New details on costs in school referendum

George G. White School, Hillsdale Public Schools

HILLSDALE—Some 50 attendees at a Nov. 1 forum on George White Middle School renovation options learned renovation costs for all three options will increase and that the school board is considering a multiple-question referendum.

A shorter 20-year bond term required by law to fund the George White Middle School renovation referendum will hit local taxpayers in the wallet, although exactly how much is not yet known, school officials said at the forum.

Superintendent Robert Lombardy said that due to a shorter 20-year bond term—required by law for school renovations— annual costs on all three renovation options being proposed will increase in cost. Annual costs had been projected at $737, $815, and $905 under the three options.

(See “School options range $45M to $55M: Pick due by February,” Michael Olohan, Oct. 16, 2023, Pascack Press).

Officials said the cost of each option will not increase. However, the annual taxpayer impacts will increase over a 20-year bond instead of a 30-year bond, which trustees had planned for. 

School officials said they only recently learned that renovations required a 20-year bond.

All three options include a full renovation at the middle school, Options 2 & 3 include enhanced programming space for STEM classes; Options 1 & 2 move fifth graders back to their respective elementary schools, either Meadowbrook or Smith, plus constructing an addition at each school; and Option 3 keeps fifth graders at George White Middle School. 

A full renovation includes windows, doors, HVAC, roofing, all rooms, asbestos abatement, new multi-purpose room, new music classroom/stage, kitchen, storage, and added restrooms. Its previous estimated cost was $563.00 yearly for the average taxpayer.

The complete Oct. 5 public meeting video and slide show presentation, including floor plan layouts for each option and estimated costs based on a 30-year bond, are on the district website homepage for residents to view. Also, a videographer was present Nov. 1 and that video will likely be posted online soon.

Under questioning from an audience member, Supt. Robert Lombardy estimated that the monthly costs might increase $15 to $20 monthly under a 20-year bond.  However another audience member suggested that the costs could be much higher, noting bond payments will be spread out over 240 monthly payments, not 360 monthly payments.

Some residents in the six breakout subgroups reportedly did not understand the options as presented, questioned the missing cost for the shortened 20-year bond, and wanted to have input to final wording on the public question before the board votes on and eventually submits the referendum question to the state education department for approval.

Officials stressed that should a referendum question pass in September 2024, bonding was likely to occur sometime in 2025, and interest rates then would also play a role in bonding costs. School trustees have repeatedly stressed something must be done about the century-old, out-of-date and deteriorating middle school.

Board President Nicole Klas told Pascack Press after the meeting that the board was only recently told they needed to bond for 20 years, versus the 30-year time period that they had planned to bond in the $82.7 million middle school referendum. However, she said the board was told renovation bonds are different from replacement bonds.

The March 2023 referendum, which was estimated to raise average annual taxes by $95 monthly, or about $1,200 yearly, was defeated in all six polling districts by voters. Nearly 37 percent of registered voters cast ballots in March.

Klas said officials hope to have estimated monthly/annual costs for the 20-year bond period by year end or early January and officials said they may hold another public forum in January to provide those numbers before a final school board vote on what option to put on the September 2024 referendum ballot.  

Vice President Sal Sileo said the board may not hold its Dec. 6 public forum, and instead schedule a January forum when estimated 20-year bond figures can be made public. He also noted attendance may be down in December due to the holidays.

Several questions were asked to the superintendent about the increased annual taxpayer costs for the shortened bond period throughout the meeting, plus individuals in the six breakout groups raised the issue. 

During the meeting, about 50 attendees were broken into six subgroups to discuss the three renovation options and one member of each provided highlights of the group’s discussion when the meeting reconvened.

While Lombardy provided cost estimates for all three options using the 30-year bond figure during the presentation, he said those cost estimates needed to be “recalibrated” for the 20-year bond term period required by law.  

During the June 1 public forum after the middle school referendum’s March defeat, many residents criticized the high $82.7 million cost for a total replacement, and made suggestions to reduce costs and improve students’ education, including moving fifth grades back to elementary schools.

A two- or three-part referendum question?

In addition to increased taxpayer costs, Lombardy said the district was considering a possible overall public question and possibly one or two additional questions on that option that would offer voters a choice to add to it.  

Lombardy provided an example of a two- or three-question referendum. He said, for instance, if Option 3 was chosen, Public Question 1 might only obligate bond funds to fully renovate George White.  

He said a possible Question 2 would encompass money to build a new wing to house students for projected enrollment and enhanced (STEM) programming. That way voters could vote on renovating the basic middle school, and then add more improvements if so desired.

He said if Option 2 were chosen, where fifth graders are sent back to their elementary schools, Public Question 1 might encompass fully renovating George White. He said Question 2 might involve building at other sites.  

Each referendum question would include information on bond costs and tax impacts, officials said.  Lombardy said if a voter answers yes to the first question, they then go on to vote on a second question. If they answer no on the first question, then their vote is complete. 

“That’s a consideration to help find a way to give our voters additional input on the process while recognizing that the costs are high,” Lombardy said.

First, officials said, they must determine which of the three options appears to have the most residents’ support.  Then the school board must take a public vote—most likely in February 2024—on what option should be put forth as a referendum question.

Most residents appeared to favor a multi-part public question on the referendum, based on opinions expressed in subgroups. Some suggested that whether to build an artificial turf field should be added as a question.

Based on anecdotal reports back from subgroups, composed of parents, residents, and seniors, it appeared Option 3, the lowest cost option with the least impact on taxes, was favored by most, although Option 2, the most expensive, was also supported by some. 

At the Oct. 5 public forum, it appeared more residents favored the lower-cost renovation, Option 3, ($45.6 million) which includes a full renovation, new construction for enhanced programming (STEM courses) and additional classrooms.

Several residents observed that they’d rather see the lowest cost renovation option put up for a vote—and hopefully be approved—rather than a higher cost option be on the ballot and go down to defeat. Some noted the nearly 2-to-1 defeat of March’s referendum to replace the aging middle school via an $82.7 million referendum that cost $1,200 annually for the average taxpayer.

“We need work to get done here. We need something to pass. Again, we would like to have renovations and additions,” said Board President Nicole Klas, noting that breaking an option down into one or two additional questions gives voters input on what improvements will be funded.

Some residents expressed concern about fifth through eighth grade students being housed in trailers for 18-24 months, although Lombardy said there was no alternative to trailers, or temporary classrooms, during renovations. One resident wondered what impacts might be on children being housed in trailers during renovations.

Lombardy previously mentioned trailers will cost about $3 to $4 million during renovations, and the “Cost Constants With Each Plan” chart estimates a $40 annual charge for trailers, or $3.34 monthly. Those costs will rise due to the shorter 20-year bond term.

He said should Option 1 or Option 2 be selected as a referendum question, which would send fifth graders back to elementary schools and require new additions at each school, he noted neither school would require trailers as most construction would be done outside.

Board Vice President Sal Sileo said the district hopes to get middle school renovations done via the upcoming referendum. “We have a greater opportunity to get something accomplished if it’s not all or nothing,” he said of a possible multi-question referendum ballot.

Klas said residents will be made aware of bond costs and what potential question is being considered for the referendum before any final decisions are made by trustees. Klas reminded attendees that the board has been discussing middle school renovations since 2019.

In early 2021, the River Vale School District proposed a three-part referendum question to voters, with two of three public questions being approved on a $35.7 million referendum. (See “District makes its pitch on $35.7M facilities referendum,” Michael Olohan, March 29, 2021, Pascack Press.)