School Board Expresses Unanimous Support for $98.5M Bond

Hoping to ensure that the proposed capital bond reflects the right balance between educational needs and community affordability, the Scarsdale School District recently encouraged community members to provide feedback on the proposed $98.5 million capital bond by completing a comprehensive survey. At the Board of Education meeting on Monday, January 12th, Superintendent Dr. Drew Patrick shared the results of that survey and provided board members an opportunity to share their sentiments.

Framing the findings as a key checkpoint in a months-long public engagement process that began last fall, Patrick shared an overview of the results which demonstrate continued majority support for investing in school facilities, while also highlighting growing concerns about affordability, particularly among residents without school-aged children.

Before exploring the results, Patrick briefly reminded those in attendance that the bond proposal outlines a districtwide plan to address aging infrastructure, classroom capacity pressures, environmental conditions, and athletic facilities.

The proposed bond includes:

$25.2 million for vital infrastructure, such as electrical, mechanical, and code-compliance upgrades to address health, safety, reliability, and operational efficiency

$58.9 million for student learning spaces/spatial upgrades, including classroom additions at Fox Meadow and Edgewood to maintain class-size caps of 22–24 students, modernized libraries and dining spaces, and flexibility for future academic programs

$12 million for environmental improvements, primarily air conditioning and climate control in remaining unconditioned instructional and gathering spaces

$2.4 million for field upgrades, including major drainage improvements at Quaker Ridge and a dedicated softball facility at Greenacres

Patrick emphasized that classroom additions were proposed as an alternative to redistricting, preserving neighborhood stability while accommodating projected enrollment growth. To learn about the proposed bond in greater detail see here.

Diving into the results, Patrick explained that the most recent survey drew 834 responses, showing increased participation from October’s turnout but with a somewhat different demographic mix. Residents made up a larger share of respondents (745 compared with 641 in October) and participation from residents without school-aged children rose to 19%, up from just over 6% previously.

Patrick said the shift suggested broader community engagement, particularly among “empty nesters,” a group that consistently expressed greater sensitivity to cost.

Highlights from the survey results:

Survey results showed the strongest support for infrastructure projects, with 72% of respondents saying the scope is appropriate or should go further. Only 28% felt those projects exceed need or affordability.

Support for student learning spaces remained a majority but declined since October. About 58.5% said those projects strike the right balance or should be expanded, while 41.5% felt they were too extensive or costly. Empty nesters were far more likely to say the learning space investments were “too much,” while residents with children and district staff expressed stronger support.

Written comments from survey takers in this category raised concerns about enrollment projections, potential overbuilding, and whether alternatives such as redistricting, rezoning, or bussing had been sufficiently explored.

Air Conditioning

Air conditioning emerged as one of the most strongly supported components of the bond. Eighty-five percent of respondents supported some or all of the proposed cooling projects, citing student health, learning conditions, climate change, and staff working environments. Fifteen percent said air conditioning should not be a priority.

Board members repeatedly referenced the educational and regulatory importance of temperature control, noting state guidelines that require action when classroom temperatures exceed certain thresholds.

“Students don’t just learn in classrooms,” one board member said. “They learn in libraries, cafeterias, gyms, multipurpose rooms, and auditoriums. These spaces have to be usable and comfortable if we’re serious about learning.”

Multiple board members voiced support for adding air conditioning back into the Heathcote School multipurpose room, a roughly $106,000 item that had been removed earlier in the process.

“That’s not a high-ticket item in the context of a $98 million bond,” one member said. “Leaving a major shared space without climate control doesn’t make sense.”

Athletic Fields

Opinions on field projects were more divided. Respondents generally supported drainage and safety improvements, but expressed less consensus on the full scope of athletic upgrades. Some comments called for additional projects, such as turf fields, while others questioned the placement of a varsity softball field at Greenacres.

Patrick also explained why a proposed middle school turf field had been removed from the scope, citing both cost (approximately $3 million) and unresolved coordination issues with the village related to potential flood-mitigation infrastructure.

Overall Cost

When asked about the total bond amount, 56% of respondents said the cost was appropriate or should be expanded, while 44% said it was too high. Among empty nesters, opposition was more pronounced, with 69% saying the bond exceeds what they consider affordable.
Written comments reflected concerns about tax impacts, particularly for retirees, and skepticism about cost estimates. District leaders responded that all figures include required contingencies, escalation, and soft costs, and stressed that detailed line-item budgets have already been made public.

Board Member Statements

After considering all of the community feedback, each board member expressed their strong support for the bond, praising both the substance of the proposal and the transparency of the process.

In her statement, BOE Vice President Colleen Brown shared that participating in the bond’s development underscored Scarsdale’s long-standing commitment to its schools and students. Acknowledging the magnitude of asking residents, especially those without children in the district, to support a $98 million bond, she said the investment is essential to maintaining educational excellence and the community’s long-term vitality.

