Architects outline $21M—2$33M referendum packages, board leans toward mid-sized plan

Peret Sanjin Architects laid out three education-addition options the Boonton Township School District Board is considering to pair with a $16.6 million infrastructure package, and the board signaled a preference for the mid-sized plan.

Architect Greg Sanjin opened the presentation saying, "Ultimately, the goal is to better understand which of these avenues the board wants to pursue to present a referendum to the community for some much needed improvement." He reviewed facility history, the failed 2024 referendum, and why the state's debt-service-aid (DSA) calculations matter to the local tax share.

The architects described the infrastructure baseline as mostly systems work (roofs, boilers, HVAC) budgeted at just over $16.5 million. They estimated about $5.5 million in state debt service aid for eligible projects, leaving an anticipated local share near $10.9 million for that portion.

On top of infrastructure, the board reviewed three educational concepts: Concept C (the smallest package, just over $5 million) focused on removing students from windowless rooms and limited renovations; Concept B (the medium package, about $10 million) adds roughly 7,000 ft2 for classrooms, a larger STEM flex space and a single new music room and would require taking part of the softball area for the addition; Concept A (the largest, about $17.2 million) proposes a full 10,000 ft2 addition, relocated parking, dedicated band and choral rooms with clerestory windows, and larger interior renovations. The architects noted new construction is generally ineligible for the full DSA calculation while certain interior renovations may be eligible once the state reviews the PEC submission.

If the board chose Concept A, the combined referendum would be roughly $33 million (infrastructure + A); Concept B would produce roughly a $26 million package; and Concept C would bring the total to a little more than $21 million. Sanjin stressed the board must borrow the full referendum amount and that the state's DSA reduces the local share through annual payments as specified in the PEC/FEC process.

Architects also reviewed site constraints. They reported a Department of Environmental Protection pre-application: up to about 6,000 ft2 of work in the riparian/transition area could proceed under general permits, while building 10,000 ft2 or more triggers additional stormwater-management requirements. They flagged two pin oak trees on the front lawn as habitat for Indiana bats and said those trees should be protected in any plan that affects that area.

Board members pressed on timing, tax impact and disruption. The architects and the board's financial adviser said precise tax impacts require PEC letters and financial-adviser calculations; PECs typically arrive about three months after state submission. The architects proposed a tentative schedule: some smaller projects bid in summer 2027, with major additions phased through 2028 and potential occupancy of new spaces around September 2028, depending on approvals and the option selected.

During discussion, Mr. Patini (who the transcript identifies only by that name) and several other board members favored the middle option, saying it balanced educational needs and fiscal responsibility. "Option two ' the middle ground ' accomplishes a great deal," one board member said, noting it removes students from windowless rooms and creates small-group instruction space while avoiding the cost and site work of the largest option. The board asked architects to produce a B2 variation with a modest music-room/modular option and an updated budget by the next Wednesday so staff can finalize PEC submission paperwork.

No formal vote was recorded at the meeting; members agreed the infrastructure list (approximately $16.6M with about $5.6M in expected DSA) was ready to be included in the state application and that the board would choose an education concept to accompany it at the next meeting. The architects said they would prepare the B2 revision and an updated budget for the board and the financial adviser to review prior to submitting the PEC application.

What happens next: the board must pick one education concept to submit for preliminary eligible cost letters from the state, then the financial adviser and bond counsel will compute anticipated tax impacts before the district places any question on the ballot. The board and architects scheduled follow-up work so the district can meet state submission windows.