Leonia Board holds public hearing on revised final budget; board to await state sign-off before final submission

Leonia — The Leonia Board of Education held a public hearing on the district’s final 2025–26 budget and reviewed revisions made since the tentative budget, including targeted spending increases and a $1.7 million increase in the tax levy that the district described as “a little under 7%.”

Business administrator Tomasiewicz opened the presentation: “Tonight is the public hearing on the final budget,” and then described changes that the district says were prompted by new state guidance and recent state aid calculations.

The district’s presenters told the public the revisions were aimed at meeting the state’s adequacy expectations and supporting priorities from the district strategic plan. Key additions the board described include increased teacher salaries for grades 1–5 (including a $70,000 allocation identified for a computer science teacher), a $300,000 increase for an in‑district comprehensive mental‑health program, a $70,000 district media specialist position, larger general‑program supply budgets, and targeted maintenance funding. The presenters said the district also plans to use $300,000 from the unassigned fund balance to help offset taxpayer burden.

Tomasiewicz said the district bought seven electric buses and that lease payments for the buses will raise transportation costs; he also explained the district is pursuing professional help to capture available federal and state energy/EV tax credits tied to bus purchases. He said the IRS credit could be worth “up to $40,000 per bus,” depending on bus weight and compliance with rules.

The presentation included revenue and tax‑impact calculations. The board’s materials show a net overall budget near $46 million across general fund, special revenue and debt service; the presenter said the district’s proposed tax levy increase is about $1.7 million and that the estimated impact on the average assessed home in Leonia would be about $595 annually. He noted the district’s general fund remains essentially flat compared with the prior year after the adjustments, while special‑revenue grants declined by roughly $600,000 as several one‑time pandemic grants expired.

Board members and the public asked questions about the line‑item changes. Board member Thompson asked about an apparent decrease in salaries; district staff said the salary reductions reflected enrollment declines in some grades and resulting position adjustments. Resident Arthur (public commenter) praised the budget presentation and urged public awareness: “of the $44,000,000, about 80% of it is contractual and is nondiscretionary,” he said, noting limited room for local cuts.

District staff emphasized process and next steps. They said the county office instructed districts to approve the budget with the revisions now and submit it to the county while the district waits for a formal state approval letter tied to a tax‑levy incentive program. If the state rejects the district’s revision, the board said it would return to a public meeting to revise the budget before the state deadline.

Several other details were included in the presentation and public discussion: a projected reduction in state aid (the district described a roughly $400,000 decrease reflected in the proposed revenues), an increase in out‑of‑district tuition costs tied to special education placements (about $186,000), and higher projected benefits costs (about $1 million projected increase tied to health insurance and fringe), plus smaller changes across instructional and operational categories.

No formal final adoption of the budget is recorded in the meeting transcript. Board members and staff described the public hearing, explained the changes, and signaled their intent to move forward with the budget in coordination with the county office and subject to the state’s sign‑off. The district also said it will post the user‑friendly budget materials online once its website migration is complete and will hold further public meetings if required by the state response.

The board took unrelated consent‑agenda votes later in the meeting and moved to closed session; the transcript does not record a final roll‑call vote adopting the 2025–26 budget during the public portion of this session.

Public‑comment speakers on the budget included several residents who asked about strategic‑plan alignment, long‑term cost impacts and future burden analysis; the district said it seeks to align additions with the strategic plan and will continue planning work over the summer.

Ending note: the board indicated that if the state does not approve the proposed revisions, it will convene a public meeting before the state deadline to revise the levy. The district also said user‑friendly budget documents and the presentation will be posted online after the website migration is complete.