East Meadow board sets March 5 vote after approving environmental findings for nine school projects

The East Meadow Union Free School District board on Tuesday approved State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) findings for nine school building projects and voted to call a special district meeting to put a proposed $71.5 million bond before voters on March 5.

Superintendent (Speaker 5) told the board the projects were prioritized from five‑year building condition surveys and capital planning. He said consultants estimate that, at its highest point, the bond would increase the average homeowner’s tax by about "$31.86 a year" and that the district built contingency costs into the bond estimate. He emphasized that the tonight’s board vote only authorizes placing the question before the public; the final decision rests with voters at the March 5 referendum.

Why it matters: The bond would fund infrastructure and programmatic upgrades across the district — from ceiling, lighting and technology upgrades in classrooms to career and technical education (CTE) labs, athletic fields and performing-arts facilities. District leaders said some projects will address safety and essential building systems that administrators described as overdue.

Board counsel and the district’s environmental consultant told the board that Woodland Middle School and East Meadow High School required additional environmental review; East Meadow High School was treated as a Type I action because of its proximity to Eisenhower Park. Counsel said the 30‑day coordinated SEQRA review period had just expired and that the environmental forms were available for public inspection at the district.

The board approved separate SEQRA determinations — each by voice vote recorded as unanimous — for WT Clark campus, Barnum Woods, Bowling Green, McVeigh, Meadowbrook, Parkway, Salisbury Centre, Woodland Middle School (read and corrected in sequence), and East Meadow High School. After the SEQRA approvals, the board approved a resolution calling a special district meeting to authorize the expenditure and levy taxes necessary to carry out the projects; that motion also passed unanimously (7-0).

Public comment at the meeting highlighted divided views. Former trustee Jody Luce warned that holding a separate March vote could be a "waste of approximately 30 to $40,000" and asked whether the district could combine the bond with the annual budget vote to save costs. Luce also pressed for contingency‑budget detail and asked for clarity if armed security were being considered. The superintendent and tax counsel responded that the district’s tax consultant and bond counsel advised there was no adverse credit‑rating impact from adding the proposed bond and that contingency costs had been built into the bond estimates; counsel (Ranieri) explained the SEQRA legal requirements.

Neighboring speakers and a longtime resident, Terrence Holman, urged passage, describing what he called deteriorated fields and facilities and saying improvements would help community pride and student experience.

What happens next: The board authorized the district to hold a special district meeting so the bond can be presented to voters. The superintendent and staff said there will be four public forums (some virtual/streamed) where tax consultants, bond counsel and project managers will be available to answer questions before the March 5 referendum.

Quotes and attributions in this article come from speakers as recorded in the public transcript and are attributed to their recorded speaker labels.