Pelham board splits on geothermal at bond talks; consultants flag tariffs and cost uncertainties

Pelham Union Free School District trustees spent a major portion of their March 12 meeting debating possible components of a proposed capital bond, focusing attention on a Sibonoy elementary addition, a high school expansion, campus infrastructure, and whether to include geothermal heating and air-conditioning work.

Why it matters: The bond package will determine the district’s multi-year facilities program, which affects classroom capacity, code- and accessibility-related upgrades, and long-term operating costs for heating and cooling. The board did not adopt a final scope but directed administration and consultants to prepare alternate bond packages for the next board meeting.

What the board discussed: Architects and consultants reviewed a multi-part scope that included a district-wide infrastructure package, an addition and renovation option for Siwonoy Elementary, a high school addition to add cafeteria/meeting space and updated science labs, and proposals to add air conditioning to elementary schools. Staff also presented geothermal systems as a low-carbon, long-term alternative to conventional mechanical HVAC for the elementary campuses.

Consultants’ review and cautions: The board heard an independent review from Triton and a presentation by the district’s architect (KG and D). Consultant Kevin Sawyer said the overall KG and D budget was “good” and consistent with construction contingencies and escalation factors, but he recommended using conservative allowances and alternate bid pricing because the market can be uncertain. He estimated the Siwonoy addition could be roughly $2.0–2.1 million higher than some earlier estimates depending on market conditions.

Tariff risk: Sawyer and board consultants also modeled the possible effect of tariffs on steel and aluminum products and provided a rough sensitivity analysis. Sawyer said a 25 percent tariff on tariff-exposed hard-cost items could add roughly $1 million to the Siwonoy addition and approximately $1.4–1.5 million to a larger high-school package, though he emphasized these numbers were contingent and subject to rapid change in the current market.

Geothermal and air conditioning debate: Board members and staff extensively debated whether geothermal work should be bundled with air-conditioning installation, split as a separate ballot question, or deferred. Supporters pointed to long-term operating-cost savings and lower carbon emissions; skeptics said community understanding of geothermal is mixed, its long-term payback can be imprecise without site-specific energy modeling, and voters may be reluctant to approve less familiar technology tied to upfront costs.

Board direction: The board asked staff and consultants to prepare two clear bond-option packages and associated tax-impact scenarios for the board’s next meeting: (1) a package that places campus infrastructure, the Sibonoy addition and elementary air conditioning together, and (2) an alternative set that treats geothermal as a separate proposition (or otherwise splits geothermal from the core infrastructure package). The board also requested explicit tax-impact estimates for each package and for typical residential assessed values.

Quoted guidance from consultants: Russ Davidson of KG and D summarized the environmental review process for the bond preliminary work, saying, “Type 2 under SEQRA is one of the actions that the New York State DEC has predetermined does not have any adverse environmental impact.” Consultant Kevin Sawyer cautioned the board about pricing volatility and tariffs and presented the district with alternate price ranges and contingency recommendations.

Next steps: Administration will bring two draft bond scopes and precise estimated tax impacts to the board for review at the next meeting, and staff will form or engage a bond steering committee to help with community engagement and question-and-answer materials for voters. The board signaled preference for presenting clear, separate choices to the community rather than bundling uncertain items in a single package.

Ending: Trustees said they want community feedback to guide final scope decisions. The board directed administration to prepare the alternative bond packages and tax estimates ahead of the next meeting so members can finalize propositions and move toward a scheduled May ballot.