Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the School Budget topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Byram Hills board weighs 4.99%–5.25% tax-levy options as special-education costs and mandates rise

Byram Hills Central School District Board of Education · March 10, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At a budget hearing, administrators outlined a proposed 2026–27 budget and flagged rising special-education, benefits and mandate costs; the superintendent recommended a 5.25% levy override to rebuild reserves, prompting a board split between 4.99% and 5.25% options ahead of a May 19 vote.

The Byram Hills Central School District board on April 7 heard presentations on the administration’s proposed 2026–27 budget and debated whether to seek a tax-levy override of up to 5.25% to replenish reserves and cover rising special-education and benefits costs.

Colleen, director for programs for students with special needs, told the board the district now counts 294 classified students with individualized education programs (IEPs) and has 22 students placed in out-of-district programs. “We currently have 294 students who are classified and have an individualized education program K–12,” she said, and explained that out-of-district placements and highly specialized contracted services are the primary drivers of increases in the special-services budget line.

Kevin, who presented the computer-assisted instruction budget, said the technology plan shows a $100,000 net reduction year over year, reflecting tighter software procurement, a toner-cost cap, lifecycle tracking and internalized repairs. “We’re proud to put forward this year a proposed budget that represents a $100,000 decrease,” he said, describing steps to reduce print and software spending while preserving cybersecurity and core infrastructure.

Tim, the curriculum director, described planned pilots and shifts in instructional spending: the district is in the fourth year of its K–5 literacy work and is piloting a phonics curriculum to recommend for adoption after first-year data; it is also piloting alternative science programs for K–5 and preparing for state changes tied to the new “portrait of a graduate” and a decoupling of Regents exams. Those programmatic choices drive some summer and professional-development costs that were pared where possible.

Administrators said the overall budget shows a 1.1% reduction in total spending to $106,142,956, mainly because debt service payments end next year. But staff also explained a technical consequence: because debt-service and certain one‑time exemptions fall out of the calculation, the district’s maximum allowable tax levy for 2026–27 is a negative 1.01%. To generate any positive levy increase the board must override the cap, which would require a 60% voter approval at the May vote.

Given the projected declines in reserves and the presence of looming, unfunded mandates — notably electric-bus requirements and potential universal pre-K — the superintendent recommended a 5.25% levy override to stabilize the district’s finances over the coming years. Board members debated trade-offs at length: some favored the smaller 4.99% increase as a more measured option, while others supported 5.25% to rebuild reserves and provide a cushion against sudden high-cost special-education placements.

Board member Lori said she would “always advocate the lowest amount possible,” stressing sensitivity to taxpayers on fixed incomes. Other board members noted that a small additional levy could be the difference in years when the district must pay for a high-cost out-of-district or residential special-education placement.

The board did not set a final levy figure at the meeting. Members asked administrators to provide town-by-town tax-rate impacts and additional revenue slides at the next budget hearing on April 24 before the board adopts a final proposed budget on April 21 and holds subsequent hearings leading to a May 19 budget vote at the high school.

On procedural matters, the board approved the consent agenda, accepted a donation for the baseball program and approved second readings and final adoption of policies 7360 (construction contracts bidding and awards), 9240 (recruitment and hiring) and 9270.1 (substitutes).

What comes next: the board will receive more detailed revenue and tax-rate scenarios at the April 24 hearing and will continue public budget hearings through early May ahead of the May 19 districtwide budget vote. The administration also plans follow-up presentations on electric buses and universal pre-K at a future meeting.