Tags Posts tagged with "bond proposal"

bond proposal

May vote will also feature $32M bond proposition for district wide capital projects

Comsewogue school board President John Swenning and Superintendent Joe Rella, along with the rest of the board and administration, have begun 2018-19 budget preparations. File photo by Alex Petroski

Taxpayers in Comsewogue School District have two important choices to make at the polls May 15.

The board of education unanimously adopted its proposed $91,947,730 budget for the 2018-19 school year during an April 12 meeting. The board also voted back in March to add a second proposition to the ballot to seek permission from the community to borrow $32 million over a 15-year span, with about $3 million in interest, to execute more than 100 repairs and upgrade projects across the district’s six buildings.

If passed, next year’s budget would be about $2 million more than the current year, with contractual, retirement and health insurance increases for faculty and staff being the primary driver of the increase. The higher costs will be covered in large part by a 2.2 percent tax levy increase, a 3.2 percent increase in state aid, and a slight reduction in full-time employees due to several retirements.

Bond

$32 million

$3 million in interest

15-year life

Would fund upgrades at all six district buildings

The district has also placed an emphasis on security, budgeting for additional security guards and mental health support services. The budget for buildings and grounds staff, comprised of custodial workers, security guards and maintenance workers, was increased by 7.5 percent for 2018-19.

The district’s stated budgeting goal based on its public presentation provided by Assistant Superintendent for Business Susan Casali is to “develop a school district budget that is taxpayer sensitive and aligns with the district student learning objectives.”

Casali will be publicly presenting the adopted budget a total of six times, with Saturday, April 21, at JFK Middle School at 9 a.m. being the next opportunity for district residents to catch it.

The bond proposal and list of projects came at the recommendation of the district’s Facilities Committee, a group of 21 professionals from across the Comsewogue community including members of the board, administrators, architects, engineers, former teachers and civic association members assembled in early January and tasked with presenting recommendations to the board. It will need to be approved as a separate proposition from the standard 2018-19 operating budget.

“The proposed facility improvements preserve the integrity of the school buildings, address repairs, improve instructional resources for all and upgrade athletic facilities,” district administration said in a statement.

Budget

2018-19 total: $91,947,730

2.2% tax levy increase

3.2% more in state aid

School board President John Swenning said during a March meeting the bond proposal was the result of hard work and community input.

“I just want to say thank you to the Facilities Committee that spent a lot of time going through our buildings,” he said. “This bond was brought to us from the community members. They found what they felt needs to be addressed and they came and presented it to the board. We’re going to accept it just as the committee has submitted it to us.”

The district has made a concerted effort to inform voters about the contents of the bond, filming and disseminating an informational YouTube video featuring Superintendent Joe Rella, mailing brochures to residents, and hosting several public presentations at district buildings as well as before the Port Jefferson Station/Terryville Civic Association.

Some of the projects include required upgrades to achieve compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act; repairing parking lots and sidewalks; adding security vestibules at all of the district buildings; fixes to exterior and interior building infrastructure; improving athletic fields and facilities; and kitchen upgrades. Some of the higher-priced projects included in the committee’s recommendation are: a new roof with solar panels at Terryville Road Elementary School; interior work at John F. Kennedy Middle School, including some classroom and hallway renovations; and upgrades to the high school concession stand building. If passed, the average taxpayer would see an increase of about $120 annually to their school tax bill, according to the district.

Dilapidated auditorium seating in Elwood Middle School, will be repaired as a result of the passage of a capital bond proposition. File photo by Kevin Redding

The Elwood school district opened its doors to residents last week for a night of building tours in anticipation of the Nov. 28 bond referendum vote to spend $38.2 million on infrastructure repairs and upgrades.

School administrators guided parents through the district’s four buildings Nov. 8 — Harley Avenue Primary School, James H. Boyd Intermediate School, Elwood Middle School and John H. Glenn High School — to provide firsthand glimpses of the proposed numerous critical repairs and renovations within each school. The projects are addressed in two propositions community members will be able to vote on Nov. 28.

The tours were considered effective by the small — yet invested — group of parents who walked through each school.

“You can tell me all you want that there are cracked tiles but seeing it actually brings it to life and makes you see the real needs here,” said Michael Ryan, whose daughter is a graduate of the district. “We have a responsibility to make sure students have an environment that’s conducive to education.”

Marianne Craven, an Elwood resident for 40 years, thought it was a good idea for the school to host the tour.

