The Berkeley Heights Board of Education has submitted a $50.3 million pre-referendum budget estimate to the New Jersey Department of Education for review.

We requested this information through OPRA which led to another display of willful ignorance and petty bureaucratic power plays — but that’s for another article.

One of the documents received was a Scope/Budget Analysis of what the referendum will likely include. The document file name was ‘BUDGET_ESTIMATE—FINAL-SUBMITTED-TO-DOE.’ so we are guessing this was the proposal the majority of the BOE voted for without looking at.

The proposal includes every school in the district and covers a wide range of projects, from media center renovations to roof replacements.

A review of the district’s proposal raises three key concerns.

First, the second ballot question asks voters to approve more than $29 million in additional spending — much of it for routine maintenance. This includes roof replacements, HVAC and plumbing upgrades, repaving, drainage improvements, sidewalks, and fencing. These are basic infrastructure items that should typically be addressed through long-term facilities planning and the district’s capital reserve. Including them in a referendum reinforces concerns that this kind of work has been deferred for years and is now being framed as urgent, with the public asked to fund it all at once.

Second, soft costs throughout the budget appear high. These include design fees, permits, legal costs, testing, and contingency funds. In many cases, soft costs exceed 20% of the base construction cost. For example, the Governor Livingston High School roof replacement lists $842,650 in soft costs on a $4.1 million construction budget — about 20.6%. The Columbia Middle School STEM lab renovation shows a soft cost share of 21.5%. Industry benchmarks typically place soft costs in the 15–18% range for school construction. Higher percentages can be justified, but the budget offers no explanation.

An email included in the same OPRA response offered some context. Superintendent Kim Feltre stated that a “large component” of soft costs is professional fees, which she pegged at 10%. But the math doesn’t add up. The total soft cost line item in multiple projects is more than double that. The rest, according to her explanation, goes toward post-referendum coordination, district-wide budget tracking, scheduling, and contingencies — none of which are publicly itemized. So while the district offered a general rationale, it still hasn’t explained why the soft cost total exceeds 20% on multiple projects or why these administrative overhead charges weren’t separated out more transparently.

Finally, the budget appears to not includes adjustment for inflation. The estimates are static, even though construction is planned to roll out over several years. Without a buffer for rising labor and material costs, the district risks cost overruns, delays, or having to request additional funding. NJDOE regulations allow districts to build escalation into project estimates, but that option was not used here.

Other Notes

A review of some of the other documents revealed other concerns. I got through maybe half of the 99 documents (there were a bunch of duplicates in the 130+ files the District sent me). Here is what I’ve noticed so far…

Contingencies Appear Buried Within Soft Costs

I was unable to find a separate line items labeled contingency in any of the project budgets- they all seem to be folded into a “Soft Costs” column, which includes architecture, legal, permits, and other overhead.

The DOE allows the District to break out these costs but the District chose not to.

Vague Duplicate/Inflated Categories

CMS has both “HVAC upgrades” and “ventilation upgrades” listed as separate line items with no clear detail on how these are different.

Mountain Park and Woodruff show vague line items like “renovation” or “general upgrades” with no detail

This raises alarm bells on padding.

Several projects include soft cost entries labeled simply as “District-Wide Planning” or “District-Wide Coordination” with no explanation as to what this means.

Another area where this comes up connects to solar panels. I want to say this was discussed at a meeting but my memory on it is not clear. On paper, at least, this is part of the GHLS roofing project and costs for solar specifically do not appear to be broken out.

“Scope of Work”

Many of these come across as template/boiler plate with vague assertions that “renovations will occur” providing little detail. Cover letters from architects/engineers lack technical detail.

Cost Does Not Appear Linked to Timelines

I mean they’re not- not much else to say.

Some Review Fees Don’t Appear to Make Sense

A roof replacement (GL) and a STEM lab rebuild (CMS) have the same review fee?

No Clear Plan

So far, I could not find any long-term facilities plan, life-cycle estimates, or asset timelines. There’s no indication of how long the improvements are expected to last or how future needs will be handled so…. is this is a one-time fix or just a temporary patch to cover up the mess prior Boards have created with no plan to prevent it from happening again?

Community Feedback

The district’s pre-referendum survey shows strong public support for long-overdue infrastructure work (roof repairs, HVAC upgrades, paving, drainage fixes, and bathroom renovations). But families also raised concerns about vague project descriptions, lumped-together soft costs, and the lack of clear, itemized breakdowns.

Instructional upgrades (science labs, robotics, and special education classrooms) were high priorities. Media center and athletic renovations got a mixed response, with some residents questioning the academic value.

So, while survey responses showed support for infrastructure repairs, many families used the feedback sections as an opportunity to raise meaningful concerns that are consistently neglected at BOE Meetings – instructional quality, academic priorities, and whether this referendum truly advances student learning.

Several comments called for a phased approach, more long-term planning, and better transparency.

To Be Fair

The proposal isn’t all bad. It covers every school and includes STEM lab renovations and media center upgrades. While soft costs are poorly broken out, at least they’re accounted for. Without clearer documentation, even the good ideas are hard to evaluate.

This isn’t a call to rail against the referendum – it is, however, a flag for clarity and detail – not marketing or PR. We hope that, in the next few months, the public gets a fuller picture behind the large number and a Board that is more willing to hold the Administration to task in it’s accounting instead of just talking about how they are going to do it “next time”.

Talk is cheap…this proposal is not.

You can download the full body of documents received from the District that include specifications and estimates here – duplicates removed (zip file).

References:

External Benchmarks:
– LS3P K–12 Cost Estimating Guide
https://www.ls3p.com/cost-estimating-for-k-12-school-projects-an-invaluable-tool-for-budget-management/

Read More on the BHPSNJ Referendum

Subscribe to NJ21st For Free