Last year, we provided four recommendations for addressing the BOE’s 2024 referendum shortcomings. Our interest in Hopewell Valley’s Board of Education finances has not waned since then. As we write this commentary, what will be included in the 2025 referendum has not yet been finalized, but after multiple meeting discussions it is clear that the BOE did in fact listen to voters last year, and will exclude some “nice to haves” this year. And for that we are grateful.
That said, we believe continuing to ask questions about the BOE’s plans and financial priorities for this fall’s referendum should not be denigrated or ignored. In fact, just as any student and teacher will tell you, being interested enough in a subject to ask questions is a good thing. That’s what learning is all about.
Our agenda is not to tank the 2025 referendum. Our agenda is to understand why the district is calling for an $84,200,000 referendum, and what they intend to do with that money. This is in addition to the $104,000,000 in operating funds they’re already raising for just the upcoming 2025-2026 fiscal year.
So, what are the recommendations this year?
Please provide stronger evidence that the district is doing adequate short- and long-term planning. The 2025 “new streamlined referendum” removes the TMS turf fields ($5,795,000) and the CHS Concession/restroom building ($2,270,000) totaling $8,065,000. Yet, we haven’t seen a commensurate reduction in the referendum’s total.
At the June 16 BOE meeting, superintendent Rosetta Treece noted that even with these reductions, due to “inflation and new emergencies, the total cost (for the new referendum) remains close to last year’s failed referendum.” Since inflation alone cannot account for the new amount, this suggests the lion’s share of the increase is due to some “new emergencies.”
We are aware that funds approved in a referendum must be earmarked and used for specific facilities projects only. So, while the district may be disappointed that they incurred some inflationary pressure, they must also be relieved the original referendum failed, since how else would they address the $8,000,000 in “new emergencies”?
We’d like reassurance that if we pass this referendum, there won’t be additional unanticipated urgent emergencies totaling millions requiring a new referendum in a couple of years.
Please provide information without obfuscation or exaggeration. We certainly understand and agree with the need and importance of supplying quality facilities for our children. Our children were educated in the district too.
That said, we prefer to understand the realities of our facilities’ conditions and needs without the accompanying drama. Folks on social media truly believe they heard, “the buildings are falling apart.” This view is reinforced by the board president, who warned at the June 16 meeting that “a measure (for inclusion in the 2025 referendum) is if this failed, would we be able to keep the schools open or would we need to either close part or all of the schools?” This same messaging was reinforced by board members and Dr. Treece at the meeting.
We note the most frequently mentioned infrastructure improvements in the 2025 referendum are air conditioning and roofs.
The single largest expenditure in the 2016 referendum was HVAC, which was used to ensure that all classrooms throughout the district were air conditioned. According to current BOE slides, the one exception was the auxiliary gym at TMS, which is the only 2025 HVAC addition. The remaining HVAC in this referendum are replacements and upgrades.
The second largest expenditure in the 2016 referendum was replacing the many roofs at CHS, TMS, HES and Toll Gate that were outside of warranty and beyond their useful life. Conversely, the majority of roofs being replaced in the 2025 referendum are still under warranty.
Over 50% of the roofs included in this referendum are under warranty through 2026. When the referendum failed in 2024, over 80% of the roofs had warranties expiring in 2024 or later.
Again, we support being proactive on maintenance, but when all classrooms have air conditioning and most roofs are still under warranty, it is unhelpful to leave residents with the impression that buildings are crumbling and schools will close.
Please provide better detail of the current referendum, implementation priorities, and future long-range planning. Details are important. Between the two of us, we have viewed every public board of education meeting and reviewed every referendum presentation in 2024 and 2025 and the level of detail has been, in our view, inadequate for making a fully informed decision.
More specifically, the 2025 presentations literally provide just a total amount of how much they are requesting for each school. For example, CHS will receive $9,589,000 if Q1 passes, but they do not indicate how they arrived at that number, other than it includes roofs, air conditioning and paving. Further, we can’t simply refer back to 2024 detail since Dr. Treece said the district added inflation escalation to some costs.
Implementation priorities should be shared. We have also viewed every BOE meeting covering the 2016 referendum, and during that referendum, superintendent Tom Smith presented a tentative schedule of projects to be implemented during the following years. The 2024 and 2025 referendums offer no such implementation detail.
We believe this is even more important now. Had the referendum passed in 2024, was the district planning on replacing the majority of roofs still under warranty, or bonding for them and waiting two years to spend the money? When is the new air conditioning going to be added to the auxiliary gym at the middle school? When are children currently in temporary classrooms being moved into Toll Gate? When are the Bear Tavern addition and the new parking lot scheduled to be built?
Long-Range Planning is key. In the June BOE meeting, Bob Colavita, assistant superintendent for business, said: “There’s $120 million of work on our long-range facilities plan.” We applaud the district for developing this long-range plan, as forward-thinking is critical in a world of fluctuating economic and demographic dynamics.
Does the $120 million include the $84 million in this referendum? If so, will the remaining $40 million result in another referendum? If so, when should we anticipate that request in the form of another referendum?
We continue to believe that civil public discussions around these plans and numbers are a good thing for the residents of the Valley’s three municipalities. And, in the long run, we believe that they will also be best for our children.
All references and sources are available at teahv.org.
John Hart, a Republican, and Vanessa Sandom, a Democrat, are both former mayors of Hopewell Township.
,
