referendum - nj21st

BHPSNJ 2025-2026 Referendum Snapshots

The 99-page presentation offered no updates, clarifications, or adjustments despite months of raised concerns.
Urgent infrastructure needs — roofs, HVAC, electrical reliability, science labs — remain in Question 2, meaning they only advance if Question 1 also passes.
Former BOE presidents Reinstein and D’Aquila questioned tax messaging, prioritization, and whether essential work is placed at risk.
A motion by Board member Joly to reorder the questions was supported by public commenters but voted down by Dillon, Terrero, Stanley, and Bradford.
Recent heating and roofing failures at MP, CMS, and GLHS underscore the stakes for students across multiple schools.
Timeline concerns remain: even if the referendum passes, construction would not begin until 2027.

GL Student Representatives describe winter classroom temperatures dropping to 56 degrees due to heating failures.
Report coolant leaks across multiple rooms that forced AP Computer Science and other classes into the IMC for a month.
Detail chronic roof leaks that require custodians to set out bins every time it rains, with electrical wiring directly below.
Note that these major instructional‐impact repairs are placed in Question 2 rather than Question 1.
Raise concerns that failing labs and non‐functioning electrical outlets are disrupting science instruction.

Local residents call for the district to provide a full itemised breakdown of proposed spending and state-aid assumptions.
Urge the Board and administration to clarify how deferred maintenance was selected, and why roofing/MEP are grouped with “priority learning environment” upgrades.
Question whether the proposed timeline allows adequate public review and whether the dual-question structure places Question 2 at risk if Question 1 fails.
Highlight that declining enrollment raises questions about whether a full scale $50 M referendum is the most efficient path forward.
Encourage transparent, consistent messaging on the tax impact rather than the “zero tax increase” narrative.

States clearly that any referendum borrowing will have a tax impact; expiring old debt does not make new debt “free.”
Uses a mortgage analogy: paying off one loan and immediately taking another still leaves you with monthly payments and a new financial obligation.
Questions whether the district truly needs to borrow $50 million now given declining enrollment and survey results showing teaching quality — not capital projects — as residents’ top priority.
Argues the district has not been forthcoming about existing funds already set aside that could be used for some projects without new debt and calls for honest accounting.
Notes that five BOE members raised concerns about the wording of the bond questions and stresses she speaks only for herself, not for the full board.

Explains the urgency created by March 2026 debt roll-off and the limited window for a state-aided referendum.
Clarifies that using a referendum prevents the district from having to cover all capital work through the operating budget.
Emphasises the importance of shared understanding among residents, staff and the Board before a final plan is made.
Commits to stronger transparency and clearer communication in response to community concerns.
Notes that community feedback will play a role in refining how the proposal is presented.

Breaks down how Question 1 and Question 2 will appear on the March 10 ballot and how they are linked.
Notes that paving, parking lots, and media centres — Question 1 items — were not high community priorities.
Highlights that major instructional needs (roofs, electrical, mechanical systems, labs) sit in Question 2.
Raises concern that Question 2 cannot pass unless Question 1 passes first.
Points out lack of a contingency plan if the referendum is rejected.

Identifies errors, unclear diagrams, and inconsistent building labels in the district’s 99-page proposal.
Explains the scope of Question 1: media centres, parking lots, district-wide tech/security, partial Woodruff roof.
Explains the scope of Question 2: STEM/science labs, mechanical/electrical/plumbing upgrades, full roofing projects.
Challenges “zero tax impact” messaging, noting homeowner reports of increases.
Raises concerns about lower-priority items being placed ahead of essential MEP and instructional needs.

Breaks down the $50.3 M estimate including $29 M in deferred-maintenance items across all six schools.
Identifies soft-cost percentages over 20 % with vague bundled categories.
Notes lack of inflation or escalation factors despite a multi-year rollout.
Finds duplicated or unclear budget lines and identical state review fees across unrelated projects.
Reflects survey concerns about transparency and project descriptions.

Explains her no vote after receiving key financial data only the night before the June 26 meeting.
Notes that documents lacked clear breakdowns of what was sent to the NJDOE for approval.
Warns the timeline seemed driven by hitting a March 2026 referendum goal rather than ensuring proper public review.
Pushes back on messaging that taxpayers will not feel the impact simply because debt is being replaced.
Calls for equal access to detailed financial information for both the Board and the public.

Explains why BHPS must issue new bonds the same fiscal year existing debt matures.
Details a 13-step referendum planning and execution timeline.
Notes consultants ruled out a November ballot and estimated a $30,000 cost for a March special election.
Shows how state aid could offset up to 34% of eligible project costs.
Highlights the need to align scope, budget and tax impact before moving forward.

Describes inheriting large maintenance backlogs and a stalled referendum discussion.
Explains that debt roll-off in 2026 provides a unique opportunity to pursue state-aided capital upgrades.
Positions the February 26 meeting as essential to aligning architects, financial advisors and the community.
Notes stakeholders hold fragmented information and need a unified baseline.
Addresses how safety, staffing and weather determine school delay and closure decisions.