DISTRICT RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM THE
SCARSDALE FORUM
1. What is the total cost of all items on the Facilities Master Plan? How much will be left undone after this bond? What is the long-term plan to finance this?
A) The District’s Facilities Master Plan has continued to evolve as facility needs are reviewed, with a focus on Building Condition (health, safety, and security). At this moment in time, additional Building Condition items, not included as part of the proposed bond scope, total an estimated $33.5 million. The Facilities Master Plan was developed with input from Building Level Committees and extensive expert analysis of all the spaces in our buildings as well as our fields. Building Condition items are readily identifiable and largely predictable and are updated regularly. The District has historically funded many of the smaller and mid-range types of individual projects as part of its annual budget and will continue to do so, in concert with a robust preventative maintenance program and in balance with educational priorities and financial constraints.
In addition to Building Condition needs, Educational Spaces were studied as part of the work of BBS Architects in review of all of our facilities, taking into account spatial needs and efficacy in meeting Scarsdale’s Vision for Learning (SET 2.0). This spatial analysis identified an additional $33 million of potential work.
Other open items for future consideration include air conditioning, which was identified by Building Committees as a high priority item in their many meetings and considered by the District-Wide Facilities Committee in Fall 2017. Installing air conditioning in District-wide instructional spaces only carries an estimate of an additional $24 million. In addition, the District’s Sustainability Committee is beginning to develop a list of potential sustainability related projects to be considered.
All potential expenditures will continue to be reviewed collaboratively, with a focus on determining educational impact and financial viability.
Looking ahead, the year 2027-28 would be the next opportunity to issue a “tax neutral” facilities related bond with an estimated capacity of approximately $46 million.
2. Does committing the entire available debt service back to facilities leave any wiggle room to add educational programs? Or must taxes rise to accommodate that?
A) The District’s educational programs are continuously evaluated by our team of teachers, department leaders, principals and senior cabinet members, and Superintendent of Schools.
These evaluations plus feedback from parent and community members can lead to recommendations to include funding in support of identified programs as part of the annual budget process, in balance with all budgetary recommendations and their respective financial implications. Major primary budget drivers such as health insurance and mandated retirement system contributions, both of which can vary greatly from year to year, also greatly impact the final budget and what is ultimately included or not. The past few years have seen important educational program additions in areas such as Special Education, world language, STEAM, and elementary level reading support. The ability to finance proposed facilities projects through the bond process will leave the District in a position to consider additional programmatic changes through the budgeting process, as recommended by the Administration. We do not see full use of the available debt service for facilities projects as an impediment to adding educational programs, but rather an important step in permitting such growth.
3. Has consideration been given to the fact that the recent federal tax legislation will increase the cost borne by some residents by 30-40% due to a cap on the deductibility of property taxes? With this recent change in circumstances, is it prudent to commit this large amount of financial resources to a long-term bond before we fully understand what the financial impact on residents will be?
A) The Administration and Board are acutely aware of the federal legislation and its potential impact on residents. We are also aware of possible state legislation that might provide at least some relief from that impact. However, irrespective of the legislation or subsequent measures, the prioritized list of needed work does not change. The speed with which other projects get done may be impacted as the Board and Administration consider budgets moving forward. However, the federal legislation makes it even more important to take advantage of tax neutral financing opportunities when interest rates are low, to prevent or minimize potential tax increases in the future.
4. Why are you adding so much space in an expansion to Greenacres when the enrollment is declining? Are you trying to appease the “new build” group with largesse?
A) Enrollment in the District and in particular elementary schools is generally cyclical. The proposed construction and renovation projects are not in response to demographics, but to meeting the spatial needs of a 21st century education. As part of the spatial analysis of our buildings by BBS Architects, the use of each building was analyzed based on its ability to provide programming consistent with SET 2.0. This analysis revealed the spatial needs at Greenacres to be the most critical, based on its lack of common flexible spaces and the comparatively undersized classrooms in 4th and 5th grade. The lack of such flexible space is currently having an impact on the ability to provide a full and vibrant curriculum. The size of the expansion was not determined to “appease” any group but determined in line with needs.
5. If you are setting the bond size by the concept of “tax neutrality,” will you commit to keeping all future budgets tax neutral as well?
A) The current Administration has consistently come forward with proposed budgets that reflect minimal tax increases. The Administration has also said, however, that there may be a time when that will not be possible. The Board and Administration are well aware of the new tax legislation and community concerns surrounding tax rates. While no such commitment to tax neutral future budgets is possible (for the simple reason that today’s Board cannot bind future Boards), budgeting will always account for the impact on the tax rate.
6. What are the mechanical fresh air systems proposed for Fox Meadow and Edgewood? If the bond is defeated, how much longer will improving air quality for children at those schools be delayed?
A) The original mechanical fresh air systems for these buildings were disengaged at some point in their history. The mechanics and infrastructure of these systems are very old and in a state of disrepair. In addition, they would not supply fresh air exchange up to today’s State Education Department (SED) requirements. As an identified non-code compliant item, the District is required to submit a short term plan for remediation to SED. If the bond is defeated, the District will be required to develop a new short-term funding plan for this remediation. Depending on Board and Administrative recommendations, these projects would need to be part of future budget or bond deliberations.
7. By how many years have the boilers and burners at Fox Meadow and Edgewood exceeded their life span? By when is it critical that you replace them?
