Earl L. Vandermeulen High School. File photo by Elana Glowatz
The Port Jefferson School District Board of Education held its first meeting of 2024 on the evening of Tuesday, Jan. 9. Though the meeting was relatively brief, the evening highlighted positive student engagement as well as things to look forward to in the coming new year.
The spotlight illuminated the commendable work of the student government at Edna Louise Spear Elementary, focusing on the active involvement of students in grades three to five. The election process, involving students delivering persuasive speeches to their peers, results in the selection of two representatives from each class.
Crafted by the students themselves, the student government’s mission statement defines their purpose — to contribute positively to the school, town and global communities, emphasizing the significance of kindness and support. The integral role played by advisers Michele Smith and Dana St. Pierre in guiding and shaping the student government’s initiatives was highlighted during the meeting, underscoring the collaborative effort that drives the success of these endeavors.
The student government’s diverse activities include fundraisers and events meant to foster unity within the school. Notable among these are the highly anticipated movie nights, a recurring event attended by students in grades three through five. The representatives take charge of the event, managing everything from snack distribution to movie selection, creating an enjoyable experience for students and parents alike.
Fundraising initiatives were given special attention during the meeting, showcasing themed dress days and contributions to various charitable organizations. Local charities such as Island Harvest and the Infant Jesus food pantry were beneficiaries of the student government’s active support. Moreover, their commitment to positive change extended globally, with initiatives supporting UNICEF and earthquake victims in Turkey and Syria.
Furthermore, the meeting shed light on the student government’s pivotal role in organizing schoolwide events that promote unity and school spirit. Flag Day, planned and executed by student government representatives, features performances by the school orchestra, band and chorus. Another noteworthy project is the Kindness Rocks initiative, where students aim to deliver kindness rocks throughout the community, spreading positive messages and goodwill.
The meeting also covered details about the upcoming New York State science exam, which will be administered to students in grades five and eight. Notably, this year’s exams will be computer-based, representing a shift in the assessment format. Additionally, the discussion touched upon the NYS Blue Ribbon Commission’s recommendations from 2019. The commission proposed 12 recommendations, categorized into areas such as the number of diplomas, credit and program requirements, assessment alternatives and modifications to graduation requirements for non compulsory students. The proposed changes aim to enhance education and better align with evolving academic needs.
From the floor, resident Gail Sternberg expressed concerns on the implications of the projected high school falling enrollment numbers, but no response was forthcoming from the board.
The highly anticipated bleacher project at Earl L. Vandermeulen High School began construction Dec. 20. Starting with upgrades to the press box, the work will include demolition and reframing of the front door, adding a viewing window in the front, reconstruction of the ladder for access from the back, as well as much more. The board also assessed that tree removal for the middle school retaining wall project is set to commence in the spring, and neighbors in the area will be notified when a definitive timeline for the project is determined.
The existing outdoor bleachers at Earl L. Vandermeulen High School. File photo by Lynn Hallarman
By Lynn Hallarman
The Port Jefferson School District Board of Education held a public work session on Tuesday, Oct. 24, to discuss re-bid proposals for replacement bleachers at the Earl L. Vandermeulen High School.
Concerns about the price of the bleachers voiced by some members of the public prompted the school board to call for additional bids with the hopes of receiving a “fiscally responsible plan to replace the bleachers,” board member Randi DeWitt said at the October 10 meeting.
The board also weighed the cost of pool repairs at the elementary school, discussed updates in the plans for the retaining wall project at the middle school and funding options for upgrading the HVAC system at the high school.
Present at the meeting to answer questions by the board were project leads — Facilities Director Robert Minarik, Deputy Superintendent Sean Leister and Architect John Grillo.
District voters approved $561,000 for replacement bleachers and $553,612 for pool repairs in May of 2022 as part of the 2022-23 budget.
The decades-old bleachers, while structurally sound, do not meet current safety codes or Americans with Disabilities Act requirements, according to Leister. However, initial bids for the bleacher project last spring estimated nearly double the cost, at $1 million for reduced seating of 650 from the current capacity of 750 seats.
