Harrison Township School District Board of Education held its latest meeting on August 18. The main topic of discussion was a $56 million facilities referendum and its bond proposal to be placed on the ballot for the upcoming November 3 election.
The board’s vote on how the proposal will be worded and placed on the fall ballot ended in a tie, as one board member, Janette Coslop, was absent and left the board with only eight voting members. Because of the board’s decision, the referendum will not be part of this fall’s election. It will likely be pushed to the fall 2027 election or a special election.
The meeting itself was moved up to August 18 from its original date of August 24, since the submission deadline for including the proposal on the ballot was August 20.
At the start of the meeting, superintendent Dr. Missy Quinn Peretti gave a presentation on the referendum. According to the presentation, this is “a coordinated plan to preserve and modernize existing school facilities.”
The district is looking to improve major capital improvements at Harrison Elementary School and Pleasant Valley School (where the BOE meeting was held). The entire project would cost up to $56,514,611.
Harrison Elementary School needs classroom upgrades, improvements to its HVAC and control systems, access controls, fire alarm, public address systems and notifications, and all related equipment to satisfy those needs. Its estimated cost is $27,354,135.
Actions outlined in the referendum include making up to $56.5 million worth of renovations, upgrades and improvements at Pleasant Valley School (pictured) and Harrison Elementary School.
Pleasant Valley School needs a roof replacement, improvements to its HVAC and control systems, access controls, fire alarm, public address systems and notifications, and all related equipment to satisfy those needs. Its estimated cost is $29,160,476.
Peretti said that the district engineer reported that “the original HVAC components in Harrison Elementary are about 35 years old. The newer systems at Pleasant Valley are approximately 25 years old. The normal life expectancy is 20 to 25 years.”
Since the HVAC systems at each of the schools are aged past their standard life expectancy, they do not function properly. According to Peretti’s presentation, these systems do not provide proper summer humidity control, which in turn increases the possibility of moisture-related issues in the building.
To reach the needs of the improvements for both schools, the cost would extend beyond the annual operating budget. Authorization of this project would allow there to be bonds of that value issued and allow the district to transfer funds among the projects. This project needs to be voter-approved.
If this plan were to move forward, there would be an estimated tax impact to residents. According to financial analysis from Phoenix Advisors, who worked with the district, taxpayers with the average assessed home value of $350,555 would be asked to pay $609.86 per year over a financing term of 20 years. Peretti said the advisors calculated this number by using a rate of 35 percent.
During the discussion of Resolution 2026-27#4, members of the board shared questions and concerns with the project, mostly regarding how it will impact taxpayers and how they will interpret the information when reviewed on the ballot.
Board members Tim Bast, John Cavanaugh, Colleen Kendrick and Alexis Rubino – who all ultimately voted ‘no’ – contributed to the conversation. Peretti and business administrator Chris DeSanto provided additional information and discussion with them; they focused on how the approaches, finances and needs were developed and came to fruition.
“My biggest concern is coming right on the heels of taxes just going up. I’m nervous that we put this out there as one full bucket, people are looking at that 600 bucks and just outright denying it because it’s such a big number, and then, we get nothing,” Kendrick said.
Kendrick was curious if the project could be a “scalable project” and broken up into smaller parts, rather than all of this at once. Other board members and audience members echoed similar sentiments.
“We’re all concerned about that,” Peretti said. “At that point, we would then have to take a look at what we were going to do moving forward to the following year, because again, it’s certainly my understanding working closely on this project thus far that the projects aren’t going to be going away.”
“I think in this time, in this economy, where we are locally, (in the) county and the state as far as taxes in New Jersey, I think any one of us would be foolish not to be considering the possibility of the referendum not passing,” Peretti continued.
“The thing to remember, too, is that what doesn’t get done now is going to cost more in the future,” DeSanto said.
DeSanto also said that the actions presented in the plan have been already discussed by the committees and councils behind the plan. He said “we absolutely took away the wants.”
The referendum was initially introduced to the public in February, when Peretti sent out an update to the district that was also posted to Facebook and on the “Referendum” page on the district’s website. The last update to the webpage at time of press was from April, which discussed a scope of work for the referendum.
Additionally, the BOE presented the 2026-2027 school budget in a public hearing on April 27, which outlined the proposed referendum and the two school’s needs for building improvements.
While the referendum will not appear on the ballot in the upcoming election, it will continue to remain a project of the district’s. It can take place in a special election or be pushed until next November’s election.
HTSD Board of Education vote on the facilities referendum to be included on the November 2026 election ballot ended in a tie. It will not be part of this fall’s election, and it will likely be pushed to the fall 2027 election.
