The Joint Conference Committee of the Village’s four property owners’ associations sponsored a Town Hall meeting on Tuesday evening which focused on the proposed $36.5 million school bond referendum. Approximately 50 residents listened to a presentation by Superintendent of Schools Dr. Robert Feirsen, which was followed by a question and answer session.

The superintendent and president of the Garden City Board of Education both acknowledged the current instability of today’s economic climate and sought to reassure a nervous public that only items they believe to be essential are included in the bond. “I believe it’s the Board’s opinion that we have taken out what could be taken out,” said Dr. Feirsen. “It really comes down to essential projects for health and safety, or access, or running programs that are already in place.”

The school investment bond vote will be held on October 27 from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. in the gymnasium of the Garden City High School. School Board President Colleen Foley addressed a misconception she has heard that it would be better to vote the bond down, and assume the school board will hold a revote for a lower amount. She emphasized that the bond contains the most essential items; the board and ad hoc facilities committee have spent countless hours whittling down the list. The committee was formed in March, 2008 to study the possibility of issuing a bond to fund capital improvements in the district.

“If this doesn’t pass...we’re not going to be able to carry out what we have the way we have going forward,” she said. “That ultimately will affect what goes on in this community, our Village and our homes. We are only coming to this pinnacle point because we really feel that this is the time and these are the items and that’s what we desperately need to go forward.”

If passed, the bond will address health and safety issues at all buildings, including the bus garage and administration building. One of the top items needed is a new roof at the high school. The ad hoc facilities committee designated Homestead School, the Middle School and High School as in a greater need for more space, which will allow for significant enhancement of current programming.

Current space at the high school is being fully utilized 98 percent of the time, which has taken a toll on the physical building. It also affects programs. “This level of use does not allow any flexibility in the development of programs and greatly limits how we deliver programs,” Foley said.

If the bond passes, building plans will be submitted to the State Education Department. Approval usually takes eight to 12 weeks. The first borrowing phase will take place in the spring or summer of 2010 and work will commence in the summer of that year. All projects should be completed by 2012, according to architect Roger P. Smith from Burton, Behrendt and Smith, a Long Island-based architectural and engineering firm specializing in educational design.

A bond is usually paid over 20 years, according to Albert Chase, the district’s assistant superintendent for business and finance. Currently the district is paying $3.7 million in debt service, which costs the average homeowner $389, or 4.4 percent of the total average tax bill. If this bond is approved at a 4.5 percent interest rate, Chase calculated that homeowners will be required to pay roughly $441.79 in 2011. The amount would rise to a high of $650.48 in 2014, and then decrease every year thereafter as the district’s existing debt service drops off.

At its peak, the bond will cost the average homeowner approximately 71 cents a day or $261 a year. The “average homeowner” is defined as someone who owns a home assessed at $2,300 by the Nassau County Dept. of Assessment. This means the home’s fully assessed value totals $920,000.

The district is looking to fund some of the projects with $1.4 million in New York State EXCEL funds. The EXCEL (Expanding our Children’s Education and Learning) grant allows districts to make improvements to education technology, health and safety areas, energy and physical capacity expansion or school construction. The public must vote on whether or not to opt into the program to be eligible for the funds. The district can only take advantage of the grant once.

The last time the school district sought public approval for a capital improvement bond was in 1998. The bond totaled $37,856,000. School Board President Foley has said that the buildings were in deplorable condition and the bond was needed just to deal with the health and safety issues. Program-driven needs were not included.

The district allocates $1 million in its annual budget for capital improvements. Jim Kearney, who serves as chairperson of the district’s ad hoc facilities committee, explained that the amount is not enough to cover all of the work that needs to be done on the district’s nine aging buildings.

Dr. Feirsen said the district tries to control costs in an attempt to minimize the possibility of a sharp and sudden increase in taxes. “Adding indebtedness to the district is going to increase our costs, we’re going to pay out more money,” he said. “So we have to work all that much harder to control our costs. At the same time, we are assuring to preclude the possibility of a tax spike in any given year because we’re addressing multiple problems that don’t threaten to get better, they threaten to get worse over the next several years.”

Architects from BBS originally presented the district’s ad hoc facilities committee with a total of $45.19 million for all facility and program-driven projects. In May, they were able to reduce the total bond being considered from $45,188,228 to $35,063,382.

The firm made a total of $4,332,450 in reductions to facility-driven projects. A total of $837,000 was removed after administrators met with architect Smith to determine what smaller-scale projects could be included in the annual capital budget as opposed to a bond initiative. The firm cut $3.4 million in projects which they identified as those that can be postponed. In another attempt at cost-cutting, the scope of four to six projects was reduced.

The firm was able to make an additional $4,392,393 cut in spatial, or program-driven projects, at the Middle School. Originally, renovations at the Middle School included adding a gymnasium, reconfiguring the parking lots and renovating the south gymnasium for other purposes. The firm now recommends making a multi-use space Smith referred to as a “gym station,” and a corridor which would allow for circulation round the building.

BBS has also recommended that the district begin an energy performance contract at a cost of $6,063,900. However, there is no cost to taxpayers because the projects are funded out of the energy savings, which are guaranteed by the contractor. “Basically, it’s a way of us getting energy productive enhancements throughout the school plants.”

According to Chase, all the specifications for the energy performance contract have been completed by BBS on behalf of the school district. Invitations for proposals have been advertised and mailed to a number of firms that are involved in this type of work. Interested firms have (or will be) contacting the district to tour the facilities and generate their own assessments of the improvements that they may be able to provide under an EPC.

“We have allowed several weeks for this part of the process, since we want a comprehensive study to take place,” Chase said in an e-mail to The Garden City News after the meeting. “Those responses are due back to the district in early November, after which BBS will assist the district in evaluating them, eventually recommending one or more firms to the Board for consideration. After this is completed, the paperwork will be submitted to the State Education Department for its review and approval. Once approved, contracts can be signed and the work can begin.”