Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Byram Hills board weighs 4.99% vs. 5.25% tax‑levy scenarios as part of 2026–27 budget
Summary
At a March 24 budget hearing, district finance staff outlined a budget with a projected 1.0% year‑to‑year decrease and presented four tax‑levy options. The board signaled a tentative preference for a 4.99% levy but did not adopt a final motion; the budget adoption is scheduled for April with a May 19 voter referendum if needed.
Byram Hills Central School District finance officials presented the district’s 2026–27 budget at a March 24 board hearing, telling trustees the plan reflects a budget‑to‑budget decrease of about 1.0% and relies heavily on local property taxes.
Kelly (district finance lead) said 92% of the district’s revenue comes from local real‑property taxes and that the budget originally budgeted to use $5.5 million from reserves and fund balance but now estimates using about $3.7 million, which would leave reserves around $2.57 million heading into 2026–27. “We are scheduled [to be] budgeted to use $5.5 million from reserves and fund balance this year,” Kelly said during the presentation.
The presentation walked trustees through four tax‑levy scenarios. Two headline options — a 4.99% levy and a 5.25% levy — were compared in town‑by‑town terms. Officials showed the difference between those two rates would amount to roughly $2 on the example $1 million market‑value home for North Castle (approximately $720 vs. $750 in annual taxes under the two scenarios), though presenters cautioned that assessed‑to‑market ratios vary by town.
Board members discussed the tradeoffs between preserving programing and replenishing reserves. One board member urged caution about continued reliance on fund balance; another noted that relatively small dollar cushions in school budgets can be consumed quickly by unforeseen items such as special‑education placements or capital repairs.
The board informally signaled support for the 4.99% option by a show of hands during the meeting. The board did not take an official roll‑call vote on a final levy at the March 24 hearing; the district’s next formal steps include the final budget adoption meeting and, if the levy exceeds the tax cap, a May 19 public vote requiring a 60% supermajority.
The finance presentation and supporting slides will be posted to the district website; staff said they will publish additional materials showing where cuts and efficiencies were evaluated to help voters understand the rationale behind the proposed levy.
