To the Editor:<\/p>\n
The second week of January is a pleasant time of year:\u00a0 the holiday season hasn\u2019t worn off, lights still burn brightly on homes and trees, there may be snow, and with the prospect of another holiday weekend approaching, one could be forgiven for thinking that all manner of thing is well.<\/p>\n
For the Village of Pelham taxpayer, however, the Village Trustees\u2019 January 13th meeting is enough to dash all visions of sugarplums from one\u2019s head.\u00a0 It\u2019s very clear from watching the meeting that 2026 will be the first of several years in which the Village will override its tax cap, further eroding its ability to compete with Pelham Manor and other more fiscally prudent municipalities.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Watching the meeting is instructive:\u00a0 for the state of the village\u2019s finances, for existing burdens on the village\u2019s taxpayers, and for the attitudes of the village\u2019s elected officials.\u00a0 As to the first, the word that comes to mind is stretched.\u00a0 Since 2021, it appears that the village\u2019s debt has more than tripled from approximately $4.26 million to approximately $15.1 million in the May 31, 2025 financial statements (and additional bonds were authorized after election day in 2025).\u00a0 Despite these very significant borrowings, the village scrapes by with metaphorical duct tape.\u00a0 As one trustee noted from her participation in the annual budget process, a lot of the village\u2019s equipment is outdated \u2013 7 to 10 years beyond its useful life.\u00a0 It was also noted that the state and county are similarly stretched.<\/p>\n
Judging from the public comments, so are many village taxpayers.\u00a0 One member of the public, in urging that no stone be left unturned to maintain tax cap compliance, noted the number of new homeowners who have moved onto her street and stated that with current mortgage rates, they are really strapped.\u00a0 Another taxpayer, in urging budget reductions like those undertaken by Westchester County, spoke of the recent significant increases in energy costs and contended that although Con Edison had been limited to a relatively small increase this time around, this was unlikely to continue.<\/p>\n
Third, the five electeds (Trustees Otondi and Solomon were absent):\u00a0 after an early period of giddiness, much of it revolving around window-versus-aisle seating preferences, with one trustee joking that because she would fly first class she\u2019d pick either, there was a discussion of the tax cap itself.\u00a0 A fair amount of time was spent on what the trustees seem to believe was the unfair situation whereby capital projects are excluded from tax cap considerations for school districts, but not for municipalities.\u00a0 Although various answers were given for this, what was never mentioned was the fairly obvious one that for a cap to be effective, the exceptions can\u2019t swallow the rule.\u00a0 The attitude of Mayor Mullen and the trustees suggests that the cap\u2019s effects on capital projects is an unfortunate inconvenience \u2013 because it focuses the electorate\u2019s attention on overrides \u2013 rather than a welcome constraint on the tendency of government to increase spending and taxes regardless of the concerns of taxpayers, who, from the public comments, certainly aren\u2019t flying first class.\u00a0 (Although possibly a joke, it may be telling that Mayor Mullen said earlier in the meeting that he is a \u201cwindow\u201d flyer, has no issues with asking people on the aisle to get up when he needs to use the restroom, and keeps his window shade closed all flight to permit him to watch movies.)<\/p>\n
But the punch line for the evening was in Mayor Mullen\u2019s general discussion of tax cap overrides, in which he stated, in the context of flood mitigation, that a reason for more frequent overrides can be that it is more beneficial to do \u201ctwo or three\u201d \u201cmoderate\u201d overrides rather than one really large one.\u00a0 Given the current amount of Village debt, the shoestrings on which its departments are currently operating, and the prospect of a $40 million two-stage sewer project that will not be entirely funded with grants and requires significant initial cash outlays, it\u2019s clear that the Village is now facing this Hobson\u2019s choice of overrides unless the Village Board changes course on its flood mitigation plan, a $40-million spending plan for a municipality with an $18.5 million annual budget.<\/p>\n
The approach of the village board calls for real concern.\u00a0 Already there is a gap between the homestead rate for Village of Pelham residents versus residents of the Manor \u2013 according to the Village\u2019s 2025 budget, a homeowner with an assessed value of $1,045,204 would pay $6,807 in taxes, whereas in the Manor it would be $6,035, which comes to a 12.8% higher rate in the Village.\u00a0 Serial tax cap overrides in the Village will only make this gap grow, particularly since Pelham Manor is able to finance its infrastructure improvements without ballooning debt.<\/p>\n
What sort of responsible person would, when facing greatly increased debt, rapidly increasing insurance costs, growing required personal retirement contributions, and keeping their cars running well beyond their useful life \u2013 and at a time of uncertainty about income sources \u2013 decide to push forward with a significant renovation to their home, even one that was principally structural, not cosmetic in nature?\u00a0 Of course, no responsible person would.\u00a0 The Village needs to re-evaluate its fiscal approach now, without giddiness, and with more than deliberate speed.\u00a0 Otherwise, Village of Pelham taxpayers will be having dedicated middle seats on transcontinental flights for the foreseeable future.<\/p>\n
Arthur S. Long<\/p>\n
165 Boulevard<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"To the Editor: The second week of January is a pleasant time of year:\u00a0 the holiday season hasn\u2019t…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":10154,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[38],"tags":[128,9,24,63,129,131,130],"class_list":{"0":"post-117132","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-the-bronx","8":"tag-bronx","9":"tag-new-york","10":"tag-new-york-city","11":"tag-nyc","12":"tag-the-bronx","13":"tag-the-bronx-headlines","14":"tag-the-bronx-news"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117132","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=117132"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117132\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/10154"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=117132"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=117132"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=117132"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}