John Jay Tennis Courts, Field Work Get Through Environmental Vote

The Katonah-Lewisboro school board approved a crucial procedural vote in connection with the six proposed tennis courts for the John Jay campus by declaring itself lead agency for the environmental review of the project. Also included in the agency vote, which passed 5-2 on Monday, are oversight of proposed replacements of the existing turf and track for a campus field.

The declaration, which is required under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), brings the proposed athletic projects closer to a potential referendum later this year.

Before the vote, Assistant Superintendent for Business Michael Jumper told the school board that if a lead agency declaration is made, then an environmental assessment form would be circulated to what are called involved and interested agencies. These include the state's Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), New York City's Department of Environmental Project (DEP), the state's Department of Education and the Town of Lewisboro. Other agencies are allowed to contest the declaration and vie for lead-agency status within a 30-day period, which Jumper feels is unlikely.

After the 30-day period ends, Jumper explained, the board can vote to make a determination as to whether the project could cause a negative environmental impact, a decision that he suggested could be made on Sept. 30 or Oct. 1. If it is determined there is none, then the board could vote to set a referendum date, which would then be followed by a 45-day waiting period. As a result, Jumper suggested Nov. 19 as a possible voting date.

Jumper also provided new estimated costs for the projects. The turf and track replacements are believed to cost $920,000, up from an $875,000 estimate given in June because more work on the track is needed than previously thought.

The assistant superintendent warned the board about the existing conditions, saying that turf and track work needs to get done "post haste." If replacement is not done, then the district might have to spend $50,000 to $75,000 on repairs so the field is playable through 2015, Jumper added.

A large amount of the tennis courts' cost has been raised privately through the John Jay Boosters Club. Marianne Flayhan, the club's president, said that about $425,000 has been raised, with more than 300 donors involved. However, the amount is only enough to cover construction of the courts, while drainage and preparation work needed due to the site's proximity to New York City's water supply could cost $235,000. There is also the possibility of lights, which are estimated to cost $265,000, bringing the total cost of the project to nearly $850,000, according to Jumper.

The board, at a June meeting, entertained a possible scenario in which the drainage and preparation cost would be included in a bond referendum, along with the other work. This would be in addition to a $50,000 capital item, which would make the project eligible for state aid of around 25 percent of the cost.

Speaking during public comment, Flayhan passionately argued in favor of the courts, noting that the boosters have donated to projects before, including a rehabilitation space and a score board.

“That's all good stuff and we're very proud to be doing that for the school and for the students,” she said. Flayhan was also skeptical that fundraising support could be generated if there is just a focus on environmental work. 

Dissenting Board Members Not Keen About Process

While board President Charles Day described the matter as a “routine, procedural motion" the discussion prior to the vote went into the merits of whether to have a referendum at all. Trustee Janet Harckham and Vice President Majorie Schiff, who each voted against the resolution, gave concerns about how the proposal has been handled.

Harckham, who said that she donated money for the project, would like to wait until next May to have a referendum. In doing so, she argued that the board will know what sort of savings there could be after a January decision is made on whether to proceed on school closures. Currently, officials are studying whether to close up to two of the district's elementary schools, with Harckham chairing a special task force.

Harckham was also critical of the financial planning for the project, noting that it was originally described as being completely paid for by the boosters. However, she felt that the projected wound up being under-budgeted.

“I think it wasn't really that thoughtfully planned,” she said, noting that she would donate more if there was a “revised, realistic budget.”

Schiff advocated having the boosters raise the cost of the drainage and preparation, arguing that the environmental aspect could help in getting donations. In addition, she suggested that fundraising for lights could then be done as a second phase.

“You're going to go back to the well, anyway, to raise money for lights," she said.

Day warned against a no vote, arguing that a defeat of the item would kill the project. He said it would be a “a shame to kill this tonight” without letting the process play out. Day also disagreed with Harckham on making any connection between school closures and the tennis courts, including their costs, noting that the closure item stems from having fewer kids than needed to fill the existing elementary schools.

Trustee Stephanie Tobin also expressed sentiments about not wanting the issue to stall.

Financial Aspects

At one point, Tobin asked about the payment details for the package. Using the numbers, Jumper replied that almost $1.2 million would be borrowed and repaid over five years. This would result in annual principal payments of about $240,000, along with interest. If state aid is factored in, then about $15,000 could be used annually over the project's usefulness, which would help in paying off interest and to defray future costs. The district also has older debt that will come off in the next 2-3 years, Jumper said.

During public comment, Lisa Burke asked whether the board's possible goal - it is one of several being considered - of having no budget increase for the next school year would result in program cuts to accommodate the project. At another point in the board's meeting, Superintendent Paul Kreutzer acknowledged the concern by noting that class sizes, as an example would not be impacted. However, he added that Burke brings up a “valid point," and proceeded to speak in general about the district's financial picture, noting that it is not broke and spending is slowing down.