“We’ve had all sorts of bond issues over the years, but I think this is the first time we’ve ever had a tour,” Craven said. “Those that didn’t come lost the visual. A picture is not worth a thousand words, and actually seeing it makes all the difference.”

A damaged ceiling tile resulting from a roof leak in Elwood Middle School, that would be repaired or renovated if Proposition 1 is approved by residents Nov. 28. Photo by Kevin Redding

The first proposition of the bond totals $34.5 million and will cover major projects like the installation of new roofs on each school which currently leak and cause flooding whenever heavy rain occurs.

In observing the leaky ceilings throughout the middle and high school, Jill Mancini, a former district clerk at Elwood, said, “I moved here in 1975 and the roofs have been leaking since then. All of them.”

Also included under Proposition 1 are repairs to cracked sidewalks and curbing and the refurbishment of auditorium spaces and cafeterias, which need air conditioning as well as furniture replacements. In the middle and high school, the consumer science labs would be upgraded, along with the art rooms, locker rooms and a guidance suite.

“We need to bring them up to 21st century learning environments,” said Superintendent Kenneth Bossert, who led the tour of the middle school. “Some folks who visit our facilities feel like they’ve stepped back in time when they enter [some] classrooms and it’s just not the right environment to teach our students the new skill sets they need to be successful.”

Karen Tyll, the mother of an Elwood seventh-grader, said seeing all the infrastructure problems was eye opening.

“They haven’t done enough throughout the years to maintain the schools and replace the things that are required replacements,” Tyll said, pointing out the importance of stable roofs. “We’re reaching a point where everything is sort of coming to a head, and we need to make the schools better in terms of health and safety for the kids.”

Although she said it’s unfortunate the district needs such an expensive bond, Tyll hopes it will be worthwhile in the end.

“Some of the items are unnecessary because they’re more wants rather than needs,” said one mother on the tour who asked not to be named. “A roof is definitely needed, but the new guidance suite is a want. Our taxes are going to go up and they should’ve separated some of these.”

The superintendent said he felt the Nov. 8 tours were productive in helping residents understand the scope of the proposed bond. 

“It’s difficult to get a true sense of the needs of the facilities solely from the use of pictures and videos,” Bossert said. “I believe residents left with a greater understanding of the priorities the district has brought forward.”

by -
0 957
Taken from a drone, the varsity football field is illuminated by Musco Sports Lighting fixtures, the same brand as would be installed in Port Jeff should its $30M bond referendum pass. Photo from Sayville school district

Members of the Port Jefferson School District community headed south for a little enlightening Nov. 1.

If the district’s $30 million bond referendum passes following a Dec. 5 vote, stadium lights will be installed on the athletic fields at Scraggy Hill Road to allow sports teams to spread out practice times. To ease residents concerns about the lighting, the district held a South Shore meeting Nov. 1 at Sayville’s Greeley Avenue football field to show homeowners in the vicinity of the Scraggy Hill fields lights similar to those in the proposal.

A view of the lights on the football field and the surrounding area in the Sayville school district in the early evening Nov. 1. Photo by Alex Petroski

The district selected a brand and model similar to what is used by Sayville Union Free School District. They would be installed for $1.6 million if the full 20-plus item bond passes. Manufactured by Musco Sports Lighting, the football stadium lighting is billed as targeted beams meant to have little glare outside of the area designated for illumination, according to district administrators.

Ryan Walker, a resident near the Scraggy Hill fields and an employee in the district, has been outspoken about this particular line item in the greater bond proposal during meetings and again voiced his concern at the Nov. 1 meeting.

“Based on the shadows I see, I would be on my deck with my deck lit up, and that concerns me,” Walker said, adding his concerns with the inclusion of the lights in the proposal will “absolutely” be the largest deciding factor in how he votes. “I came down here thinking that somehow there’d be a miracle that what they explained would be true, but just being here sort of confirms my suspicions that there will be ambient light coming over, and even more than I thought, especially when the foliage is down.”

Walker said the presence of trees between his property and the fields, which district Assistant Superintendent Sean Leister estimated are between 70 and 100 feet tall, do not put his mind at ease having seen the Sayville field fully illuminated.

“I sit in my kitchen and I watch sports, because most of the tree foliage isn’t dense enough, and then as soon as the tree foliage is down I have a complete view of [the fields],” he said. He said the brightness of the lights concerns him, though he said the financial impact of the bond as a whole and the potential for traffic issues during night hours on the dark streets surrounding Scraggy Hill Road also need to be taken into consideration by voters.