This cost includes a new press box, a concrete base — the bleachers currently sit on bare ground — removal and disposal of the existing bleachers, press box removal and disposal, labor costs set by New York State and architect fees.
Board members reviewed six bids for the bleacher project at various price points and configurations. Proposal options included 450 seats versus 650 seats, and remodeling the existing press box versus installing a new one.
“We are using a new way to approach projects bids,” using a base price and add-ons if deemed affordable, Superintendent of Schools Jessica Schmettan said.
The board has the discretion to move funds between the bleacher replacement project and pool repairs as they are part of the same line item on the budget. To meet the price tag for several of the six bleacher bids would require shifting money away from the pool repairs, according to Schmettan.
“My reservation is taking away from something that is an instructional space, like the pool, and putting it toward something that is a noninstructional space, like the bleachers,” school board trustee Ryan Walker said.
He added, “The pool is part of the curriculum, and the bleachers are not.”
Other board members expressed discomfort with not addressing the safety concerns of current bleachers cited by the school’s insurance carrier (NYSIR).
Mr. Grillo proposed a plan that stays within budget while preserving the pool repairs. He suggested a 450-seat bleacher with room for expansion with an open-air press platform as a temporary solution, keeping the possibility of a new press box in the future.
The board made no final decisions.
The meeting ended with an announcement about launching a new way the public can track projects on the district’s website “to increase the transparency of the district’s capital projects,” Schmettan indicated.
The next board meeting will be held on Nov. 14 at the Elementary School.
Port Jefferson School District residents will have another chance to vote on a capital bond to fund school improvement projects, this time for $15.9 million.
This vote — scheduled for Tuesday, May 16 — comes just after the community rejected a pair of proposed bonds totaling $24.9 million last December. The district’s Board of Education approved putting the bond up for community approval at a meeting Tuesday, March 14, with the support of all six members present — trustee Ravi Singh was absent.
If the current proposal passes, taxpayers will pay for the bond in installments over several years. The vote will take place alongside the vote to approve next year’s annual district budget.
School officials suggest the proposal is more modest than the pair of bonds voted down in December, making no mention of replacing the high school’s grass sports field with artificial turf, a point of contention last time.
This bond would fund improvements to, for example, locker rooms, heating, cooling and ventilation systems, and alterations to some interior spaces. The details of this plan are on file for public review in the district clerk’s office, and the district will post more information about the new bond under the “Bond Project” tab of its website.
The board also plans to allocate more money toward capital improvement projects in the annual budget, according to Deputy Superintendent Sean Leister, which would help to pay for some facility update priorities and better plan for future needs.
“Seeing how difficult it is to go out for a bond and how hard times are, we were talking about gradually increasing the allocation,” he said while presenting the second draft of the district’s 2023-24 budget to the board. He added that he hoped this plan would mitigate the need for additional capital bonds in the foreseeable future.
Leister explained that updates to school infrastructure, health and safety — including security — and instructional classrooms would all be considered in school budgets moving forward.
“We thought by trying to incorporate those three things in future budgets, we can help bring up the level of our areas and the learning of our students,” he said.
Immediate plans for these funds include creating an ADA-compliant bathroom at the elementary school, installing a stop-arm security booth at car entrances to the middle school and high school, beginning a window replacement plan at the high school and refitting some classrooms.
Leister also noted science and computer labs would be due for remodeling, adding that “all the different areas that are functional but are maybe [from] the ‘70s or ‘80s and need to be brought up to current levels.”
Furthermore, Leister said stop-arm security booths are necessary because some GPS mapping apps list school driveways as regular roads and the administration wants to limit cut-through traffic.
The current draft version of next year’s school budget has a shortfall of $222,547. Superintendent of Schools Jessica Schmettan said this would be filled by staffing reductions to be decided before Leister presents the final budget to the board in April.
The board plans to increase the tax levy by 1.98%, just under the 1.99% cap set for the district by state regulations
In a public referendum held Monday, Dec. 12, Port Jefferson School District residents voted down two ballot measures totaling $25 million in school infrastructure improvements.
