Facilities committee recommends deconstructing Shady Lane building; Lewisboro Elementary needs further study

The Katonah‑Lewisboro facilities committee recommended on May 23 that the district proceed with deconstruction of the building on the Shady Lane property and return to the full board with procedural steps and final cost estimates, while deferring final recommendations for Lewisboro Elementary pending further investigation into wastewater, roof condition and PFAS concerns.

Committee leader (speaker 4) told the board that Shady Lane — land donated by the Newman family — continues to be valuable to the district but that the building itself should be deconstructed following consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). "We recommend that the administration work to determine the necessary procedural steps and the costs of this work and come back to the board with that final cost," the committee reported. Committee members noted an initial estimate of about $325,000 that may not have included full asbestos and lead‑paint evaluation.

At the same time the committee said Lewisboro Elementary (LES) is more complicated. The committee cited multiple structural vintages in the building and distinct roof types, a wastewater treatment plant installed by the town, and questions about PFAS levels in the water supply. Committee members said a complete deconstruction estimate had been discussed at about $4,000,000 but that options exist to retain portions of the building (for example, the gym) if feasible. The committee proposed revising its charge to remove Shady Lane from active study and to focus on LES, and to return to the board on June 20 with a revised charge and a plan to identify vendors and consultants to investigate options and costs.

Board concern and next steps: board members pressed the committee on schedule and funding: the committee said more research and potential outside contracting would be needed and suggested a minimum three‑month investigative window, noting some members expect an extension through September to fully evaluate options. Board members also asked whether any salvage value or lease terms (the town lease was described as annual/expired with renewal options) might offset costs; presenters said no significant salvage value was identified but the administration would look for funding options if the board authorizes contractor work.

Why it matters: LES contains infrastructure and environmental unknowns (wastewater, PFAS) that could affect cost, timeline and student safety; the board must weigh disposal or reuse options against financial and regulatory constraints. The committee will return to the board with proposed charges, estimated consultant needs and cost scenarios before any final disposition action is taken.

What was not decided: no final vote was taken May 23. The board asked the administration and committee to identify the steps, vendors and likely cost sources and to present options at upcoming meetings (June 20 and later in the fall).