Residents press Brighton board over soil contamination and bundled $13.6M referendum

At the Brighton Central School District Board of Education meeting on April 28, residents pressed district leaders for clearer answers after soil contamination was identified under athletic fields and the district proposed a bundled $13.6 million capital-reserve referendum that includes a construction contingency.

Kim McGary, a public commenter, said she was concerned that voters were being asked to approve funding without a mitigation plan. “We don’t know what we’re voting for,” she said, arguing that the referendum bundles items such as turf work and elevators with an unspecified contingency that public outreach had described as covering some of the soil work.

Board members and district staff acknowledged the tension between the referendum’s packaged structure and the current lack of a finalized remediation plan. The chair said the $13.6 million figure covers projects in multiple schools and that the construction contingency is a percentage of the 2024 project scope; it was not drafted as a specific line item for soils. “Nothing in the 13.6 addresses the mitigation of the soils,” the chair said, while adding the contingency could potentially be applied to unforeseen conditions.

Deputy Superintendent Lou told residents the district has so far been working with state ed, the Department of Health and DEEC and had not yet engaged outside technical partners such as Cornell because staff do not yet have the set of data points needed to define next steps. He said identifying the soils created an unforeseen condition requiring further design and review. “Now that we’ve identified an unforeseen condition with the field, we have to expect that some of that contingency will need to be responsive to whatever mitigation or design has to come as we evaluate this condition,” Lou said, noting an earlier estimate to convert a storm-water retention basin to an underground system had been about $800,000.

Several residents asked why mitigation was not a discrete ballot line. Board members explained that, for efficiency and contractor coordination, capital projects are often packaged together and submitted as a single authorization for voter approval; state education approval processes still apply to the individual project elements. The board reiterated that specific mitigation plans and costs must be developed, presented to the state agencies named earlier and that those agencies must approve the plan before work proceeds.

Other financial questions surfaced during public comment. Lauren O’Neal asked why the board’s materials list both a “construction contingency reauthorization” (about $3,362,000) tied to the 2024 project and a separate construction contingency for the new scope. District staff said the reauthorization applies to the previously approved 2024 work, while the other contingency is a percentage of the new proposed scope. Officials also said a planned withdrawal of $3.5 million from the capital reserve and expected state building aid are intended to cover much of the local share; no additional local tax increase was described.

Board members told residents that more information would be provided as the district gathers additional soil and design data and coordinates with state agencies. The board’s next meeting is May 12, which the board announced will include a budget hearing and the business meeting where budget and referendum materials will be discussed further.

Why it matters: If soil remediation is required, the scope and cost could materially change the timetable and budget for the athletic-field work and related projects. Voters told the board they want clearer line-item disclosures and timelines before voting on a bundled capital authorization.

What’s next: The district said it will collect additional data, work with the named state agencies on required approvals, and provide updates ahead of the May 12 budget hearing.