Pelham has long prided itself on academic excellence, civic engagement and responsible spending. We support our schools, value diversity and strive for smart, sustainable investments in our children’s future. But the $143.6 million bond proposal now before us—divided into four ballot propositions—jeopardizes that legacy. It would burden taxpayers with one of the highest school district debt levels in New York State, while offering limited transparency, poor prioritization and unsustainable tax hikes.

Modernization and upgrades to our schools, including compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), are necessary. In fact, I have publicly supported these initiatives at two separate board of education meetings, emphasizing Siwanoy Elementary School’s long-standing non-compliance with the ADA as a clear and urgent issue that requires immediate resolution. However, the structure of the school district’s bond proposal, as well as the overall fiscal impact on our community, raises serious concerns.

The proposed $143.6 million bond issuance, if all four propositions are approved, would make the Pelham Union Free School District one of the most indebted school districts in our entire state, with total debt of approximately $200 million. That number should give every taxpayer pause—especially given the broader financial picture.

According to the most recent data available from the New York State comptroller, the addition of $143.6 million in borrowing would result in Pelham carrying the fifth highest amount of debt of any school district in the state, behind only large cities including Rochester and Buffalo.

Pelham’s debt-per-student would be the highest in the state for all districts with 500-plus students. In addition, debt service (interest expense plus principal payments) as a percentage of revenues would rank seventh statewide. For a town of 13,000 residents, this is an alarming fiscal overreach.

The district’s four-part bond proposal raises serious questions about how priorities were set.

Proposition 2 includes $42.6 million in funding for Siwanoy, which would finally bring the school into ADA compliance nearly 35 years after the act was passed while also adding needed instructional space. But here’s the catch: Proposition 2 can only pass if Proposition 1 is also approved. And Proposition 1—the largest of the four bond referenda—carries a $56.2 million price tag, largely for non-ADA-related capital improvements across the district.

In effect, we have been asked to approve $98.8 million in total spending just to make Siwanoy ADA compliant. Why was this project—arguably the most morally and legally urgent—not placed first? Why is it conditional on other, less time-sensitive upgrades?

The school board should have made Siwanoy the centerpiece of the proposal—not a footnote dependent on unrelated renovations.

Another glaring issue with the current bond proposal is the exclusion of an expansion at Colonial Elementary School. The district had previously signaled an expansion for Colonial was on the horizon when it purchased a home adjacent to the school in 2019. However, instead of expanding the school, this property has been repurposed for administrative office space.

Now, the district claims it will revisit the Colonial addition in five years when the next capital plan is released, at which point taxpayers may be asked to take on more debt and the cost of yet another expansion will no doubt be significantly higher. This shift in priorities raises concerns about the district’s planning process. Most importantly, there are credible concerns that by borrowing so much now, there will be limited to no additional debt capacity in the event of an emergency at one of our schools that would require even more borrowing—and any upgrades at Colonial would need to be deferred indefinitely.

Troubling Speed

The speed with which this bond proposal was assembled and pushed to a vote is also troubling. Community members deserve a robust, detailed analysis of every component of a proposal this large, but that hasn’t happened.

To date, the district has not shared:

• Any projected debt service schedule with interest rate and amortization assumptions.
• A full breakdown of expected state building aid by project.
• Any analysis of projected utility costs associated with central air conditioning and other infrastructure projects.
• Any cost-benefit analysis of proposed geothermal systems, including expected payback periods and any available government rebates or subsidies.
• Data on classroom temperatures during the warmer months of September and June—which may or may not justify the need for new air conditioning installations. Edgemont’s school district provided detailed temperature readings from its classrooms ahead of its bond vote last year.

In fact, the Pelham district has already begun installing window AC units in many classrooms, indicating that there are more fiscally responsible ways to address the immediate discomfort students and teachers face during warmer months.

The lack of due diligence and analysis on these issues is unacceptable when asking taxpayers to commit to 20 years of significant debt service and tax increases. Any responsible homeowner or business owner would demand hard numbers before embarking on a multimillion-dollar project. Why should we demand less from our school board?

Most concerning, however, is that only seven months ago in September, the district released its five-tear capital plan. In that document, all six of our school buildings were rated “Satisfactory,” while the estimated cost across all six buildings for various capital projects totaled $96 million. How did we get to $143.6 million in capital spending from $96 million? Why are the proposed capital improvements we are being asked to vote on so urgent if all the buildings were rated “Satisfactory” at the beginning of the school year? This raises even more concern over the trustworthiness and accuracy of that capital plan and the level of planning and diligence the district has completed.

Even with these alarming statistics, there are still concerns about how the district plans to service this debt. The school system is projecting a decline in reserves of $2 million in the 2025-26 school year, largely due to the proposed $1.85 million purchase and renovation of 29 Franklin Place, yet another property that will be used for administrative office space.

