prioritize and sometimes defer projects based on emergent needs.

Phil Peterson, transportation, described an extensive fleet and out-of-district routes that drive costs: 83 vehicles in the fleet, 59 AM/PM drivers, three mechanics and long runs that can exceed 40 miles each way for some special-education placements. Peterson said rising toll, fuel, parts and shipping costs are key drivers of his departmental increases and that vehicle replacement is focused on rotten or end-of-life units rather than fleet expansion.

On revenue and reserves, Seibert reviewed the district's reserve accounts and fund balance. Highlights presented to the board included a capital reserve balance near $5 million (after about $2 million in spending to date on the learning commons and field), a tax-surcharge reserve of about $4.2 million, an insurance reserve around $678,000, and a total fund balance and reserves of about $15.5 million as of the presentation. Seibert said the district plans to apply roughly $1.7 million of reserves and fund balance in 2025–26 to help close the gap between revenue and proposed spending and cautioned that repeated reliance on reserves is not sustainable.

Seibert and board members spent time explaining how New York State's equalization rates affect the calculation of each town's share of the tax levy. She illustrated that the full-market value in North Castle rose sharply in recent years and will show a big decrease this year (a roughly $472 million drop in full value), producing larger percentage increases in the other towns' tax rates even if districtwide spending increases modestly.

Seibert summarized the schedule for budget actions: Budget hearing No. 4 on April 8, a final review on May 6, budget adoption at the May 22 board meeting and the public budget vote on May 20 at HCC. She encouraged residents with questions to contact district staff.

Votes at a glance: the board approved several routine motions during the meeting, including adoption of the March 25 agenda, approval of the consent agenda (personnel and CSE/CPSE recommendations), approval of the 2025–26 school-board meeting calendar and an amended approval of board minutes from March 11. Vote tallies were not read into the record beyond the customary "All in favor?" confirmations and were recorded in the minutes as approved.

What's next: Board members will continue budget-review sessions, with the next public hearing on April 8 and the budget vote scheduled for May 20. District staff will finalize state aid and other revenue items before adoption and monitor reserve usage going forward.

(Reporting note: all figures and quotes in this report come from the March 25 board meeting presentation and public discussion.)