A view of the lights on the football field and the surrounding area in the Sayville school district in the early evening Nov. 1. Photo by Alex Petroski

“We are all about the school, we love the school,” Walker said. “It’s just disheartening to us as a neighborhood because we are residential. [The area that surrounds the Sayville football field] is not a residential place. We are right up to the [Scraggy] fields. We think the school has other solutions that they’re not willing to negotiate with the neighborhood about. It was all or nothing, and they said they’d listen to us, which I’m sure they did, but listening and actually talking and negotiating are two different things.”

District Superintendent Paul Casciano said he is in a unique position, knowing about stadium lighting firsthand because he lives in the vicinity of Stony Brook University’s soccer fields.

“Initially, yeah I had some concerns, but you know what, they’re not an issue and they stay on until 11:30 every night,” he said. “You think it’s going to be a big issue and then you realize … kids cheering — never a big issue for me; 8:30 is not very late.”

Casciano pointed to a policy drafted by the board of education in recent weeks that would be implemented should the bond pass and would prohibit the lights from staying on past 8:30 p.m. as evidence the district is listening to concerns from the community.

A view of the lights on the football field and the surrounding area in the Sayville school district in the early evening Nov. 1. Photo by Alex Petroski

He reiterated the inclusion of the lights in the bond is for safety reasons, because currently, to accommodate varsity, junior varsity and middle school practices for boys and girls teams throughout the district, more practice time options are needed. At previous meetings, Casciano and other administrators have said the district’s current practice logjam has created dangerous situations for teams trying to utilize adjoining fields around the district at the same time.

Sayville’s field is surrounded by a Long Island Rail Road station on its north side, a parking lot and a few homes near its southeastern corner, an education center on its south side and a few homes across Greeley Avenue to the west. Casciano, Leister and district director of facilities Fred Koelbel said they each would be more disturbed by train station-related noise than the lights if they lived near the field. Koelbel added the lights at Sayville are competition-level brightness, and the one’s in Port Jeff would be a duller version because they’d only be needed for practices.

Carl Saieva, a Port Jeff resident who does not live near the Scraggy Hill fields, also attended the Sayville meeting and is leaning toward voting “No.”

When asked how he would feel if he lived in a house overlooking the field’s west side, he said: “I would be pissed.”

by -
1 1408

The referendum will appear on ballot as a single, all-or-nothing proposition

Port Jefferson high school could look very different in the coming years if a $30M bond proposal is approved by the community. File photo by Elana Glowatz

In Port Jefferson, 2017 will seemingly have a dramatic, down-to-the-wire election day just like it did in 2016, though this year it will be held in December instead of November.

The Port Jefferson School District Board of Education voted unanimously in support of a resolution to establish Dec. 5 as the date for the much-discussed and intensely debated $30 million bond referendum that has seemingly created a two-party system within the community: the Pro-Bond Party and the Anti-Bond Party.

Despite objections from some residents at prior board of education and Port Jefferson Village Board meetings, the date for the vote was set for the first Tuesday in December. The resolution to set the date was removed from the eight other items listed in the board consensus agenda under the category of finance after a motion by board Vice President Mark Doyle, so that the resolution to set the date could be voted on as individual item.

“At this moment in time both my husband and I are strongly inclined to vote ‘no’ on this bond, even though it’s great for the kids and the buildings.”

— Renee Tidwell

Those opposed to that date cited the potential absence of a large number of “snowbirds” or Port Jeff homeowners who tend to spend winters in warmer climates, on the date of the vote. The thinking being those residents are likely the same people who no longer have children attending the district, and therefore would be less likely to support the massive spending plan.

“We’ll discuss the best way of getting the word out and try to make the availability [of absentee ballots] a little bit easier than people might otherwise imagine, although it is relatively easy,” Superintendent Paul Casciano said during the Oct. 10 board meeting, when the date was finalized.

Casciano previously stated during one of the district’s several building walk-throughs, which were scheduled to allow residents the opportunity to tour the facilities slated for upgrades as part of the bond, that the December date was more preferable than attaching the proposition as part of the budget vote in June because the board felt it was important to allow the bond to stand on its own and not be lost as an afterthought to the budget.

Others who have voiced opposition to the bond have expressed concerns with voting on the more than 20 items as an all-or-nothing proposition and urged the board to split it into at least two propositions: one for education and safety upgrades and one for upgrades relating to athletics. The board elected to keep all 23 items and $29,900,000 worth of upgrades and improvements to district facilities intact as a single proposition.

