Pelham Board reviews $28M–$127M capital options for schools, zeroes in on Siwanoy and high school lab needs

Pelham Union Free School District officials and architects presented a range of refined capital-project options at a Jan. 28 work session, focusing on infrastructure repairs, air-conditioning strategies and two contrasting approaches for Siwanoy Elementary School and Pelham Memorial High School additions.

District architects from KG&D—Russ Davidson and Walter Hauser—walked the board through options that, together with district-wide infrastructure work (roofing, windows, masonry, heating-plant upgrades), produce total program scenarios ranging from roughly $92 million to more than $127 million depending on which additions and renovations are included. The presentation also examined ground-source (geothermal) heating and an estimated federal investment tax credit tied to those systems.

The discussion matters because the district expects about $65 million in debt to roll off the tax levy in the coming years, creating capacity to fund capital work with a smaller net tax impact—if the Board and voters approve a bond. District officials framed the session as an iterative step to refine concepts and budgets before public engagement continues over the next weeks and months.

Architects summarized site- and building-level feedback gathered since earlier presentations and community meetings. For Siwanoy Elementary, options ranged from a modest addition that preserves most existing green space (labeled Option B/B-minus) to a larger intervention that removes two side wings and creates a bigger play area and new gym/cafeteria (Option C/C1). Architects said they had revised plans to reduce vehicular access and to retain and enhance key landscape features such as the micro-forest and outdoor classroom.

At the high school, the primary design variable is how many new science labs to add. The team presented additions that would deliver between 2 and up to 12 new science labs (with intermediate options of about 6 to 10). A larger addition intended to collocate science department spaces and add flexible academic commons would increase square footage and cost substantially. Board members and administration emphasized a target net gain of two to four modern science labs as the programmatic minimum.

On air conditioning and heating, the architects said coupling hydronic heating upgrades with cooling distribution produced material cost savings compared with two independent systems. They presented a set of infrastructure estimates: a previously presented estimate for core building-envelope and mechanical infrastructure was cited at about $54,275,000; more targeted air-conditioning upgrade scenarios were shown in the $29,900,000 range (figures differ by option and overlap was removed where systems would be shared). Geothermal estimates included a roughly $12,000,000 allowance for well fields and equipment; a conservative estimate of an eligible federal investment tax credit (ITC) was provided at approximately $9,500,000 in the materials.

Architects and staff outlined a menu of staged scenarios for the Board to consider: (1) do only infrastructure work, (2) pair elementary air conditioning with elementary infrastructure and postpone some high-school window work, and (3) combine infrastructure with one or both school additions. The team emphasized that many detailed design decisions, phasing and permitting would occur after any potential referendum.

Board members asked for additional, quantifiable site metrics (impervious vs. pervious surface before and after each Siwanoy option), clearer phasing/timeline sketches showing likely construction disruption (rough order: 12–18 months for many additions, 14–24 months for larger interventions) and further refinement of budget-to-scope assumptions. The Board asked the architects to narrow options for Siwanoy to the smaller Option B and the larger Option C for further study, and to refine two high‑school options (roughly the “smaller” and the “larger” lab additions) while analyzing whether district administrative offices should be relocated into the annex (a choice that materially affects required addition size).

Public commenters from the Siwanoy neighborhood urged the Board to favor a smaller intervention and to preserve outdoor play and green space. Residents said the site is heavily used by families and that larger additions that remove wings and substantially enlarge building footprints would change neighborhood character and likely generate opposition at referendum.

The district schedule includes near-term community information sessions: in-person and virtual events were announced for the week following the meeting (including a Siwanoy walkthrough). Architects and staff said they will incorporate community feedback, provide the requested site metrics, and return with refined cost estimates and logistics before the Board makes a decision to proceed to a referendum.

For now, the Board treated this session as a design-and-budget refinement step, not a final commitment to a particular package. Additional rounds of community engagement and follow-up analyses—construction phasing, refined cost verification and potential construction-management support—were requested before any final scope is set or referendum placed on a ballot.

"This is the next iteration," Russ Davidson said during the presentation, "not the last iteration—it's a place to start the conversation and get ideas out on the table."