To the Editor:

In recent articles on the Village of Pelham’s breaking the tax cap, Village officials – Mayor Mullen and Deputy Mayor Carpenter – have focused on increases in “non-discretionary” costs as the principal drivers of the increase in spending and taxes.  Although it is natural to allocate fault as being in “the stars, not ourselves,” their view is not wholly accurate.  A good portion of the increase relates to discretionary decisions taken by the current Village board.  In addition, there is a decided lack of planning relating to future debt, which is extremely alarming given how significantly debt service obligations have recently increased.

For a purportedly transparent village, it takes a little digging to get there, but let’s start with debt service, which Deputy Mayor Carpenter was reported to have included as “non-discretionary.”  As the Examiner recently reported, debt service appears to have increased 40.53% from $1,143,575 in the prior budget to $1,607,090.  I was advised in a recent FOIL response that Village debt at the end of February 2026 was $17,881,200, up from $4,255,710 for fiscal 2021.  

If you go to the 2025 Village Financial Statements, you will see some of uses of the debt.  Among the bond anticipation notes, there is a total of $3,655,000 for “Municipal Center Improvements.”  (A figure dwarfing both the cost of parking lot remediation and fire truck mentioned by Deputy Mayor Carpenter at the meeting approving the budget.)  According to a FOIL response, these improvements included the following:

• Furniture for Municipal Center:  $675,000
• Audio-Visual Infrastructure for Municipal Center: $335,000 (2 Phases)
• IT Infrastructure for Municipal Center: $450,000
• Low Voltage Access Control for Municipal Center: $375,000
• Outdoor and Miscellaneous Furniture for Municipal Center: $125,000
• Window Treatments for Municipal Center: $150,000

Allowing for the fact that some of this may relate to the Police and Fire Departments, some of these amounts, including the size of payments for furniture, audio-visual, and window treatments, would seem to fall in the “discretionary” bucket, and hardly “necessary,” as Deputy Mayor Carpenter described the current budget.

In terms of flood mitigation, borrowings appear to be $3,786,200.  A FOIL response states that some of these costs include:

• Engineering Fees on Flood Mitigation: $1,664,483
• Legal Fees in Relation to Eminent Domain Against School District: $255,709

To date, the Village has been frustrated in finding hard commitments from other governmental entities to fund the flood mitigation project, the price tag of which is now approaching $50 million.  Nothing from FEMA, a $500,000 earmark from New York State, and an earmark of $18 million from the County; neither of the earmarks has been legislated.  The Village Board certainly did have “discretion” on how to approach flood mitigation and seems to have rubber-stamped Mayor Mullen’s view, expressed early in the process, that a larger project, as opposed to doing the less costly Highbrook remediation first, would be more likely to receive grant funding.  (A publicly available law review article on FEMA grants calls such an approach into question with respect to the federal government, and of course, no FEMA funds have yet been received.)

In addition, the Village paid the same law firm as handled the eminent domain against the School District, the not-inexpensive Duane Morris firm, at least $147,332 in connection with the Village Board’s recent ham-handed approach to development in the Picture House corridor.  Although practicing law pays my mortgage, I’ve always believed a wise use of “discretion” is doing what you can to avoid running up lawyer time.    

Deputy Mayor Carpenter also confirmed what was also clear from another FOIL response when he was unable to give an exact number for debt service next year.  Despite plunging headlong into a now-nearly $50 million project with negligible outside support, the Village Board has apparently received no projections for the future $25-45 million in Village debt necessary to complete it.

In response to a FOIL request for projections for debt, debt service, and amount of property tax levy for fiscal years 2026-2028, carrying into May 2029 – which cover the next three years of the flood mitigation project – I was given only the amount of debt service for outstanding bonds and bond appreciation notes (the latter just on May 12, after a FOIL request of May 1).  This amount required to service outstanding debt appears to be about $1.7 million for 2027-2028 and 2028-2029.  But no modeling of the debt necessary to complete the flood mitigation project has apparently been done (or, for that matter, any additional debt the trustees may be considering for other expenses), even though the Village Board is well aware of the overall flood mitigation project costs and has made no changes to project schedule.

It’s wholly fair to require the same approach to budgeting and spending at the Village level as one requires at home.  I suspect most homeowners plan their renovations keeping in mind mortgage, tax, and, if applicable, college tuition payments before they take out their credit cards for window treatments.  And most homeowners certainly don’t put off modeling mortgage payments because the numbers are alarming; they buy a home whose numbers make sense.  These failures by the Village of Pelham Board, with not a single substantive dissenting view or challenge – reminiscent of the embarrassing Picture House RFQ process – are a cause of real concern.  As was said in a recent School Board election statement, it’s not prudent to expect money to “fall from the sky.”

Arthur Long
165 Boulevard