As a follow up to the January 29th Budget Workshop #1 for the 2026-2027 school year discussed here.
────────────────────────────────────────
PART 1: TAX LEVY & BUDGET STRATEGY
────────────────────────────────────────
1. What is the actual dollar amount the Tax Base Growth Factor of 1.0051 adds to the levy this year? Over the past 5 years, what has been the cumulative additional revenue generated by this factor?
2. Over the 15 years of the tax levy cap, what has been the actual levy as a percentage of the maximum allowable levy each year? Has there been any year in which the proposed budget came in meaningfully below the maximum allowable increase?
3. What is the current status of any structural reforms being pursued to address annual health insurance and transportation cost increases? What specific alternatives (consortium options, plan design changes, route consolidation, shared services) have been evaluated, and what were the outcomes?
4. Can the district provide a specific list of efficiency initiatives implemented in the past 3 years, with the documented dollar amount saved by each?
5. What is the current status of any benchmarking or peer comparison studies? If one exists, when was it last updated, and how does Jericho’s per-pupil spending, administrative costs, and staffing ratios compare to 5 comparable Nassau County districts?
6. Has the administration ever modeled what a 0% budget increase would look like? If so, what were the results? If not, would the administration be willing to produce a line-by-line analysis showing which costs are truly fixed versus which have discretionary headroom?
────────────────────────────────────────
PART 2: CAPITAL PLAN
────────────────────────────────────────
7. What is the formal methodology used to prioritize BCS projects? Is there a documented scoring system (safety, code compliance, energy savings, educational impact)? If so, please provide it. If not, how are decisions made about which projects are recommended versus deferred?
8. The Seaman auditorium ($16.45M) and HS/MS fitness center ($6.38M) are labeled “Programmatic Needs” and together represent over a third of the $63.75M BCS total. Has the Board discussed presenting programmatic/new construction items as separate propositions from maintenance items so the community can evaluate them independently?
9. During the presentation, it was stated that capital estimates “come in under more often than over.” Please provide a table for Capital Reserves III, IV, and V showing: project name, approved estimate, actual contract/bid amount, and final cost including change orders.
10. Mr. Manuel described 10-15% contingency built into propositions, with approximately 5% for architect fees and 3.5% for construction management. What is the exact breakdown of the remaining contingency? For completed projects in Reserves III–V, what percentage of contingency was actually used?
11. It was acknowledged that proposition language is intentionally kept general to allow fund reallocation between projects. For the last 3 completed propositions, how much money was redirected between originally named projects? Will the Board commit to publishing an annual capital spending report showing original allocations versus actual spending per project?
12. Capital Reserve V ($20M, authorized May 2022) is nearly depleted. Capital Reserve VI was recommended during the presentation at a “similar” level. Before the community votes on Reserve VI, will the Board require a 10-year capital spending projection showing total anticipated costs, building aid offsets, and comparison to peer district capital spending?
13. Approximately 20% of every renovation project was identified as asbestos abatement cost. What is the current status of any district-wide abatement planning? Has a master abatement agreement or volume-based procurement approach been evaluated versus the current project-by-project method?
14. Mr. Manuel disclosed that National Grid back-charged the district over $200,000 for two years of incorrect meter readings, negotiated down to $100,000. Has an independent energy audit been conducted to verify the corrected meter reading? What monitoring systems are now in place to prevent future billing errors? Was this settlement disclosed as a separate Board agenda item?
15. The presentation referenced a bucket truck that “paid for itself” after three uses. For all equipment in the $207,600 new equipment line, has a formal buy-versus-rent analysis been performed showing projected annual usage, rental equivalent cost, and break-even point?
16. It was stated that the earliest any newly approved project would begin is summer 2027 — more than 12 months after the May 2026 vote. During that gap, will the Board receive quarterly status reports? If costs change significantly between approval and bidding, what mechanism exists to revisit project scope?
────────────────────────────────────────
PART 3: ADMINISTRATION & PERSONNEL (Code 1000)
────────────────────────────────────────
17. Personnel is increasing 8.6% — the largest percentage increase in Workshop #1 — driven primarily by a 45% increase in BOCES spending for the Frontline time and attendance system. What is the gross annual cost of this system, the expected BOCES aid recovery and timing, the net annual cost, and what manual processes does it replace? Will any positions or hours be reduced as a result of this automation? Isn’t there a claim that a new system is being implemented to streamline these, how does that affect current costs, increase or reduce?
18. Mr. Manuel acknowledged that a BOCES expenditure in the Finance code was “coded elsewhere” last year, which distorts the year-over-year comparison shown on the slides. How many other budget codes were affected by classification errors in 2024–25? Is there a quality control process to ensure consistent year-over-year coding so the data presented to the community is reliable?
