East Brunswick board weighs moving TCUs, building ninth‑grade wing or a new high school; no decision made

The East Brunswick Board of Education on June 4 discussed three options to address long‑standing facility problems at East Brunswick High School but did not vote on any plan.

During a detailed presentation by district staff, the board heard about short‑term and long‑term approaches to the district’s capacity and building‑condition issues. Administration emphasized that the session was informational only and that no action would be taken at the meeting.

“Right now the TCUs are approved for a five‑year period by the state,” said Joe (district staff member), describing regulatory constraints that govern temporary classroom units. He told the board the district owns the TCUs and that moving them to the high school would require full site work — utilities, data, and restoration of the fields at Churchill — and an estimated cost “approximately $11 million” for the relocation and setup.

That short‑term move was presented as one option. A second option — building a permanent ninth‑grade academy adjacent to the existing high school — was illustrated as an approximately 83,000‑square‑foot addition with an estimated hard cost of $45–$49 million (not including soft costs such as professional fees, DOE review, permitting and contingencies). The administration stressed the bid and subsurface uncertainties that could raise those costs.

The third option discussed was constructing an entirely new high school on district property sized for roughly 2,800–3,000 students. Hard‑cost estimates shown to the board ranged from about $298 million to $325 million; administration noted that soft costs and demolition could materially increase the total program budget and later referenced a broader total‑project estimate that could be substantially higher depending on scope and funding sources.

Board members pressed on practical matters: how quickly the TCUs could be moved (administration said an expedited, ideal scenario would still be on the order of 12–18 months to have the units ready for a fall school year), whether cafeteria and gym capacity would be adequate if students were consolidated on site, traffic and parking impacts, and how the district would avoid repeating past multi‑year planning pauses.

Several members urged a comprehensive view that addresses the old building’s underlying systems — gutters and roofs, underground plumbing, asbestos and other legacy hazards — rather than piecemeal fixes. The administration noted potential asbestos and remediation concerns in any renovation and said a new building would avoid long renovation schedules and some health‑risk exposures associated with demolition and phased renovation.

On funding, administrators reviewed options that would be required for a major capital program: a bond referendum (possibly staged or paired with expiring debt to manage tax impact), state aid or limited targeted grants, and the County Improvement Authority for projects exceeding local debt capacity. The board was told a referendum process requires significant lead time and that the district would need to prepare voter materials and estimates of local tax impact before asking residents to vote.

No motion was offered on any of the three high‑school options. The board directed staff to gather additional information, bring the architects to a future meeting to answer technical questions (including soil/site issues, soft‑cost estimates and schedule), and continue public outreach. The administration proposed follow‑up briefings in July or August and recommended keeping facilities topics on board agendas until a consensus emerges.

What’s next: the board intends to continue the public conversation, ask the architect for a more detailed timeline and cost breakdown, and assess funding scenarios. No formal referendum or bond decision was made at the June 4 meeting.