Proposal highlights

•$7.6M to construct a three-story addition at PJHS

•$2.3M to construct new music room and instrumental practice room at PJHS

•$2.2M to build addition to PJHS cafeteria and renovate kitchen space

•$1.2M to replace windows at PJHS

•$2.5M to construct two additional classrooms at elementary school

•$1.7M for locker room renovations at PJHS

•$1.6M for installation of stadium lighting at Scraggy Hill fields

•$1.4M for a new synthetic turf football field at PJHS

•$3.7M to convert tech ed building to new central administration headquarters

•$1.6M to install drainage walls at north side of middle school building

“At this moment in time both my husband and I are strongly inclined to vote ‘no’ on this bond, even though it’s great for the kids and the buildings,” district resident Renee Tidwell said during the public comment portion of the meeting. “We want to vote ‘no,’ and we’re very troubled by that.”

Tidwell pointed to the inclusion of a synthetic turf football field and stadium lights at the athletic fields on Scraggy Hill Road included with health, safety and educational components in one proposition as a reason to vote against it.

“Split the bond into two bonds; one which addresses the urgent and critical capital improvements and infrastructure upgrades, and the other bond which could address less critical initiatives,” Tidwell said, prior to the vote, which eliminated that possibility.

Deputy Superintendent Sean Leister suggested it’s possible the district might have legal ways out of the bond agreement should an extenuating circumstance arise, such as a settlement in the district’s lawsuit against the Long Island Power Authority, which could cause the district to lose substantial property tax revenue, prior to borrowing the money. Leister said previously that projects and borrowing would be unlikely to begin prior to 2019.

Based on discussions during several public meetings and conversations taking place on Port Jefferson-related Facebook pages, the community seems to be split down the middle roughly two months away from the vote. Results of a survey that was available on the district’s website are expected in the coming weeks, and Leister has also promised an imminently available property tax calculator so that residents can see about how much the proposal would cost individual households if passed. This tax hike would be unrelated to potential raises as a result of the LIPA lawsuit and/or if next year’s budget were to ask for an increase. Casciano has also promised more walk-throughs, including a virtual tour for those unable to attend in person.

Elwood Middle School will get a new roof with the passage of Proposition 1 by voters. File photo by Sara-Megan Walsh

Elwood school district officials will put a total of $38 million in capital bond projects before residents for approval this November.

Elwood’s board of education voted unanimously Sept. 28  to put forth two propositions for a vote next month. Proposition 1 includes $34.5 million for health and safety improvements across the district. A $3.65 million Proposition 2 would go toward enhancement of the athletic fields.

“Over the course of the next two months, I look forward to as much community participation as possible,” Superintendent Kenneth Bossert said. “We want to provide as much information as possible to residents so that they can make an informed decision at the polls on Nov. 28.”

The first proposition focuses on major projects in each of the four school buildings — Harley Avenue Elementary, Boyd Intermediate School, Elwood Middle School and John H. Glenn High School — including replacing the roofs to fix existing leaks and flooding issues, fixing sidewalk and pavement cracks, renovating cafeterias and auditoriums and including air conditioning in some spaces.

The second, if passed, would allow for enhancements to the district’s athletic facilities including a concession stand for the high school fields with an outdoor bathroom, a synthetic turf field, sidewalks to make the fields compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, a new press box and a scoreboard for the varsity baseball field.

The major issue of debate at the Sept. 28 board meeting came down to prioritizing items on the district’s list of alternative projects. The list is a compilation of recommended building renovations and upgrades that may be possible to complete if Proposition 1 is approved by voters, and there are additional funds remaining after the outlined construction is completed.

“The alternative list are all projects that were removed from Proposition 1 in order to bring it down to a level where taxpayers could be comfortable with [the tax increase],” Bossert said.

The district’s original building repair survey had recommended approximately $60 million in needed construction and safety upgrades to the buildings.

Some of the alternative projects the district will put forth to the state which aren’t included in either proposition include a new districtwide satellite clock system for $105,000; a backup generator for the computer systems at $125,000; air conditioning for office areas at $710,000; replacement of heating and ventilation units for $110,000; wall paneling at $170,000; locker room renovations for $625,000 and landscaping a playground for $40,000.

“I would like to see some things that the students will be impacted by moved up to the top of the list,” trustee Heather Mammolito said. “In an ideal world, I’d like to see locker room renovations bumped up and some others, like wall panelling, lower on the list.”

Mammolito’s comments were echoed and supported by other members of the board, who reached an agreement to re-evaluate it before posting it for district residents.

