I write to respond to Ms. Pandelakis' letter printed in the September 9 issue of the Manhasset Press.

First, I should correct Ms. Pandelakis' statement that the board of education "routinely" reviews letters from Manhasset Press. This is not a routine, but rather a rare occurrence. The determination whether to permit a response in the same issue in which a letter appears is within the sole discretion of the editor of the Manhasset Press.

Ms. Pandelakis asked certain questions about demographic studies. The board is very concerned with the increasing enrollment in our school district. While it is complimentary to consider that the numbers of students are rising in all of our schools, it is crucial that the school district provide the necessary facilities to accommodate the growth.

The engagement of experts to project enrollment growth is an essential tool for facilities planning. The district has used a reliable demographer in the past, and he will again be providing an analysis. Because of the importance of an accurate projection, the district will engage a second demographer to ensure that we have the most current and reliable information possible to guide our deliberations on district needs.

Ms. Pandelakis quotes an incorrect figure with respect to the cost of the architect for the proposed facilities bond project. Under the District's contract with the architectural firm, the firm provides all services necessary to support a bond proposal to the public for the fixed fee of $75,000. The firm has been working on this project for years. They have been heavily involved in the conceptual planning; meetings with educational experts, committees and district personnel to identify and analyze the facility needs; drafting and revising numerous calculations and building plans; and making presentations at meetings with school officials, the board, and at the special hearings that were held last year. The architectural firm remains obligated under the contract to support any continued efforts toward the facility expansion.

Ms. Pandelakis ridicules the idea that unfunded government mandates affect our budget, but that is a fact of life in public education. Regulations tightly bind the district in areas of special education, transportation, employee benefits, and many others. For example, only two years ago (school year '02-'03) our district contributed about $250,000 to the state to reimburse it for expenses of employees' and teachers' retirement systems. This year (school year '04-'05), that amount will grow to approximately $2.8 million. While we continue our effort to achieve cost savings in the district, one cannot ignore the reality that many of our increased costs are driven by state and federal unfunded mandates beyond our control.

All school districts bear a heavy burden of unfunded mandates. That helps explain budgetary increases in neighboring districts as well. Manhasset has had smaller budget increases than other school districts that are frequently given comparative praise by commentators on these pages, as shown in the following table for this year and for three years aggregate:

District	’04-’05 budget increase	Last three years aggregate increase
Jericho	9.97%	25.4%
Herricks	8.97%	26.5%
Garden City	6.95%	22.4%
Manhasset (using amount from the defeated proposed budget)	5.76%	20.5%

Statistics can be debated and analyzed in many different ways. The school board continues to seek efficiencies and cost effective practices. As we do so, we remain committed to providing the high quality of education that the Manhasset community rightly expects today and in the future.

Thomas J. Maimone

President, Manhasset Board of Education