Board signals support for Concept 3 to remodel Lewisboro Elementary for UPK; H2M to begin pre‑bond work
November 07, 2025 | KATONAH-LEWISBORO UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, School Districts, New York
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Katonah-Lewisboro Union Free School District Board of Education on Thursday heard a detailed design and cost presentation from H2M Architects & Engineers for the renovation and partial demolition of Lewisboro Elementary School to create space for Universal Pre‑K (UPK).
H2M engineer Michael Lanter said the firm developed three concepts after on-site walk‑throughs and an independent review of the building. "And that's really where we landed on concept 3," Lanter said, describing an approach that preserves newer portions of the facility — including the 2004 gym and a mid‑1990s wing — while demolishing older sections (identified in the firm slides as Areas B, C and H) to free up site room for a youth soccer field, a revised drop‑off loop and parking.
Why it matters: District staff said lack of space has constrained UPK growth. The state allocates an UPK funding stream to the district (about $820,000 annually), but staff reported the district currently uses $237,000 of that support to serve 44 students and is turning applicants away for lack of classrooms. Concept 3 aims to provide permanently available UPK classrooms sized with in‑class bathrooms, which H2M identified as a major cost and infrastructure advantage for UPK.
Cost and finance: H2M presented a project opinion of probable cost and the assumptions used. The firm estimated roughly $5 million in hard costs to weatherize and maintain the building in a protect/repair scenario; with escalation, contingencies and soft costs included the estimate rose to about $7 million for that limited scope. The presentation included standard allowances: 10% contractor contingency, 5% design contingency, an 8% escalation allowance (assumed 4% per year for two years), a 5% construction contingency and a roughly 12% allowance for soft costs (architect, construction management, testing, legal). Lisa (district finance staff) and the district fiscal advisers ran borrowing scenarios assuming a 15‑year bond and an illustrative 60% state aid eligibility assumption; under that scenario the peak monthly tax impact at peak borrowing varied by town (examples given: Lewisboro ~$17.25/month, North Salem ~$10/month, Pound Ridge ~$26/month), figures the presenter described as high‑level and subject to change pending SED building‑aid unit reassessment.
Timeline and approvals: H2M proposed a schedule aimed at substantial completion in September 2027. The next steps outlined to the board included: (1) board agreement to act as lead agency for the environmental review (SEQR) and completion of necessary environmental filings; (2) board authorization to proceed with pre‑bond work and design development; and (3) a public bond vote in May with construction following a full design, permitting and bidding sequence. H2M described a 13–14 month active construction window once bids and contracts are in place.
District context and UPK demand: District staff noted the state UPK allocation is reimbursable and that the district has capacity constraints that limit program expansion. Staff said state calculations count UPK building‑aid units differently than an elementary school, and the district is awaiting State Education Department (SED) reassessment to determine exact aid eligibility. The district reported serving 44 UPK students this year and said roughly two‑thirds of applications are not enrolled because of space limits.
Board reaction and next steps: Board members pressed H2M on alternative concepts and on whether Area C always had been planned for demolition; H2M said earlier concepts tested keeping additional space but Concept 3 had stronger infrastructure and cost advantages for UPK. The board expressed broad support for Concept 3 and asked staff to return in two weeks with formal documentation authorizing H2M to begin pre‑bond work and design development. No bond or construction authorization vote was taken at the Nov. 6 meeting; staff will bring formal authorization items and financing details to a future meeting for board action.
What remains unresolved: Exact state aid eligibility, a final cost estimate after schematic design and bids, and specific allocation of borrowing and debt‑service timing. District staff said these items will be refined during pre‑bond work and with financial advisers.
H2M engineer Michael Lanter said the firm developed three concepts after on-site walk‑throughs and an independent review of the building. "And that's really where we landed on concept 3," Lanter said, describing an approach that preserves newer portions of the facility — including the 2004 gym and a mid‑1990s wing — while demolishing older sections (identified in the firm slides as Areas B, C and H) to free up site room for a youth soccer field, a revised drop‑off loop and parking.
Why it matters: District staff said lack of space has constrained UPK growth. The state allocates an UPK funding stream to the district (about $820,000 annually), but staff reported the district currently uses $237,000 of that support to serve 44 students and is turning applicants away for lack of classrooms. Concept 3 aims to provide permanently available UPK classrooms sized with in‑class bathrooms, which H2M identified as a major cost and infrastructure advantage for UPK.
Cost and finance: H2M presented a project opinion of probable cost and the assumptions used. The firm estimated roughly $5 million in hard costs to weatherize and maintain the building in a protect/repair scenario; with escalation, contingencies and soft costs included the estimate rose to about $7 million for that limited scope. The presentation included standard allowances: 10% contractor contingency, 5% design contingency, an 8% escalation allowance (assumed 4% per year for two years), a 5% construction contingency and a roughly 12% allowance for soft costs (architect, construction management, testing, legal). Lisa (district finance staff) and the district fiscal advisers ran borrowing scenarios assuming a 15‑year bond and an illustrative 60% state aid eligibility assumption; under that scenario the peak monthly tax impact at peak borrowing varied by town (examples given: Lewisboro ~$17.25/month, North Salem ~$10/month, Pound Ridge ~$26/month), figures the presenter described as high‑level and subject to change pending SED building‑aid unit reassessment.
Timeline and approvals: H2M proposed a schedule aimed at substantial completion in September 2027. The next steps outlined to the board included: (1) board agreement to act as lead agency for the environmental review (SEQR) and completion of necessary environmental filings; (2) board authorization to proceed with pre‑bond work and design development; and (3) a public bond vote in May with construction following a full design, permitting and bidding sequence. H2M described a 13–14 month active construction window once bids and contracts are in place.
District context and UPK demand: District staff noted the state UPK allocation is reimbursable and that the district has capacity constraints that limit program expansion. Staff said state calculations count UPK building‑aid units differently than an elementary school, and the district is awaiting State Education Department (SED) reassessment to determine exact aid eligibility. The district reported serving 44 UPK students this year and said roughly two‑thirds of applications are not enrolled because of space limits.
Board reaction and next steps: Board members pressed H2M on alternative concepts and on whether Area C always had been planned for demolition; H2M said earlier concepts tested keeping additional space but Concept 3 had stronger infrastructure and cost advantages for UPK. The board expressed broad support for Concept 3 and asked staff to return in two weeks with formal documentation authorizing H2M to begin pre‑bond work and design development. No bond or construction authorization vote was taken at the Nov. 6 meeting; staff will bring formal authorization items and financing details to a future meeting for board action.
What remains unresolved: Exact state aid eligibility, a final cost estimate after schematic design and bids, and specific allocation of borrowing and debt‑service timing. District staff said these items will be refined during pre‑bond work and with financial advisers.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meetingSponsors
Proudly supported by sponsors who keep New York articles free in 2025
