The Berkeley Heights Public School Referendum Explained -Part One

The first in a Series intended to help Berkeley Heights Residents unpack the referendum

The District is in need of serious and extensive infrastructure repairs, no one is arguing that. But, like any construction project, especially one with a multi-million dollar price tag, the devil is in the details.  

The 99-page proposal, available on the District website, is choc-full of information but just skimming the surface has raised some questions.

I am working in pieces so I can digest the contents and will provide summaries as I go along.

If you are expecting the document driving the referendum to come across as clear and professional – you might find yourself disappointed.

The proposal contains multiple grammatical errors (more than John’s articles or even his emails), has inconsistent labeling of District buildings and fails to identify how the projects will help support students educational achievement.

The referendum question(s) will be held during a special election on March 10, 2026. At the time of this article being published, there are two questions for voters.  

The first question (with zero tax impact) will include Media Center improvements at all schools, parking lot and site improvement, security and technology upgrades and a partial roof at Woodruff.  

The second question (with tax impact) will include Science and STEM lab renovations at GLHS and CMS, mechanical, electrical and plumbing improvements and roofing system replacements at various schools (which ones, no clue?).

Zero tax impact will not reduce anyone’s taxes, and the EXPECTATION is that there will not be an increase for homeowners. However, we have heard from several residents that they will in fact experience a tax increase.

The questions are contingent upon one another.  If ‘Question 1’ does not pass then there is no chance ‘Question 2’ can pass.

The concerning piece is that, in the way it is designed, the question with the least priority and connection to student need must pass if the more substantial items related to student need have a chance.

The project proposal is lacking comprehensive and detailed information directly tied to prioritizing projects based upon need and fail to identify how specific projects will ultimately support our student learning and staffs ability to help students thrive.

Some slides cite “much more” as part of the project explanation, but these will ultimately need to be clearly defined, especially when residents are going to be asked to approve 50 million dollars for projects.

Tax-paying stakeholders may be reluctant in supporting ambiguous projects with little detail on facts or connection to student achievement.

At a recent BOE meeting, the Board had a lengthy discussion regarding the referendum with a focus on the ballot questions and projects included in each one.  

The Board’s Finance and Facilities committee was set to meet with Solutions Architect to refine the questions and obtain more information about the process.

BHPSNJ Referendum Presentation-Proposed Project Scope

Read All Articles on the Referendum