The most pressing topic of the meeting was the community’s reaction to the elimination of late bus services, a decision driven by budget constraints. Several parents and residents raised concerns, emphasizing the critical role these buses play in ensuring students can participate in after-school programs, sports, and other extracurricular activities. A parent highlighted the difficulties working families face without late buses, stating, “if you save all these programs, how are the children going to be able to attend them if they have a household like mine where I am a single working mother?”

The board members acknowledged the importance of these services, with one member stating, “I understand how important these buses are to many families in our town,” and further explaining that the decision to cut the service was a difficult but necessary one to preserve other vital programs. The board emphasized that the transportation cuts were part of a broader effort to balance the budget amid financial constraints, with estimates suggesting that transportation costs amounted to around $400,000, a substantial part of the overall budget.

Proposals for alternative solutions were discussed, including a pay-to-play model for transportation, where families could pay a flat rate for participation in sports or clubs to help offset the costs. However, concerns were raised about the practicality of such a system, particularly the feasibility of collecting fees on a per-ride basis. A more structured system was suggested, potentially involving community collaboration to create a sustainable solution.

The meeting also delved into curriculum changes, with several members expressing concerns about the inclusion of diverse topics such as disability rights and LGBTQ issues. One board member questioned the rationale behind grouping these topics together and sought clarification on the extent of local discretion in deviating from state mandates. The administration clarified that the inclusion of these topics is mandated by state law, referencing a statute from March 2021.

Discussions about the curriculum emphasized the need for transparency and adequate preparation time for review. Some board members expressed discomfort with the current timeline. It was proposed that the curriculum committee meet earlier in August to discuss the materials.

Financial matters were another focus of the meeting. A resident, Richard Dunn, inquired about the board’s allocation of over $6 million in capital funds and reserves, seeking clarification on the use of state cooperative purchasing programs and the $10 million received from the sale of the Nike Base in 2021. The board representative explained that the funds from property sales can only be used for infrastructure updates within the school district and cannot cover operating deficits. Specific projects discussed included the reconstruction of a retaining wall at Old Bridge High School, repaving and masonry work, and upgrades to elementary school playgrounds due to safety concerns.

Public comments also highlighted the community’s appreciation for the board’s efforts to preserve educational programs despite the financial challenges. James Schacker thanked the board for their previous decision to raise taxes to maintain full-day kindergarten and various sports programs, acknowledging the difficulty of that choice. However, he also raised concerns about the ongoing consequences of the tax increase and suggested forming a committee to explore potential ways to reinstate programs that had been cut.

The board’s response to the public comments included acknowledgments of the concerns raised and commitments to revisit the transportation issues in future meetings. A meeting was scheduled for October to further discuss potential solutions.