The Lacey Township Board of Education on Monday urged voters to approve a one-question bond referendum on Nov. 4 to replace roofs and HVAC systems in six district buildings, while members of the public and some residents raised questions about costs, warranties and the district’s communications.

Superintendent Zelensky told the board the question is limited to necessary roof and HVAC upgrades and, unlike a prior referendum, would not raise local property taxes because debt is “coming off our books.” He said the district’s plan would allow the district to finance roughly $29 million in work while accessing state construction aid that typically covers about 34–40% of eligible project costs. “The need for new roofs and HVAC systems in our six buildings is not a matter of debate,” Zelensky said during the presentation, calling the bond “responsible and cost effective.”

Why it matters: The board argues that borrowing through a bond referendum lowers the district’s long-term cost and preserves operating funds, while opponents contend the district has not provided enough vendor estimates or detail about warranties and specific project pricing.

During public comment, residents pressed the board on several specifics. Tony Rosolie asked how the district would use proceeds if it sells property listed on the agenda, saying: “I’d like to know where the money’s going, and can it go to debt service?” He also questioned a $72,671.55 payment listed on the agenda to Fedcap School in West Orange and whether that price covered transportation for one student or multiple placements.

Linda Miller said she will vote no and criticized language in the voter materials that she said implied the board could transfer funds among multiple projects, calling that “misleading.” Regina DeSensa contested the district’s earlier statements about which roofs remain under warranty, saying she received conflicting information about whether some roofs were 15- or 20-year installations and asking whether a single leak at one elementary school had been repaired.

Board members and officials repeatedly pointed to information sessions and mailings the district has scheduled; the board’s outreach calendar includes an information center and question-and-answer session at the high school on Oct. 30 at 7 p.m. Zelensky and other administrators told the meeting they view the bond as the most economical option because it preserves eligibility for state aid and spreads payments over a longer period than using the district general fund.

What residents said and the board’s response: Several commenters accused the district of lacking transparency about vendor pricing and about the scope of work. Board members encouraged residents to attend the Oct. 30 information session and to review materials posted on the district website. The board also said that statutory limits govern how any referendum funds can be spent and that project-level transfers would be constrained by the referendum language and state rules.

Looking ahead: The referendum question will be on the ballot Nov. 4. The district has posted referendum materials online and scheduled the Oct. 30 public information session; the board said it will continue outreach through mailers and robocalls leading up to the vote.