001Thank you very much for this opportunity to provide an important update to you, the board, and the community this evening. The goal of our presentation tonight is to provide the Board of Education with a summary of the work done by the Capital Project Steering Committee over the past six months and to communicate what we support as an initial scope of work for board consideration. We've organized tonight's presentation into four sections starting with introductory and background information We will talk about the process and inputs used to reach a proposed scope of work and we will describe the rationale behind our recommendations and proposed next steps. For the purposes of this presentation, we've kind of color coded slides. I know it looks a little weird, but we've color coded them to help distinguish decisions exclusive to the
002district administration or which took place before or will take place after the work of the committee. And that will appear in maroon, and then the work and recommendations of the committee, which will appear in blue, just as a little bit of a guide. So first, we'll begin with a brief introduction and some context to remind the community why we are engaged in this work at this time. Of course, all of this ultimately connects back to our strategic plan, which is anchored in the three big ideas of learning, living, and leading to support our vision. the capital work that we're going to talk about really emanates from our learning goal sorry from our leading goal as we look to ensure long-term sustainability of the district naturally physical improvement to the learning environment also impacts the learning
003and living components of the strategic plan as well As a reminder, this work is also linked to a board goal to support and participate in the planning and development of a bond proposal that addresses the current and future needs of our school facilities and programs. When we began this journey almost exactly a year ago, last fall, we identified several guiding principles to serve as a tool to help steer us in this process and evaluate alternatives. First, that student learning and the strategic plan goals should guide and inform decisions about capital investment. That facilities maintenance and improvement is an ongoing responsibility that requires both an annual financial allocation through our budget and periodic injections of capital. The required five-year building conditions survey and five-year facilities capital plan should be crafted to help meaningfully identify and prioritize
004short, medium, and long-term projects and guide decision-making. That stakeholder engagement should be ongoing and iterative rather than as a step in any particular process or plan. And then finally, that alternatives and decisions should be informed by a long-range financial plan and a fund balance and reserve plan, an update of which you'll get a little bit later in the early fall. We also articulated a five-step process that we would follow. And as you can see, we're making progress. And tonight marks the start of a shift from step three to step four, the start of a scope definition, refinement, and adoption. This is not done tonight. This is beginning tonight. The capital project steering committee has completed the lion's share of their work and is handing that work over to the Board of Education and Administration but
005will remain in an advisory capacity. That's our hope. The process of scope definition and refinement will continue over the next several months at least with continued advice and input from the committee. the public the board and iteratively as as needed so we see steps three and four here you see a little circular arrow there we see steps three and four as a bit of an iterative process that will unfold over the next several months for reference we've included the two timeline scenarios that we had originally laid out last fall the work to date has followed this what we called scenario a at that time a timeline where we would be on track potentially to be able to hold a bond referendum this spring if that is the ultimate decision of the board of course we
006also presented a less specific timeline the steps being the same but exact dates were not locked into this this shows a more flexible version and we'll see we'll see how it unfolds So the capital project steering committee the committee was convened this past spring and Was charged with developing detailed knowledge of our buildings and the educational programs within them Assessing current and future needs and the financial resources required to meet those needs and To try to reach consensus of a scope of work to recommend to the Board of Education And that's what we're here to do tonight the multi-stakeholder group includes representation from across the district as indicated in this slide and we are truly grateful for the many many hours and deep thinking that they have graciously contributed to this process all members of
007the committee took this work and their responsibility extremely seriously once again reinforcing the extraordinary level of service and volunteerism that exists in this community we're truly lucky Now, we've also been guided by the knowledge and expertise of professionals from BBS Architects and Engineers and Aris Contracting, our consultant management firm, and representatives are here tonight from both of those organizations, and we're grateful. The committee met a total of nine times since it was convened in March. The major inputs and activities that took place during and between these meetings has included building awareness and understanding through meeting presentations, activities, and discussions in both small and large groups, the expression of values and priorities exhibited through workbooks, email, and submitted outlines and reviews of the conversation, the work of refining our understanding aided by building tours and administration
008and facilities input, and the expertise of our partners. and refining values and priorities, including activities that caused us to have to express those values and priorities. Early on, Kevin introduced us to this graphic as a way to help frame our thinking. And we've sort of followed this, revisited this throughout the process, a simple framework for categorizing potential work scope items to identify values and priorities. Must include are items that we felt must be in any eventual referendum, should include are items that are of high value and importance and should be included if possible. On the fence, we might need more information about that particular thing, trying to get that information. Do not include or items that really aren't appropriate for a bond or this bond or don't meet the values or priorities we talked about.
