The superintendent presented a comprehensive student safety data report, showing a decline in violence, vandalism, harassment, intimidation, bullying, and substance abuse incidents, attributing this to the successful programs implemented within the schools. A public hearing on the fiscal year 25 budget was held, with the superintendent citing a $19.3 million shortfall from adequacy and detailing the effects of S2 cuts on the budget. The district’s financial uncertainty was underscored, especially with the potential decrease in state aid for the subsequent fiscal year.

To balance the budget, tough decisions were made, resulting in a reduction of 135 staff positions since the enactment of S2. The board’s focus remained on preserving the academic program and retaining instructional staff. The volatility of the local fair share and total state aid over time was a point of emphasis, along with the implications of the 2% property tax levy cap under the School Funding Reform Act (SFRA).

The district’s experience with flat state funding, despite enrollment changes, and the influence of Senate Bill 2 (S2) on state aid reductions were discussed. Adjustments to the SFRA were also debated, considering the upcoming FY 26 budget. Legislative support was mentioned.

The board examined the district’s expenditure breakdown, with major allocations to instruction and support services. Due to budget limitations from state aid cuts, the board was unable to deposit into facility reserves, leading to the consideration of a referendum for major capital projects. The strategies for closing the budget gap were diverse, ranging from transportation changes to evaluating athletics programs, administrative structure, additional revenue sources, and asset sales. Program offerings and undersubscribed programs were reviewed in anticipation of future budget decisions. The district’s spending per pupil was noted as being lower than similar districts, and a 2% increase in the property tax levy was proposed.

A significant portion of the meeting revolved around proposed changes to the state funding formula. Legislation under discussion would permit districts to raise property taxes and offer a grant to partially offset state aid cuts. This would be particularly relevant for districts like Freehold Regional, which would use a five-year look back to determine state aid increases. The board debated the potential tax impact and the deployment of additional revenue if the legislation passed.

There was a presentation on the FY 25 budget, outlining the strategies for managing appropriations and associated risks. The possibility of reinstating programs, such as the Raay Academy, was discussed in light of the expiration of federal grant money. Board members expressed hope for positive outcomes from pending legislation and recognized the district’s budgeting challenges. Questions were raised about the tax increase and the specifics of the proposed legislation, leading to a discussion on tax adjustments and community impact.

Public comments included concerns about the district’s financial struggles, ongoing lawsuits against the state, and the distribution of tax burdens. Additionally, a community member pointed out a spelling mistake on a public sign, calling for better management of district resources.