The board’s proposal to modify the HBW School library to create additional office space stirred debate. The project, which would cost $220,000, involves situating the new office near the circulation desk and copy machine, away from student gathering areas. This proposal drew strong opposition from both community members and students, who raised concerns about the potential reduction of library space and the impact on students’ access to resources and a quiet environment.

Jen Klein, the HBW School librarian, voiced her concerns about privacy and the reduction of the library’s book collection due to the proposed office. She emphasized that the library serves as a crucial space for students to express themselves freely and questioned how the addition of an office would affect the library’s atmosphere. Klein highlighted the importance of maintaining safety egresses and the risk of compromising the library’s welcoming environment.

Maria Dean Kazanis, a Verona resident and parent, argued that reducing the library’s size would prioritize administrative convenience over student needs. She stressed that libraries are fundamental to a school’s learning environment and suggested that the funds could be better used to enhance the library rather than reducing its space.

Dr. Monica Taylor, a former Verona parent and educator, echoed these sentiments, emphasizing the library’s role as a safe haven for students. She shared personal experiences volunteering in the library and highlighted its significance in providing a neutral space for students to connect, learn, and feel accepted. Taylor urged the board to consider alternative solutions that would not compromise the library’s integrity.

Avery Gaffney, a rising eighth-grade student, stressed the importance of the library in her academic life and the various clubs and activities that rely on the space. She argued that compromising the library’s space for administrative purposes would be unfair to students. Deanna P. Ponas, another student, highlighted the library’s role in providing a quiet space amidst the stresses of middle school and argued against the proposed changes.

The board members emphasized that the proposed office would not take away the students’ space entirely and that the office entrance would be located from the hallway. However, the public comments consistently underscored the library’s role in fostering a supportive learning environment and called for the board to reconsider the plan.

In addition to the library space controversy, the board discussed the pilot program’s implications for the community. One board member expressed strong opposition to the pilot program, criticizing its misuse by communities that do not require it for stimulating development. The member emphasized that the original intent of the pilot program was to foster development in genuinely needed areas and questioned whether the New Jersey Builders Association is advocating for state-level reforms.

Concerns were raised about the impact of new housing developments on school enrollment and district budgets. A presentation from Conifer regarding a new project led to skepticism about the projected number of students. The board member expressed doubts about Conifer’s assurances that the number of students would be minimal, noting that even a low-end projection of 100 additional students could strain the budget, given a per-pupil cost of approximately $17,000.

The discussion also touched upon the capacity of the elementary schools, with three out of four reportedly at maximum capacity. The potential influx of students from new housing developments raised alarms about the space and financial resources needed to support them. The board acknowledged the importance of maintaining balance between town council decisions and school board interests in the context of educational funding.

The pilot program resolution was amended to ensure that funds from new pilot agreements would be shared with school districts at a rate proportional to taxable property. This amendment was debated and subsequently approved. Various other resolutions covering personnel, educational matters, athletics, and finance were also put forward and passed without significant dissent.

The meeting included public comments on other agenda items, such as changes to the payment structure for school lunch accounts and the implementation of a no-smartphone policy during school hours. The policy garnered considerable attention, with 73% of surveyed parents supporting it to reduce classroom distractions and enhance face-to-face interactions. Concerns were raised about the need for contact with children during the school day and safety issues related to not having phones.