009Defer to the future, a valuable project, but we can do without it for now as long as it's revisited in the future. or fund separately other ideas such as annual budgets energy performance contracts we talked about those fundraising outside of tax levy important and consistent with values and priorities but these are things better supported outside of a bond referendum so we we considered all of these Using these categories, the committee and BBS worked iteratively to understand, weigh, assess, and evaluate work scope items over the course of our meetings. Items were prioritized according to the framework as a result of discussions, activities, aforementioned site visits, and through the sharing of opinions of those who use the buildings and are responsible for maintaining district facilities. Over the course of the first several meetings, the total scope of
010possible work grew as we introduced spatial, building conditions, survey information, air conditioning, conversation, and field study projects to the mix. Later in the process, the total scope narrowed as particular projects were deemed to be falling into one of these other buckets. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Andrew. Thanks, Drew. The primary funding sources for capital improvement projects include the maintenance department budget, the capital appropriations budget, also referred to as transfer to capital line, and bond project financing. Both the maintenance and the capital appropriations budget are line items in our annual budget and can fluctuate based on the annual financial projections and budget deliberations of a given year. The maintenance budget primarily includes the labor, materials, and contracted support for smaller projects and building repairs throughout our buildings. While the capital appropriations
011budget funds larger scale projects that most often require architectural or engineering designs, New York State Education Department approvals, and detailed public bidding documents. Bond projects are typically larger projects both in scope and funds needed in support of those improvements. I'll turn that next piece over to Nick. Thank you. So with seven school buildings totaling over 978,000 square feet and also some of which are approaching or exceeding 100 years old, plus the various district buildings such as the bus compound, our maintenance and grounds buildings, the choice building, the former A school, and well over 115 acres of grounds and athletics field. The facilities department is responsible for a wide range of tasks. These tasks include everything from basic repairs to more complex space reconfigurations to support the evolving programs and needs of the district. This is
012done through the department's annual operating maintenance budget, which covers items like air and water filter replacements, fire alarm inspections, and much, much more in between. We also play a key role in identifying facilities needs that rise to the level of capital projects, work that goes beyond the scope of regular maintenance due to cost, complexity, or long-term impact. Let me share a quick example of a small capital project that we've recently taken on. Right outside of this room, under the breezeway to my right, is a blue stone walkway. While it's a beautiful architectural feature, it has required frequent maintenance over the years and has led to safety concerns due to uneven or even broken stones and surfaces. Each year, sometimes even more than once, our grounds team goes out to lift and level the stones to
013replace the damaged pieces. While the materials themselves are inexpensive, the labor involved is significant and also ongoing. To resolve this, we've developed a capital project to remove the blue stone and replace it with a stamped asphalt, similar to what you see right outside the Brewster entrance. This one-time investment will eliminate the need for regular repairs, reduce safety risk, and free up staff for their other priorities within the district. When this new walkway eventually will require maintenance, which is likely around 15 years from now, it will only need a recoding of the surface. a test that is similar to what was done in by our in-house team completed over the summer right outside on that barista walkway while this project is not part of a bond it's a great example of how we continue to proactively
014manage our facilities even as we plan for larger improvements throughout this proposed bond throughout the bond planning process our maintenance and custodial teams as well as the facility department were deeply involved not only in informing the facility study conducted by bbs but also reviewing and adjusting the project list to reflect what could be reasonably handled within our department's capacity and budget. Some items originally considered for the bond moved into the maintenance budget to help reduce the overall bond impact. Conversely, other items, those that exceeded our staff's ability or made more sense logistically to handle through capital funds, were prioritized for inclusion into this bond scope. A good example of that is the replacement of our district's building management system, also known as the BMS, which you might hear a few times tonight. This centralized system
015controls all of our heating, ventilation, and cooling throughout the buildings. It has become outdated and in some cases will soon be unsupported from a technology standpoint. Because it impacts every building and directly affects comfort, energy efficiency, and long-term operating costs, we believe that this BMS replacement, as well as other high-cost items, will have a long return of investment and are best addressed through this bond. So unlike maintenance and capital appropriations projects, which rely on a single year's budget and tax levy for funding, require annual deliberation and also voter approval as part of the annual budget process. Bond projects allow the district to proceed with the construction and also issue the debt that must be included in the annual budgets for the term of the borrowing for bond projects. Districts are obligated to fund the debt
