At a meeting of the district’s Board of Education, facilities staff presented a draft $37.5 million capital project and a tentative schedule aimed at making the proposal ready for a December vote, with an initial board resolution needed before September.

The project as presented focuses largely on infrastructure: boiler and rooftop unit replacements, roofing to replace failing spray-foam systems, IT-closet cooling, interior-door core replacements, kitchen-equipment upgrades, and site work at multiple schools. Facilities staff said the effort would primarily “clean up things that are recently going to be out of warranty,” and carry forward a roughly 5% contingency from prior projects.

Why it matters: the package would address multiple aging systems across the district—several boilers and roof sections date to 2006–2007 and approach the end of typical useful life—while a high-cost option to convert Park Terrace’s Husky Field from natural turf to artificial turf would add substantially to the local share and likely increase taxpayer costs.

The facilities presenter summarized the timeline and scope: “Thank you for having us here tonight. Just wanted to give you a quick update on some of the preliminary work we've been going through, trying to gear up for a potential, future capital project and a goal here coming in December.” The presenter told the board the initial resolution to begin the process must occur before the September meetings so the team can meet SED submission and bidding timelines.

Major scope items listed per building included:
- High school: replacement of boilers (installed circa Feb. 2006–2007), IT-closet split systems, a new walk-in freezer, kitchen equipment and serving line upgrades, gymnasium air conditioning as a lower-priority add, and two small roof areas (spray-foam system) scheduled to come off warranty in 2027.
- Middle school: IT-closet cooling, track resurfacing (recommended at roughly 10 years), targeted flooring replacement where slab-on-grade moisture is causing VCT tile failure, secure-vestibule modification at an administrative entrance, and a full roof replacement to TPO membrane (moving away from spray foam).
- Boulevard and other elementary sites: boiler and IT-closet work, repairs or reconfiguration of a skylight/atrium to reduce solar gain and safety risks, parent drop-off and parking revisions, brick repointing and façade repairs, and perimeter/site repairs.
- Transportation facility: removal of an underground waste-oil tank, replacement with above-ground storage on an existing mezzanine, and related maintenance work (the board previously authorized emergency repairs to related systems).

Park Terrace Husky Field: site work and turf debate
The presentation singled out Park Terrace’s Husky Field for a major site upgrade. The base natural-turf regrade, drainage and irrigation scope was priced at about $3,000,000 and would include grading, underdrains, sprinkler work and perimeter improvements. The district priced an alternate to convert the full field complex (baseball and football areas) to artificial turf; presenters identified that alternate at approximately $1,800,000 on top of the base bid to “turf everything.”

Facilities staff warned that state aid rules make full state reimbursement for artificial turf difficult at an elementary campus because aid is tied to the student population served by the facility. As one board member observed, “The state does not allow you to spend that kind of money on an elementary facility” for full aid; staff clarified that the cost allowance for turf at an elementary site is limited and that pursuing turf at Park Terrace could increase the local tax impact.

Staff and board members discussed a future-path option: undertake the natural-turf drainage and grading now (work that would not need to be fully redone for a later turf conversion), and build a local reserve if the board later decides to fund turf. Staff said underdrains and detention structures installed under a renovated natural field “would remain in place” if the district installs turf later, though turf requires additional perimeter aprons, different catch basins and other work.

Officials described maintenance and lifecycle differences: artificial turf systems typically carry a roughly 12-year warranty on the turf carpet and require periodic maintenance (including g-max testing and crumb-rubber management); the pad and base installed under the turf can support two replacement cycles (roughly 24 years) before larger subbase work would be needed.

Costs, schedule and next steps
The staff estimate for the full package was presented as about $37.5 million. Facilities said staff will meet with the district’s financial adviser (Tim’s group) to refine budget scenarios this week, and expected budget numbers for the board by the end of the week or early next. Staff noted they must begin SEQR/SEDActions for state environmental review and recommended confirming whether the SEQR language needs to distinguish between natural turf and artificial turf for bond-counsel purposes.

Board direction and constraints: staff asked whether the board wanted both natural- and turf-cost options prepared; several board members asked for both figures. Staff said the board’s next full scheduled meeting (the board’s September meeting was noted as the second [date number in the district calendar]) would be a feasible time for the board to act on a resolution. Staff emphasized some trade-offs: significant site items are competing for funding with building envelope and mechanical work, and state aid rules and prior federal-funded work affect which elements the district can aid.

Discussion notes and concerns raised
Board members and staff repeatedly emphasized not triggering larger SED code implications in building alterations; for example, reworking an open stair in one middle-school commons area could force full enclosure and substantially higher cost because of code compliance thresholds. Staff advised doing work in smaller phases to avoid triggering “Level 3” alterations that require full code upgrades.

The discussion was lengthy and technical, with multiple staff and board members asking detailed questions on durability, warranty dates, sequencing, and impact on athletics and traffic circulation at Park Terrace. Staff recommended surveying the Park Terrace field this fall to avoid design delays if the project moves forward.

What the board decided
No binding vote was taken on the capital project at the meeting. The board directed staff to: (1) meet with the financial adviser to finalize budget alternatives for natural turf and artificial turf options, (2) begin necessary SEQR steps and consult bond counsel about SEQR language, and (3) prepare to present budget alternatives at the board’s September meeting so the board can consider a resolution that would enable a possible December public vote.

Ending
Staff said they would refine the cost and schedule details, correct a few labeling errors in the draft spreadsheet, and return with more precise budget options and SED/DEC guidance. The presentation closed with staff noting that many items in the draft budget are movable between buildings and that priorities may shift as numbers are firmed up.