Laura’s Notes on the Referendum Portion of the BOE Meeting: What the Board’s Decision Means for March 10

“This was a really terrible decision.”  That was one of the many comments made by residents with concerns about the referendum passed by the Board of Education.

The Referendum presentation offered a visual and verbal recap of the 99-page report already posted on the District website. There were no substantive updates, no clarifications, and no changes that reflected the concerns raised over the past several months. Although all but two Board members acknowledged issues with the structure of the questions, the majority ultimately voted to move forward without modification.

After an hours-long presentation and an extended public comment period, one theme was unmistakable: Berkeley Heights residents want high-quality, modern educational facilities, but many remain frustrated with how the two ballot questions are organized. There was no opposition to renovating schools or investing in infrastructure. Instead, the concern is that the fate of the most critical upgrades now rests entirely on how residents vote on March 10.

Put plainly, the essential building and safety projects will only move forward if both Question 1 and Question 2 pass.

Many fear a split outcome, particularly that Question 1 may pass on its own while the most urgent infrastructure needs, housed in Question 2, remain unfunded. These are the items tied to keeping schools functional: roofs, mechanical systems, heating, electrical reliability, and other essentials that prevent instructional disruption. NJ21st previously documented that these major instructional needs were placed in Question 2, while Question 1 is weighted toward paving, parking lots and media centers, which did not rank as high priorities in the district’s own survey results.

County Appointed Board President Bradford and Stanley urged residents to “trust the experts,” even as most public speakers and several Board members expressed concern about the prioritization and formatting of the proposal.

Former Board President Doug Reinstein questioned whether the projects were aligned with student achievement and pushed back on the idea of “zero tax impact,” noting that residents will continue paying roughly $180 annually due to old debt retiring in spring 2026. NJ21st’s earlier reporting also noted homeowner accounts of tax increases under the district’s previous “zero tax impact” framing, raising questions about that messaging. Reinstein asked that the ballot questions be written more transparently: Question 1 maintains the current tax impact and Question 2 would increase it.

Another former president, Michael D’Aquila, summed it up succinctly: “A media center looks great, but if it’s 55 degrees, it’s not comfortable.”

A motion was introduced by Board member Joly to reorganize the referendum so that the most urgent needs would appear in Question 1 and the upgrade focused items, such as media centers, would move to Question 2. Public comments largely supported this approach. Board member Dillon opposed the change, citing reduced funding for GLHS yet the items that would lose funding were mainly non-priorities.

Terrero joined Dillon, Stanley and Bradford in voting down the Joly’s measure despite expressing concerns about the referendum. This is the second major decision Dillon and Tererro voted in a way that contradicted their public statements – the first being the Turf Field.  Dipti Khanna and Sai Akiri supported Joly’s proposal.

In the end, the Board voted to keep the questions unchanged, despite the clear concerns raised by residents.

This leaves a number of unresolved questions: What happens if only Question 1 passes? What if both fail? Neither scenario was clearly addressed during the meeting.

As a parent with children in multiple district schools, recent issues highlight why these concerns matter. Mountain Park experienced a roof failure two weeks ago that disrupted instruction. CMS students were told to bring jackets and blankets when the heat stopped working three weeks ago. GLHS regularly faces heating inconsistencies. Every project in the referendum ties directly to the learning environment. If students are cold, wet, unable to rely on lighting or lack stable internet and basic infrastructure, the promise of educational excellence becomes much harder to fulfill.

It was also noted that several needed upgrades did not make the referendum, including bathrooms and equitable locker rooms at GLHS. Whether a long-term plan exists for those omissions remains unclear.

Earlier NJ21st analysis of the referendum budget found that soft-costs were projected at more than 20 percent, bundled into broad categories without specifics, and that the proposal lacked recognizable inflation or escalation factors despite a multiyear rollout. Those elements heighten concerns about clarity, sequencing and the district’s ability to execute the plan as presented.

Board member Sai Akiri has also raised procedural concerns in prior public statements covered by NJ21st. She noted that key financial information arrived only the night before the June meeting and questioned whether the timeline was being driven by the goal of securing a March 2026 referendum date rather than ensuring full and transparent public review.

The timeline itself is another concern. No matter how residents vote, no construction will begin until 2027 at the earliest. Bidding is expected late next fall, with most work unable to start until summer 2027 . Media center renovations are among the most time consuming and would likely occur 2+ years out once the bidding process begins.

Ultimately, that schedule depends on how the community votes in March, leaving much of the future uncertain.

If the vote in March fails, the District will have another opportunity to put forward a different measure that addresses community concerns in November.