Caldwell‑West board hears architect on two-question referendum; residents split over $15M field house

The Caldwell‑West Caldwell Board of Education on Nov. 4 hosted an extended public forum on a proposed two-question March 11, 2025 referendum that would fund district infrastructure projects and a separate field house, with architect Greg Somjian presenting scope, estimated costs and financing and residents offering both support and sharp questions.

Somjian, of Peretz Somjian Architects, told the board and the public that Question 1 — a package of infrastructure projects including security vestibules, HVAC upgrades, media center and STEAM‑type renovations, masonry and piping replacement — is structured so the district’s existing debt rolling off combined with anticipated state debt service aid (about $0.34 on the dollar, Somjian said) would allow much of the work to proceed “without any tax impact to the community.” He said the district could undertake “upwards of $20 plus million worth of work” under that structure and that Department of Education approvals and final finance modeling remain pending.

Question 2 would fund a proposed field house. Somjian described the roughly 15,000‑square‑foot footprint and program elements that include separate primary and secondary team rooms for male and female athletes (he said primary rooms would accommodate up to about 60 lockers and secondary rooms about 30), multi‑fixture, ADA‑compliant public restrooms with a family/ gender‑neutral stall, an elevator and a second‑floor multipurpose room for community or professional‑development use. He estimated hard construction costs in the $650–$700 per square‑foot range and a project total in the neighborhood of $15 million; without use of capital reserve the average annual tax impact was projected at about $140 per average assessed home, reduced to about $129 with a potential $1 million capital‑reserve contribution the district is considering. Somjian cautioned those numbers are preliminary and depend on Department of Education approvals and later bidding.

The presentation prompted a lengthy public comment period that highlighted two recurring themes: sticker shock and fiscal caution versus equity and student needs. Several residents questioned whether the field house proposal was oversized and urged the board to develop a “plan B” if voters reject Question 2. “$15,000,000 for a field house … that’s just an incredible amount of money,” said Mike Mignon, a resident who said he’s been through multiple referendums. Another resident, Sam Kaulakurtcher, pressed Somjian on the per‑square‑foot cost, saying he could not find comparable school construction costs online; Somjian replied that the gross referendum number includes contingencies, soft costs, permit fees and market escalation and estimated hard construction at about $650–$700 per square foot.

Other speakers urged passage on equity and safety grounds. “The fact that I have to walk home at halftime to use a female bathroom is just honestly unacceptable,” said Kathy Moyano, who identified herself as a resident and said she supports the field house primarily for improved restrooms and equitable facilities for female athletes. A parent, Journey Cicelli, asked where her sixth‑grade daughter, who uses insulin pumps, would change or privately manage medical devices without a locker/medical space. Several coaches and parents said expanded, air‑conditioned, accessible spaces would benefit athletes, younger children in rec programs and community groups.

Board members frequently framed Question 1 as maintenance and safety work the district must address and said they separated the field house into Question 2 to avoid risking the infrastructure package. The board also noted it will continue community outreach and answer detailed cost questions as Department of Education guidance and financial modeling are finalized. The district scheduled the vote for Tuesday, March 11, 2025 and plans additional public meetings at GCMS and elementary schools prior to the election.

Separately during the meeting the board approved routine agenda items: approval of prior meeting minutes; curriculum and technology items A–H; certificated and non‑certificated personnel items; finance items A–J and facilities item A (including renaming the James Caldwell High School softball field “Teshkoian Park”); and a policy item. All of those motions were seconded and recorded as carried by voice/roll call during the meeting.

What happens next: the board will submit required Department of Education applications, finalize bond counsel and finance advisor modeling, and continue public outreach ahead of the March 11 referendum. The board moved into executive session after the public portion of the meeting.