016annually. Additionally, the debt schedule is more closely aligned with the period of useful life and the state building aid, which is amortized over a period of 15 or 20 years. Alternative funding options do exist including energy performance contracts, capital reserves and other funding sources such as gifts, donations and grants. However, these options have limitations and drawbacks so we will not focus on them this evening. This slide may be familiar to all of you who have watched the budget process last spring. It represents the current debt service schedule, including the estimate for the auditorium project that we anticipate closing on this October. We are obligated to include these costs in our annual budget, and you can see that we anticipate a significant decline of our debt service line during the 27-28 fiscal year. Early on in
017our capital project planning process, we determined, with the help of our fiscal advisors, that this decline represents approximately $40 million worth of capital improvements. In other words, a project valued at $40 million would result in no additional tax levy beyond what is currently in our budget. The committee used this number neither as a limit nor a target, but rather as a reference point to compare against as we deliberated the potential scope of this bond. And Kevin. Okay, all right. So I'd like to just give a little kind of snapshot of our journey as a committee. So I'll just read this and I'll get to the graphic in a minute. But we as a committee have reviewed what is and what could be through analysis and review of the Building Condition Survey. You'll hear that called
018the BCS, Building Condition Survey for Building Infrastructure Needs, and through a lens for design for what could be spatially. Aspects of both bridge the practical with the extraordinary and enhance the student and teacher experience. Both support the Scarsdale Public Schools strategic plan. We have endeavored to provide tools and information to the committee so that they can have independently meaningful conversations about potential work scope. Lectures, information sharing, and collaborative exercises have provided support for building consensus as to the why or why not of potential work scope through open debate and discussion. The discovery goals motivating this process apply not only to the next potential bond referendum, but to the broader context of long-term planning for the school district. Today as a group, we find ourselves surrounded by possibilities, aware of the committee's sensibilities relating to tax
019neutral, beyond tax neutral, and deferred work scope. We are moving forward by defining major themes and categories of work to ultimately inform the prioritization of bond scope work. The concept of value remains centered on financial cost and impact, but has expanded its definition to include the value of the overall student and teacher experience and overall contribution of the built environment to the culture of the Scarsdale community. The graphic above is just a little collage of a few things along the way with the committee. Upper left are all of your buildings represented at the same scale and size and how they're currently used. Lower left, we looked at that and we talked about what could be spatially. Upper right, we did have an investing activity where we actually had allotted monies to spend on priority items,
020and then we had an allotment for deferral items. We went through that, and finally, we had a chart activity at the end to kind of build a bond in identified scope pieces, starting at the top. in the yellow tones which are tax neutral and passing through to what ultimate scope was determined by each person and group so then the next slide is just a reiteration kind of looking at the whole year so far and moving into what could happen next spring in terms of as part of the design team we got started in January and the committee was very much active March through now and continuing but here we are in the fall switching to more the public engagement getting the Board of Ed on board to that the fact that by the end of
021this calendar year, should there be a bond in the spring, we would pretty much know what was that bond scope by the end of this calendar year to go through the processes needed to get to a vote in the spring. So the capital project steering committee spent time in each meeting building and deepening our understanding of a wide array of needs and wants. We developed a working knowledge of the educational program at each school from a building use perspective, interrogated the recommendations in the facility study, explored air conditioning needs and options, and became familiar with the recent joint village district field study. Andrew Lennon shared a presentation on the tax impacts associated with borrowing money via a bond and maximizing state building aid, and BBS and ARIS described the process of cost estimation and unique
022factors associated with public school capital projects in New York. As the process unfolded, we also engaged in important discussions and debates, some of which do require further analysis. Over the nine meetings we had, the potential work scope initially grew as we were introduced to different areas of potential work. By May, we had discussed over $350 million in projects before starting to identify those things that must be included and eventually narrowed in on the highest priorities. Individuals on the committee expressed differences of opinion about which specific projects are essential while referencing the tax-neutral amount of $40 million and considering increments above that. So it eventually became clear that the needed work fell into four major categories, infrastructure, air conditioning, fields, and spatial projects, recognizing that there were clear needs and additional wants. We also discussed different
