Referendum was too much for voters in tough economic times

It's doubtful that Brick Township school officials will be able to go out for another building referendum this year, Superintendent of Schools Walter J. Hrycenko said.

"We have to decide 60 days before we have an election," he said. "We'd really have to decide, like, now."

The Ocean County Clerk's Office has to have 60 days to print ballots and prepare for another election, Hrycenko said.

Both Hyrcenko and Board of Education President Daniel J. Woska said they were disappointed with the results of the $172.9 million Sept. 29 referendum. Voters soundly rejected all four questions by more than a 2-to-1 margin. The district would have received $57 million in state grants if all the questions had been approved.

"We're disappointed with the results," Hrycenko said Monday. "But we are very happy with the turnout. It was twice as many as voted in the April election. We have to go back and look at what we offered. It probably was too much for the current economy."

Out of Brick's 81,840 voters, 14,716, or 17.98 percent, went to the polls, according to the Ocean County Clerk's Office.

"I was satisfied with the number of people that came out," Woska said. "A lot of people came out, that's for sure."

The Board of Education's buildings and grounds committee was slated to meet this week to discuss what comes next.

"I don't know what comes next," Woska said. "I guess people are thinking that they can't afford it at this time. That's the only answer I can give."

But Hrycenko said Monday the district would go out for a revised referendum, probably next year.

"We definitely have to go out," Hrycenko said. "We can't just give back $57 million to the state. We have to go out again."

Woska and school Business Administrator James Edwards had stressed earlier in the referendum process that the state grant money would run out at the end of December. Woska said in an interview with the Bulletin on Sept. 21 that "there's not going to be another chance for us to get that kind of money."

But state Commissioner of Education Lucille E. Davy said in a Sept. 10 letter to all school business administrators that the grant deadline had been extended to June 1, 2010.

"It's still in the same time period, as far as I'm concerned," Woska said about the election. "Nothing different is going to happen between now and then, and this is the cheapest time for construction to take place. No doubt about that."

Woska said he didn't know exactly when Davy's letter came into district offices.

"It was posted, I guess, sometime in mid-September," he said. "No more than 10 days or a week before."

The district received an e-mail with the letter on Sept. 10, Hrycenko said.

"All our literature stopped saying it had to be passed by the end of December," he said. "We didn't have a board meeting until Sept. 24. As soon as we found out about it, we let people know in a public sense."

The first question, which asked voters to approve $27 million in safety and security upgrades at all elementary and middle schools, went down by a vote of 6,550 to 3,228. Brick would have received $8.9 million in state aid if the question had been approved.

The second question, at $41 million, dealt with replacing heating and air conditioning systems, boilers and lighting in all schools and the installation of solar panels on the two middle schools. It went down by a vote of 6,396 to 3,327. The district would have received $16.4 million if the question had been approved.

The third question asked voters to approve $12 million to expand the Primary Learning Center on Chambers Bridge Road and renovate the current Educational Enrichment Center on Hendrickson Avenue. It was defeated by a vote of 6,554 to 2,809. The state would have reimbursed the district $2.2 million.

The fourth and most expensive question called for a $90.8 million renovation of Brick Township High School, which was built in 1958. It went down by a vote of $6,182 to 3,589. Brick would have received $29.8 million from the state if the question had been approved.

The district will be "more specific" with information in the next referendum, Hrycenko said.

"We're hearing from a number of people if it was the boilers, the electrical upgrades, heating and lighting, all of the essentials, they probably would have voted for it," he said. "It wasn't very clear to them what we were asking for."

Residents may not have realized the savings to the district when improvements are made, Woska said.

"You upgrade the systems, there is tremendous savings in efficiency," he said. "Maybe we took for granted that people would understand when you upgrade something that is 50 years old, the cost of running it is much cheaper. Maybe we should have had that number out there. Maybe that's something we will look at."

The buildings and grounds committee will hash out the results and discuss what the next step is, Woska said.

"Then we'll talk with the entire board," he said. "Then we move on to the community."

The district submitted 86 separate applications to obtain the $57 million in grants, Woska said.

"It was a long process," he said. "People maybe do not understand. We approved them at the board meetings. The architect had to prepare each one individually. It was a tremendous amount of work. The grant process is not an easy process. It's not like you are keeping records for just one project."