Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Budget topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Jericho board hears near‑$6 million in capital work; elevator bid and escalation draw questions

Jericho Union Free School District Board of Education · February 13, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At Budget Workshop No. 2 the Jericho Union Free School District presented roughly $6 million in recommended capital projects (bathroom, window, elevator and pool work) and outlined funding from a $4.7 million capital reserve; board members pressed staff for clarity about contractor bids, soft‑cost add‑ons and escalation assumptions.

The Jericho Union Free School District on Monday presented its second budget workshop focused on capital projects, painting a picture of nearly $6 million in recommended summer work and leaving the board with follow‑up questions about project pricing.

Presenter (budget staff) said the package of recommended projects — including asbestos abatement near the little theater, districtwide masonry repairs, bathroom reconstructions and window replacements — totaled “just under 6,000,000,” with about $4.7 million drawn from the district’s capital reserve and the balance expected from the annual operating budget. “They are increasing by close to 900,000,” the presenter said during a discussion of state building‑aid changes that affect the district’s tax‑cap calculation.

Board members concentrated on a high‑school elevator project after staff flagged variation between earlier figures and current bids. The chair read aloud the prior approved figure and pressed staff for the math: “We just approved the elevator for high school for $375,” the chair said, which prompted staff to explain that the contractor hard bid (shown in the presentation as “3.75”) does not include architect fees, construction management, advertising and contingencies. Staff explained an 18% soft‑cost add‑on and a roughly 5% escalation estimate that together account for a higher final amount.

Staff emphasized the district’s multi‑year approach to capital planning and urged board members to direct any questions about scope to administration before the final adoption. The board scheduled additional budget meetings on March 3 (general education, athletics, technology, transportation and benefits), March 12 (revenues and expenditures review) and March 26 (final adoption and tax‑cap calculation).