With nearly 1,000 district residents turning out in wintry weather, just 24 votes would separate the yeas and nays on Proposition 1, a $23.1 million infrastructure package that targeted various facilities throughout the school district. The measure failed by a narrow margin of 498-474. Proposition 2, a $1.9 million proposed artificial turf field at the high school, was defeated 734-239, a roughly 3-1 ratio against the measure.
In an email statement, district superintendent of schools, Jessica Schmettan, offered her commentary on the outcome.
“While the district is disappointed in the results of the Dec. 12 bond vote, we thank all who participated,” she said. “The small margin of defeat of Proposition 1 was particularly upsetting, as the challenges that exist with our aging building infrastructure remain a top concern for the district and, as such, will require further discussion for how best to proceed.”
‘I think it’s very shortsighted by this community.’
— Margot Garant
Mayor Margot Garant, a PJSD alum, publicly supported both measures leading up to the referendum. In an interview, she also expressed disappointment at Monday’s results.
“I don’t think that’s the Port Jeff way to let things get so deteriorated,” she said. “I think [the Board of Education] came up with a doable plan, and it was the time to do it because the community is still being subsidized by the LIPA power plant.”
The mayor added, “The schools are so important to this community. It’s what people look for when they come to live in Port Jeff. It’s one of the pillars that makes this place so special. … Just because you don’t have a child in the district doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be investing in this community.”
Leading up to the election, New York State Assemblyman Steve Englebright (D-Setauket), whose district encompasses Port Jefferson, supported the infrastructure upgrades within Proposition 1. In a phone interview, he referred to Monday’s school election outcome as part of a regional electoral trend and a “reflection of the post-pandemic moment.”
“The escalating cost of food and fuel have put a lot of people on edge,” he said. “I would guess that what we’re seeing is a reflection of the general anxieties about inflation.”
Though Englebright was sorry to learn that the voters defeated the facilities improvements, he was less amenable to the artificial turf proposal. He regarded the potential risks associated with synthetic turf as an unsettled science, with crumb rubber possibly having “some contamination issues,” along with added costs for maintenance and replacement. “It’s a very expensive proposition for those reasons,” he said.
Englebright was not alone in his reservations about the turf proposal. Paul Ryan, a former BOE candidate, was a vocal opponent of Proposition 2 in the months leading up to the vote. In an email statement, Ryan said Proposition 2 likely impacted the outcome of Proposition 1.
“I was disappointed but not surprised to learn that Prop 1 failed to garner enough community support,” he said. “I believe it failed because of the inclusion of Prop 2,” adding, “I suspected that enough of the residents would be upset by the turf that they [would] vote down the whole bond.”
Monday’s negative vote has prompted questions about the long-term prospects of the school district. For Garant, residents have an active stake in maintaining school facilities, which she said closely correspond to property values.
“Your home values are in direct correlation and are so connected to the value of the schools,” she said, adding, “I think it’s very shortsighted by this community. I’m disappointed, and I want to encourage the school board to continue their efforts, go back to the grind and maybe come back again.”
Some have advocated for PJSD to merge with a neighboring district due to its declining student enrollment in recent years. Garant regarded this idea as misguided, maintaining that support for the school district is in the village’s long-term interest.
“The miscommunication that’s going out there is that we can just merge with another district,” she said. “If we did that, our taxes would double immediately. I think that’s what people don’t really understand.”
Englebright noted the important place public schools occupy within the greater community. However, he suggested residents may need to take time for the broader economic trends to settle before taking on additional expenses.
“That school district has a long and distinguished history of service,” the assemblyman said. “People in Port Jefferson are rightly proud of their schools,” but adding, “I think that we have to give it a little time.”
Ryan again took on a different tone, insisting that future referenda within the district will require closer coordination with those supporting these projects financially.
“The administration and BOE need to demonstrate that they are able to hear the residents’ concerns, prioritize only essential infrastructure and take a fiscally responsible approach to spending,” he said. “If they do not, they may find annual budget votes contentious.”
