Superintendent Announces Search for New Architects for Greenacres School

Residents who hoped that Superintendent Hagerman would make a recommendation to address issues at the Greenacres School were handed news of a another setback at the Board of Education meeting on December 12. The project is back to square one as the Superintendent announced that he had dismissed architects KG&D, who had been selected after a search by the district in 2013 to design options for the school. He questioned the "pillars" upon which the architect's recommendations were made and said he wanted to go back to the drawing board to reexamine the data and address the right problems. He proposed an RFP to replace them with a new firm, but was unclear about what the new firm would be charged with designing.

In the past few months, during a "pause" in the discussions about the school, the administration sought to discredit the architect's work, question the accuracy of their measurements and minimize the risks posed by structural and air quality issues and persistent water infiltration at the school. The administration also voiced concerns about making Greenacres any more up to date than the most dated sections of Scarsdale's other elementary schools and repeatedly denied that any of the problems identified by architects and engineers at Greenacres were any worse than any of the district's other oldest facilities.

In a presentation about the school, Assistant Superintendent Stuart Mattey said that the administration had already addressed air quality issues, water and mold infiltration and the aging infrastructure though many in the audience and some of the board members still had serious questions about the feasibility of the building. When questioned about the air quality at the school Mattey said that testing was done in three to four rooms where there were damp ceilings and "nothing unusual was found." He said that Greenacres is no more or no less out of compliance than other buildings. When asked, "Does it meet code? Does it have the proper air exchange levels?" He replied, "No it does not." An email to Mattey requesting the actual air quality reports was not answered.

About a persistent leak in the ceiling and walls of the school, Mattey said that workmen had been trying to address it for more than six months and thought they had resolved it but it is still showing dampness. He assured everyone that there is a similarly damp area in Fox Meadow as well.

In order to address the claim that Greenacres classrooms are smaller than those in the other elementary schools, the administration recently re-measured all the district's elementary school classrooms and Mattey presented slides showing a comparison of classroom sizes at the five elementary schools by grade. These did show that Greenacres had the smallest classrooms overall, however some rooms in Fox Meadow were also small. None of the rooms at the school met the threshold for model classroom size, and again, the administration illustrated the fact that many other classrooms in the district are not up to model size. See the data here:

Mattey has not yet completed measurements of the overall buildings to measure square footage of usable space per student. That is, the measurements did not include common spaces such as multi-purpose rooms, music rooms, cafeterias, auditoriums, gyms, bathrooms, libraries, maker spaces, rooms for occupational therapy or learning resources.

The 2015 Greenacres Feasibility study claimed that Greenacres had 26% less space per student than the average of the other schools and Mattey said he would provide updated numbers at a later date.

Board Member Art Rublin challenged Dr. Hagerman and Stuart Mattey on some of their statements. He said that the engineers report from Greenacres showed that "Fresh air is far below current standards, the ventilators are vintage, have far outlived their useful life and are incapable of bringing in enough fresh air to meet code."

Dr. Hagerman said, "Old systems require deferred maintenance or replacement. But our schools are not that different from one another."

Rublin then asked about water infiltration in the basement and from the roof and Mattey said, "We have a hundred year-old building but we believe it's been resolved." Pressed further, Mattey added, "It's an existing condition. The building is built where it is. It will always be a challenge if the building remains there. Is it a solution? Is the water gone? No."

Rublin continued saying that the architects estimated it would cost $27 million to update the current Greenacres School while it would cost $5.95 mm at Heathcote, $2.99 mm at Quaker Ridge, $3.5mm at Fox Meadow and $6.1 million at Edgewood. Dr. Hagerman discounted the wide disparity in these numbers as well, saying that the architects had done an intensive look at Greenacres but not at the other schools. Rublin replied, "The numbers are pretty stark."

Conversation then turned to regulations which that require the district to bring the entire up to compliance with present air quality and fire codes. Board President Lee Maude said that if substantial construction was done to the building, the entire building would need to be brought up to current code. Nina Cannon asked if the Board was obliged to provide buildings that meet code. Mattey said that our buildings are only required to meet the code as of their building dates. Scott Silberfein pointed out that at Heathcote plans for the new multipurpose room were redesigned because the new HVAC would have had to be brought into more of the building and require upgrades to areas that were not under construction.

Rublin then said, "This all started when in 2014 the steering committee, BOE and administration said that Greenacres was excluded from the bond because, the school would require funds far in excess of what was available in the $18 million 2014 bond. Greenacres was promised that either a substantial renovation or a new school would come in the next bond. I believe the studies are still accurate. There are substantial problems with the facilities that are impeding the curricular and physical education program. All of the classrooms are too small. Students spill out in the hallway to do group work. Indoor recess is a problem. There is a scarcity of multi- purpose space. Occupation therapy and instrumental music share space in the basement. Infrastructure problems remain in the building Water, air quality and mold are indeed issues. Antiquated ventilators do not provide code compliant ventilation. Greenacres is the school in the district with the most need of work. Even classroom size issues are more substantial. Other schools have more spaces. Fox Meadow has a new kindergarten wing and Edgewood will have an expanded library."

