On March 12, the district held Budget Workshop #4, presenting the complete revenue and expenditure summary for the proposed 2026-27 budget of $147,944,295—a 2.83% increase ($4,074,081) over the current year. The workshop also detailed two ballot propositions for the May vote: Proposition #2 authorizing $4,721,701 in capital spending from Reserve V, and Proposition #3 establishing a new $20M Capital Reserve VI.
The presentation covered tax levy calculations, state aid projections, fund balance appropriations, and Building Condition Survey highlights. The analysis below examines these components against the district's documented 22-year pattern of revenue over-performance and expenditure under-runs that has generated $247.3 million in cumulative surplus.
I. REVENUE ANALYSIS
State Aid: $2.1M Windfall Absorbed Into Spending
The district projects $12.4M in total state aid for 26-27, up from $10.3M in 25-26—a $2.1M increase (+20.4%). Of this amount, approximately $1.5M is BOCES aid, meaning non-BOCES aid increased roughly $600K.
Despite this windfall, the proposed tax levy increases $2,187,406 (+1.84% to $121,041,866). The entire state aid increase is absorbed into the spending base rather than providing offsetting tax relief.
Over 22 years, the district has collected $31.5M more in revenue than budgeted. None of that over-collection reduced the tax levy. All of it became surplus.
Questions:
Provide a line-item breakdown of the $12.4M state aid showing: Foundation Aid, BOCES Aid, Building Aid, High Tax Aid, and any other categories with year-over-year comparison.
The state aid increase is $2.1M, yet the tax levy increases $2.187M. Explain specifically which programs or services justify absorbing the entire state aid windfall into the spending base rather than using it to reduce the tax levy.
State whether the $2.1M increase is a one-time adjustment or a permanent base increase. Provide the projected state aid for 2027-28.
Interest Income: $2.3M Below Likely Actual
The budget projects $950K in interest income for 26-27, down from $1.1M budgeted in 25-26. Actual interest income in 24-25 was $3.276M—more than triple the current projection.
With fund balances at approximately $78M (per prior audited statements) and current interest rates near 4%, the $950K projection appears $2.3M below the likely actual.
Over 22 years, revenue has exceeded budget projections every single year, averaging $1.4M annually in over-performance.
Questions:
State the current total fund balance invested, the assumed interest rate for the $950K projection, and the methodology used. If fund balances remain at ~$78M and rates remain at 4%, explain why the projection is $2.3M below the 24-25 actual.
When interest income exceeds the $950K budget by $2M+, state whether that variance will reduce the tax levy mid-year or become additional surplus transferred to reserves.
Identify the specific methodology changes implemented over 22 years to improve revenue projection accuracy. If none, explain why the Board should approve projections that have been directionally wrong for two decades.
Capital Exclusion: Building Aid Backs Out of Tax Cap
The capital exclusion dropped from $1.5M in 25-26 to $665K in 26-27 because additional building aid "gets backed out" of the tax cap calculation. This reduced the allowable tax levy cap.
Questions:
State the total building aid received in 25-26 and which capital projects it relates to.
State whether building aid consistently reducing the capital exclusion creates an incentive to defer capital projects to preserve higher future tax levy caps.
II. EXPENDITURE ANALYSIS
Spending Growth vs. Enrollment Decline: 2.83% vs. -7.3%
Total expenditures increase $4,074,081 (+2.83%) to $147.9M. Enrollment declined from 3,320 students two years ago to 3,076 currently—a 244-student decline (-7.3%).
Per-pupil spending is increasing approximately 10% while enrollment drops 7%. Over 22 years, the budget has doubled from $70.5M to $143.9M while enrollment declined.
Questions:
Provide per-pupil expenditure calculations for the past five years and the 26-27 projection.
Explain specifically which program expansions or cost drivers justify a 2.83% spending increase when enrollment declined 7.3%. If the answer is contractual obligations, provide the analysis showing why those obligations outweigh enrollment-driven savings.