The superintendent stressed that the alternative projects list is highly flexible and “not set in stone”, as the renovations would only be possible if there are surplus funds and, which ones move forward would be dependent on how much of the bond is left.

“Often as is the case with construction, there are unanticipated costs,” Bossert said. “We may have to add projects to our list.”

The alternative projects list must be compiled as it has to be approved by voters and sent to the state, according to Bossert, so that if there are funds leftover after major projects are completed the district would have authorization to do work on these projects.

School officials have plans to host walk-through tours at each of the school buildings prior to the November vote so residents can evaluate first-hand the proposed projects. The dates have yet to be announced.

The Nov. 28 vote will be held from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m at the district’s administrative offices. This a change from the district’s traditional 2 to 10 p.m. polling hours, approved by the school board, in order to offer more hours for working taxpayers to vote and more aligned with general election polling hours.

Port Jefferson High School senior Billy Scannell states his case from a student’s perspective on a proposed $30M bond for districtwide repairs and upgrades. Photo by Alex Petroski

Those who attended a meeting at Edna Louise Spear Elementary School in the Port Jefferson school district Oct. 2 seeking clarity on how the public might be leaning regarding a $30 million bond proposal went home empty handed.

About 25 community members of the 100 or so attendees voiced their opinion on the district’s proposal, which administrators presented last month, for upgrades and improvements across the district during the meeting. If the approximately two dozen speakers are a representative sampling of the community, taxpayers seem to be split down the middle two months out from a tentative referendum vote scheduled for Dec. 5.

The proposal has seemingly polarized the community, with those in favor providing student health and safety, as well as maximizing academic and athletic opportunities as evidence to support voting in favor of permitting the district to borrow the money.

“I just thought it would be interesting to get a different perspective on it, you know, like from a kid who’s actually in high school rather than someone who is not,” high school senior Billy Scannell said. “In the high school they offer over 20 [advanced placement] courses and a vast array of clubs, with an award-winning music program … the school has a lot to offer. If you really look at it, it becomes clear why Earl L. Vandermeulen was named one of the five Blue Ribbon Schools on Long Island. With AP courses and the classrooms, it’s growing because the school just gives you so many opportunities to learn new things and explore. So you say the number of kids isn’t growing, but the opportunities are and so many kids just want to be a part of that.”

Those against, including the Port Jefferson Village mayor and board of trustees, have cited uncertainty surrounding a lawsuit, which includes the village and district, against the Long Island Power Authority, that could result in substantial losses in property tax revenue for both entities, as enough evidence to support a “no” vote. No expected resolution timetable exists regarding the lawsuit, which has been pending for several years. Others have said they’re not sure they agree with the district’s assessment that each of the 21 items on the bond wish list are at a stage of requiring immediate remedy. Others have said a district-produced enrollment study projecting the number of students in the district to remain flat over the next several years is a sign that expansion of facilities doesn’t make sense at the current time either.

“How do I authorize the community to spend $30 million before I know if the school district is secure,” said Ted Lucki, a Port Jeff resident, former school board trustee and former mayor of Belle Terre Village. “How do I vote for that? It’s irresponsible. I think timing is everything. There’s a gorilla in the room. What are we, naïve? How do we justify that? It’s inappropriate for me to vote for a bond when we’re on the firing line for much bigger issues.”

District Superintendent Paul Casciano reiterated points he’s made throughout the process of presenting the bond to the public. He said it’s difficult to know when the LIPA issue will be resolved, and in the meantime the buildings still need fixing. He also said the list has been pared down from the original $100 million incarnation from when the process began about three years ago to include only the things the district views as essential.

If passed, the $30 million project would feature a three-story addition to a wing of the high school, additional classrooms at the high school and elementary school, a turf football field at the high school, lights for the Scraggy Hill Road athletic fields, among many more improvements. The district’s total budget for the 2017-18 school year is about $43 million. If passed, the bond would cost the average taxpayer between $400 and $1,000 annually during the 15-year life of the payment plan. Deputy Superintendent Sean Leister plans to make available a property tax calculator in the coming weeks on the district website that would allow residents to see how the bond would impact their annual bill.

Casciano pledged to schedule more walk-throughs of the buildings and areas slated for upgrades prior to the vote and even left open the possibility to conduct a virtual building tour, which those unable to physically attend a walk-through could view at their own leisure. The board of education is slated to solidify the proposal and vote on establishing Dec. 5 for the referendum during its next public meeting Oct. 10. A survey will remain accessible for members of the public to weigh in on the proposal on the district website until Oct. 9.

