Guilderland board outlines $46M priority-1 capital project, proposes May referendum with estimated 2.8% tax impact

The Guilderland Central School District’s facilities committee presented a recommendation Feb. 11 that would send a capital project referendum to voters in May 2025 to pay for building repairs, safety upgrades, instructional technology and new or refurbished instructional and performing-arts spaces.

The committee described the package as a multi-year start toward “future ready” classrooms and facilities, with the priority‑1 scope the board would ask voters to approve in May. District staff estimated a 2.8% tax impact, which they said translates to about $153 annually for the average homeowner based on the district’s average assessed value of $283,500. The presentation said roughly 75% of the project is aid‑eligible.

Why it matters: District leaders presented the referendum as the first of several projects intended to modernize learning spaces, improve safety and replace aging infrastructure. Trustees were asked to consider a May ballot resolution to begin state review and, if approved by voters, the design and bid process.

What the proposal includes: The board’s summary lists priority items across seven district buildings, grouped under safety/security (door access controls, IP public‑address speakers, video surveillance), infrastructure (roofs, HVAC updates, building‑management systems, asbestos abatement, bus‑maintenance lifts), site work (paving and athletic‑field repairs), instructional technology (Promethean interactive boards and infrastructure closet upgrades) and targeted classroom refurbishments. At the high school, the plan would add rehearsal and music spaces, additional technology lab space and a reconfigured, more flexible library/media area. The superintendent said the district would refurbish fifth‑grade wings at several elementary schools, upgrade kindergarten classrooms at Guilderland Elementary, renovate science labs at Farnsworth Middle School and update multiple secondary classrooms.

Cost and aid: The presentation listed a construction cost figure of $46,000,009.34 and stated about $10,300,000 in “incidentals” (presentation language). Presenters said roughly three‑quarters of the project is eligible for building aid; the district’s building aid ratio was reported to have increased from 0.689 to 7.704 (as presented to the board). District staff emphasized these figures are preliminary and subject to state review, design development and bids.

Timeline and next steps: If the board votes to put the measure on the May ballot, architects will prepare detailed plans for State Education Department review, followed by bidding and construction scheduling. The presenters noted the project is the first of several anticipated efforts; priority‑2 items (including a larger bus‑charging/storage infrastructure for a larger electric fleet) were deferred to later phases. The board must adopt a resolution in March to meet ballot deadlines.

Concerns and clarifications raised: Trustees asked about parking impacts from the planned high‑school expansion, the project timeline and financial planning to manage debt as older bonds mature. Presenters said the project spreadsheet used to arrive at priority‑1 items came from a year of task‑force and committee work, including building tours and community engagement. They also emphasized the district will work with financial advisors to limit taxpayer burden over time.

Ending: The board did not take a final vote on the referendum at the Feb. 11 meeting; trustees were invited to study the materials and consider a formal resolution at an upcoming meeting to meet May ballot deadlines.