School Board Scales Back Bond Proposal to $38M

by Melany Gray

(November 20, 2008) After nearly three hours of discussion and debate, and with extensive input from the community in the form of 1130 completed questionnaires and seventy pages of single-spaced comments, the Mamaroneck School Board decided on November 18 to scale back its capital bond proposal from $41 million to $38 million. The board’s action was a response to significant changes in the economy since June 5, 2008, when board members unanimously approved the larger bond, which in addition to building repairs and boiler replacements included four synthetic turf fields, a new track and resurfacing of the Chatsworth and Murray playgrounds. (See: Mam'k School Board Okays $40.6 Million Bond for Fall.)

The Community Weighs In

At the outset, Board President Linnet Tse recalled that the bond had started at over $75 million more than two years ago, and that the board had thoroughly considered each of the items in the $41 million proposal, determining that all were important.

She then shared results from the board’s widely distributed questionnaire, which were completed by 1130 individuals, 84% with children in the Mamaroneck schools and 78% with prior familiarity with the bond.

The responses, Ms. Tse noted, show “the community is divided in opinion.” More than half of the respondents favored a bond to do proposed building work (68%), playgrounds (57%), Memorial Field (53%) and the Central School field (60%), but only 46% supported the proposal for Manchester Field (the high school baseball field). Ms. Tse stressed that the economic situation made a decision very difficult and hoped the community would realize that the board has been “very thoughtful.”

Attempts to Come to Consensus

Asking for a “first round” opportunity to hear from board members, Ms. Tse invited consideration of four proposals: the “bare bones” proposal of $22.1 million (See: School Board Told "Don't Cut the Bond"); the full $40.7 million bond; a somewhat scaled back bond; and a two-part bond, the amount and elements of each to be determined.

Although each board member remained committed to all of the items in the $41 million proposal, their individual efforts to factor in the changed economy and community input led them to conflicting solutions.

Board members struggled to come to consensus, but several hours later, no single proposal proved acceptable to all.

Two Proposals Easily Rejected

None of the board members was comfortable with the “bare bones” scenario, and several expressed surprise that despite the economic climate there was greater support in the community than expected for undertaking most of the projects in the larger bond.

Nevertheless, only three board members favored proceeding with the full $41 million proposal. Richard Marsico, Janet Buchbinder and Michael Jacobson each maintained a clear preference for this option throughout the deliberations, with Ms. Buchbinder and Mr. Jacobson refusing to consider alternatives until it failed to pass. All insisted that the cost of the additional debt service was minimal, and that all the work was necessary.

Two-part Bond: Various Iterations Considered

Board member Nancy Pierson favored offering two bonds for community vote on the same day as a way to give the “bare bones” projects the best chance of passing, while giving the rest of the work a chance to pass as well. Only if the first bond succeeded would the second bond be considered.

Given the changed economy, Ms. Pierson said she didn’t favor putting voters “under the gun” to support the full $41 million proposal in order “to keep the schools open,” referring to possible school closures should the boilers at the Hommocks or Central fail.

Board member Robin Nichinsky proposed splitting the projects so that the first bond would contain “health & safety” items, including all of the “bare bones” work, plus the playgrounds, and field work at Central and Memorial Field. The second bond would cover “infrastructure,” and would include Manchester Field. “Strong arming“ the community to accept the whole $41 million in a single bond did not feel right to her.

Ms. Tse echoed these concerns and, although she preferred Ms. Pierson's split, she said she could support either two-bond proposal or something similar. Mr. Marsico, however was concerned that, regardless of content, a second bond would be more likely to fail. He also opposed cutting back on the full field proposal (Plan C) because it added so much more capacity than the partial plan, which would exclude Manchester Field.

Ms. Tse, in turn, said she could not support putting both Manchester and Memorial fields into a first bond. While acknowledging that benefits to the community would be “huge,” she said, “the question is, can we have everything in these time?” Should a first bond fail, the board would probably try again, but with a much smaller bond without any fields, she suggested.

Ms. Tse was also reluctant to let building work go undone in order to add another field. “It would be “harder to get anything passed if we put all the fields in the first piece,” she said. In addition, she expressed concern about how inclusion of all the fields in a single bond would appear to the community at budget time, when the district might well be faced with the need to cut programs in order to keep tax rates at a manageable level.

The newest board member, Harriet Barish, ultimately indicated that if she were to support a two-part bond, the fields would have to be split.

Scaled Back Amount in One Bond

In her first-round comments, Ms. Barish had proposed a bond that included 100% of the “bare bones” work but only 85% of the remaining building and field work. Although not a first choice of any other board member, something akin to Ms. Barish’s proposal is what the board ultimately approved – many hours later.

After a motion for the $41 million bond failed to pass, Mr. Marsico’s motion for a $39 million bond was changed to $38 million by Ms. Barish’s “friendly amendment,” and that motion carried by a vote of 4-3. Ms. Tse, Ms. Nichinsky and Ms. Pierson each voted against it.

Moving Forward

The next step is for the board to formally pass a bond resolution, which will be presented at the December 2 study session. At that time, the board is expected to specify where the $3 million in cuts will come. In addition, the board will pick a date for the vote, most likely February 10, 2009.

After the meeting, PT Council President Margaret Corbett commented that state law's requiring open deliberation made for a fascinating meeting. “We witnessed a very open dialogue and expression of different opinions,” she said.

Ms. Tse summed up the evening succinctly: “There is solid support for most of the projects in the community; now it’s really in their hands.”

Melany Gray is co-president of the Mamaroneck High School PTA.

Front Page

Print This Page
Email this page