Code 2000 (Instruction): $2.3M Increase Despite Staff Reductions
Code 2000 (Instruction/Administration) increases $2,306,000 (+2.76%). Workshop #3 documented eliminating 2 FTE positions through attrition, yet instructional salaries increased $875K.
Questions:
Provide a breakdown of the $2.3M Code 2000 increase by: salaries, benefits, BOCES instructional services, supplies, and equipment.
Provide the total salary increase in Code 2000 and break it down by: (a) contractual step increases, (b) new positions, (c) savings from eliminated positions, and (d) other adjustments.
Transportation: Contract Up 5.9%, Budget Up 1.79%
Transportation (Code 5000) increases $142,743 (+1.79%). Workshop #3 documented the First Student contract increasing $322K (+5.9%) to $5.81M, with "high single digits" increases expected to continue.
Questions:
State when the First Student contract expires and when it was last competitively bid.
The contract increased 5.9% but the budget line increased only 1.79%. Provide the specific offsetting adjustments in Code 5000 that absorbed the contract increase.
BOCES Technology: 31.6% Increase
Workshop #3 showed BOCES technology spending increasing from $1.49M to $1.97M (+$472K, +31.6%). The district shifted technology purchases to BOCES to capture 41% state aid reimbursement, but net cost to taxpayers after aid recovery was not disclosed.
Questions:
State the total BOCES expenditure in 26-27 across all budget codes.
BOCES aid is projected at $1.5M with approximately 41% recovery on an 18-month lag. Provide the net cost to the district after aid for all BOCES services in 26-27.
Code 9000 (Benefits/Debt): $1.186M Increase
Code 9000 (employee benefits, debt service, transfers) increases $1,186,000 (+3.2%)—the second-largest dollar increase after Instruction. Workshop #3 showed health insurance increasing 6.5% ($1.31M), with a 10% premium increase for calendar 2026.
Questions:
Break down the $1.186M Code 9000 increase by: health insurance, pension costs (ERS/TRS), debt service, interfund transfers, and other categories.
Health insurance increased 10% for calendar 2026. State the projected increase for calendar 2027, the number of employees covered, and total district cost vs. employee contribution.
III. CAPITAL & RESERVES ANALYSIS
Building Condition Survey: $63.75M Identified, $6M Proposed
The Building Condition Survey identifies $63.75M in total building needs. The district proposes $6M in near-term spending: $1.275M from budget transfers and $4.721M from Capital Reserve V (Proposition #2). Over $57M in identified needs remain unaddressed with no multi-year plan disclosed.
The BCS also identifies two "Programmatic Needs": a 400-seat auditorium at Seaman Elementary ($16,453,680) and a 3,500 sq ft fitness center at the HS/MS ($6,381,921). Combined: $22,835,601.
Questions:
Provide the district's multi-year capital plan showing how the remaining $57M+ in BCS-identified needs will be addressed, with timeline and funding sources.
Of the $6M in proposed projects, state which are health/safety vs. enhancement vs. programmatic (new spaces). Provide a priority ranking with documented criteria (code compliance, educational impact, energy savings).
Capital Reserve V had a 6/30/24 balance of $4.721M. After Proposition #2 spending, state whether Reserve V will be depleted and what remaining funding capacity exists under its $20M cap.
Proposition #2: Broad Categories, No Project-Specific Binding
Workshop #4 slides showed specific projects: bathroom renovations ($466K), window replacements ($1.257M), elevator upgrades ($300K), parking lot work ($358K), masonry repairs ($220K). The proposition text lists broad categories—windows, ceilings, bathrooms, boilers, asphalt, security, locker rooms, doors, masonry—with no project names, building assignments, or dollar amounts per category.
Workshop slides carry no legal weight. The proposition authorizes $4.721M in spending within listed categories, leaving allocation discretion to the Board after voter approval.
Questions:
Provide a legally binding project-by-project breakdown showing: building name, specific project description, cost ceiling, and funding source (budget transfer vs. Reserve V). State whether this breakdown will be enforceable or whether the Board retains discretion to reallocate funds between categories after voter approval.
