HILLSDALE—Approximately 100 community members jammed George G, White Middle’s School’s cafetorium June 1 with dozens offering views on next steps after the district’s $82.7 million bond referendum — intended to replace the century-old middle school — came up well short at the polls.
After two-plus hours of public comments, superintendent Robert Lombardy told Pascack Press that the feedback of the session’s 30 community speakers would be summarized and likely discussed by district professionals and trustees at upcoming meetings.
He said it was possible that an advisory committee would be formed to explore the public input and help guide the district’s next steps. Both board president Nicole Klas and vice president Sal Sileo said they were grateful for the large audience turnout and Klas thanked borough professionals for helping them spread the word about the meeting.
Residents turned out to fill the middle school cafetorium (a combined cafeteria-auditorium) on a warm night and mostly called for a reduced price tag on middle school renovations, and improved communication about renovation options, costs, and taxpayer impacts. The school has no air conditioning in the room.
By a nearly 2:1 margin, 37% of voters rejected a proposed $82.7 million referendum on March 14 to replace the century-old middle school with a new larger facility, and a new artificial turf field. The school bond would have increased local taxes an estimated $95 monthly, or $1,140 annually, on an average $474,172 home.
The referendum was defeated in all six polling districts. The official tally was 2,001 against and 1,180 in favor.
June 1, Lombardy reminded residents that the district provided extensive communication with residents via emails, a dedicated website, building tours, a virtual forum, and a brochure describing the need to replace the middle school with a new facility.
On June 1 and at pre-referendum meetings, some residents complained the district did not do enough to inform taxpayers of the renovation options and cost comparisons.
Also, both pre- and post-referendum, some have pressed the district to broadcast its meetings on YouTube, and offer an archive for residents to view later.
While most town councils record local meetings, and broadcast them live online via Zoom or YouTube, most Pascack Valley school boards do not. Some parents and taxpayers have said this alleged lack of transparency helped lead to the referendum’s defeat. School officials dispute the theory, and have not moved to broadcast or record BOE meetings.
Opening the forum, Lombardy recapped years-long committee work, planning, and outreach leading up to the referendum. “We have to come together and continue to talk together,” he said after the forum, noting that a prioritized list of options to consider was “a reasonable first step.”
During public comments, nearly a dozen residents noted that school officials need to do a better job communicating with the public about potential middle school options, current costs for each option, and to be transparent about all options moving forward.
Residents frequently suggested moving fifth graders back to the district’s two elementary schools as a way to reduce overcrowding and provide a better educational experience.
However, Lombardy and Klas both said that could not quickly be done as both schools would likely require physical upgrades and renovations to accommodate fifth graders.
A majority of residents said that the property tax increase was a stumbling block to approving the bond referendum.
One resident noted similar schools in other towns were renovated, and even replaced, for much less than $82.7 million. Klas said that one district cited, Cresskill, received both state and federal aid to assist rebuilding its high school/middle school after it suffered nearly $20 million in damage from Tropical Storm Ida.
Resident Robert Feroli suggested not including a new turf field in the next go-round, and said that the estimated 10% jump in taxes appeared too high for what was being built.
Gerry Beatty said she felt officials did not reach enough residents with information and suggested more public forums to solicit feedback and provide information. She also noted a renovation option would have provided more state aid to reduce costs.
Adam Hampton, a longtime referendum critic, said that the bond cost was too high and recommended fifth graders go back to grammar schools. He told residents he was “the biggest and most vocal proponent of voting no” on the school bond, noting “the cost has to be right” as the only way for school officials to “win back the buy-in from the public.”
Hampton said he agreed that “something needs to be done” at the middle school but that the public must be part of the process. One woman told trustees — and borough officials — that they should focus exclusively on fixing the middle school first, and don’t worry about building two community centers.
Resident Al Giunchi detailed six steps that school officials should undertake based on public comments. He told trustees they should move fifth graders back to elementary schools, not house students in trailers, put forth a renovation plan, provide updated costs on renovation options, put a timeline on the planning process, and put a timeline on school renovations.
Lombardy said a demographics study done prior to the referendum showed there would be an increase of up to 60 students in elementary schools in the next five years. He said the study did not take into account potential children from a recently approved 256-unit multifamily Patterson Street redevelopment project or the “significant number of young families coming into town.”
Lombardy said the forum was to “look forward” and that the board was “here to listen” and learn from the public.
After the forum, Sileo told Pascack Press, “Now it’s our job to prioritize all of these ideas” and said he expected upcoming meetings to address the public comments.
Trustee Kevin Donatello said it was “a very nice turnout” and that he was “looking forward and moving forward” after hearing the public’s input on the referendum’s defeat.
On the district website, officials note that another bond referendum “is likely in Hillsdale’s future” and that needed renovations cannot be paid out of the district’s operating budget.
It notes the path to another referendum will likely include three to five months to hear community input, and direct architects and engineers to develop and submit preliminary plans for state approval; six months for the state education Department (DOE) to review/approve Hillsdale’s application; and three to five months to inform residents about the plan and costs before a referendum.
The district website notes public votes can only be held in January, March, September, November and December. Officials estimate a referendum would be set no earlier than September 2024.