19. The community recognizes and appreciates the significant structural improvements in the current superintendent’s contract — including the shift to a 30-day PTO system, the 40-day retirement payout cap, the elimination of the district vehicle, and the requirement for superintendent contribution to health premiums. These are meaningful reforms. Given these improvements at the superintendent level, do any other administrative or central office contracts still contain legacy provisions such as uncapped sick leave accrual, retirement payouts exceeding the 40-day cap, or 100% district-paid lifetime health insurance? What is the district’s estimated long-term liability for retirement health benefits across all current and former administrators?
20. Insurance costs have increased 64.8% in four years ($505K to $832K). What is the current status of competitive bidding for coverage? When was the last time alternative carriers or consortiums were evaluated? What loss prevention measures are in place to reduce claims and future premiums?
21. BOCES Admin & Capital charges are $599K. How many Jericho students currently attend BOCES programs? What is the per-student cost? Beyond the mandatory membership, is the district maximizing utilization of BOCES services to extract value from this payment or combined BOCES payments related to students, not technology?
22. Telephone is budgeted at $69,000 against a 2024–25 actual of $22,024. Fuel oil is budgeted at $25,000 against a 2024–25 actual of $2,400. What specific circumstances justify budgets that are 3x and 10x above recent actuals? Are there planned expenditures (system replacements, fuel source changes) that explain these levels?
23. With $1.67M in annual electric/gas costs, what is the current status of energy efficiency initiatives? Has the district engaged an Energy Service Company (ESCO) or explored energy performance contracting under New York State programs? What efficiency improvements have been implemented in the past 5 years?
24. What is the total aggregate BOCES spending across all budget codes for 2025–26 and the proposed 2026–27? What was the actual BOCES aid received in 2024–25, and did it match the expected 42–43% recovery rate? Please provide a reconciliation showing expenditure by code, expected aid, and actual aid received.
────────────────────────────────────────
PART 4: CURRICULUM, INSTRUCTION & BUILDING SUPERVISION
────────────────────────────────────────
25. Curriculum Development ($2.41M) employs 7 Curriculum Associates and an Assistant Superintendent — one CA per approximately 430 students. What measurable student outcome improvements can be attributed to this team over the past 3 years? How does this staffing ratio compare to peer districts?
26. Mr. Manuel stated “nothing changed this year” in Curriculum Development, yet the budget increased 5.3% ($121K). If no programs, positions, or services changed, what specifically is driving the $121K increase? What is the long-term cost trajectory of this department at the current growth rate?
27. BOCES Curriculum spending is increasing 38% from $105K to $145K. What specific services are being purchased? Given the district’s 7 internal Curriculum Associates, why are external curriculum services needed at this level?
28. The 2024–25 actual for Curriculum instructional salaries was $71K below budget ($1,689,584 vs. $1,760,814). Was a position vacant during this period? If so, were there measurable impacts on department performance during the vacancy?
29. Building Supervision has 6 administrators at the HS/MS complex and 15 total clerical positions across 5 buildings. What are the administrator-to-student and clerical-to-building ratios at comparable districts (Manhasset, Roslyn, Great Neck)?
30. What is the current status of any evaluation of clerical staffing needs in light of technology adoption (automated attendance, online enrollment, digital communication platforms, student information systems)? Have any clerical positions been consolidated or reduced through attrition in the past 5 years?
────────────────────────────────────────
PART 5: SYSTEMIC PATTERNS & ACCOUNTABILITY
────────────────────────────────────────
31. Across all Workshop #1 codes, what is the total dollar difference between budgeted and actual expenditures for each of the past 3 fiscal years? What happens to the unspent funds — do they flow to the fund balance, get redirected within the budget year, or something else?
32. Mr. Manuel described every department as “status quo” or “nothing changed” while presenting budgets that increase 2.5–8.6% across the board. Can the administration clarify: when costs increase but services don’t change, what is the district’s plan to make the “status quo” less expensive over time rather than more?
33. Increased building aid of approximately $800K was described as a “big challenge” because it lowers the allowable tax cap. The district is receiving $800K more from the state. Is this $800K being passed through as tax relief, or is spending expanding to fill the available room under the adjusted cap?
34. Can the administration identify $500,000 in potential savings across Workshop #1 codes (less than 3% of the $18M+ covered) without reducing educational programs? If the position is that no savings exist, please explain the basis for that conclusion given the overbudgeted line items identified above.
35. Does the district currently produce an annual efficiency report documenting specific initiatives, projected savings, and actual results? If not, will the Board commit to requiring one beginning with the 2026–27 budget cycle?
────────────────────────────────────────
PART 6: DATA REQUESTS
────────────────────────────────────────
36. A 5-year history showing the actual tax levy as a percentage of the maximum allowable levy for each year.
37. A table showing capital project estimated cost versus actual bid/contract amount for all projects in Capital Reserves III, IV, and V.
38. A staffing ratio comparison showing administrators per student and clerical positions per building, compared against 5 comparable Nassau County districts.
39. The total cost of administrative transitions — including separation agreements, interim appointments, recruitment costs, and overlap periods — for fiscal years 2022–23, 2023–24, and 2024–25, provided in aggregate by fiscal year without identifying individuals.