Citing conversations with local realtors, Brown noted that families overwhelmingly move to Scarsdale for its schools, making continued investment critical. She emphasized that many school buildings and systems are aging and no longer meet modern educational needs, pointing to outdated HVAC systems, overcrowded elementary schools, insufficient art spaces, and aging middle school and high school facilities.

She said classroom additions at Fox Meadow and Edgewood are necessary to preserve small class sizes and neighborhood stability, while upgrades across libraries, cafeterias, and multipurpose spaces, especially air conditioning, are essential for student health and learning.
Brown concluded that while the bond represents a significant cost, it is an investment not only in students but also in property values, community strength, and Scarsdale’s future, and said the proposal appropriately places student needs at the center of the district’s planning.
Other board members also took turns sharing their support for the bond:

“We’ve heard loud and clear that people want clarity, discipline, and good stewardship,” one board member related. “This bond reflects those values. We’ve made choices, we’ve deferred projects, and we’ve been responsive to feedback.”

Another board member emphasized the broader context of infrastructure investment in the community. “Scarsdale’s schools are not separate from the village, they’re central to it,” the member said. “This is about maintaining a vibrant, competitive community for the long term.”
Several members noted that while the bond is substantial, the district’s aging buildings and evolving educational needs make action unavoidable.

“These buildings were not designed for how we teach and learn today,” another board member made clear. “If we want to preserve small class sizes, modern instruction, and student well-being, we have to plan proactively.”

One of our new student board members, Anish Mehta, commented earlier in the evening and shared that the majority of the student body at SHS supports the bond proposal. “Due to expansion of creative learning spaces, the LRC wing reestablishment for the high school, the AC for large spaces…overall, I think that they're glad to see that the bond implications are very student focused, both educationally and socially.”
James Dugan, the board president, concluded by underscoring the bond’s focus on students. “This is about supporting our students’ growth, adaptability, and future,” he said. “That’s what has always set Scarsdale apart.”

Public Comment

During the Public Comment portion of the meeting, several residents and community representatives raised concerns and questions regarding the proposed capital bond, focusing on athletic facilities, enrollment assumptions, financial transparency, and equity in school building upgrades.

Ralph Gear, a Scarsdale resident speaking on behalf of the Scarsdale Youth Lacrosse Association, expressed disappointment over the removal of turf fields from the bond scope. He said the decision limits year-round athletic opportunities for students and forces local sports programs to rent facilities outside the district at significant cost. Gear noted that wet field conditions frequently disrupt spring sports and urged the board to prioritize turf fields in future capital planning.

Representing the League of Women Voters of Scarsdale, Dalia Khan asked a series of questions about the proposed Edgewood School construction project. She sought clarification on the rationale for the addition, the enrollment metrics used to justify it, and whether alternatives such as boundary adjustments, class size changes, or relocating programs had been considered. Khan also raised concerns about deferred oil tank replacements, asking about environmental risk, long-term costs, and how postponement would affect the district’s five-year capital plan.

Mayra Kirkendall Rodriguez, PTA Council Budget Study co-chair, thanked the district for extensive outreach related to the surveys but questioned whether the roughly 5% response rate was sufficient. She asked whether additional efforts would be made to engage more residents before a formal board vote and requested more detailed analysis comparing survey responses from residents with and without school-aged children.

Rachana Singh questioned the district’s claim that $40 million of the proposed $98 million bond would be “tax neutral,” arguing that the designation is based on assumptions about interest rates, repayment terms, and property values that cannot yet be known. She asked how the district supports the claim, whether alternative tax-impact scenarios have been modeled, and whether financial advisors have reviewed the use of the term. She also challenged the district’s enrollment projections, saying they rely too heavily on recent cohort survival data and do not fully account for long-term trends such as declining birth rates, limited housing growth, and projected enrollment declines at the high school level. She urged the district to acknowledge uncertainty, present multiple enrollment scenarios, and consider offering alternative bond options so residents can better assess financial risk.

Heathcote PTA president, formally requested that air conditioning for the Heathcote multipurpose room be reinstated in the bond. She argued the space meets the district’s own criteria for cooling, is used daily for instruction, meals, and after-school programs, and presents health, safety, and equity concerns without air conditioning. She emphasized that the estimated cost, approximately $156,000, would have minimal impact on the overall bond and should be considered a basic necessity rather than an enhancement.

In a short response, Dr. Patrick reiterated that cost and tax impact projections are estimates until bonds are issued and noted that updated financial analyses will be prepared once the bond scope and construction phasing are finalized.

What Comes Next

If the board finalizes the bond scope by mid-March, a public referendum could be scheduled alongside the May 19 school budget vote and board election. In the meantime, the district plans to expand its public information campaign, including community forums, school-based meetings, and detailed mailed and digital materials explaining the proposal and its tax impact.

“This process isn’t over,” Patrick stated, “Community feedback continues to shape where we land.”