The budget, described as a “living document,” is subject to change up until the school year begins. The majority of revenues for the district come from local taxes, and significant funds are allocated to tuition for sending pupils to other schools. To meet the state-mandated cap, adjustments were made, including reductions in mental health support, staffing, and benefits. The proposed separate proposal in November is seen as a means to mitigate the effects of these cuts.

During the meeting, the board highlighted the need to support staff in light of changing state standards and the desire to bridge the educational gap between K-8 and Governor Livingston school. The board considered reinstating a $30,000 support for mental health needs through Tri County Behavioral Health and After School academic support programs. The tax impact of a 2% increase on the tax levy was estimated to be an additional $142 for an average homeowner, with an added $272 if the separate proposal is approved.

There were also discussions surrounding the process for waivers for special education and other costs. The concerns about the sustainability of the budget were discussed given the low reserves and the unpredictability of non-controllable costs, such as out-of-district tuition and special education requests. The board debated the balance between being strategic in their financial requests and their desire not to overburden taxpayers while supporting quality education for students.

Another topic at the meeting was the discussion of various factors impacting the district’s finances, including the contract with teachers, General Ed tuition, transportation costs, benefits, and resource room expenses. Federal money, known as ARP funding, is helping the next year’s budget, allowing for the purchase of instructional supplies. The board addressed the difference between the original and new budget, attributing the change to an increase in students and clarified the limitations on surplus reserve accounts.

In the public comments section, residents inquired about potential staff and benefit cuts, state aid, budget deficits, and the foresight of the situation. There was also a question about program cuts and the possibility of offering them through private payment. The board emphasized their goal to minimize the impact on students and maintain educational programming.

The meeting also covered strategic planning, NJSLA testing, upcoming school trips, staff appreciation events, and updates from Berkeley Heights. These included discussions about superintendent search firm interviews, the potential return to interactive Zoom meetings, and the approval to open up an RFP for a new law firm. Additionally, the meeting acknowledged ongoing reviews of the Lower Columbia field proposal, the GL Press Box status, and the girls’ locker room situation.

Among the other topics, the possibility of starting a boys’ volleyball program at the middle school level was discussed due to repeated requests. The board approved the subscription busing fees despite concerns about the sustainability of the fee increase and its impact on families.

Finally, there was a discussion about the collaboration between Mountainside and Berkeley Heights and a plan to enhance communication between the two communities. A Berkeley Heights Board of Education member visited to express a desire to strengthen the relationship between the two districts.