After the failure last week of a $38.41 million bond proposition that would have allowed for long-delayed renovations to the Montauk School, the school board and superintendent began to regroup this week, discussing how it could better engage with the community to build support for the project and what form the project should ultimately take.
The biggest question, however, is whether the district will go back to voters with the same project or work to scale it back. The bond would have financed a new gymnasium with a new greenhouse and science lab, renovation of the school library and administrative office, and widespread improvements to the school building.
In theory the district could put the same bond resolution up for a vote in 90 days, but that seemed unlikely Tuesday, when the board discussed the bond vote at a public session. Instead, Joshua Odom, the school’s principal and superintendent, was inclined to find ways to bring the price down.
“It is kind of paramount on my mind to look at ways of, where can we carve out savings, where can we carve out scope?” Mr. Odom said. “A little bit of that is going back to the drawing board, because of how one thing waterfalls into the next thing,” he added later.
Theis idea was echoed by Sarah Roberts, a board member, who talked about how interconnectivity of each element of the project makes it hard to do any one part of it on its own. And doing it piecemeal could result in a much higher price to the district.
“In order for the administrative offices to move to the gym, we need a new space for them to go into the locker room,” Nick Finazzo, a board member, said as an example. Explaining how different spaces would be used differently during and after the renovation may have been confusing to people, he said.
“Some of this information that I heard was, ‘Oh, there’s only going to be one new classroom.’ That’s just not true,” Mr. Finazzo said. “We were going to have one brand-new science classroom, but we were going to be converting rooms down in the lower level there into classrooms that weren’t currently used as classrooms.”
The public session the board and superintendent held Tuesday on the subject will not be the last. Another is planned for June 17 at 6 p.m. and the renovation will likely be a topic of discussion at a regular board meeting on June 10 at 4 p.m.
Although Mr. Odom held upward of 15 public meetings on the project, the board said Tuesday that it seems there were still some details lost in translation.
“You presented a lot of information at all of our meetings,” Mr. Finazzo said, “and I think that maybe we need to present all that information but maybe do something different and maybe do it in a little more of a concise way.” He had spoken to people who voted both ways on the bond and said he “had to clarify a lot of things.” He added, “I suppose that leads me to believe that, you know what, I have to do better about getting information out there.”
Diane Hausman, the outgoing board president, suggested offering in-person tours of the school building to show the conditions of the areas the district wants to work on, including the portable classrooms and the administration offices off the library.
Mr. Finazzo liked the idea, but said, “It’s hard to get people to come in and get information. What I’ve learned in the past week is that we have to go to people and give them information.”
Lee White, another board member, suggested a visual scale for the assessed property tax values, so people can actually see what they will pay. Impact to the average taxpayer is estimated to be $37 per month based on a house assessed at $5,500.
“Maybe you could come up with a grid,” Mr. White said, “and maybe your full assessed value is $2 million, $2.25 million, or $3 million and you just look across and you see ‘oh my house is going to be $42 a month.’ “
In the same vein, the board discussed the merits of providing architectural renderings, but that idea was originally discouraged by BBS Architects, the firm working with the district, because the designs are not yet locked in and this could cause confusion about the final look of the project.
The idea of establishing a booster club or fund-raising operation for the school was also raised. And while the district itself cannot directly solicit money, an independent organization can work to help reduce costs, especially for those on fixed incomes who might be least able to absorb the tax increase to cover the bond.
The board also discussed another proposition that failed by a smaller margin on May 20. This one would have allocated money from the district’s capital reserve fund for HVAC work, improved security, and the renovation of the Fisher house, a residence donated to the school by a former superintendent, Bob Fisher, to be used for a member of the administrative team.
It has not been used this way, as previous administrators already lived locally, but the board stressed that this would not always be the case, and being able to provide housing would be a benefit to the district in the end.
“There are things that happened at 9 or 10 o’clock at night that have to be dealt with,” Ms. Hausman said, indicating how important it is to, “have someone right here to be able to get into the building in five minutes.”
The district will continue to work on the house in small ways, without expanding to what would be considered a capital project. “The easy way to think about it,” Mr. Odom said, “is if you were to take the building, flip it upside down, shake it, and it doesn’t fall out, that’s a capital improvement.” District officials are hoping for more community input on this project as well in the coming weeks.