Board hears downsized athletic-center plan, budgeted at about $8.4 million; referendum on Nov. 4

Fred Somfin Architects representative Greg presented a revised design for a new athletic center at James Caldwell High School and outlined schedule, cost and community-driven reductions ahead of a Nov. 4 referendum.

The presentation said the single-story facility would replace an undersized, non–ADA-compliant locker room that primarily served football. The new footprint would pull away from the field, add separate men’s and women’s locker rooms and restrooms, include a trainer’s area near the fields, and create a family/gender-neutral restroom with sidewalks and lighting around the building. Greg said stormwater requirements required a retention basin and the shot-put area would be relocated.

The district presented the project as a smaller alternative to an earlier two-story plan that voters previously rejected. Greg said the current design was driven by community feedback and meant to be “utilitarian” rather than a high‑end facility; he described it as a roughly 50% reduction from the prior two‑story scheme.

Greg identified the budget as approximately $8,400,000 and said financial advisers estimate the tax impact as about $84 annually on the average assessed borough home and $83 on the average assessed township home. He noted the figure uses assessed, not market, home values and said the district cannot borrow until a referendum passes. “The budget for this project is approximately $8,400,000,” Greg said, describing contingencies included for Department of Education requirements and market escalation.

On schedule and phasing, Greg said detailed construction drawings (plans with dimensions, structural, electrical and plumbing) could take four to six months after a successful referendum to complete and obtain approvals. He estimated a 12‑month construction duration and said a realistic substantial‑completion target would be by December 2027, while acknowledging weather and other delays could shift that date. He discussed tactics such as bidding demolition as a separate package to shorten site work but said no final construction-delivery decisions had been made.

During a public Q&A, residents asked whether the project would disrupt the football season, use by visiting teams, and other sports. Greg said the project would largely avoid impacting the football field and track but certain field events (for example, shot put) might be temporarily relocated; some teams may need to change dressing locations during the work. He said decisions about visiting-team use would be made after the referendum and later design conversations.

Residents asked about access to the family restroom and pedestrian circulation. Greg described sidewalks connecting the front, side and rear of the building and said the restroom entrance and exit would be routed to avoid crowding: users would enter near the building, move through facilities, and exit at the rear to keep lines flowing. He said lighting and signage would be provided.

On costs, Greg and district staff said the referendum amount limits what may be spent; if bids exceed available funds, the board would reduce scope or phase elements. Greg said the board had included contingency and market‑escalation allowances and retained some capital‑reserve funds for small adjustments but could not exceed the referendum total without further approvals. “The board cannot spend more than the referendum $8,900,000,” he said when explaining that contingencies and capital reserves are managed within the approved maximum.

The presenter and the board emphasized that this plan reflects community feedback and that design details — finishes, locker counts and nonstructural choices — would be finalized only after a successful referendum. The board did not take action at the meeting; the referendum question will appear on the Nov. 4 ballot.