For Capital Reserves III, IV, and V, provide a table showing: (a) project name as listed in voter-approved propositions, (b) estimated cost in proposition, (c) actual contract/bid amount, (d) final cost including change orders, (e) variance from estimate, and (f) where savings were reallocated. State what percentage of total authorized spending was redirected to projects not named in original propositions.
Workshop #1 stated that capital estimates "come in under more often than over." State where project savings go when actual costs come in below estimates: returned to taxpayers, reallocated to other projects, or retained in reserves.
Proposition #3: $20M Reserve With "New Building Additions" Language
Proposition #3 establishes Capital Reserve VI with a $20M cap, funded at up to $5M from 25-26 surplus and up to $10M annually thereafter from "surplus monies." The proposition lists approximately 50 allowable uses, including this phrase: "additional new space/new building additions."
During the presentation, it was stated: "This being that you're funding it, we it's known you try to put every possible project in there. This way it gives the board and the future boards flexibility to work within those parameters."
The BCS identifies the Seaman auditorium ($16.4M) and fitness center ($6.4M) as "Programmatic Needs" distinct from maintenance items.
Questions:
State yes or no: Does Proposition #3, as written, authorize the Board to spend Reserve VI funds on the $16.4M Seaman auditorium and the $6.4M fitness center without any further voter approval?
The BCS categorizes the auditorium and fitness center as "Programmatic Needs," not maintenance. State why Proposition #3 includes "additional new space/new building additions" language if these projects are not part of the plan. If they are part of the plan, state why they were not presented as such during workshops.
The district has spent approximately $80M through Capital Reserves I-V, yet the BCS shows $63.75M in remaining needs. State what projects were funded through previous reserves and why that spending did not reduce the identified backlog.
Reserve V has ~$5.2M remaining capacity under its $20M cap. State why a new $20M Reserve VI is needed rather than continuing to fund Reserve V to its cap before creating a new reserve.
Reserve Funding vs. Bond Financing: Intergenerational Cost Shift
Reserve funding requires current taxpayers to pay 100% of project costs upfront. Improvements with 20-30 year lifespans benefit residents who move to Jericho years after current taxpayers funded construction.
Bond financing spreads repayment over 15-20 years, matching payment to benefit. Future residents who use facilities contribute to paying for them.
A bond referendum requires the district to specify project names, costs, and repayment schedules. No post-approval discretion exists. Reserve propositions require none of this transparency.
Questions:
Provide the Board's comparative analysis of total cost to current taxpayers under reserve funding vs. bond financing, including opportunity cost of premature tax collection. If reserves "save interest," state what they cost current taxpayers who fund them years before projects begin.
State why the district is asking voters to authorize a $20M spending pool with 50 categories rather than presenting specific projects for approval via bond referendum requiring project names, costs, and repayment schedules.
State the principle of intergenerational equity that justifies requiring current residents to fully fund improvements that future residents will use for free.
Appropriated Fund Balance: $5.375M vs. $11.2M Average Surplus
The budget appropriates $5.375M in fund balance. Over 22 years, the district has generated $247.3M in surplus—averaging $11.2M annually. The appropriated amount is consistently lower than surplus generated, allowing accumulation in reserves.
If the district appropriates $5M from 25-26 surplus to Reserve VI (Proposition #3) and $5.375M for the 26-27 budget, total draw from 25-26 is $10.375M minimum.
Questions:
State the projected 6/30/26 fund balance before any appropriations. Provide actual June 30 fund balances for the past five years.
State whether the district is projecting at least $10.375M in 25-26 surplus ($5M to Reserve VI + $5.375M to 26-27 budget). If yes, state why the 26-27 tax levy needs to increase.
Over 22 years, the district generated $247.3M in surplus while appropriating only $87.8M back into budgets (64% retention). State where the remaining $159.4M went.
IV. FORECASTING & HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE
15-Year Tax Levy Average: 1.2% During Highest Surplus Period
Workshop #4 presented a slide showing 15-year average tax levy growth of 1.2%, positioned as evidence of fiscal restraint. Multiple years showed 0% or negative levy growth (2014-15 through 2018-19, and again in 2021-22 and 2022-23).