023ways that these priorities could be effectively communicated by both the Board of Education and the public. For example, we discussed the importance of equity and the extent to which all the schools need to be included in the scope of this work. What became evident in the discussion was the was that equity could be thought of in two different ways. We would consider infrastructure work and air conditioning. We felt it was imperative that all buildings be addressed as the priorities identified need attention now. As far as Spatial projects go it was also equally clear that certain locations needed more immediate attention than others a longer time horizon might be more appropriate frame to use when considering equity and spatial construction and renovation for example the projects such as the Scarsdale High School Learning Commons the lab
024the Scarsdale Middle School Orchestra room the Edgewood library and the Heathcote multi-purpose room were accomplished in the 2014 bond green acres and the school safety vestibules were the major focus in the 2018 bond and here we're proposing the emphasis on fox meadow edgewood and to a lesser degree the scarzell high school project in 2026. So areas required more information and discussion in our group. As previously mentioned, several challenging questions emerged during the process that related to enrollment and program. The proposals we will share shortly for new construction at Fox Meadow and Edgewood are at least in part driven by current and projected enrollment measures. In our discussions as a committee, important questions about the degree of control the district had over enrollment at any particular school emerged. Two decisions that were clearly within the Board
025of Education's discretion are the location of the enrollment boundaries of our five elementary schools and where we locate special education programs that draw students from multiple elementary school zones. The third question we grappled with was the current and potential level of food services at our five elementary schools. In an effort to bring as much information as possible to bear at this work, the district administration has engaged with their demographer, Dr. Richard Grip, from statistical forecasting to produce, along with his typical enrollment projection analysis, a scenario that explores the potential for different boundaries between Fox Meadow and Green Acres. This work is still underway, and a report is expected in the early to mid-fall. As for special education programs that are currently being housed at Edgewood, we have two 812 special ed classes and one 12-1
026special ed class. Each requires a classroom, though there is nothing that requires that these programs to be located at Edgewood. However, there is opportunity cost involved. There is training for all staff that takes place to create a strong culture of inclusion to support these students. There is also a number of contracted service providers that work with these classes and co-locating them in a single building creates an economy of scale that we benefit from. Of course, all of this can be more or less qualified as part of the decision-making, and the administration has committed to doing just that. With respect to food services and dining, our current approach to date has been to limit the utilization of the facilities at Quaker Ridge and Green Acres in order to deliver a comparable or equitable level of food
027quality and services at all five schools. Through discussions with the capital project steering committee and constituents at the three schools with more basic dining amenities It was determined that invest investing in dining facilities for the sake of equity was not on top a top priority Instead, the consensus is that we can live with differences and therefore should maximize the facilities we do have while investing in new funds and other types of improvements. We believe the district should carry this conversation forward to a broader group of stakeholders including food service committee, parents, faculty, and staff of the buildings that are impacted, which are Edgewood, Fox Meadow, and Heathcote. As a result of the work to date, the committee is recommending a preliminary scope of work that generally falls into four consensus categories. These categories are purposeful
028and projects within each are connected by the type of work required and the needs that they address and the problems that they solve. First is the building conditions or infrastructure work, as Kevin referred to as the BCS, the Building Conditions Survey. That proposed work total is $33,533,520. Now, this facility study, the BCS, surfaced $129,047,500 in potential work scope. Items listed were evaluated based on a number of considerations, including health and safety, cost of the repair or replacement, reliability, efficiency, payback period. and the life expectancy. Items were then organized by priority from a range of priority one, which were life and safety and mandated code items, to priority five, cosmetic improvements, as described on page six of the facility study. In addition to the facility studies, the district facilities team has highlighted several important projects that
029they strongly believe must be addressed within the time frame of this bond and that they're well-suited for being funded through the bond. Some of these projects were completely or partially included in the study while others were not. This will be discussed during the upcoming presentation. The building conditions survey items that are included fall into several subcategories. The BCS infrastructure priority one items confirmed by the committee facilities team and the buildings as necessary. The BCS infrastructure priority items two through five were selected based on the importance and impact. by the committee members, and then the district infrastructure priority one, two, and three items that were identified by the facilities team as necessary and appropriate for inclusion in the bond. Next, we have the air conditioning for a proposed work total of $12,060,000. air conditioning was discussed
