Hopewell Valley board approves placing two‑question bond referendum on November ballot; projects total about $84 million

The Hopewell Valley Regional Board of Education voted to place a two‑question bond referendum on the November ballot after a roll‑call motion passed unanimously.

Question 1 bundles critical building‑integrity projects — roofing, primary HVAC replacements, interior door and toilet renovations, paving and drainage fixes, and other urgent safety and security work — with an estimated cost of about $58 million. The district said the state will cover roughly 34% of that package, leaving a local share of about 66%.

Question 2 would fund building expansions intended to address growing enrollment and to bring preschool and special‑needs classrooms into school buildings (not trailers). Proposed expansions include a 10‑classroom wing at Bear Tavern and a six‑classroom addition and other improvements at Tollgate. The district estimated that combined costs for both questions total about $84 million; state funds would cover a smaller share of new construction, leaving roughly three‑quarters of the combined cost to local taxpayers.

Business administrator Bob (staff) presented estimated local tax impacts under a 20‑year bond at a 4.25% interest rate: if Question 1 alone passed, the average household tax impact would be about $284 in Hopewell Township, $248 in Hopewell Borough and $294 in Pennington Borough. If both questions passed, the district estimated impacts of $471, $411 and $489 respectively. The district said those figures would decline if a $16.1 million payment the Township has pledged through a pilot program becomes available; the district estimated the pilot money would reduce average impacts by roughly $103–$124 depending on municipality.

Board members stressed tradeoffs and contingencies. The board clarified that Question 1 must pass for Question 2 to proceed on the ballot; Question 2 cannot be implemented without the passage of the critical‑infrastructure package. Board member Mark Peters (finance committee chair) provided a written statement read at the meeting, saying the referendum language aims for transparency and urging continued community dialogue.

Several speakers from the public asked for more detail. A resident suggested adding “incidental” to site‑work wording in Question 1 and recommended showing counts (n=) for charts in the district’s NJGPA presentation; other commenters questioned whether the district could pay for projects without a referendum and how pledged township funds would be delivered and applied. The district said state aid for approved projects arrives as debt‑service aid over time rather than as a lump sum, and that the township payment — if it materializes via the pilot agreement — would be applied to reduce debt service on the Bear Tavern addition portion of the project.

Board action: by unanimous roll call (Capadia, Lilliston, Resnick, Stiliano, Wilson, Williams Galliano — all voting yes), the board approved moving the two questions forward so the district can notify the clerk of elections and finalize ballot language for a November 4 vote. The board also scheduled public outreach and site tours as part of ongoing community education about the proposal.

District staff said they will continue to refine cost estimates, seek final NJDOE approvals of project questions, and return with updated tax‑impact estimates as ratables and interest rates change.