A) These boilers, as well as the other boilers (12 in total) included in the bond proposal, were all funded in the 1990 bond and installed soon thereafter. Average lifespan of a boiler is 25-30 years. However, the District began experiencing trouble with the boilers early in their life cycle which is most likely attributed to inadequate water treatment. The District now properly treats all water that is a part of these systems. The District currently expends tens of thousands of dollars on repairs to keep current boilers in working condition. It is critical to replace boilers before there is absolute failure.
8. How will the proposed security cameras for our schools work? Will they do live feeds to a security company or the police or will they only be there so that a video can be viewed later?
A) The proposed security cameras would provide each building with a base security camera system focused on critical areas of the building as identified by each Building’s Emergency Response Team (BERT) in consultation with the District’s Emergency Response Team (DERT), Scarsdale Police, and the District’s security consultant. Although exact details of these systems will be finalized as part of these consultations, (and will remain confidential for reasons of security), it is typical to have live feeds at main offices and accessible by local police agencies.
9. Given the age of Fox Meadow and Edgewood, by what year do you anticipate that they will need major renovations and/or expansions at the level that Greenacres is getting? Is $35 million now the benchmark for what other schools can expect later?
A) The proposed bond includes health, safety and security improvements at ALL District buildings based on the same analysis of building conditions and space. In addition, the proposed Greenacres scope includes improvements to most current classroom environments, providing new flooring, ceilings and casework. District-wide planning for improving other older interior classroom spaces at all schools, including Fox Meadow and Edgewood, will be undertaken by committees consisting of teachers and administrators. Neither the Board nor the Administration anticipates that $35 million is a benchmark figure for these two other buildings with regard to one-time spatial or building condition improvements. That figure is reflective of the determined spatial needs for Greenacres (lack of common flexible spaces and the comparatively undersized classrooms in 4th and 5th grade).
10.
How many meetings have you organized or attended to engage the community in the school bond process? Did you reach out to organizations outside the PTAs? What year did the meetings with the community start?
A) Since the beginning of the year, members of the Board of Education and District administrators have attended or are scheduled to attend nearly two dozen meetings with a wide variety of community groups and civic organizations, including neighborhood associations and the Scarsdale Forum. In the winter of 2015, planning for the next proposed bond began with the forming of the Greenacres Feasibility Committee. This committee, along with the many committees that followed, involved a cross-section of teachers, parents, community members, administrators, Board members and a village representative. Please see the complete list below:
- Greenacres Feasibility Committee (2015)
- Greenacres Feasibility Committee re-convened (2015-16)
- Building Committees at the other six (6) Elementary Schools (Spring 2016)
- Presentation and Feedback at a meeting specifically for Greenacres held at Greenacres
- Board of Education Meeting updates and community feedback throughout the 2015-16 school year
- Architectural Firm interviews held in public in February 2017
- Meeting hosted by Greenacres PTA - September 2017
- Meeting hosted by Greenacres Neighborhood Association - October 2017
- Formal presentations made to the Board of Education and Community:
- May 22, 2017 - BBS’s presentation of all Building Condition needs and some initial design enterprise solutions to address major issues. Renovation and expansion to Greenacres was formally recommended over new construction.
- June 12, 2017 - BBS’s presentation of updated building Master Plans based on feedback from the Board, building committees, and community. Work at the Middle and High Schools recommended to be deferred for future committee study and development.
- June 20, 2017 - Public Forums were held. Day and evening sessions hearing from numerous district residents.
- July 6, 2017 - Board approved contract of Park East Construction Management firm to oversee project construction and development of implementation plans and estimates. Board agrees to Administration’s recommendations to move forward with project planning for the following:
- District-wide Building Condition needs focusing on roofs, building systems, electrical upgrades, code compliance and health & safety issues;
- The addition or upgrading of entrance ways into security vestibules at all elementary buildings and the Middle School;
- The renovation and expansion of Greenacres Elementary School; and,
- The final scope of a bond project should be at or near tax neutral (+/- $5 million).
- August 24, 2017 - Presentations at the Board meeting included the following:
- BPD Inc.: Estimates of Financial Impact.
- JC Broderick: SEQRA.
- Park East Construction: Background and Safety Procedures.
- BBS: Update of Project Development.
- Greenacres Building* and District-wide Facilities** Committees formed.
- September 11, 2017 - Presentation of project and committee updates from Administration and Consultants.
- October 16, 2017 - Presentation of project and committee updates from Administration and Consultants.
- October 23, 2017 - Comprehensive presentation of all scope items and committee updates.
- November 6, 2017 - Presentation and update of all scope items.
- November 13, 2017- Presentation of recommendations for proposed 2018 bond.
- November 28, 2017 - SEQRA Discussions and hearing from the community.
- December 5, 2017 - Public Forum.
_________________
*
Greenacres Building Committee
- The charge of the Greenacres Building Committee was to provide feedback, and to work with BBS Architects and Park East Construction, on refinement of building design and logistics, safety issues, and construction planning. Committee members included teachers, support staff, parents, community members, administrators, Board members, and a village liaison.
**
District-wide Facilities Committee
- The District-wide Facilities Committee was charged with becoming familiar with the proposed scope of work, provide feedback to District administration on proposals, and serve as key communicators to all District constituents. This Committee was also tasked with reviewing recommendations from the building committees regarding the inclusion of air conditioning within a bond scope. Committee members included teachers, parents, community members, administrators and Board members.