Boonton Township board narrows referendum to mid-sized plan after architect outlines $16.6M infrastructure needs

At a regular meeting, the Boonton Township Board of Education heard detailed plans from Perth Samjin Architects for repairs and building improvements and signaled support for a mid-sized referendum package that would combine about $16.6 million of infrastructure work with a roughly $10 million education addition and renovations.

Architect Greg Samjin told the board the district’s building — originally constructed in 1959 with multiple later additions — has pressing infrastructure needs, including roof replacements and aging HVAC systems. “At some point they have to phase out the parts for equipment that is made 20, 30, 40 years ago,” Samjin said, adding that the district has already spent about $2.4 million from its capital reserve to replace approximately 53,000 square feet of roof.

Why it matters: Samjin laid out three education concepts the board could present with the infrastructure list. Concept A (the largest) would add about 10,000 square feet and is budgeted at roughly $17.2 million. Concept B (the mid-size option) is about 7,000 square feet and budgeted near $10 million. Concept C (the smallest) focuses on interior renovations to remove windowless classrooms and would cost just over $5 million. Combined referendum totals would be about $33 million (A + infrastructure), $26 million (B + infrastructure) or $21 million (C + infrastructure).

Samjin said the state’s debt-service-aid program is a material factor: the district expects debt service aid of roughly 34% on eligible portions of the projects, which in the architect’s estimate would reduce the local share by approximately $5.5 million on the infrastructure list (the estimate is preliminary and subject to the state’s PEC/FEC determinations). “You’re going to borrow the entire amount and then every year they pay you their share of what they committed to,” Samjin explained.

Board direction and timeline: Superintendent Ken (first name as recorded in the meeting) said the mid-sized Concept B “accomplishes a great deal” and prioritized removing windowless classrooms and creating small-group instruction spaces. After robust Q&A — covering playground impacts, stormwater-management thresholds tied to a 10,000-square-foot trigger, egress/code issues and a potential need to relocate parking — the board asked the architects to develop a B-variation (B2) that would include a roughly 1,200-square-foot additional core/choral space and to return with an updated budget. Samjin said the application to the state for preliminary eligible cost letters (PECs) typically takes about three months and that if a successful referendum passes in the fall, drawings and phased work could start in 2027 with occupancy of new spaces targeted around September 2028.

Music program and facility requests: Music teachers and a student presented earlier in the meeting. Music staff described high participation in band and chorus (band participation ranged between about 39% to nearly 50% in some grades, per teachers’ remarks) and said program operation is hampered by windowless and undersized spaces, frequent equipment shuffling and limited storage. “We would implore you to seriously consider potentially adding maybe some more space for a music department in the referendum,” a music teacher (Mrs. Bartell) told the board. The board folded those program needs into the B/B2 discussion.

Votes at a glance: The board took several routine and consent actions after the presentations. By roll call the board approved the listed facilities motions (motions 1–3), finance committee motions (1–6), and personnel motions (1–4); it also approved a policy motion (including an AI policy update). The board earlier entered and exited an executive session to discuss a student-residency matter; no additional public action resulted from that closed session.

What’s next: The board asked the architect to return with an updated B/B2 budget and a refined package that can be submitted with the infrastructure list for the PEC process. The next procedural steps are (1) finalize one education concept for submission, (2) obtain preliminary eligible cost letters from the state, and (3) have the district’s bond counsel and financial adviser finalize ballot language and tax-impact estimates before the voters decide.

Sources and provenance: This article is based entirely on the meeting transcript and board discussion recorded in the quoted presentation and Q&A; topic presentation begins with the architect’s remarks and runs through the board’s decision to request the B2 refinement.