HILLSDALE—The Hillsdale Board of Education voted unanimously June 13 to go ahead with an estimated $82.5 million school bond referendum in March 2023 to replace the century-old George G. White Middle School.
The June 13 meeting, held at George G. White Middle School, was attended by 25–30 residents, in the school’s large cafetorium. More than two dozen residents peppered the board with questions about tax increases, lower-cost alternatives, and an alleged lack of public outreach about their plans.
Operating without an audio system, both residents’ and trustees’ voices occasionally were inaudible.
After the meeting, Superintendent Robert Lombardy told Pascack Press that the proposed project’s schematic plans would be submitted to the state Department of Education to review and approve. Lombardy has said as the project is 100% new construction, it was unlikely to qualify for any state aid reimbursement.
If approved next March, the measure will cost an average Hillsdale taxpayer an extra $1,300 over a 20-year bond term, officials said.
Trustees stressed that local voters will ultimately decide via a referendum vote whether to approve the new middle school. However, board president Shane Svorec said if citizens do not do something today to improve the school, “something will happen that will force us to pay.”
Svorec said the board’s choice to replace the middle school was “extremely frugal” and “fiscally responsible” while at least a dozen residents criticized the added tax burden and cited the need for the district to better explain why a new middle school now is the best option for taxpayers.
Several residents claimed they had only recently read about or heard about the proposed referendum, and at one point a resident, Adam Hampton, and Svorec traded tense words over what Svorec viewed as negative social media comments about board transparency.
Trustees have been discussing a possible referendum for nearly a year at public meetings. However, little information has been posted on the district website.
Moreover, several residents wondered why the board declines to broadcast and archive its public meetings given widely available broadcasting/recording technology. Trustees did not address the issue.
Some speakers noted other residents cannot attend a meeting but would prefer to watch it online if available. Svorec said the board has always answered questions from all residents attending school board meetings about the referendum.
The Borough Council broadcasts and archives its meetings online, and Mayor John Ruocco has recently pressed for more transparency by asking that documents to be approved at public meetings are linked to the council’s online agenda.
Those documents are considered “advisory, consultative or draft” under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and generally withheld from public view until approved.
Overall, only a few school boards broadcast their meetings, though school district costs generally consume 60% to 75% of a taxpayer’s yearly property tax bill. (See “Reporter’s Notebook: Which towns, school boards livestream?” Pascack Press online, April 10, 2022.)
(Moreover, Pascack Press has reported on the proposed referendum at least seven times since November 2021. See “Replacing George G. White: District eyes next chapter for veteran school,” Nov. 19. 2021.)
At least a half-dozen residents said that they did not believe the school board provided enough publicly accessible information about the referendum, specifically dinging the board for not putting the architect’s detailed presentation online for more residents to view.
The presentation addressed the three renovation scenarios and replacement, total costs and bonding costs, and explained what each included. Pascack Press requested a copy of the presentation — and received it — after also questioned why it was not put on the district website.
After the meeting, Lombardy said the presentation would appear online soon, likely as part of a school referendum website, and more information would be provided on the referendum through the fall and winter. Multiple residents said they had requested the presentation via OPRA, but had not received it from the district.
The options included three renovation options and a full replacement option. At the May 9 board meeting, all trustees publicly supported the $82.5 million full replacement option.
Trustees and the district administration have been discussing the possible referendum, and lesser-priced renovation options ranging from $25 million, $52 million, and $60 million, before the public since April 11.
The April 11 meeting was when architect DiCara Rubino, and Lombardy, revealed cost estimates and fully explained each option. (See “George G. White estimates in,” Pascack Press online, April 16, 2022.)
Svorec urged all residents to never hesitate to ask questions and to vote in the referendum, no matter what way they’re going to vote. “It’s up to us to communicate with the residents that this building needs attention,” said Svorec, noting any of the three renovation options would “be putting Band-Aids on the issue.”
When one resident questioned whether all options were considered, including moving fifth graders back to the two elementary schools, Svorec said those were considered. Several residents pressed trustees to explain the reasoning and planning that supports their decision to build a completely new middle school.
One resident wondered, “Gee whiz, is there another way to do this?” Another suggested that the board should put together a frequently asked questions section on its website for the referendum.
Svorec promised the board would be “pumping out more information” as the referendum process moves along.
Several residents questioned what possible impacts, including flooding, might occur with the new school being built across from its present location, an area apparently prone to a high water table and occasional flooding.
Others questioned how much inflation might impact final project costs and taxes.
Should a referendum pass, Lombardy previously said he anticipated the replacement project to get underway in mid-2024, with property taxes likely to increase in 2024-2025.
While most renovation options provided little or no new classroom space, all required current middle school students to spend 18–24 months housed in trailers across the street from the current middle school while renovations are completed on the middle school.
The estimated cost to house students in trailers is $3.7 to $4 million, said officials.
At public meetings, Lombardy had offered a detailed explanation of the four options, three for onsite renovations and one complete replacement.
The onsite renovation options started at $25 million, which included renovation to the existing middle school with no additions; $52 million to renovate and add on and use the current gym; and $60 million to renovate, add on classrooms and include a larger gymnasium in the current facility.
Annual average taxpayer costs for the proposed renovations’ bonding break out as follows: $25 million will cost $408 yearly or $24 monthly; $52 million will cost $845 yearly or $60 per month; and $60 million will cost $937, or about $70 per month, Lombardy said.
None of those options will be on the ballot; registered voters will vote yes or no on spending $82.5 million for a new middle school replacement.
Previously, Lombardy stressed that all three renovation options would require student classrooms to be housed for 18 to 24 months in modular trailer units across from the existing middle school, a situation that would likely harm students’ educational experience.