FLEMINGTON, N.J. — Administrators for the Flemington‑Raritan Regional School District on Thursday explained how the district budgets state categorical security aid and said most ongoing safety costs are paid with local tax dollars, while a resident told the board that available funds should be used immediately to station armed officers at schools.

Business Administrator Mrs. Dawson told the board the district’s 2025–26 state allocation for categorical security aid totals $642,316 and that about $300,000 of that is dedicated to security technology such as cameras and access controls, with the remainder budgeted in operations and maintenance for safety‑related facility needs. “For the 2526 school year, the district received $642,316 in categorical security aid,” Dawson said. “Of the total, about 300,000 is dedicated to security technology such as cameras, access controls, and related systems.”

Why it matters: Parents and residents have demanded clarity about whether that state aid — and other district funds — can be used to reinstate armed, on‑site school officers after ballot questions on that topic failed earlier this year. The board’s explanation clarifies what the state aid is intended to cover and the district’s current financing choices but does not change voter decisions or outside agency authority.

Dawson said categorical security aid is not applied for separately by the district; the New Jersey Department of Education calculates it under the state funding formula using enrollment, the share of at‑risk students and regional cost adjustments and includes it in the district’s overall state aid allocation. “This funding is part of the New Jersey’s Funding Reform Act, and it’s calculated by the Department of Education based on factors such as enrollment, the percentage of at risk students, and regional cost adjustments,” she said. Dawson also said the district makes detailed budget documents and monthly check registers publicly available for review.

Resident Catherine Ventevania, identifying herself as a Flemington resident, told the board she and many community members who signed a petition remain unconvinced and demanded immediacy and transparency. “There is absolutely no reason why we have the security taken away when there is more money in this budget than there ever was before for our children,” Ventevania said, pressing the board to show receipts and to reallocate funds now rather than wait for future votes or outside action.

Ventevania raised the county‑level disparity in security aid and argued the formula — which relies on the percentage of low‑income students — treats some children as more deserving of resources than others. She said she has written to the New Jersey Department of Education seeking legislative reform of the funding formula and urged the district to provide clear accounting of how prior security dollars were spent.

Superintendent Dr. Burns and board members described next steps and limits on local authority. Burns said the district will meet with municipal officials about the possibility of class‑2 officers (who may be armed under local rules) but noted those officers are not district employees and any arrangement would require cooperation with local government and law enforcement. “These aren’t our — they’re not our employees, so we can’t force them to hire these people,” Burns said. He added that the district has discussed partnering with borough and township officials and would continue those conversations.

Dawson cited state law when explaining constraints after a recent special election on additional tax measures and school safety items: under NJSA 18A:7F‑5 and NJSA 18A:7F‑39, ballot‑tied items that voters reject cannot simply be funded later from other sources in the same way. “If voters reject a special election tied to specific programs, staff, or projects, those items cannot move forward or be funded through other sources,” she said, noting that was why class‑3 officer funding that had been on a ballot was removed from the budget.

Board members and administrators said they will continue outreach to residents who requested meetings, that they will provide the publicly available budget materials and monthly check register for review, and that conversations with municipal officials about alternative security staffing models are ongoing. The board did not take a formal vote to change funding allocations at the meeting.

Ending: The board encouraged residents with further questions to request the district’s budget documents and offered to meet with petition organizers to walk through line‑by‑line accounting; residents can also pursue appeals or legislative change with the state Department of Education, which controls the security aid formula.