“We need the additional space and we need the enhanced programming. But in talking about the referendum, it is so integral that we start to make progress at George White that we need our voters to come out and support investing in the middle school,” said Lombardy. “if the voters come out and say yes to Question 1 and they say no to Question 2, we are able to benefit,” he said.
However, Lombardy said in three years he’s likely to come back to voters and repeat his request for additional space at the middle school for a higher cost then.
None of the options this time around included an artificial turf field, Supt. Robert Lombardy told us. Officials said a copy of the meeting video and slide show would be posted online within a few days for residents to view.
Lombardy said that dropping the turf field upgrade was necessary to reduce the project costs, partly due to the 20-year bond term required on school renovation projects.
Officials had previously estimated renovation bond costs over a 30-year term, as allowed for new construction, but were informed in November that the state requires a 20-year payback term on school renovation bonds.
At Tuesday’s Borough Council meeting, member Clemente Osso said that Lombardy had shared updated information on renovation options and bond costs with several councilors and Osso urged residents to attend the Jan. 11 forum.
Lombardy said that on renovation projects, the district should recoup close to 40% in state school aid. However, the exact amount would not be known until the district receives a preliminary eligible cost (PEC) letter by June.
Meeting with Pascack Press before the Jan. 11 forum, Lombardy noted that at the first two public forums held on Oct. 5 and Nov. 1, public opinion appeared to favor the lower-cost Option 3 over Option 1 and Option 2, both of which sent fifth graders back to their respective elementary schools and included construction of new classrooms at both schools to accommodate the fifth graders.
The other two renovation options, Option 1 and Option 2, now off the table, are estimated to cost $65,702,000 and $71,216,000, respectively, with average annual tax hits of $963.16 for Option 1, and $1,074.55 for Option 2.
Lombardy noted that an individual taxpayer’s tax impact is based on their home’s assessed value, not its market value. The “average” tax impact on an average assessed home of $475,032 is $970.85 annually. For a home assessed at $550,000, the annual tax impact would be $1,123.98. For a home assessed at $400,000, the average tax hit would be $817.44 yearly.
School officials suggest taxpayers visit hillsdalenj.org, click on the Departments and Services tab, click on Taxes at the bottom of drop-down menu, click on the Tax Assessor option and click on the View Your Property Assessment link.
Lombardy said the “consequences of inaction” include: District resources constrained addressing “band-aid” or emergency fixes; the perceived stigma of not valuing the setting and programming of community children; difficulty to catch up with each passing year; the costs will go up; and no upgraded facilities.
Following breakout sessions with residents…