Featured Story

Riverhead school board member looks to renew EPCAL talks

EPCAL_sign

After the EPCAL property was identified as a possible expansion site, some residents expressed environmental concerns during a June 2005 school board meeting since a portion of the property had been contaminated. Specifically, toxic chemicals left over from years of pollution at the former Grumman site has contaminated the groundwater there.

Traces of the contaminants, known as volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, have been found in the Peconic River and in wells at the Peconic River Sportsman’s Club — though town leaders stressed a decade ago that EPCAL property owned by the town was clean.

In a June 30, 2005, letter to the editor, then-Supervisor Phil Cardinale addressed the environmental concerns and said studies had found that none of the property transferred to Riverhead was contaminated and that remaining acreage owned by the U.S. Navy would be transferred only after the land had been remediated.

“The essential truth is that the town-owned EPCAL site, including the 50 acres under consideration by the Riverhead school board, is clean land,” Mr. Cardinale wrote. “To imply otherwise adversely impacts not only the Town of Riverhead and its citizens, but the truth itself.”

The proposal to build a school at EPCAL eventually never came to fruition because the district determined it didn’t need one at the time.

School board member Lori Hulse, who was on the board when the recommendation to build a school at EPCAL was first made, confirmed in an interview this week that she was in favor of those plans at the time. She said the recommendation made sense for several reasons, including that it would have accommodated more students moving into new housing developments.

When asked if she’s still in favor of the EPCAL land idea, Ms. Hulse described the comparisons as “apples to oranges.” The district’s needs have changed since that recommendation was made nearly 10 years ago, she said.

“At that point in time, we had nothing proposed except potentially getting a new school,” she said. “Subsequently to all our construction, I don’t know if [building at EPCAL] would even be viable at this point.”

Former school board member Brian Stark, who served between 2004 and 2006, was on the school board committee that made the EPCAL recommendations. He said in an interview this week that he believes an analysis of the district’s updated demographics is needed to determine if — and where — the district should expand.

In particular, Mr. Stark believes the district should be prepared for a population increase in the Flanders area now that the Southampton Town Board has approved a revitalization plan and is preparing to build new infrastructure to accommodate increased density.

“I think that’s an area that could boom because they’re planning to build sewers and affordable housing,” Mr. Stark said. “There’s an area that might need to accompany a bigger grade school.”

In May 2014, the school board approved a contract with BOCES to conduct a study of the district’s 100 square miles and determine if it should reconfigure its elementary school boundaries. That report is expected to include demographics, enrollment projections, bus routes and transportation costs.

Although BOCES will provide the district with data, Riverhead Superintendent Nancy Carney has said it will not make recommendations on changes to the current boundaries — known as catchment areas — for Riley, Phillips, Aquebogue, and Roanoke elementary schools. Redrawing the current lines is up to the school board and community, Ms. Carney has said.

Previous studies failed to forecast “exploding” enrollment at Phillips and Roanoke, she said, as well as decreasing enrollment at Riley and Aquebogue. If the school board and community are interested in moving forward with changing the elementary schools’ lines after reviewing BOCES’ findings, Ms. Carney said they wouldn’t be redrawn for at least a couple of years.

It’s unclear how far along the study is; the superintendent wasn’t available this week for comment.

After the district decided against building a school at EPCAL, the Board of Education proposed a $123 million capital improvement bond, which voters rejected in 2010. The following year, residents voted in favor of a $78 million bond project to upgrade all of its buildings, which is in the process of wrapping up.

Mr. Meyer said the next step is for the school board’s intergovernmental committee to schedule a meeting with the town to discuss the land at EPCAL.

“Maybe we never need it,” he said. “But if we do need it, at least it’s there and we don’t have to worry about buying 50 acres and having the taxpayers pay for that.”

[email protected]