At the forefront of the meeting was the introduction of the 2024-2025 budget plan aimed at addressing the district’s current year deficit. The board emphasized the importance of constructing the budget on reliable revenues and complying with state budgetary guidelines and tax levy requirements. Challenges such as rising costs in areas like security, special education, athletics, and instructional technology were acknowledged, leading to discussions about staff position reductions across the district. The board was joined by Mr. Ray Sarinelli from Niss Avaia, an external accountant, and Mrs. Janette Makus, the State fiscal monitor, to outline the next steps, including the budget’s review and approval by the State monitor and the subsequent submission to the New Jersey Department of Education.

Community members demanded clarity on discrepancies in project costs, specifically mentioning the increased expenses for the media center and the oval from the initial bids. The board assured that further information would be provided. Concerns were also voiced about the district’s corrective action plan, with the board clarifying that the plan was under review with the Department of Education and the involvement of a state monitor.

A significant portion of public commentary focused on the financial management of the district, with one member of the public highlighting a $13 million shortfall projection. The board responded by discussing the use of state funding and plans for repayment in the subsequent year. They attributed the shortfall to rising costs in salaries, benefits, special education, and healthcare. There were also expressions of concern regarding the effectiveness of outside consultants in financial oversight, with the board insisting on the implementation of tighter controls and an external audit for transparency.

The district’s budget deficit was a recurring theme, with the board explaining the discrepancy between the reported $7 million current year deficit, which was unconfirmed, and the anticipated $13 million deficit for the following year. The previous budgets were acknowledged to have been unbalanced due to unrealized revenues and incorrect data. A forensic audit was mentioned as a measure to address these issues.

Another topic of intense interest during the public comments was the district’s special education program. Parents and administrators expressed concerns about potential restructuring and its impact on students’ educational experiences. In particular, the enhancement of tier one intervention for general education and its impact on students being evaluated for IEPs were discussed. The superintendent explained the multi-tier support system and the strategic changes planned for the upcoming year.

The meeting also touched on the town’s population growth and its effect on the school district’s deficit, with the board clarifying that there had been no significant increase in the last decade, aside from the state-funded pre-K expansion program. Additionally, the board faced skepticism from the public regarding the tax levy increase, which was capped at 2%, and questions about the source of borrowed money, which the board confirmed came from the state.

The search for a new business administrator was discussed, with concerns raised about the salary and the impact of potential salary cuts on teachers and staff. The board countered by explaining the budget constraints and the necessity to find efficiencies within the 80-85% of the budget allocated to salaries and benefits.

Emotional testimony from community members highlighted the personal impact of the budget challenges, with one speaker emphasizing the need for consistent and effective management of special education programs. Another speaker criticized the board for the budget issues and called for accountability in the next election.

To address the myriad of concerns, a motion was made to table Finance resolutions 1 through 4 until May 16th, giving the new superintendent time to review the budget comprehensively. The motion passed after a debate on the appropriate date to table the resolutions, considering personnel notification deadlines. The meeting was then recessed to continue the budget discussion on the scheduled date.