Pleasantville UFSD officials preview $65.1 million budget, cite rising health‑insurance and special‑education costs

Pleasantville Union Free School District officials on the district’s budget‑preview presentation outlined a $65,114,168 proposed operating budget for 2026–27, a 3.39% increase from the current year that includes a proposed 2.96% rise in the tax levy. Superintendent opened the meeting and thanked the business office staff for preparing the budget and tracking the district’s strategic priorities.

The superintendent said the budget is balanced and “always tax cap compliant,” and it is intended to support the district’s stated priorities: a differentiated academic program, student wellness and safety, curriculum leadership, and technology and infrastructure investments. The presentation noted investments already under way, including a district‑wide communications tool and a director of curriculum, instruction and assessment position that will be formalized in upcoming board meetings.

John Chow, the district’s business official, detailed the principal budget risks: one bargaining‑unit negotiation remains open; final state aid figures remain proposed pending the state budget; and health‑insurance rate data are incomplete because the district’s health plan runs on a calendar‑year schedule. Chow said active‑employee health‑insurance costs used in the draft are about 9% higher for the first six months of the plan year and that costs for Medicare‑eligible retirees are more than 20% higher for the same period.

Chow also summarized retirement and enrollment trends that affect long‑term costs: a projected Teachers’ Retirement System (TRS) contribution of 8.24% and an Employees’ Retirement System (ERS) rate for classified staff projected at 17.7% (up from 16.6%). The district projects a net enrollment decrease of 22 students for 2026–27, with the high school expected to lose about 27 students; kindergarten and incoming cohorts remain less certain.

On expenditures, officials said salaries and benefits together account for more than 71% of the proposed budget. The presentation identified three large expenditure changes: a $631,000 increase in health‑insurance costs, a TRS contribution decrease that offsets roughly $288,000, and a $620,000 rise in contractual costs driven principally by higher out‑of‑district special‑education placements.

On the revenue side, officials said real‑property taxes provide about 67% of district revenue and the proposed 2.96% levy increase keeps the district under its computed tax‑cap limit (the presentation cited a cap near 2.975%). Tuition revenue from other districts’ placements is projected to rise 9.62% (about $467,000), and miscellaneous revenues (mainly interest) are projected to increase by $251,000.

A board member asked whether one‑house state budget proposals might change foundation aid levels. Chow said districts are not seeing widespread debate about foundation‑aid reductions and that “everyone’s being made whole” in those discussions, with many districts projected to receive minimum increases of about 1% in current proposals. He cautioned the state budget remains unsettled.

The superintendent outlined the local adoption timeline: instructional administrators will present program‑level details at the March 17 workshop; athletics, buildings and grounds will be discussed at the April 7 meeting; the board is legally required to adopt a budget by April 21; a public hearing is scheduled for May 5; and the district’s budget vote is timed with the statewide school budget voting date in May.

Officials emphasized the draft remains subject to change because of unsettled labor negotiations, final state aid, and partial‑year health‑insurance rates; formal adoption and any final adjustments will occur at upcoming board meetings.