Hastings trustees debate splitting $38M bond as turf field controversy deepens

Trustees at a Hastings-on-Hudson Union Free School District budget work session spent the bulk of their meeting weighing how to present a proposed $38 million bond package to voters and whether to separate field work into its own ballot question.

Superintendent (speaker 2) told the board the core bond is “about 32,000,000” while field-related construction is roughly $6–7 million in hard costs and, with soft costs, about $6.4–7.3 million, and said architects will present detailed documentation at an April 8 work session so the board can finalize legal ballot language on April 22 in time for a June 17 referendum. “The idea is that you’ll review those documents in advance of the meeting,” a staff member working on the bond said, urging trustees to come prepared.

The board discussed structuring the ballot as a split question — question A for the building work and question B for the fields — a move proponents said could protect essential building renovations if community opposition sinks a field measure. "If you were to say the fields would be a separate question on the ballot... you may also say… that in order to get B, you have to say yes to A," the staff member explained.

Trustees and staff flagged legal and state funding constraints that shape the choices. A district advisor said state reimbursement rules typically require field work to be connected to building work on the same permit to qualify for reimbursement, meaning separating questions can complicate or eliminate potential state aid. One trustee summarized the constraint: "You get no reimbursements on fields unless it's connected to a larger building permit."

A central point of debate was which field surface to propose. The superintendent described exploring proprietary, unproven alternatives presented to the district but said he could not recommend such products for public schools without established precedent or clear state funding pathways: “I, as superintendent, cannot recommend to the board a product... and second, it's not probably gonna be fundable by state,” he said. That caution narrowed early support toward established artificial turf or continuing with natural grass and targeted drainage work.

Staff estimated the district could recover roughly $3 million in state reimbursement for an eligible turf project but warned that novel, proprietary surfaces likely would not be reimbursable. Trustees asked for comparative lifecycle costs, community-access rules, and clarification about maintenance, rest periods and scheduling impacts; one trustee asked the administration to provide usage graphs and the handwritten schedule shown to the board to demonstrate field demand.

Communication and outreach plans were presented alongside the procurement and funding discussion: the district is producing videos, testimonials, a bond newsletter, fact sheets and targeted community meetings (PTSA, SEPTA, nursery schools) between now and the referendum to explain tradeoffs and show building conditions.

Next steps: the architects and engineers will present detailed permit and scope documents at the April 8 meeting for trustees to question; the board will finalize and adopt bond resolutions on April 22 to lock ballot language for June 17. No formal bond vote took place at this session.