Scarsdale Bond Offering: How Much Is Too Much?

Should the Scarsdale School Board proceed with a $16.7 million bond or take advantage of low interest rates to borrow $18 million? That was just one of the discussions at the September 22 Board of Education meeting that can be viewd on the Scarsdale Schools Cable Channel An Executive Summary of the proposal was also issued with the evening's agenda and can be accessed here.

At an open work session on September 8, the Board approved by a vote of 7-0 a modified facilities plan that would require a $16.7 million construction bond. This approved proposal eliminated some elements from the designs as they existed in the spring and reduced the bond requirement by $1.3 million from $18 million.

In the months leading up to the September 8 work session, the proposed plan was thoroughly reviewed under Dr. Hagerman's leadership. Board Member Lee Maude presented a detailed history of the work and community input that occurred over the summer that led up to the final proposal including open study sessions, meetings with architects, schools tours, BOE members' input and discussion with school principals. Also, Dr. Hagerman stated that one of his objectives was to move this plan forward with the full support of the Board and the Scarsdale community and made his recommendations to reduce the cost of the bond with this objective in mind.

During the discussion period, Board member Lewis Leone suggested that since present borrowing conditions are extremely favorable it could be in the best service of the Board's fiduciary responsibilities to increase the level of borrowing. While no specific dollar amount was mentioned, the discussion centered on a possible additional amount that would not exceed $1.3 million.

There was much discussion about what projects additional money could be used to fund. Should some of the design elements eliminated from the original proposal be reinstated? Should the money be used to increase contingencies? Should it be used on other priority items that were never part of the original plan (examples include the artificial turf field, Dean Field, and new seats in the high school auditorium)?

The Board had this discussion with the knowledge that a draft of the overall facilities master plan just issued to them (not part of the night's agenda, but certainly on their minds) calls for $65 million in facilities spending by 2030 and therefore they did not want to lose this opportunity to borrow funds at a favorable rate.

Ultimately, it was decided that Dr. Hagerman and Assistant Superintendent Linda Purvis would review projects with top priority projects to determine if it makes sense to include them in the bond referendum. There would be no changes to the plans as approved on September 8.

At the same time, there was much concern expressed that returning to discussion mode on the agreed upon bond amount was opening up a "whole can of worms" on an issue that is now extremely time sensitive. In order to take advantage of retiring debt and favorable borrowing conditions, the Board must vote on October 6 to get the referendum proposal on the ballot for a community vote on December 11. Will the community support a larger bond referendum?

You can watch this very important portion of the meeting (here).

What do you think is the best way for the Board to proceed?