The district presents its lack of debt as fiscal responsibility. At budget workshops and in public communications, officials emphasize that Jericho carries no bond obligations and funds capital projects through reserves. This is positioned as prudent management that saves taxpayers money by avoiding interest costs.
That framing is incomplete. It ignores who actually pays, when they pay, and whether the cost distribution is fair.
Bond financing is not fiscal irresponsibility. It is how governments match payment schedules to benefit periods. A school building serves students for 30 years. A bond ensures that residents who use that building over those 30 years contribute to paying for it. Reserve funding requires current residents to pay 100% upfront, then delivers the benefit to whoever happens to live in the district later.
The question is not whether Jericho can afford debt service. The district's own financial performance proves it can. The question is whether current taxpayers should fund improvements that future residents will use for free.
What Bond Financing Actually Is
A bond works exactly like a mortgage. The district borrows money, builds the project, and repays the loan over the useful life of the improvement — typically 15 to 20 years for major capital work.
Voters approve bonds through a referendum that specifies what will be built, at what cost, with what repayment schedule. The district cannot change the project scope, redirect funds to different work, or spend more than authorized without returning to voters. Everything is defined before the first dollar is borrowed.
Once the bond is issued and the project is complete, the district makes annual debt service payments — principal plus interest — until the bond is retired. Those payments appear as a line item in the budget and are reflected in the tax levy.
Bond financing has two costs: the interest paid over the life of the loan, and the discipline of locking the district into a specific project with a fixed cost ceiling. The first is a dollar cost. The second is a transparency cost — which is why some districts prefer reserves.
What a $20 Million Bond Would Actually Cost
Municipal bond rates for school districts currently run approximately 4% to 4.5% for 20-year terms. Using a conservative 4.5% rate on a $20 million bond with 20-year repayment, annual debt service would be approximately $1.52 million.
That is the real cost. Not $20 million. Not some vague warning about "interest expenses." The actual annual budget impact is $1.52 million per year for 20 years, totaling $30.4 million over the full term ($20M principal + $10.4M interest).
Compare that to the district's documented financial performance.
Actual interest income in 2024-25: $3,276,000.
Average annual surplus over 22 years: $11.2 million.
The $1.52 million in annual debt service represents 13.6% of the district's average annual surplus generation. Over 22 years, the district generated $247.3 million in cumulative surplus. A single year of that surplus could fund six years of debt service.
The district generates $11.2 million in average annual surplus. A $20 million bond would cost $1.5 million per year in debt service. The financial capacity exists.
The question is not affordability. The question is who pays.
Who Pays and Who Benefits
Capital improvements funded through Proposition #3 — whether auditoriums, fitness centers, HVAC systems, or building renovations — will have useful lives of 20 to 30 years.
Under reserve funding, the families paying Jericho taxes in 2026, 2027, and 2028 fund 100% of construction. The families who move to Jericho in 2032, 2035, and 2040 — attracted by those upgraded facilities — pay nothing toward building them.
Under bond financing, everyone who benefits contributes. The tax levy includes debt service for 20 years. If you move to Jericho in 2032 and your children use new facilities, you pay your share. If you move away in 2035, the next family pays their share. Cost matches benefit period.
The district can afford either option. The $11.2 million in average annual surplus proves that. But one option is fair. The other is not.
This is not an abstract policy question. It is a direct transfer of costs from future residents to current residents.
A homeowner who bought in Jericho in 2020 and will move when their youngest child graduates in 2030 will have funded capital improvements through reserve contributions that future families will use for decades. A homeowner who moves to Jericho in 2033 specifically because of excellent facilities will contribute nothing toward building them. They get the benefit. The 2020 buyer paid the bill.
Why the District Prefers Reserves
The district will argue that reserves save interest costs. That is true in a narrow accounting sense. But it ignores the cost of premature collection.
Every dollar sitting in a capital reserve was collected from a taxpayer years before it was needed. That taxpayer carried the cost — in the form of higher property taxes — for years or even a decade before the project was started. The "savings" on bond interest accrue to the district's budget. The cost of early collection falls entirely on current residents who could have used that money for mortgage payments, college tuition, retirement savings, or any other purpose.
Calling this "savings" requires pretending that taxpayer dollars have no value until the district spends them.
