Bond Questions and Policy Break Down-John’s Notes on the 10/16/2025 BHPSNJ BOE Agenda

The agenda for this Thursday’s Berkeley Heights Meeting is heavy and as much as I’d like to keep it all to one article, I wasn’t able to. This first article on the agenda focuses on the Bond Questions connected to the anticipated 2026 BHPSNJ Referendum and policies up for a vote this week.

Bond Questions

The Berkeley Heights BOE is set to vote on whether to submit two bond questions to the DOE for approval with the goal of putting them in front of the community during a Special Election set for March 10, 2026.

The proposals are targeted to show up on a March ballot and when combined, they get to a facilities plan totaling~ $50.35M. That cost includes building improvements, mechanical upgrades, classroom renovations, security, and infrastructure repairs across all six schools.

Bond Proposal Overview

The state is expected to cover 40% of the debt service on eligible costs with taxpayers responsible for the other 60% along with 100% of all ineligible costs.

Total Cost Summary by School

Total project cost by school/costs eligible for state aid/costs that are locally funded / major categories of work planned.

School	Total Cost	Eligible Costs	Ineligible Costs	Major Project Categories
MKM	$5,581,443	$5,581,443	$25,000	Media center, HVAC, BMS, security, technology, sidewalks, playgrounds
Mountain Park	$7,233,277	$7,208,277	$25,000	Media center, HVAC/gym, plumbing, BMS controls, security, sidewalks
Hughes	$2,162,234	$2,122,234	$40,000	Media center, HVAC, security, parking lot, pavement
Woodruff	$6,889,638	$6,874,638	$15,000	Media center, HVAC, BMS, plumbing, roof replacement
CMS	$10,152,565	$9,932,565	$220,000	Media center, HVAC, waterproofing, courtyard, classrooms, paving, drainage
GL	$17,643,813	$17,643,813	$365,000	Media center, HVAC, classroom renovations, roof, stairs, pavement

Total Bond Authorization: $50,352,970
Final Eligible Costs: $49,662,970
Total Ineligible Costs: $690,000
Estimated State Aid (40% of eligible): ~$19.86 million (not guaranteed until projects are approved)

Concerns

Transfer Authority: The Board will be able to move money around after approval which can mean that spending priorities folks voted on at the booth can change if the questions pass.

Ineligible Costs: About $690,000 of costs fall outside state aid eligibility. These typically cover “extras” like furniture or enhancements taxpayers are responsible for.

Debt Scale : Borrowing more than $50 million is ALOT for a district our size and as I’ve said a million times, holding the vote in March versus during the November general election, typically reduces turnout.

Limited Cost Breakdown: Without itemized costs, it’s difficult to assess whether spending is proportionate or justified. That being said we provided a more detailed breakdown earlier this year.

Broad Project Language: Terms like “various upgrades and renovations” allow for wide latitude in how funds are used.

Debt Statement Transparency: A supplemental debt statement has been filed, but the total debt load (including this new borrowing) isn’t clearly presented and it should be.

While none of these are inherently improper – the above items deserve scrutiny by BOE Members and the public.

First Read Policies

Board Member Election & Appointment – 0143

The proposed changes go into more detail on how vacancies are filled under different circumstances (no candidates, quorum loss, tie votes, with recount and special election, improper election procedures, campaign violations). Term length of appointed BOE members is also clarified and is based on when the vacancy occurs.

Vacancies, along with the application process, still need to be made public, and interviews can still happen in executive session as long as the votes occur in public. If interviews happen in private (executive session), then BOE members have to publicly explain their vote. The updated policy is clearer but continues to allow candidate interviews to occur away from the public eye, which does not make sense. Candidates campaign publicly for votes, and since a Board appointment is a less democratic process, public interviews would seem even more necessary.

Board Committees – 0155

Standing committees are streamlined to five (Administration, Business, Education, Personnel, Governance), and ad-hoc committees are reduced to Negotiations and Strategic Planning. Some liaison roles were removed, others renamed, and others added. A Board majority vote will now be required for ad-hoc committees; the president cannot just create them as was attempted by the current county-appointed president earlier this year. Committee structure remains the same, with each having a chair and consisting of three members. As in the current policy, they cannot act independently and must report recommendations to the full board. Minutes still need to be documented and distributed.

The restructuring simplifies the process but misses two huge opportunities. It does not limit presidential power to the extent it needs to. This problem has become painfully obvious in the past seven years and especially under the current president. Secondly, it does not reinforce the decision the BOE made to ensure committee meeting minutes are published by putting it in writing.

Duties of the Public School Accountant – 0173

Before appointment, the board must require and review the accountant’s most recent external peer/quality review and letter of comments. The board must acknowledge and discuss reports publicly. If a new peer review is issued before the audit opinion, it must be submitted within 30 days. The audit scope is expanded to include verification of contracts and use of state purchasing contracts. Lastly, the audit summary must be read publicly within 30 days of receipt.

Oversight of the audit process is stronger and more transparent.

Curriculum Content – 2200-R

The anti-discrimination clause now references “any protected categories listed at N.J.A.C. 6A:7-1.1(a).” The superintendent is charged with developing a process to address curriculum bias, and relevant documents must be posted online after approval by the Board. The district’s equity and transparency commitments are clearer, but enforcement still depends largely on teacher discretion. This is something likely to make either side of the issue unhappy.

Comprehensive Health & Physical Education – 2422

Requirements are now listed individually (consent, mental health, diversity and inclusion, etc.). Students cannot be denied recess more than twice in a week, and those under HIB investigation must receive restorative justice activities during withheld recess. Restorative justice is defined and linked to socio-emotional development and less punitive interventions. Instructional materials must be available for public inspection in each school. Parental rights to opt out of certain instruction remain unchanged, and the 20-minute daily recess requirement for grades K–5 remains, with existing exceptions.

Two years ago, I asked the Board to begin incorporating restorative justice into its approach to discipline when R5330 came up for a vote. It is a more evidence-based and effective approach to changing behavior. I hope this step is a sign of a broader application.

Second Read Policies

Legal Services- 0174

Overall the policy remains a win with a stronger gate between OPRA requests and attorneys. The term “designated” is going to be a point of debate here:

“All written requests for legal advice and logs of legal counsel contacts shall be forwarded to designated contact person(s) the Business Administrator / Board Secretary, who shall be responsible to review all legal bills and compare all legal bills to the contact logs and to investigate and resolve any variances.”

I am not clear as to why this portion of the policy was loosened to open the door to more hands. There should be one log handled by one role; many of the arguments about how difficult this would be during the last meeting felt like a stretch. It would take 5 minutes to create a google form multiple users can access to input information that funnels through the log point person. Given the the District’s history of throwing money at attorney, this shouldn’t really be a back and forth.

Source Documents

Bond Questions

Policies -First Read

Policies – Second Read

Related

Wiki on BHPSNJ Referendum

Subscribe to NJ21st For Free

Our Commitment to Ethical Journalism