Open Questions Delay School Bond Decision

by Melany Gray

(February 28, 2008) For over a year, the Mamaroneck School Board has been grappling with the scope of a proposed bond to fund sorely-needed capital improvements to district buildings and enhancements to district fields. (See: School Board Debates $51.1 Million Bond.)

At a special meeting on Wednesday, February 27, the board met again to review remaining issues in an attempt to determine how many bonds to pursue, what to include and when to schedule a community vote. Although the board members agreed to pursue a single bond in June, following the May 20th budget vote, they were unable to determine the scope or the amount of the proposed bond.

The board anticipates that the bulk of open items can be resolved and prices attached so that they can determine the scope and amount of the bond at its meeting on March 18. In the meantime, Superintendent Paul Fried will present his proposed school budget to the board next week on Tuesday, March 4.

Many Issues Still Open

Meryl Rubinstein, the assistant superintendent for business operations, will work with the district’s architects to answer open questions on the buildings and grounds, including those regarding asbestos abatement in the high school’s McClain Auditorium, whether additional electrical work should be done to support the increasing number of computers and other electronic devices in classrooms, and whether and how Central School’s parking lot should be reconfigured to reduce traffic congestion. In addition, Ms. Rubinstein will work with the district’s field consultants to determine the appropriate infill surfaces to be used in new synthetic turf fields to be installed at the high school, whether the Central field should be synthetic turf or natural grass, and the appropriate surfaces for playgrounds at Chatsworth and Murray schools.

Energy and Urgency at Hommocks

The board discussed the possibility of doing an energy audit and studying alternative energy sources, including a micro-turbine co-generation system to replace the Hommocks boiler and a geothermal unit to replace the Central boiler. Both of the existing boilers have exceeded their expected lifespan and need to be replaced. Ultimately, however, the board concluded that replacing the old boilers with new, high-efficiency boilers would require less delay and less up-front expense. Students at Hommocks have found it necessary to wear their coats in some classrooms this winter, so the board determined that the Hommocks boiler and HVAC work was particularly urgent.

Only if a bond is approved by the community before this summer will the district be able to replace the boilers in the summer of 2009, given the time required for state approvals and ordering specialized equipment. The Hommocks work involves replacement of all the piping and other HVAC components, as well as the windows, which are outdated and failing. The bulk of this work must be done in the summer when students are not in class. Thus, the new boilers and HVAC systems would not be available before the winter of 2009-2010, at the earliest.

It is estimated that the boiler and HVAC replacements at Hommocks and Central, together with the Hommocks window replacements, an integral component of energy conservation, will cost more than $19 million.

One Bond versus Two

Notwithstanding the urgency of the boiler replacements, the board determined that it would be most prudent to put all the proposed work in one proposed bond. The board members expressed concern that multiple bonds would allow “line-item veto” and potentially doom the work in a second proposed bond, which might be seen by the community as less important. Board member Rick Marsico, who also serves on the Building Committee, noted that all of the work under consideration has been determined by the board to be important and necessary.

In addition, board members raised concerns about transparency, suggesting that the best way to make sure the community understood what the board was proposing was to put all of the proposed work in one bond proposal. They also cited “voter fatigue” as a potential problem with multiple bond votes.

The board members each concluded, however, that having the bond vote on the same day as the budget vote would be ill advised, as voters would likely become confused between the budget, which addresses monies to be spent by the district in a particular year, and the bond, which would allow the district to borrow money over time to finance capital items. Thus, the board expects to schedule a vote on the proposed bond for June.

Front Page

Print This Page
Email this page