Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bond topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hastings-on-Hudson Trustees outline three-part bond: critical systems, instructional space and two turf fields
Summary
Board presented renderings and a three-part bond referendum (Prop 1: critical building systems; Prop 2: instructional space and accessibility including a new entrance and cafeteria repurposing; Prop 3: two synthetic turf fields), clarified voting mechanics and gave preliminary household cost estimates.
The Hastings-on-Hudson Board of Education on May 6 described a three-part bond referendum that would fund prioritized building repairs, instructional-space renovations and athletic-field upgrades if approved by voters.
Superintendent Dr. McCursey framed the bond as three discrete propositions: Proposition 1 for essential building systems at the Farragut Complex, Proposition 2 for instructional space and accessibility (including a redesigned, ADA-compliant entrance and a reconfigured cafeteria that would be repurposed into classrooms), and Proposition 3 for athletic and recreational fields, which would include two synthetic turf surfaces. "You vote on all three. All votes will be counted," he said while correcting earlier public confusion; he added that the district structured the propositions so Prop 1 must pass for Prop 2 to be actionable, and Prop 2 must pass for Prop 3 to have effect.
The board released new public renderings for the first time and emphasized accessibility and modesty in the entrance design: a single, secure, accessible entrance rather than multiple ad-hoc ramps. Trustees said repurposing the existing Washington-wing cafeteria would create about five code-compliant instructional spaces and allow a new, more functional cafeteria layout with improved student flow and natural light.
On athletics, trustees proposed two artificial-turf surfaces: a multipurpose field and a softball field. The board highlighted procurement priorities for field products: trustees said they intend to pursue systems that do not rely on loose polymer infill ("zero-infill"), avoid PFAS-containing plastics, and favor recyclable materials when possible. The board stressed it will set specifications and run competitive bidding to protect eligibility for state reimbursements rather than preselecting a single product.
Trustees also stressed the timeliness of acting now, noting New York State currently reimburses about 40% of eligible project costs and the board's concern that the reimbursement rate could decline in coming years—raising the total local cost if the district delays.
The administration presented preliminary tax-impact numbers for an average house assessed at about $1,000,000. If the entire bond were to pass, the board said, the initial estimate would be roughly $60 per month per such household (beginning 2028–29), with illustrative line items of about $1.50/month for the new entrance, roughly $28/month for the cafeteria/classroom work, about $17.50/month for mechanical/electrical/plumbing projects, and roughly $12.67/month for fields. Board members characterized these figures as preliminary and framed the package as meant to be largely reimbursable by the state.
Trustees acknowledged public questions and misperceptions: they asked the administration to make clearer public materials showing exactly what is included in the bond (and what is not) and to post the new renderings in public locations ahead of the May 20 vote.
Next steps: the board plans additional outreach and to publish the renderings and specification points publicly; the bond propositions will appear on the ballot on May 20.
