Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Board outlines $17.5M capital package and first reading of field‑lights policy as neighbors voice opposition
Loading...
Summary
The board described two capital‑project propositions totaling about $17.5 million, including field lights, turf and STEAM space upgrades; trustees conducted a first reading of a strict lights‑use policy and several residents urged voters to reject lights at the May 19 proposition vote.
The Pleasantville board presented a capital‑project package called "Pleasantville Forward Together" at its April 7 meeting that includes two propositions totaling approximately $17.5 million, with about $4 million in reserves and proposed borrowing up to $13.5 million, officials said.
Superintendent and staff said Proposition 1 focuses on security and near‑term infrastructure replacements, including BRS outdoor security and track/turf replacement, while Proposition 2 focuses on instructional STEAM spaces, reimagined outdoor spaces and athletic enhancements, including sanitary facilities, turf on the upper practice field and proposed field lights.
Officials previewed community forums (April 14 at Bedford Road School and April 27 for fields and lights) and shared an updated FAQ on the district website. The superintendent told the meeting the capital project is separate from the operating budget and will not cause an operating tax‑levy increase; state aid will reimburse the district roughly 53 cents for every dollar borrowed, officials said.
Trustees also conducted the first reading of proposed board policy 32‑85, which would govern permanent main‑field lights. Highlights discussed by the policy lead during the meeting include:
• Use limited to Pleasantville district needs; no renting lights to third parties or youth organizations; lights not for external revenue generation. • General shutoff at 8 p.m., with a 9 p.m. exception for competitions; lights limited to fall and spring seasons, with a stated cap of 150 hours per season (postseason excluded). • No scheduled weekend usage (exceptions allowed for rare circumstances, e.g., SATs or holiday scheduling), an assigned Pleasantville employee to control lights, app‑based on/off control, and required neighbor notification by first‑class mail for policy changes.
The policy lead said the district had visited other nearby fields (Ardsley and Mount Pleasant) to study nighttime conditions and light spill, and proposed landscaping and technical mitigation measures to reduce off‑site glare.
During the recognition of the audience, multiple residents spoke in opposition to the lights proposition. A resident who lives on Romer Avenue said the lights would “change the entire feel of this village” and urged neighbors to vote against the lights; another resident who identified himself as Steve O’Neil asked the district to provide fuller research into alternatives and warned community members against being forced to choose lights over educational priorities. Jeff Howe, who lives on Sunnyside, said the proposal packaged lights with other capital needs and called the bundling “pork.”
Board members and administrators responded during public comment, noting the district studied sightlines and light‑spill patterns, will include mitigation measures, and emphasized that capital propositions are separate from the operating budget: residents may approve the operating budget and vote down one or both capital propositions.
Next steps: the board will continue community outreach through scheduled forums and will return to the lights policy for subsequent readings before any final approval. Proposition votes will be held at the May 19 district vote.
