Questions and Answers on Greenacres and Scarsdale's Facilities Master Plan

At the September 13, 2016 Board of Education meeting Superintendent Thomas Hagerman and Assistant Superintendent Stuart Mattey recommended that discussions about the Greenacres School be tabled until a master plan for all facilities in the district could be completed. Mattey estimated that in the next five years, $94 million will be needed to maintain all district buildings and facilities, and therefore, the administration asked for additional time to consider the decision about Greenacres in the context of the total plan.

Prior to the announcement, concerned community members were anticipating that the board and administration would come to consensus on plans for Greenacres this fall, in time for a vote on a new bond in May, 2017 to coincide with retiring district debt.

However, this new announcement puts plans for Greenacres on hold until the facilities plan is completed and the board and administration can make a recommendation. It was also suggested that the bond vote might be put off as well.

In December 2014, the community approved an $18.12 million bond to fund renovations and improvements at the high school, middle school, Edgewood and Heathcote elementary schools. Prior to formulating this project list, building committees were formed to consider all district needs and identify priorities. At the time, these committees were instructed not to consider Greenacres School, as it was too large a project for this bond offering and it would be addressed in the 2017 bond. Since that time, the district has undertaken extensive plant improvements and capital projects using money from the annual budget--including roof replacements, paving, fire alarms, bleachers, and work at the bus compound. See more details here: 

Therefore, when residents learned that Greenacres would again be put back on the list of potential projects, rather than given priority, they had questions. What was in this $94 estimate? How much would be spent on Greenacres? Was this $94 million for upkeep and maintenance of district schools or did it include upgrades such as air conditioning or cafeterias at the other elementary schools?

Since the format of the Board of Education meetings no longer allows for discussion between the audience and the Board, we sent some follow up questions about facilities to Stuart Mattey and here is what he shared:

About the Facilities Master Plan:

Questions: Pertaining to the facilities master plan, you estimated that there is $94 million in upcoming work on the list. Please tell us the following:
-How much of that work is for Greenacres? (Assuming we don't build a new school)
-Please provide us with a list with the top 20 projects on the master plan so we can understand what the big ticket items are.

Response: The Facilities Master Plan is not yet complete and therefore not yet ready to share out any estimates or details.

About the Greenacres School:

Question: How much money has the district spent to date with architects KG&D on plans and consultations on Greenacres?

Response: The District entered into an agreement with KG&D in the 2014-15 school year for a Greenacres Feasibility Study. They have been paid approximately $74K for that work. There have been no other fees paid directly related for Greenacres although there is an agreement in place for future bond planning which would encompass Greenacres and all other schools. The amount paid to date on that $80K agreement is approximately $48K.

Question: Earlier this year, the district said they would survey the field to ensure proper measurements for the proposed new school (C1) and the remaining field. Has this work been done? What did it show?

Response: Yes, a survey of the Greenacres property was completed. (It showed) a slightly larger slope increase but no major surprises.

About the projects currently out for bid:

Question: At the meeting you explained that for the projects in the $18.12 million bond passed in 2014 only $12 million was available for actual construction, due to soft costs such as fees for a construction management firm etc. Has the district considered retaining a construction manager on staff since so many projects will be underway rather than paying consultants?

Response: The size and scope and complexity of these projects require professional construction management to be dedicated to these jobs.

About the upcoming bond referendum:

Question: At the meeting you said that the district would have the option not to float a one-time bond to replace the expiring date for 2018. Can you give a more thorough explanation of what you meant?

Response: The maturing of older bonds in the 2018-19 school year creates a budgetary hole in the 2019-20 school year where the P&I expenses associated with these older bonds existed. These expenses could be replaced with a new bond (leveraging the P&I for a large project) with similar principal and interest (P&I) structure or a new expense such as a smaller one time capital projects amounting to the same expense as the previous P & I. It could be a combination of the two. The timeline for bond vote therefore is somewhat flexible depending on future discussion.

Mattey provided this hypothetical timeline as an option:

2016-17 Budget debt service related to older bonds = $4.9MM
2017-18 Budget debt service related to older bonds = $4.9MM
2018-19 Budget there is the last payment on debt service for expiring bonds of approximately $4.9 million
2019-20 Facilities Master Plan items (Boilers roofs etc.) amounting to $4.9MM could be funded from the budget as a transfer to capital. One time expense (net impact = $0)
2020-21 Work related to a voter approved bond occurs with related debt service of $4.9MM. (net impact =$0)
2021-21 Debt service related to same bond $4.9MM (net impact = $0)
2022-23 etc. (net impact = $0)

Note: Here is an interpretation of Mattey's reponse: If the district were to wait an extra year before issuing a bond, there would be a one year "gap" in which it didn't have a sizable principal and interest expense. Instead of paying that principal and interest expense in that year, it would pay for some capital project (for example, new roofs). This way, total expenses for capital projects would not fall during the "gap year". The next year, when the bond is issued, the district would pay principal and interest again. By keeping expenses level over time, the district would not have any tax problems (e.g., where taxes fell for a year but then needed to be brought back up to previous levels.) Though it may be delayed, a bond including Greenacres would not cause a tax increase.

Therefore, if the Board does decide to delay the bond referendum and the work at Greenacres, in this proposed scenario construction might only begin in 2020 for completion in 2022-3. In the intervening years, if the school's population swells, new solutions will have to be found for where to educate the kids. And if it's six years before any work is done, all the children who are now in the school will be in middle school and the current stakeholders in the discussion may well have moved on.