Caldwell-West Caldwell board and architects outline $22M infrastructure package and $15.4M athletic center ahead of March 11 referendum

District officials presented details and answered community questions Feb. 24 about a two-question school referendum that will appear on the March 11 ballot. The first ballot question would fund multiple infrastructure and instructional-space projects across the Caldwell-West Caldwell School District; officials said that question has “no additional tax impact to the community.” The second, separate question would fund a new athletic center (field house) at James Caldwell High School with an estimated cost of about $15,400,000.

The referendum presentation was led by the district architect, Greg Somjian, who said the referendum is timed because “there is debt from decades ago that is rolling off and the opportunity to take on newly much needed construction projects without any additional tax impact to the community was something that the board felt was very, very important and fiscally responsible.” Somjian told the meeting the state will subsidize many of the instructional-related infrastructure projects, noting the district can receive roughly “34¢ on the dollar” for eligible items.

Why vote is needed, officials said

Business administrator Brian McCarthy summarized the financing and estimated household impacts. For question 1, McCarthy said the district will borrow $22,000,008.75 for infrastructure projects and contribute about $3,000,000 from capital reserves; he said the state share will cover roughly $7,000,000 over a 20-year period. McCarthy said the district’s local share is roughly $15,000,000 and that the structure of existing debt rolling off plus state debt-service aid is what keeps question 1 from increasing current local tax bills.

On the athletic-center question, McCarthy said the field house project is budgeted at $15,400,000, with the district contributing $2,000,000 and borrowing about $13,000,004.18 over 20 years. He summarized the approximate local tax impact as “a $128 and change annually, increased taxes for a resident of Caldwell, and a $127 and change for a resident of West Caldwell,” explaining that exact household impacts vary with assessed value.

Scope of work described

Somjian and the district described a set of infrastructure upgrades across school buildings including security vestibules, classroom renovations and new STEAM lab spaces, pipe replacements, facade and stair repairs, and HVAC upgrades in gymnasiums at multiple schools (James Caldwell High School, Grover Cleveland Middle School, Jefferson, Lincoln, Washington and Wilson elementary schools). Somjian said those infrastructure improvements “have no additional tax impact to the community” because of the timing and state aid.

Officials also presented the athletic center design and rationale. Somjian corrected earlier public materials and said the proposed facility is 16,173 square feet over two floors, not 8,000 square feet. The plan shows gendered locker-room space (two rooms on each side, a larger and a smaller), new multi-fixture “barrier free compliant” public restrooms, an expanded trainer area adjacent to the practice field, storage areas and a second-floor multipurpose room intended for film review, professional development, testing, and community use. On the building footprint and site work, Somjian noted relocation of the shot put area, added parking, and stormwater management required by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.

Athletic director Dan Romano (introduced in the meeting as the district athletic director) emphasized broad athletic use of the field house: “This field house will be for all of our outdoor sports,” he said, describing how locker rooms, storage, and the second-floor space would reduce equipment movement, free up practice areas for cheer and other teams, and provide adjacent trainer facilities.

Costs, bidding and legal constraints

Architects and administrators addressed why public construction costs differ from private residential projects: Somjian and McCarthy explained that public projects must follow New Jersey prevailing-wage requirements and comply with public bidding and prequalification rules, which increases labor and administrative costs compared with private renovations. Somjian presented recent public bid averages and said using an assumed $625 per square foot budget for the athletic center produced a reasonable hard-cost estimate for a facility with extensive plumbing and multi-fixture restrooms. He also explained site and utility work, contingencies, market escalation and soft costs (architects, testing, bond counsel and review fees) that are included in the $15.4 million figure.

McCarthy described project phasing and tactical bidding options the district may use to package smaller scopes to attract local contractors. Somjian noted that the Department of Education requires carrying contingencies in the budget and that any unused contingencies would be returned to the community; he reiterated that the district cannot spend more than voters approve.

Community Q&A and concerns

The meeting included extended public Q&A. Residents asked about whether private donations or developers could build the project (administrators said prevailing-wage and public-property rules limit options), square-footage discrepancies, guarantees that the project would not exceed the voter-approved amount, and how the second-floor multipurpose space would be scheduled and shared among teams. Parents and coaches raised equity and access concerns for female athletes, cited lack of adequate changing and training spaces, and described current conditions as unsanitary or inadequate for medical needs.

Cheer coach Susan Bergman and girls soccer coach Kelly Furnicola described practical impacts, including lack of an indoor winter practice area for cheer squads and changing outdoors for games. Parent Theresa Belli described an example in which her daughter’s medical devices were damaged during play and said she welcomed a trainer area and private, sanitary spaces for students who require medical care.

Next steps and vote date

Officials reminded voters that the district must submit construction documents and then go out to bid; Somjian said the district expects to take months to finalize drawings and does not expect to be out to bid until the fall following a successful referendum. The public vote is scheduled for March 11, 2025, with polls open 3 p.m.–8 p.m. and mail-in ballots already distributed for those who requested them.

Votes at a glance (board action taken at the Feb. 24 meeting)

The board took routine votes on meeting minutes and agenda items during the Feb. 24 meeting. Each recorded motion below carried by roll call vote, 4–0.

- Motion to approve minutes: outcome approved; vote 4–0 (Miss DeMartini, Miss Mac, Mr. Diambola, Miss Grosso — yes). - Curriculum motions (items a–b, a set under c, and others as listed on the agenda): outcome approved; vote 4–0. - Personnel motions (non-certificated staff items a–d): outcome approved; vote 4–0. - Finance and facilities motions (items a–b under finance and an item under facilities): outcome approved; vote 4–0.

What the district provided to voters in print and at the meeting includes project lists, budget breakdowns, and a mailed/handed referendum flyer that details tax-impact examples. District staff encouraged residents to inspect the existing field-house facility and to ask follow-up questions at building-level offices or to contact the administration for additional operational cost estimates.

(Reporting note: direct quotes and attributions come from the public meeting transcript.)