On Jan. 16, the New Paltz community voted to pass Proposition One of the New Paltz Central School District’s (NPCSD) capital project.
The vote, held in the New Paltz High School Gym, attracted parents, elders and lots of community debates over different aspects of the propositions. The capital project consisted of three propositions, with both Proposition Two and Three depending on Proposition One passing.
Proposition One includes items concerning safety, energy efficiency and repairs. This aspect of the project passed by a margin of 1,798-1,128, entailing district-wide upgrades to lighting, roofs, windows and doors along with changes to the New Paltz High School bleachers, ceiling tiles, locker rooms and boiler rooms. There will also be grease trap replacements at Lenape and Duzine elementary schools and bathroom upgrades at New Paltz Middle School along with other repairs and replacements. This will cost the district a total of $22,950,601 including principal and interest on a 14-year bond at approximately 3.5%. According to the district, they will be receiving $13,781,765 in state aid, bringing the cost to the taxpayer down to $9,168,836. Taxpayers can expect to see a 1.16% tax levy increase because of the vote.
Proposition Two fell by a margin of 1,036-1,861. Along with upgrades to tennis courts, drainage and auditorium air conditioning, the proposition mostly focused on the Floyd Patterson field at NPHS. The field is currently only used for home football games, but the proposal of a new eight lane track, scoreboard, lighting and artificial turf opened up the potential for other teams to use the space.
New Paltz residents, including Village Board members Alexandria Wojcik and Stana Weisburd, signed a letter to NPCSD Superintendent Stephen Gratto supporting the proposition while expressing their concerns about the use of artificial turf. “Our children and athletes need and deserve these renovations, but one is ill advised: The inclusion of synthetic turf fields is hazardous, controversial and financially imprudent, and should be dropped,” the letter read. The document outlines concerns about maintenance cost, injury, heat stress and chemical exposure, citing sources such as the Cornell College of Agriculture.
“Based on our exit survey of the 800 or so people who took it, only 28% wanted artificial turf. There’s not a lot of support for artificial turf in New Paltz right now, and some of the other things were popular,” Gratto said. “I think that the board would like us to tackle some of the things in Proposition Two within our regular budget rather than put up another proposition right now.”
Proposition Three fell by a relatively great margin of 409-2,476. It focused purely on building an aquatics center at NPHS. The cost would have been $55,212,073 including principal and interest on a 19-year bond at approximately 4%, falling to $39,773,341 with the help of state aid. Taxpayers would have seen a tax levy increase of 3.96%.
When the idea of a capital project was being discussed by the board, “a large number of vocal swim enthusiasts came out and let their opinions be known,” according to Gratto. The proposition came after the announcement of a $74 million renovation of SUNY New Paltz’s Elting Gym, including a full replacement of Elting Pool. The pool, which is utilized by SUNY New Paltz men and women’s swim teams, the NPHS girls’ and boys’ varsity teams and other community swim groups, is not estimated to reopen until 2029. Had Proposition Three been approved, the NPHS pool would not have been open for use until at least 2028. Regardless of the vote, NPCSD will have to find another pool for their swim teams to practice and compete in.
The proposition sparked outrage amongst New Paltz residents, with many complaints about the high cost impact of the project for comparatively small New Paltz swim teams. However, Gratto emphasized “that the school board [was] supportive of community members using our beautiful facilities as often as possible” in an email on Dec. 6.
“I haven’t been here that long, [only] two years, but I understand the pool had been talked about for many, many years,” Gratto said. “Some people came out and really pushed for it. The Facilities Committee was in favor of putting it up and seeing what happened, and I would expect that it won’t be put up again anytime soon.”
The capital project vote took place months before the district’s budget vote that regularly occurs in May. Having the vote in the winter allows the district to get approval for their capital project to begin by summer 2026 as opposed to summer 2027. Doing a capital project vote separate from the May budget vote cost the district over $10,000; however, Gratto expressed that the board felt this was reasonable to get necessary work done up to a year earlier.
Regardless of capital project costs, it is likely that taxes will increase anywhere from 1% to 4% in addition to the 1.16% tax levy increase from Proposition One, according to Gratto. Taxpayers contribute 70% of the funding for the school, with state aid covering 27% and other local support contributing 3%. With lowering enrollment, this revenue has not covered the school district’s expenses over the last two years. They have managed to make staffing cuts without cutting academic programs, but the board will have more difficult decisions to make in their upcoming 2025 budget vote.
“We got a $17 million capital project approved by the voters in a very difficult financial time,” Gratto said. “We’re extremely happy that Proposition One passed and you know, it’s really important things that need to get done, so we’re very appreciative of the taxpayers supporting us.”