030during the 2018 bond process and the decision was made at that time not to move forward with including AC projects beyond those tied to new construction and renovation projects and since that time several things have changed first the district has pursued an approach of installing air conditionings in the classrooms within annual budgets prioritizing health and safety needs of students and staff and expanding beyond that where feasible. This has resulted in significant progress towards cooling a vast majority of the typical classroom spaces. The administration recommends continuing with this approach, which is a lower cost way to create a more comfortable spaces. Another thing that has changed is the expectation and need for cooling of our larger spaces like gyms, cafeterias, the auditoriums, the libraries, and the multipurpose rooms. This is now seen as both a need
031in light of changing climate and a need in terms of the growing demand expectation from our community and as expressed by state law. As one committee member put it, there really is no other facet of modern life where air conditioning is not present. We have it at home, at work, in restaurants, in cars, in college, etc. Furthermore, our so-called large spaces generally have high demand and are often used for instructional and or co-curricular purposes, including athletic contests. As a result of these factors, the committee supports the inclusion of air conditioning work to cool our large spaces. We also want to attend to Heathcote's classroom need, which requires a different approach from the rest of the classrooms due to the unusual nature of the pod design there. The size of these projects require a different level
032of capital investment than can be handled by annual budgets. So we recommend including air conditioning as part of the bond. Thus, all are included in this estimate, though the work that we have yet to do is to prioritize the large spaces from A to Z in the event that we're unable to accomplish all of this work at once. Now, the third category is fields. The proposed work total is $5,676,428. This represents the two remaining priority recommendations from the field study. SMS turf and the Fox Meadow softball multi-use rectangular field projects. The committee saw these projects as an important investment for the broader school community as they are used for both school and community based recreational programs. And then finally, the spatial new construction renovation and reconstruction with a proposed work total of $44,372,600. Based on
033all of the data gathered by BBS through building tours and interviews, a range of spatial construction renovation projects matched to identified needs and problems were presented and developed to the committee. All were considered. and various activities resulted in a prioritization of these projects according to the framework outlined above. The major issues associated with these projects were building utilization, enrollment and space constraints, functionality, food service dining needs, and in the case of classrooms, the age condition and flexibility. New construction and or renovation concepts were developed for each school except for Green Anchors. Large construction concepts for Scarsdale Middle School, which was a new kitchen dining building, and the high school learning exchange building within the current courtyard just outside of the BOE room, were ultimately deemed to be beyond the scope of this bond. However, significant
034renovation projects are necessary at each building. For example, the SMS library and lunchrooms, in the high school, the 3D art studio, the LRC, the little theater, and the upper level of the library. The aging condition and significant space restraints at Fox Meadow were deemed very important to accomplish within this bond. Edgewood has some potentially similar concerns to Fox Meadow, but while Fox Meadow space constraints are immediate in the present, Edgewood may be able to accommodate enrollment with some more modest modifications and program adjustments. This is discussed further in the addendum below. However, in the case of both Edgewood and Fox Meadow, some level of school-wide classroom renovations needs to occur to bring the spaces up to a higher standard. Renovations of Heathcote's library was also identified as a high priority, while spatial needs at Greenacres
035and Quaker Ridge are a lower priority due to the current conditions in each building. Importantly, the committee did discuss the concept of a program of classroom renovations over time at other schools as well. Our capable facilities team has demonstrated what they're able to accomplish with renovations of classrooms in the new wing of the high school for the A school program. While major classroom updates are focused on Edgewood and Fox Meadow, this type of renovation work could be prioritized in annual budgets in the future. So this next slide breaks out the cost by building and reflects a range from, if you look at the very bottom on the grand totals. So the third item in there, that is Green Acres at 1.4. And then the largest one is just to the left, which is Fox Meadow
036at 30 million. But you can see them all across the board here broken down. looking at each of these rows for air conditioning the bcs the classroom updates district priorities the field studies and the internal spatial renovations now on the next slide is a graph that gives us a visual representation of that slide. And what it does is it shows you how it's broken down by each building. So on the left, this is a breakdown of all the work scope broken down by building. And then on the right, what we've done is we've removed the cost of the construction for Fox Meadow only. So you can see with that removed what it looks like for each building. Several working assumptions were used to guide the discussions and weigh alternatives in terms of average cost to