Sean Leister, deputy superintendent; Fred Koelbel, facilities and operations administrator; and architect John Grillo discuss aspects of the bond with attendees of the walk-through. Photo by Alex Petroski

They say seeing is believing, and administrators from the Port Jefferson School District are hoping that rings true for homeowners in the district.

Paul Casciano, superintendent, Sean Leister, deputy superintendent, Danielle Turner, athletic director, principals from the three schools, architect John Grillo and other administrators took interested community members on two guided tours over the past week to examine the classrooms, hallways, buildings, grounds and athletic fields slated for renovations and repairs should a $30 million bond proposal pass a vote scheduled for Dec. 5.

Several residents have expressed concerns with committing to the 15-year payment plan with the looming possibility of a substantial loss of revenue from the Long Island Power Authority, with litigation pending against the energy provider. At least one resident who attended the high school tour said the LIPA specter might impact her vote.

“I for one, as a citizen, am concerned about what [the LIPA situation] means for our taxes, and really that’s the only reason I would say ‘no’ to this,” the resident said.

Other residents raised questions about why certain aspects of the bond, for the most part referring to upgrades associated with athletics, can’t be done during regular annual budget appropriations.

“We try and do the smaller items — when I say smaller I mean around $200,000 — through the budget process,” Leister said in response. “But for a capital project you’re talking millions, and that’s much harder to add to the budget. It would cause a big spike in the tax rate.”

Casciano further explained the thinking behind presenting the bond, which administrators have been working on since 2015, to residents this year at the end of the high school tour.

“We have a responsibility to give [the residents] an opportunity to decide what they want to do given their budget, given their beliefs, and everything else,” he said. “If they’re not supportive of it, we get that, but if we don’t give them the opportunity then I wonder if we’re fulfilling our responsibility to do what we’re supposed to do.”

A tour of Edna Louise Spear Elementary School and the adjacent district offices was held Sept. 20. Around seven Port Jeff residents attended the first walk-through, according to social media posts by at least one attendee on a private Facebook group comprised of a few thousand villagers.

Following the Sept. 20 tour and public comments made by the Port Jefferson Village Board in opposition of pursuing permission to borrow the money, members both in favor and against the bond referendum have taken to the group page to publicly state their case. Perhaps as a result of the warming debate over virtual avenues, about 30 people attended the physical tour of the high school and middle school Sept. 25.

A common refrain from district administration since the topic was introduced in depth during a Sept. 12 board of education meeting is that the projects designated in the bond proposal are too urgent and too expensive to address within standard annual budget appropriations or with an unappropriated reserve fund. The district currently has about $1.5 million in unappropriated surplus, according to Leister. State law allows districts to keep up to 4 percent of its total budget in reserves to be used on unforeseen expenses.

About $5.9 million of the proposed project would go toward upgrades associated with athletics, with the largest sticker price belonging to the replacement of the grass varsity football field with a turf surface.

“We’re a small school but we run a very full athletic program,” Turner said. Overuse of the grass high school football field has resulted in the football and lacrosse teams needing to relocate for practices, on occasion, and even for some games during the last calendar year. A turf field and lights at the athletic fields on Scraggy Hill Road would alleviate crowding issues with sports practices, according to Turner.

Upgrades at the adjoining high school and middle school building would cost $13.6 million and $2.2 million, respectively. The construction of a three-story addition to the high school building would add up to six brand new classrooms at a cost exceeding $7 million.

“We want to make sure that the kids have every opportunity to expand programs, to expand course offerings and space is something that we need,” said Christine Austen, the high school principal. She added she understands the decision is ultimately up to the community.

Fixes at the elementary school would total nearly $4 million, and the adjoining district office portable building would be demolished and relocated to the grounds of the high school at a total cost of $4.3 million.   

The elementary school elements of the proposal include fresh air ventilators for 12 classrooms in the building’s 200 and 300 wings. It would also include the construction of two new classrooms to be used by the guidance department and resource room teachers, who currently are periodically educating some students in a hallway, according to Tom Meehan, elementary school principal.

“With these improvements everyone would have a home — we wouldn’t be juggling,” Meehan said.

Casciano said there is a possibility the board of education will decide to split the referendum into multiple propositions, rather than an “all or nothing” vote, though it would not be more than two propositions. If passed, the upgrades would cost a taxpayer who pays $8,000 annually in school taxes to pay an additional $396 annually.

A public meeting regarding the bond is scheduled for Oct. 2 at the elementary school in the board of education meeting room at 7 p.m.