The district also prefers reserves because they preserve discretion. A bond referendum requires naming specific projects with specific costs. The district must commit to what will be built before asking voters for money. Reserves do not require that commitment. Proposition #3's 50-category list includes "additional new space/new building additions" with no project names, no cost ceilings, and no requirement to return to voters before spending.
A bond referendum forces transparency. Reserve funding allows flexibility. The district prefers flexibility. Taxpayers should prefer transparency.
The Either/Or
The district's financial performance creates a binary choice.
Either the district genuinely cannot afford $1.52 million in annual debt service — which would mean that $11.2 million in average annual surplus is somehow insufficient to cover 13.6% of surplus generation — or the district can afford debt service but prefers that current residents pre-fund capital projects so future residents benefit for free.
One of those statements must be true. The numbers prove the first is false.
If the district had zero surplus generation and tight margins, reserve funding might be the only viable option. That is not Jericho's financial reality. Jericho generates millions in surplus every year. The issue is not capacity. The issue is choice.
The district chooses to position "no debt" as fiscal virtue. That framing hides the cost shift. Current taxpayers fund everything. Future taxpayers fund nothing. The facilities serve both groups equally. The payment obligation does not.
Or Just Be Honest About It
There is a third option: if the district wants to build these projects, finance them through bonds and name them explicitly.
A bond referendum would require the district to tell voters: "We want to build a $16.4 million auditorium at Seaman Elementary and a $6.4 million fitness center at the high school. Annual debt service will be $1.5 million for 20 years. Do you approve?"
That is transparency. Voters would know what they are authorizing, what it costs, and who pays. The district cannot redirect bond proceeds to different projects. The district cannot spend more without returning to voters. Everything is locked in before construction begins.
The district does not want that level of transparency. It wants discretion. It wants a $20 million pool with 50 categories and no project-specific commitments. It wants to decide after voter approval what gets built and where money goes.
If you want to build specific projects, put them on the ballot as specific projects. If you want discretion, admit you want discretion and explain why voters should grant it.
The current approach does neither. It presents reserve funding as maintenance while the proposition authorizes new construction. It presents broad categories while the Building Condition Survey identifies specific $16M+ projects. It asks voters to approve spending authority without telling them what will be spent.
Proposition #3 makes the pattern explicit for the first time. Voters can authorize it or reject it. But they should know what they are voting on.
"That's How It's Always Been Done"
That will be the response. It is not a defense. It is an admission.
For 22 years, the district has generated $247.3 million in surplus through conservative revenue projections and consistent under-spending. Voters approved budgets. They did not vote to authorize systematic over-collection designed to generate surplus for reserve transfers. They voted on spending plans, not on surplus generation mechanisms.
Proposition #3 asks voters to legitimize the pattern. By voting yes, voters would be explicitly authorizing the district to continue projecting revenue conservatively, under-spending budgets, generating surplus, and transferring that surplus into reserves rather than returning it to taxpayers or budgeting accurately in the first place.
"That's how it's always been done" means voters have been funding reserves for 22 years without knowing it. Proposition #3 asks you to approve it knowingly. The answer should be no.
If the district wants to fund major capital projects, it should finance them through bonds that spread costs fairly and require naming specific projects with specific costs.
What the district should not do is ask voters to rubber-stamp a surplus generation system that masks over-collection as conservative budgeting, then funnels the proceeds into reserves with 50-category spending authority and no accountability for how funds are allocated.
Voting yes on Proposition #3 is voting to authorize the mechanism. The mechanism is the problem.
The Questions to Ask Before March 26
The Board adopts the final ballot on March 26. Before that deadline, every Jericho resident deserves the answer to these questions.
Question 1: Over 22 years, the district generated $247.3 million in surplus through revenue exceeding projections by $31.5 million and expenditures coming in $215.8 million under budget. Does the Board acknowledge that Proposition #3 authorizes continuing this pattern—projecting revenue conservatively, budgeting expenditures above likely actual spending, and transferring the resulting surplus into reserves—or does the Board commit to recalibrating forecasting methodology regardless of how voters decide on Proposition #3?
Question 2: The district generates $11.2 million in average annual surplus. A $20 million bond would require $1.5 million in annual debt service (13.6% of average surplus). Bonds would spread costs fairly over the useful life of improvements and require transparent voter approval of specific named projects. What is the Board's documented analysis showing that reserve funding serves taxpayer interests better than bond financing?
The answers determine whether Proposition #3 is a vote to authorize systematic over-collection or whether the district intends to change its approach regardless of the vote outcome.