Rublin continued, "I am concerned about switching architects almost three years in but I will accept the Superintendent's recommendation on that. It is very important that the new architects present the Board with both a renovation and a new building option. The issues are significant enough that both options should remain on the table for the Board. From everything I see I think that a new building is a better option but I am willing to look at a renovation option. One way or another we owe it to Greenacres school children and the community at large to provide the children of Greenacres with a school facility that has adequate space and sound infrastructure and allows the full delivery of the curricular program."

Mattey reviewed the timeline for an RFP to select a new architect though the details of the RFP were not shared with the audience. The administration plans to release the RFP on December 16 and advertise for proposals in the Journal News and the New York Times. Proposals will be due on January 18, 2017. Firms will be invited for interviews with the board between January 23 and February 7 and the new architects will be appointed on February 13, 2017. Dr. Hagerman added that design schemes would be delivered to May and a bond would be planned for the fall of 2017.

Dr. Hagerman did not define the parameters of the work for the new architects and did not provide a budget. It remains unclear what the district is charging the architects with doing and whether or not they would design a new school. The RFP will not be reviewed by the community before it is issued. However, he did say, "Now folks are thinking that we're minimizing this to the extent that we intend to do nothing. This is false. I have been hearing that we're only providing paint and curtains. This is not true. We need to be sure that we are addressing the right issues. We know that there are classroom issues. Code issues. We know that there are bathroom issues. But we need design issues that address those." It is interesting to note that in his comments he did not mention the need for more common or multi-purpose spaces, a suitable lunchroom, auditorium, larger gym or many of the features of the other elementary schools.

During the course of the meeting many residents spoke about Greenacres.

Linda Doucette Ashman, the Vice President of the Greenacres Neighborhood Association invited the Board and Administration to a forum at Greenacres to discuss the project with residents. The statement urged the Board to provide the community with information, a timeline and a plan to address structural issues at the school. The statement can be read in its entirety here:

Mona Longman, a former Greenacres PTA President said... "We were told "it has been determined that the Greenacres School building requires a higher level of repair, renovation, and/or construction than could be included in this current bond." We were assured that the anticipated school bond revolving in 2017 would include either a major renovation or new building for Greenacres along the lines of what transpired for the Post Road Elementary School in White Plains." ..."I learned that an engineering firm determined that much of the school's infrastructure was 'vintage', and the ventilation system is not code compliant. The system is supposed to be able to bring in enough fresh air from the outside, however, the amount is not adequate. Specific problems areas included the old multipurpose room where the air handling system is not functioning, the basement computer and music rooms, which are not ventilated at all, and even the ventilation in the school's corridors were not code compliant. Many of the other components of the school's infrastructure are long past their useful life. The report found that waterproofing, sanitary piping and electrical distribution is in poor condition. The foundation leaks terribly and the school requires multiple dehumidifiers to prevent mold and mildew. Also, the two story section of the school should have code compliant fire dampers, but does not. These are just a handful of facts anyone can learn just by a quick scan of the engineers report."

I read this report in disbelief. Do I really care if a few classroom measurements are off, when I learn my neighborhood's school has all these problems and may not comply with today's code? Should this be okay in a school in a neighborhood like Scarsdale? We are talking about a school where 5-11 year olds spend more than 6 hours a day five days a week.

Early in this same report, it is estimated that it would take close to $25 million dollars just to bring Greenacres up to the level of the other schools (the as-is option). Is that what our board of education really aspires to provide our community with? And considering that much of the building has either no ventilation or inadequate ventilation, how can work be done with students and staff in the building. And as a Scarsdale taxpayer, I hope we're not going to spend close to half the cost of a new building just to keep us from being the worst school in the district."

Andrea Seiden of Greenacres Avenue said, "I am here to ask the administration and the school board to move forward with their charge of doing what's best for the district's children. ...The school is too small and lacks the necessary facilities to provide the children with a first class education....All the mechanical and structural elements of the building have exceeded their useful life. In addition, constant remediation is required to keep the current building dry and safe. Water seeps in through the foundation of the building. Repairing the current infrastructure to bring it up to code would be far more expensive than building a new school. The air quality is not up to code and there is not enough fresh air in the classrooms, especially in the basement."

"Given the state of the facilities, it would be foolhardy to spend taxpayer dollars on an addition to a building that is not sustainable for the next 50 or 100 years.
We ask that the Administration and the Board take a hard look at the decision before them and fulfill their promise to move forward with the passage of a bond in May 2017 that will finance the construction of a new school at Greenacres and other district facilities needs."

Paulina Schwartz of Oakstwain Road said, "I looked at the report that came out today. The net usable square footage of the space has not been re-measured. It will be important when you look forward. Greenacres is the fifth out of five. The air quality and fire protection are not up to current code and that is concerning. Fire protection is important and the building has no sprinklers. I hope we will not skimp on things that are important."

