By Rebecca Shalomoff
This time around, however, the construction cost is at its all-time lowest $39.5 million which was reduced from the $41.9 million proposal defeated by a margin of 243 votes in an election on Feb. 12.
The first bond proposal to build a new middle school came in March 2000. Designed by architects from the Spector Group, the original plan cost over $10 million more.
But there will be no major structural changes in the second set of plans covering 130,000 square feet sketched by architects from Kaeyer Garnet & Davidson of Mount Kisco. It proposes building a new school behind the existing one, and includes: 10 science labs, 2 art rooms, 2 gymnasiums, 1 music area, expanded facilities for special education, refurbished playing fields, resurfaced tennis courts, expanded parking and relief of traffic congestion.
The reduction in cost was accomplished by removing geo-thermal heating from the proposed plan a system of heating and cooling a building which demands about $1.5 million up front, but offers long-term savings, board president Richard Braverman said. Other savings include reducing budget contingencies and costs of managing the project.
Board members reviewed public input received at open forums held March 6 and March 18, and recently arrived at a decision which they believe is in the best interest of the district and its students to give the voters another chance to approve funding a new Woodmere Middle School.
But trustee Stephanie Gallo still cast a no vote, she said, not because she was against building a new school, but rather she would like the public to receive all the facts before being asked to vote.
Gallo referred to the April 23 meeting at which Dr. Howard Sandler, an indoor air quality specialist hired by the district to inspect and assess the mold situation at the middle school, presented his preliminary report that more mold exists outside than inside the building, and that the building is not unsafe.
Although Dr. Sandler inspected the middle school in Aug. 2001, Oct. 2001, Dec. 2001 and Feb. 2002, no final report has yet been issued on his findings. And draft reports are not available to the public pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL).
If the draft would have been favorable to district's position, I wonder if board members would have made the document public, said Diane Zamansky, a Valley Stream resident.
But putting the mold issue aside for a moment, board members state that a larger facility is still needed for the more than 800 students now squeezed into a building designed for 590. Though two portables, providing four extra classrooms, have been put in place at the middle school and expected to be ready for use in September, board members insist the portables only provide a temporary solution to the overcrowding problem. Furthermore, the building's roof problems and deteriorating curtain wall also require much structural attention.
But not all residents agree that a new building is the only solution.
There is not a necessity for a brand new school, said Corinne Boni, who heads the Citizens Committee of Hewlett-Woodmere civic group and is a major opponent of the bond. She believes that renovating the school is the better option because it will be much less than the cost of rebuilding. For those reasons, she plans to mail out a flyer to more than 3,000 district residents urging them not to vote in favor of the June bond.
Another issue brought up by district residents was the financial constraint a hefty bond proposition would put on taxpayers. With a proposed budget for next year calling for an increase of 13.04 percent in estimated school tax levy, a bond for a new middle school estimated over $300 to be paid out over 30 years would place more pressure on residents' wallets.
Carole Tolkin, a resident of Hewlett Harbor and president of the Board of Directors of the Five Towns Senior Center, raised concern at the recent meeting about the board's failure to include a community center in the plan for a new district facility.
I personally am in favor of a community center and have been for the last 15 to 20 years, Braverman said in a telephone interview. But the issue hasn't really been discussed extensively. No concrete proposals have been made.
If the bond is approved, Braverman said it would take 4-6 months to develop plans to submit to the State Education Department. Since SED has been taking 6 months to approve school building plans, he added, construction could not begin for another year. It would take about 18-24 months to complete the project.