During a Port Jefferson School District Board of Education public meeting on Tuesday, Sept. 13, the board put two ballot measures out for a public vote on Monday, Dec. 12.
The measures deal with infrastructure improvements and upgrades in elementary, middle and high schools. Proposition 1 is an estimated $23.1 million proposal focused on critical infrastructure improvements and updated facilities.
Before putting these proposals out for a public referendum, the board first conducted a state-mandated environmental review and then a vote to put the propositions on the bond referendum.
With BOE president Ellen Boehm absent, both SEQRA reviews passed the board unanimously. Proposition 1 was also unanimously approved. Though Proposition 2 passed, trustees Rene Tidwell and Ryan Walker voted “no.”
The decision to approve these propositions did not come without public opposition. District resident Drew Biondo objected to Proposition 2 because a turf field will require continual costs for refurbishment.
“In the course of paying for a $1.8 million field, even before we’re fully paid for it, we’re paying nearly the same price again just to refurbish it,” Biondo said.
Biondo addressed the impending loss of LIPA subsidies in the coming years, commonly referred to as the glide path. While some believe the agreement with LIPA is settled, Biondo contends that the issue remains ongoing and that much uncertainty remains.
“In 2027, the power service agreement expires,” he said. “[Then] what happens? If the power is not needed, then the plant goes dark. And if the plant goes dark, what will National Grid do? They will close the plant and likely demolish it.”
Biondo believes the looming prospects of demolishing the power plant may foreshadow a significant loss of revenue from LIPA. He advised the board to be mindful of these factors and their impact on taxpayers.
Biondo concluded his remarks by stating that small class sizes and the ability for students to get to know their teachers are an asset to the district. “I think you have to go to your strength, and our small size is a strength, and our low taxes are a strength,” he said.
District voters will get the final word on the matter this December. In the meantime, the district will hold a series of tours and information sessions to educate residents on the issues at stake in this upcoming referendum.
During a special meeting of the Port Jefferson School District Board of Education on Tuesday, Sept. 6, superintendent of schools Jessica Schmettan delivered a presentation on the proposed capital bond projects slated for a possible public referendum later this year.
During the upcoming meeting on Tuesday, Sept. 13, the board will vote whether to formally adopt two ballot propositions for an expected Dec. 12 vote. The special session included a lively discussion among board members and elicited significant feedback from members of the public. Village Mayor Margot Garant even made an appearance to share her own take on the proposed projects.
The meeting began with a detailed presentation of the proposed projects, followed by over an hour of deliberations during the public comments. Both ballot measures drew considerable public debate and diverse perspectives from both sides.
Above: Expected costs for Proposition 1 over the first five years, based on assessed home values throughout the district. For example, a home with an assessed value of $5,000 would spend a projected $564 during the first borrowing year, 2024-25, and $498 during the second borrowing year, 2025-26. Charts accessed through the PJSD website
Proposition 1
Proposition 1 encompasses a wide range of infrastructural improvements across buildings throughout the district. The estimated combined costs for Proposition 1 total $23.1 million.
The first item includes upgrades to heating and cooling within the high school and elementary school, upgrading the steam heating system and providing dual-use ventilators in the high school. The plans would also replace existing units in the elementary school with dual cooling units.
“If this bond was to be approved, we could say that all three of our schools would be heated efficiently and cooled efficiently,” Schmettan said. “I know there has been some conversation about cooling and the need for that. It is a modern convenience, but it is also a comfort. … It is tiring to be in the heat that long, and our students do learn best when they are in the most comfortable conditions.”
The proposal would also renovate the existing locker room and team room facilities surrounding the high school gymnasium. These facilities are used by physical education classes from grades 6-12, supporting the nurse’s office and the well-fit rooms.
The proposed renovation to the nurses’ office would remove an existing wall, adding a waiting area, a resting place, an ADA-compliant toilet and sink, and a resting area for the nurses.