Commenting after the meeting, Schwartz said, "I found the Board's attitude towards meeting current building codes disturbing. Fire codes keep our kids safe if there is a fire. Air quality codes require fresh air to be brought in to classrooms so kids don't get sick. To hear board members act as if these codes are not relevant is disappointing. The state creates these to keep kids safe and our district is saying that they do everything they can to make sure that they have to follow it as little as possible (keeping all projects from triggering code compliance). In my opinion, the physical safety and well being of the students is not where we should be saving money."

Nathan Boynton said, "We worked really hard to get into your school district. We believed that the community supported education. It has been incredibly disheartening to me to watch my community try to walk this back. I am not going to reiterate why it's not a good a idea to cut open a school. Go ahead and build a new school. It does not need to be fancy. If not, I am going to see a community that was balancing a budget on my kid's safety. There is flexibility to build something simple and cost effective. I would implore people not to send young kids into a construction zone. I hope we can stay here."

Maureen Ryan said, "I am going to bring a new perspective. I don't have children at all. I don't even find your children fascinating. We moved here because we felt that a community that supports education is important. I live in a 1925 Tudor but when my husband goes to work I want him in a state of the art building. I want my husband to be safe and I want him to be able to get out. Those kids are going to work. We should not be slapping band aids on an old building. The kids should be in the best situation possible."

Mitch Kahn of 198 Brewster Road said, "We are mostly high achieving people here. Why would you measure yourself against the lowest standards? Level up, not down.
Look at the schools and model to the best.... Also, why is there no public discussion among the board members? I thought these meetings were to hash out differences. I am hoping to hear that discussion."

Kyle Schurle of Donellan Road said, "There are risks to renovation. The school will still be on the wrong side of the street. We haven't gotten to the mold issue. There are heath risks and air quality issues. There are questions about educational adequacy during the period of the renovation. What justifies taking any of those risks? Does B1 provide a superior facility or value? C1 is superior. Why don't we have a sophisticated financial analysis of these two options – with consideration of the finances of a new versus a renovated building. If it is done, it will be crystal clear that B1 is a terrible value for Scarsdale overall. What are the top three arguments for B1 or C1? I honestly analyzed this objectively and I don't see why this is even a close call."

Others still spoke in favor of renovating the school.

Val Greenberg of 121 Brite Avenue told the board that the "B1 opponents are as passionate as ever. The numbers are out there" She noted that a review of district water fountains found that the three oldest schools had the safest water. She said, "Our school is beautiful. It works well. It might need a few tweaks."

Meredith Gantcher of 164 Brewster Road said "Every parent cares passionately about the school their child is in. I have friends with a child in the middle school and they have a litany of complaints about the middle school. I was recently with friends in Edgewood who said, "Why are people in Greenacres complaining about a band aid solution for Greenacres. Isn't Edgewood getting a band aid now?... I am concerned about all the children. Do what's fiscally responsible for all the children. To ensure that all children get the best education we can afford. We have to do what's right for everyone within the budget that we have."

Barbara Wenglin said, "The committee to save Greenacres School while preserving the full Greenacres field is still active, awake and engaged. More than half do not live adjacent to the school. Represented are families with young children and empty nesters. Lawn signs remain reflecting widespread community support. Our members have been patient and attentive. With new architects on board we hope that demolition costs, environmental concerns along with the water table of the field will be considered as well. Safety concerns of renovations have been addressed. We share budget concerns of the stressed village tax climate with the reval, and the proposed library renovation. Greenacres' population is declining. These numbers will change as Greenacres expands and enhances its footprint. We question whether Edgewood and Fox Meadow will need to be torn down."

John Singer from Montrose Road reminded the Board that the idea of the model program came from KG&D. He said, "Think about whether or not this is a Scarsdale standard. I think it is somewhat arbitrary. We have the highest achieving elementary schools in the state." He also said that "There's work going on now at the high school. Asbestos can be removed during vacations.... there is fear mongering going on out there."

Final comments included the following:

Gabe Oestreich of Brewster Road suggested that the board share the information they share with the architects with all the people in the community and include links to meetings where issues were discussed on the district website.

Jon Krisbergh said, "One of the problems last time was that KG&D got off to the wrong start. We want to make sure that we know what this new architect will be tasked with? That should be shared. What is in the RFP? Is a new school going to be an option for them to consider? Art – your engagement tonight was good to see. There was a good back and forth."

Rona Muntner of Fairview Road spoke in favor of the new architect, asking for new eyes on the situation. "Making lateral and backward comparisons to other schools is important and useful to make informed decisions going forward. We moved to Scarsdale for the innovation and creativity of our schools. What are tomorrow's standards? What is going to sustain our community going forward. Let's use what we learn from the past to create something more amazing for the future."

After leaving the meeting Munter added, "Essentially the Board said that Greenacres is completely broken but all our schools are at least somewhat broken so it is okay not to fix Greenacres."