New Lebanon School Board Faces The Union Free School Dilemma

by Phillip M. Zema
The Union Free School building is in peril. Unless someone presents a feasible renovation plan, the former school building will likely disappear. Accordingly, the New Lebanon School Board faces an unfortunate dilemma – if they vote to demolish the building, which the District owns, they risk being criticized for destroying an iconic historical treasure, if they decide to preserve it, they must generate a vast amount of funding, which would be difficult in a stagnant and suffering economy. Their decision will not be easy. Nevertheless, the Lebanon Valley Historical Society implored the Board to hold off on any decisions. The Society asked the Board for a six-month time frame, which would allow them to investigate a number of options.
Between January 6 and June 30, 2010, the Historical Society intends to explore all possible funding options, such as NY State grants, private donations or potential buyers. They have already distributed a survey that asks District residents whether they would be for or against a renovation project. Ideally, this survey will be distributed throughout the community. Sometime around March and April, the Society will evaluate the results, see if the building can realistically fulfill community needs and develop a vision and plan for renovation. By June, they hope to identify and pursue possible buyers, and they plan to continue grant writing and other administrative tasks. Then they aim to report their results to the Board.
Those who favor renovation claim the school has irreplaceable historical and community value. It is currently registered as an historic building and is clearly a cultural and educational icon. In 1913 the architect Albert Fuller – his 1934 Times Union obituary referred to him as the “dean of Albany architects” – finished constructing the Union Free School. It was located near the railroad so that students across the District could attend. It has not been used, however, since 1970. Over the years, the building’s fate has been frequently discussed, but Town and school officials have yet to find a fiscally realistic means to preserve it. In 2006, the school was cleansed from asbestos contamination, making it substantially safer. Yet before the building is suitable for public use, it requires a number of expensive repairs.
Concerning the building’s future, three possible routes can be taken:
(1) the school building can be renovated, but to do so would cost approximately $752,786, though the cost is contingent on what the school is used for. Furthermore, unless the building is used for education, it will receive no state aid.
(2) The District, on the other hand, could sell the property. So far, no buyers have come forward, and the cost of renovation appears to be a deterrent.
(3) If the above options fail, the school might then have to demolish it; this alternative would cost the District roughly $36,000.
A number of voices were heard at the meeting, and Nancy Clement, an ardent and long-time advocate of preserving the Union Free School building, emphasized the benefits of such a project. She supported and praised the Historical Society and kindly asked the Board to accept their proposal. The Board did not make any decisions, but at the next Board meeting, on January 20, they will vote whether to accept the Historical Society’s proposal.
Efforts To Cut Costs
Economic factors are forcing schools to find innovative ways to cut costs. The District was recently notified that the State is withholding about $134k in education aid. While the school could still receive these funds, cost saving measures seem imperative. Fortunately, the District has taken steps to reduce budget costs. After planning ways to save on transportation, the District concluded that it would save $35,261 in 2010. Furthermore, having used a generator to work the soccer field’s lights, the District saved nearly $1,600. In her business office/facilities and ground update, Carrie Nye-Chevrier stated that by eliminating unnecessary costs, the District could offset aid cuts.
Superintendent Karen McGraw also discussed several ways the District could save. One option is for the District to move to a “one bell system.” Accordingly, the starting times between schools would be shortened, as school buses would pickup elementary and secondary school students at the same time. By consolidating bus shifts, the District would save on fuel and operating costs. Schodack and Chatham central schools have shifted to this system. By doing so, Schodack saved $32,000 (in 2010, it could grow to $60k), and Chatham could save anywhere between $160-190,000. The District plans to investigate whether such a shift is a realistic possibility.
New Lebanon Seeks To Enroll More Stephentown Students
Finally, McGraw expressed interest in enrolling students from the Berlin School District. In light of Stephentown Elementary School’s closure and because Berlin is attempting to consolidate its elementary schools, McGraw thought Stephentown students may be interested in attending New Lebanon. In so far as they share borders and some of Stephentown’s adolescents attend New Lebanon, this possibility seems feasible. Moreover, the additional students would increase the District’s revenue, but help Berlin in return. Furthermore, there is a strong possibility the New Lebanon and Berlin girls volleyball teams will converge. Both teams have recently experienced low turnouts; New Lebanon barely has enough girls to field a team, and since the schools have had success merging their swimming and wrestling teams, this option may work best for both schools.