Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bond Referendum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rhinebeck board hears presentation on proposed $20 million athletic‑facilities bond referendum
Summary
Consultants briefed the Rhinebeck board on a proposed $20 million bond to replace two turf fields, add a six‑lane track and a field house; district staff outlined a financing plan that would pair $2 million from reserves with borrowing and estimated roughly half the project could be eligible for state aid.
The Rhinebeck Union Free School District heard a detailed presentation Tuesday on a proposed $20 million bond referendum to rebuild and expand the district’s athletic facilities, including two synthetic turf fields, a six‑lane track, a new field house with restrooms and a press box, upgraded baseball and softball amenities and improved tennis courts. Matt Milne, principal vice president of Land Associates, and Bob Kernan, a landscape architect with the LA Group, led the feasibility and site design presentation for the board.
The consultants said the preferred site plan includes one synthetic competition field in the new six‑lane track, a second synthetic multi‑sport field, a synthetic practice field and one natural‑turf practice field; amenities would include lighting, a grandstand and concessions. “We now know that the existing soils are conducive to be reused on‑site,” Kernan said, noting geotechnical work found standing groundwater between about 4½ and 14 feet in places, which affects foundation and drainage design.
The consultants highlighted environmental constraints: wetlands surround parts of the site, a mapped floodway and 100‑ and 500‑year floodplain areas limit where structures can be placed, and any disturbance within 100 feet of wetland boundaries will require permits from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). Milne told the board the project will need a State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) process with multi‑step reviews that include 30‑ and 45‑day notices and other studies of traffic, lighting and wetlands.
District finance staff presented a high‑level cost and financing picture: a construction estimate displayed during the presentation was $12.1 million; when architects’ and other soft costs were added the consultants illustrated a broader project estimate of about $17.6 million and examples in discussion referenced a planning total near $20 million. The district plans to contribute $2 million from capital reserves and to borrow the balance through bond sales. Staff estimated that roughly 50% of the project would be eligible for state building aid and used a sample aid rate in the mid‑30s when modeling net taxpayer impact.
The presenters and administrators emphasized schedule constraints. They said the district intends to name a construction management partner to support final cost estimating and phasing during the pre‑referendum period, to complete design and permitting steps in 2026–27 and to begin construction no earlier than 2028. “This is not a school project. This is a community project,” one district presenter said, stressing that the district will conduct outreach and multiple opportunities for residents to ask questions before a likely fall 2026 referendum.
Public commenters asked operational questions about use and rental of fields and whether both main fields would be lit; project staff confirmed both fields are shown with lighting and that striping and field layouts are intended to support multiple sports and schedules. The board also placed on the consent agenda an award of a pre‑referendum construction‑management contract to assist with cost estimating and outreach; that contract was included in the consent motion the board approved later in the meeting.
What happens next: consultants and staff will finalize cost estimates, pursue required environmental and DEC permits, and begin public engagement and informational outreach in early 2026 ahead of a planned referendum later that year.