The 22-year analysis shows that during the period of lowest tax levy growth (2012-2018), surplus generation averaged $15.5M annually—the highest of any period. Low levy growth did not reduce over-collection; it intensified it.
Questions:
State the per-pupil spending growth and actual expenditure growth during years with 0% or negative tax levy growth. State whether these were years of cost containment or revenue windfalls masking spending increases.
Explain how presenting low levy growth as fiscal discipline is consistent with those same years producing the highest surplus in district history.
V. PROPOSITION LANGUAGE & PROCESS
"Flexibility" Means Discretion After Voter Approval
The statement during Workshop #4 clarified the purpose of broad proposition language: "This being that you're funding it, we it's known you try to put every possible project in there. This way it gives the board and the future boards flexibility to work within those parameters."
"Flexibility" means the Board can spend authorized funds on any project fitting listed categories—including projects never mentioned in workshops—without returning to voters.
Questions:
State who drafts proposition language (district counsel, business office, or external advisors) and what instructions govern specificity vs. breadth.
State when the Board reviews and approves exact legal proposition text. State whether Board members receive draft language before March 26 adoption or see final text for the first time at the adoption meeting.
State whether a written policy requires propositions to include project-specific cost ceilings, or whether broad categorical language is the default approach.
If specific projects with specific costs can be presented in workshop slides, state what prevents putting project names, building assignments, and cost ceilings directly into legally binding ballot language.
VI. PROGRAM & STAFFING
AI Tools Without Board Policy
Workshop #3 disclosed district-wide AI tool deployment (Google Gemini, Brisk, Notebook LM, SkillStruck, Canva, Diffit, Turnitin) with 26 professional development sessions held. No Board-adopted AI policy exists.
Questions:
State the total annual cost of all AI tools currently deployed, which budget code includes these costs, and the anticipated 26-27 cost.
State when a Board-adopted AI policy will be presented and what student data privacy protocols, vendor compliance reviews, and instructional use guidelines are currently in place.
Co-Principal Structure
The district employs a co-principal structure at the high school. Total compensation and functional justification have not been disclosed.
Questions:
State the total compensation (salary + benefits) for each high school co-principal and the specific role delineations.
State when the structure was established, the rationale, and whether the Board has conducted any cost-effectiveness review vs. a single principal model.
Core Pattern: 22 Years, $247.3M, Zero Recalibration
This budget continues the established pattern:
Revenue conservatism: Interest income $2.3M below likely actual. State aid windfall absorbed into spending. Over 22 years, revenue exceeded budget every year (+$31.5M total).
Spending growth exceeding enrollment: 2.83% increase vs. 7.3% enrollment decline. Budget doubled while enrollment fell.
Reserve accumulation divorced from need: New $20M Reserve VI funded from "surplus monies." Current reserves ~$78M. District has spent $80M through prior reserves yet BCS shows $63.75M in remaining needs.
Vague proposition language: Proposition #2 lists categories with no project-specific commitments. Proposition #3 lists 50 uses including "new building additions." Workshop slides carry no legal weight.
Financing that shifts costs to current residents: Reserve funding requires 100% upfront payment for 20-30 year improvements. Future residents benefit free.
Zero methodology changes: 22 years of directional error in forecasting. No corrections implemented.
The propositions aren't separate from the budget pattern. They're its extension. Systematic over-collection generates surplus. Surplus funds reserves. Reserves accumulate with broad authority. Current residents pay upfront. Future residents benefit. The cycle continues.
Next Steps
The Board votes on budget adoption March 26. Residents can submit these questions in writing by March 20 and request written responses be posted publicly before adoption. If critical questions remain unanswered, residents can attend the March 26 meeting and request delayed adoption pending complete answers.
The May budget vote is the final accountability lever. These 44 questions represent the information taxpayers should have before authorizing $147.9M in spending and $24.7M in capital propositions.