Three Village board hears bond briefing: district cites $123 million of needed work and 66% state building‑aid ratio
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
District business officials briefed the board on a bond referendum scheduled for Jan. 20, explaining why a bond—rather than annual maintenance—funds roofs, HVAC, paving and other capital needs, and noted the district’s historically high building‑aid ratio (described as 66%) that would apply to bond projects.
Mr. Carlson, speaking for the district, told the Three Village Central School District Board of Education on Jan. 7 that the district will hold a bond referendum on Jan. 20 at Ward Melville High School (gymnasium) from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. He summarized outreach to the community, noted forums already held and one planned for Jan. 13, and said the bond committee voted unanimously to place the referendum on the ballot.
Mr. Carlson described the distinction between maintenance and capital projects, saying maintenance covers day‑to‑day repairs handled by custodial, grounds and maintenance staff, while capital projects—such as roof replacement, heating and ventilation system upgrades, paving and large‑scale renovations—are the kinds of work financed through bonds.
“We toured all the buildings,” Mr. Carlson said, urging the public to review photos the district will publish showing example problem areas. He said the district’s committee estimated about $123,000,000 in total needed improvements and explained that completing those projects through the annual budget would require much larger recurring appropriations (he cited an illustrative range of $10–12 million per year) because maintenance budgets are constrained by the tax‑cap rules.
On financing, Mr. Carlson emphasized a key point for voters: capital‑project debt service for bonds is excluded from the state tax‑cap calculation, while ongoing maintenance must fit within the tax cap. He also said the district receives an unusually favorable state building‑aid ratio that the presentation characterized as 66 percent. “We get 66% back,” he said, explaining that a hold‑harmless feature in the state formula preserves the higher aid ratio in many years and that the aid ratio in place when voters approve a bond remains in effect for the life of that bond.
Board members asked what would happen if the bond failed; Mr. Carlson said the district would have to increase its maintenance budget to cover more repairs, shifting resources away from other programs. He also noted that construction inflation since the district’s prior bond has raised costs: the 2014 bond included more work in dollar terms but at lower prices.
Why it matters: If voters approve the bond, the district could accelerate long‑deferred capital repairs and capture substantial state building aid; if voters reject it, the district faces the prospect of higher recurring maintenance spending, potential deferment of large repairs and, in extreme scenarios raised during the discussion, consideration of facility repurposing or closures to balance long‑term costs.
What’s next: The district will hold additional public forums, post photo documentation of project needs on its website, and continue outreach ahead of the Jan. 20 referendum.