By Rebecca Shalomoff
Supporters of the proposition thought the second time around would be different. The $85 million bond, which was on a special ballot in March 2000, was said to have intimidated voters because too many construction items, including renovations to the high school, were attached to the referendum to construct a new middle school.
This time, however, the $41.9 million bond issue to reconstruct the middle school was the only item on the Feb. 12 ballot. The cost was about $10 million less than the first plan to rebuild the school. Board members were eager for the community to pass the proposition in their second go-around, so they approached the endeavor with a renewed attitude.
After criticisms were leveled against the board for hiring Spector Group for district construction projects because board president Richard Braverman's son is employed by the company, new architects from Kaeyer Garnet & Davidson in Mount Kisco were hired last June.
Many meetings took place over the course of six months, in an effort to inform the community about the problems of the middle school, including overcrowding, mold growing throughout the building, a deteriorating roof and leaky front wall. (The majority of those meetings were attended by the same, small group of residents).
As part of their commitment to provide the community with a thorough understanding of the middle school situation, board members voted to spend $19,000 in fees for architectural services and $24,000 for consultation services
to Turner Group, which included printing
informative postcards about the project. In
addition, money was spent to hire health experts to evaluate the severity of the
mold problem in the school.
Board members heeded advice from the architects, who had an excellent record of getting bond propositions passed in many school districts throughout New York. They presented the community with two options in dealing with the structural and spatial problems of the middle school to renovate and repair, or to rebuild.
The option of renovating paled in comparison to rebuilding. For a cost of only $3 million more, the reconstruction of a new middle school behind the existing building was clearly the better approach, school officials believed.
But as the results of last week's election showed 1,634 voting no and 1,391 voting yes the majority of voters disagreed, which left many people wondering why.
At a previous school board meeting, trustee Stephanie Gould offered the following explanation, A lot of it comes down to trust. Not everyone trusts what they are hearing. I don't know how to get the community to trust the information they are getting. When you put it together, renovation just doesn't pay.
A community divided
Opponents complained about the cost to taxpayers and that the current middle school should have been repaired years ago, but those same cries were heard two years before. Underneath the complaints was, as Gould put it, a distrust of what they were hearing.
Corinne Boni, head of the Citizens Committee of Hewlett-Woodmere civic group and a major opponent of the bond, is not unaware of the structural problems of the middle school or against addressing those needs. However, she believes that renovating the school is the better option because it will cost half of what it would to rebuild.
In a letter she mailed to almost 4,000 residents, Boni wrote, Let me tell you, honestly, what has to be done: The curtain wall on the front of the school must be replaced . . . the roof must be replaced . . . the mold . . . must be eliminated. The cost of these three items would be 20 million dollars, which is what was discussed, and which I endorsed, until PTA came up with: WE MUST HAVE A NEW MIDDLE SCHOOL!'
In a telephone interview, Boni said she was told that the enrollment in the middle school was going to decrease, which makes it unnecessary for the school to be torn down.
This came across to segments of the community that supporters of the plan to rebuild the middle school were doing it for selfish reasons.
I was very disappointed at the amount of misinformation that was spread out through the community and I don't know if that had an effect on [the election] or not, Braverman said.
But board members, PTA members and concerned residents said they were supporting the $41.9 million bond because it was the only viable solution.
The district hired specialist Frank Hill, who determined that the number of students attending the middle school was expected to increase significantly. In addition, district officials said the mold infestation was only to get worse, and the Band-Aid attempts to address the mold, as well as other structural problems, would not be effective and in the end, cost the district more money.
That building is in sorry shape, said Teena Korman, a parent active in spreading awareness about the deteriorating health and safety conditions of the school. What that vote did was hurt education, the town, the community and hurt the children. It must be because there are people who are not concerned with education, the town, community and rights of children to get an education.
Future plans
At the Feb. 14 school board meeting, residents were urging the board to place the referendum on the ballot again, and soon, despite it being voted down twice.
In a telephone interview, Braverman responded, We have not begun to discuss what's next. Obviously the board will need to get together with the superintendent and administration, and we will sit down and figure out where we will go.
If they reintroduce the bond, Boni warned, I'm going to work my fingers to vote against it.