037our taxpayers. The committee feels that it's important to frame the cost in this way for the public for a variety of reasons. So we talked about tax neutral. The tax neutral estimate of $40 million due to that expiring debt that I showed on a slide a few minutes ago really has some key assumptions in it. 15-year amortization schedule for this bond is assumed an average interest rate of 3.7 percent is assumed and New York State Building Aid is assumed on 95 percent of this project with an aid ratio of 19 and a half percent which we paid out over the life of that debt schedule. We talked about 40 million being tax neutral. Each million dollars of bond scope roughly equates to $10 in annual impact to an average taxpayer. And the average taxpayer, we
038used about $29,000 to $30,000 annual tax bill is what the assumption is. The $40 million is, when you do the math, $400 per average home. If we look at the total proposal this evening of $96 million, it is, if you back off the $40 million, $56 million of that would be above the tax neutral situation, so it would equate to an increase of about $560 per homeowner. As we proceed further down this... path, the financial assumptions will become much more concrete. Scope discussions will provide clarity for more accurate cost estimates by our construction manager and building aid estimates by our fiscal advisors. The debt service projections will be updated to reflect more current interest rate assumptions. And additionally, the final scope As the final scope is determined, our construction manager can begin logistics planning for
039how we might group and schedule these projects and work effectively through all of our buildings over a multi-year period of time. We recognize that the Scarsdale community already places great value on the education of our students. What we have put forward in this series of recommendations thoughtfully balances the value for student learning now and in the future with the financial support provided by our community. All of these projects, new construction, renovation, air conditioning, and even the behind the scenes and literally behind the walls, projects contribute daily to the learning outcomes, health, and well-being of students. When we support comfortable, inviting learning spaces, we support student growth and achievement. We have already seen the impact of forward-looking investments through past bond projects. For example, the creation of the design lab at the high school provided a
040unique space to explore new interests, collaborate on ideas, and engage in hands-on learning experiences. Projects like the 3D art studio renovation in this current bond for the high school are in that same vein of thought. What might seem on the surface like polish or enhancement has in reality had transformative effects on student learning opportunities. These spaces spark creativity, build confidence, and open pathways that students may not have otherwise discovered. Okay, so we will close with a discussion of proposed next steps. So the expectation tonight is that the work of the Capital Project Steering Committee will shift from steering the work to providing advice and counsel to the board over the next several months as you deliberate, ask questions, and seek more information. You've heard the consensus recommendations and now we'll have to work to more
041definitively define work scope to be included in a potential bond referendum as well as the work scope that's beyond the capacity of this next bond. Work that may have to wait or work that might be accomplished in some other way. We will present the demographer study on enrollment and boundaries as soon as we possibly can. and the board can use that to help assess our assumptions particularly with respect to the Edgewood and Fox Meadow proposals and further refine the bond scope finally we want to either reiterate or point out a few last things while the facility study included the a school building we have not found a way to prioritize that building right now over other work That may ultimately mean handing that building back over to the village. It is their property or to
042just discuss some other use for it You will notice the Edgewood recommendations include a priority 3 BCS item to replace the playground at Edgewood This is a need that has previously been identified and articulated. Indeed, all five elementary schools have a need in this area. Funds are included in the current budget to update Fox Meadows Playground, and we suggested that a district PTA, Scarsdale Schools Education Foundation partnership, might be the best way to accomplish this work. Obviously, that conversation has the potential to impact this recommendation. That's an example. The cost projections are based on a number of assumptions. Andrew outlined several of them that kind of go into the mix that will require refinement over time. Similarly, as the scope of work for inclusion in a bond becomes more firm, further conversations with stakeholders at
043the building level may suggest modifications or revisions to the ideas that we've presented tonight. So we hope... that provides the board with a strong first look at what the proposals and recommendations are. We had not planned to go school by school, but we have those slides available in the slide deck for the public and for tonight's discussion in the future. And they're broken out into the different priorities that we discussed, those four broad categories and a total with each. And with that, and thanks to my colleagues on the steering committee and at this table for all their work to bring this information to you tonight. And we're excited to engage in dialogue.