Berkeley Heights BOE Discusses Referendum Next Steps, Budget, and PILOT Concerns

Laura’s Notes on the 03/12/2026 BOE Meeting

BERKELEY HEIGHTS- The meeting featured a cohesive Board focused on important discussions while moving through agenda items, once again, in record time!

The Board President opened the meeting thanking the public for the overwhelming support of the referendum and assured that the Board would be responsible with the money and promises to complete all projects listed (I thought we didn’t have a choice – do we?). Terrero also made a comment that, without context, was incongruous; she reiterated that she expected all BOE members to be respectful and understand that the purpose of the meeting was to move through the agenda.

The Superintendent echoed Terrero’s gratitude to the public for supporting the District and passing the referendum. Feltre reported that there was a 21% voter turnout which, according to her admin friends in other districts, was high based on the average 10-15% turnout for special elections. Regarding votes tallied, 71% voted yes in support of Question 1 and 67% voted in favor of Question 2. The next steps in the process are going to be to sell the bonds, begin conversations about spaces and needs of staff and students, and the preparation of bid packages for all projects.

The Business Administrator also offered thanks to the community on the passing of the referendum. Nicholson noted that work on the budget is ongoing and the District did not receive a reduction in state aid for the 2026-27 school year.

The Assistant BA reported that there was a system error as a result of a software update from October-November 2025 that prematurely issued a check, which resulted in a discrepancy in reconciling the books. The issue has been resolved and the bill lists that had already been approved were amended and readopted.

There was no one present in person or online to make comments during both citizen hearings.

On behalf of the Facilities and Finance Committee, Joly noted that all Board members have received the full budget and that everyone has had and will continue to have opportunities for conversation, meetings, and answers to questions leading up to and through the public presentation of the 2026-27 budget. Joly reported that the District is actively looking for partnership with the Township regarding financial support from PILOTs. The District currently has 57 students attending our schools from PILOT programs, and of the 57, 19 of those students receive a wide range of special services. Because any governing legislature regarding PILOT funding public institutions, the community is currently footing a nearly 1.3 million dollar bill for these students’ educations. Nicholson spoke about she and Feltre meeting with the Township and presenting a proposal to have funding toward schools incorporated into all future PILOTs. It was reported that a TAPinto article, from ‘a few years ago,’ had estimated an approximate 70 million dollar revenue from PILOTs over a 30-year term.

The fact that our educational institutions do not see a penny from builders and our Township for PILOTs is despicable.

Joly continued her report with an update on Lower Columbia projects received from the Township, highlighting the installation of a natural turf field, in a slightly different layout than originally proposed. The field will also feature underfield drainage, irrigation, and lights. Due to projects potentially falling out of the $756,000 budget, the Township will aim to seek grants and donations for all Lower Columbia projects, which are also intended to include a renovation to the park’s entrance, resurfacing of the basketball courts, and a new baseball field.

The Personnel Committee reported reviewing a student-to-administrator chart which indicated that all schools currently have a 200-1 ratio. This ratio would also be equitable at GLHS if the District continues to employ two vice principals. It was also reported that of the 60 million dollars in the annual operating budget, 3 million dollars makes up administrative salaries. It is unclear, during Bradford’s report, if “administrator” in this context was referencing principals, which directly related to her ratio reporting, or if the 3 million reflects all administrator positions.

The Curriculum Committee reported on the lack of live lab dissections and working on ways in which all students in applicable sciences could have opportunity for hands-on learning experiences. Currently, only students in AP classes are able to participate in dissections; other sections can only watch dissections through educational videos.

The CMS schedule was discussed again, with anticipation of Kobliska presenting the Board with a draft schedule focusing on students meeting with core area subjects on a daily basis without ever dropping the class in the 4-day cycle. Currently, students have a 4-day block schedule whereupon 1 day in a 4-day cycle a student would “drop” a core area subject. The new proposed schedule will feature shorter class periods, but focus on academic continuity in core areas. The new schedule is reported to also feature “recess” time for students, which has been said to be a high priority for Kobliska.

The CMS 8th grade awards ceremony will now feature criteria for awarding accolades to students. The program will be publicized with an emphasis on students, families, and educators having a better understanding of eligibility and selection prior to the ceremony. Terrero commented that the same criteria should be used for awards at GLHS because the process has been poorly communicated and misunderstood.

Proof-oriented geometry was presented as a potential offering and Dr. Foregger will be presenting the material to Ms. Manganelli’s geometry classes as a pilot and to better understand interest. A survey regarding the course offering was discussed by the Student Liaison, who questioned the survey’s responses and how it was administered.

An update on Math 8 was discussed as supporting an increase in proficiency and understanding, and the data collected from the recent rollout is reflective of increased student confidence and higher grades in mathematics.

Policy discussion was focused mostly on language amended in P1220, Employment of School Administrator. The Board voted to not approve the second reading and favored removing the optional language, “The Superintendent shall devote themselves (himself or herself was struck and several members noted that this was grammatically correct) exclusively to the duties of the office.” Stanley also mentioned that the policy committee is discussing language to manage situations when a teacher or coach has their own child in the class/on the team.

The Mountainside report focused on continued contract discussions, with the most recent proposal being sent to Mountainside from BH for our counted send-receive contract with Mountainside requesting legal counsel. Several Mountainside residents have reported that the Mountainside District is in favor of having students attend another district. We have received unofficial reports that Mountainside is negotiating with Westfield, Chatham, Scotch Plains, and Springfield. Bradford commented that BHEA negotiations are underway as whispers are being heard about the teachers union preparing for another months-long battle over contracts.

During Liaison reports, Bradford spoke about the 3/3/26 council meeting where Council members moved into Executive Session to discuss the BHPS’s PILOT contract. Dr. Foregger questioned if the two BHPS employees on Town Council were excluded from the meeting, and the video reflects that they were not present for the discussion.