The district plans to use its debt service reserve and operating budget to service any interest and amortization on bond anticipation notes (BANs) until permanent bond financing is secured. The district has stated the debt service associated with the BANs will not have any tax impact. However, this claim of tax neutrality is misleading. The district has confirmed it can legally add debt service to the tax cap, and as such, taxpayers will inevitably bear the burden of these debt payments. The district has a history of taxing residents at or near the maximum amount allowed by the tax cap (and reserves won’t last forever). Remember, taxes are increasing 3.5% next year while the existing debt service reserve is not being depleted.

What will this cost already over-stretched Pelham taxpayers trying to make ends meet? Homeowners already pay roughly $16,200 per $1 million of assessed value in school taxes alone. The district estimates homeowners will pay an additional $1,090 per $1 million of assessed value should all four propositions pass. This amount is on top of the tax increase associated with the debt service on the $54 million bond issued in 2020 to finance the construction of Hutchinson Elementary School and could be even higher as the district has not shared estimates on building aid, interest expense and debt amortization. The debt service increase alone will require a 6.7% addition to current tax rates, exacerbating pressures homeowners face from out of control Con Ed and insurance bills.

Property tax increases in Pelham have become unsustainable. We live in one of the nation’s highest-taxed communities and we are being asked to accept a much higher tax burden that is spiraling out of control.

For the 2025-26 school year, the proposed district budget will increase spending by 2.9%. However, the property tax levy is set to rise by 3.5%. State and federal aid is projected to increase only 2.6% (which may be overestimated), while miscellaneous receipts are projected to decline 4.7%. Overall, non-property tax revenues are increasing only 0.9%. When non-property tax revenues increase at a slower pace than budgeted spending, taxpayers will be required to make up the difference.

The district’s non-tax revenues are already facing significant pressures:

• State building aid will decline next year, which was expected by the district, with an additional decline expected in 2026-27.
• Interest income from excess cash balances have declined as a result of lower interest rates.
• Foundation Aid from the state is tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which came in lower than expected this year, and the district’s budget most likely overestimates the amount of aid expected to be received.

The school district’s expenses, which are primarily driven by salaries and benefits, have been increasing at a rapid rate in recent years. During the April 22 board of education meeting, Trustee Sidney Burke stated “it’s not going to get any easier next year or the year after. And inherently trying to keep expenses growing slower than inflation is long-term not feasible so there’s going to be an issue at some point, but we’ve been doing the best we can with what we have.” Outside of making additional cuts to staffing and spending, I believe the district is at risk of having to “bust” the tax cap in the near future. Four of our neighboring school districts in Westchester (Chappaqua, Rye, Scarsdale and Harrison) sought to exceed the tax cap last year, while New Rochelle is this year seeking to break the cap and plans to cut a significant number of jobs. Once the tax cap is busted, the consequent higher baseline will apply to all future tax levies, compounding the burden on homeowners year after year. Given economic uncertainties and ongoing fiscal pressures at the state and federal levels, taxpayers must prepare for ongoing substantial property tax increases, which could range from 3% to 4% for the foreseeable future.

Even with the increase in taxes and budgeted spending, the district is still planning on cutting 6.27 full time equivalent positions from this year’s actual staffing levels while also making programmatic reductions, such as not offering certain classes unless a minimum enrollment level is met or not offering certain courses every semester.

Voters Should Reject Four Propositions

Finally, voters must be aware that bond proposals do not need to be put to a vote at the same time as the school district budget and seats on the board of education. Last May, the Edgemont school district had a bond proposal rejected by voters. After some changes were made, the proposal was presented again in October, and it passed at that time.

Pelham voters should reject these four propositions and call on the board of education to refine its proposal. The board should prioritize necessary projects, such as Siwanoy, with no conditions attached. Other capital projects, and associated borrowing, should be delayed as necessary in order to avoid incurring a crushing amount of debt in a short timeframe so soon after the 2020 borrowing while limiting the district’s future borrowing capacity. The community deserves a more thoughtful and transparent process, and with an uncontested school board election, we have the luxury of board continuity over the next few months for additional work to be completed before approaching voters again.

Pelham is a community that has invested in education for over a century—but only wisely, transparently and equitably. This $143.6 million bond proposal fails on all three counts. It imposes a crushing debt and tax burden, marginalizes urgent priorities like ADA compliance and moves forward without the analysis, dialogue or planning that such a massive decision demands.

We can—and must—do better. We must reject this bond proposal and demand a smarter, phased plan that reflects our values, our fiscal realities and our commitment to all students. Let’s not make debt and taxes the new certainty in Pelham.