HILLSDALE—A third public forum to discuss the three proposed middle school renovation options—along with yet-unreleased higher annual taxpayer costs for a likely 20-year-bond term as required by the state—was rescheduled for Thursday, Jan. 11, 2024, 7 p.m. at the George White Middle School, said school officials.
However, the superintendent told Pascack Press Nov. 27 that they were exploring whether the new construction elements of the proposed three options might be bonded separately—and possibly over a longer 30-year term—versus the 20-year bond term required for school renovation options. But the superintendent said this may not be possible.
“There is no scheduled (bond costs) release anytime before that. The feedback from the meetings was that Option 3 was the favored option. Having said that, we want to explore options for bond terms at and beyond 20 years for all options to help work toward a resolution for presentation to the voters for what has been a decades long challenge surrounding the infrastructure and learning settings and space of George G. White Middle School,” said Lombardy.
Lombardy explained: “We want to explore, with the guidance of bond counsel and our financial advisors, if bonding for more than 20 years is possible since there are elements (in each option) that involve new construction components. This may not be possible because the renovation component of George White is a significant component of any project the BOE moves forward with.”
He added, “This (Jan. 11 forum date) will offer time to take the feedback from the previous two meetings, refine the plans, and offer accurate estimations from our financial advisors as we look toward a September 2024 referendum.”
A public notice published Friday, Nov. 24 said the previously scheduled Dec, 6 special meeting was rescheduled to Jan. 11, 2024. The notice concluded, “Action will not be taken.” It did not provide a reason for the postponement.
The first two public forums and slide presentations are posted on the district website homepage for easy access and viewing by residents. In an effort to increase transparency, trustees recently began livestreaming school board meetings.
After getting public input on the three renovation options, school trustees have said that they will vote, probably at the Feb. 12, 2024 meeting, on what option to put on a September 2024 referendum for voter approval or denial.
Lombardy said Nov. 1 that the district had to “recalibrate” annual taxpayer impacts—based on a 20 year bond term—because renovations require a 20-year bond while new construction allows for a longer 30-year bond term. He said then that they had only recently learned that the shorter bond term was required. He said that will increase annual taxpayer impacts on all three options.
In mid-November, Lombardy told us there were no plans to release bond costs in advance of the next Jan. 11 forum.
Prior to the district’s first $82.7 million middle school replacement referendum, some parents, taxpayers, and seniors complained that the district was not forthcoming with financial information, although the district did post extensive financial information on an easy-to-navigate Road To Referendum website.
How much the average annual bond costs for taxpayers will increase, which previously ranged from $737, $815, and $905 annually under the three options, was not immediately known, said the superintendent and school board president.
The three proposed renovation project costs are Option 1, $49.8 million, or $815 yearly/$68 monthly; Option 2, $55.2 million, or $905 yearly/$75.50 monthly; and Option 3, $45.6 million, $737 yearly/$61.50 monthly. (See “School options range $45M to $55M: Pick due by February,” Michael Olohan, Oct. 16, 2023, Pascack Press online).
Officials said the overall renovation cost for 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 not planned for.
Under questioning from an audience member Nov. 1, 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.
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 construct 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 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.
Some residents in the six breakout subgroups reportedly said they 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.
However, she said the board was told that renovation bonds are different from new construction bonds.
The March 14, 2023 school bond 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.
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 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, or Option 3, ($45.6 million) which included 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 online.)