The ballot proposal also seeks to reconfigure the girls locker room and team rooms, repurposing some of the existing showers as additional locker room space. The proposal would link the girls locker room with the team room and an ADA-compliant bathroom.
“Additionally, there would be access from the Wall of Fame hallway so that children could get into the team room, get into the locker room, without walking through the gymnasium when classes are in session or games are in session,” the superintendent said.
The proposal adds plans for a wellness room, which will open up storage space for the physical education department. A wellness room, according to Schmettan, would centralize equipment storage while accommodating office space for PE teachers and coaches.
“It centralizes everything,” Schmettan said. “Right now, our boys team room is upstairs and our girls are downstairs. It centralizes all our staff in one spot for supervision, which is ultra-important.”
Transitioning to the boys team room, Schmettan expressed disappointment and embarrassment at the existing facilities. She indicated that this space is “old and decrepit,” with a “long, dark hallway.” The current layout has the added disadvantage of separating the boys and girls team rooms between separate floors.
The proposed renovations would bring the boys team room downstairs. Similar to the layout for the girls, the boys team room would conjoin the team room with the locker room while providing access from the hallway.
Currently, the school trainer uses a closet as an office space. Under the plans, the trainer would move out of this location into a repurposed and renovated well-fit room. “It has access from the hallway and can be a proper room for the students to see the athletic trainer for any of their injuries,” Schmettan said.
Another aspect of this bond proposal centers around the two areas where the students have to leave the main building to access a portable that houses art, technology and music programs. To get to the portable, students must exit the building and mount a steep set of stairs, often encountering inclement weather.
“It is a huge safety and security issue,” Schmettan said. “It also presents a problem when you’re talking about students with disabilities, or with short- or long-term injuries.”
The bond proposal would demolish the portable music room, outfitting the upstairs space that supports the boys team room with a new tech education room and music room.
The existing band and choral room would also improve, with proposed renovations to the storage areas for equipment and musical instruments.
The final item within Proposition 1 is the renovation of approximately 14 bathrooms within the elementary school. These upgrades include tiling, plumbing, toilets, sinks and water fountains.
Above: Expected costs for Proposition 2 over the first five years, based on assessed home values throughout the district. For example, a home with an assessed value of $5,000 would spend a projected $46 during the first borrowing year, 2024-25, and $41 during the second borrowing year, 2025-26. Charts accessed through the PJSD website
Proposition 2
The second ballot proposal, if approved, would replace the existing grass athletic field with an athletic turf field. A projected $1.88 million project, Proposition 2 would add a five-sport lined crumb rubber surface, which has an expected lifespan of eight to 12 years.
Schmettan said a turf field would promote playability for the district’s athletic teams. She added that despite some speculation from members of the public, there are no plans for either field lights or a comfort station for the turf field.
Proposition 2 is a contingent ballot measure, meaning it cannot pass on its own. If the first proposal were to fail come December, then the second proposal would fail automatically regardless of its vote.
Cost estimates
Joining Schmettan was deputy superintendent Sean Leister, who presented multiple financial models to prepare district residents for the expected costs for these projects.
Leister said his estimates generally swayed on the conservative side so that he does not underrepresent the expected costs. His models assume construction will begin in 2023-24 and that the district will borrow funds from its reserves to cover the expenses for the first year of the bond.
“We would borrow money for a 15-year bond,” he said. “Once again, that could be variable, but we’re using an estimate of 15 years. The debt service on that bond would run from 2024-25 through [2038]-39.” He added, “In my models, I also estimated that state aid would not begin until the third year. … I also estimated on the low side that 87% of the project will be eligible for state aid.”
Leister gave a detailed estimate of residents’ annual contributions to paying down the bond based on the assessed values of their homes. Since the project’s first year will be self-funded, borrowing will kick in for 2024-25. See figures above for expected costs from 2023-28.
Following the presentation, a spirited discussion ensued during the public comments when district residents, parents and students raised several arguments for and against the two ballot measures.
To watch the public comments (starting at 46 minutes, 10 seconds), click here.
