Flemington‑Raritan holds budget town hall as district readies March 11 special election

Superintendent Carrie McGahn and members of the Flemington‑Raritan Regional School District answered questions from residents at a town‑hall meeting at JP Case about a proposed tax‑levy increase the board plans to put to voters in a March 11 special election.

The meeting focused on why the district says it needs to seek authority to raise the local tax levy above the state 2% cap, what would be cut if voters reject the question and how temporary federal funds were spent. District officials said rising contract salaries, health‑insurance costs, transportation and special‑education placements are the main drivers of a budget gap they estimate in the millions.

At the outset, Superintendent Carrie McGahn described the session as the district’s “third town hall and final town hall about our budget,” and reviewed basic district data: Flemington‑Raritan serves 3,311 students ages 3 through eighth grade and employs about 682 staff members. Business Administrator Tanya Dawson and board members walked attendees through a multi‑year funding timeline showing the effect of the School Funding Reform Act (SFRA), the state’s 2% tax‑levy cap introduced after the 2011 S‑2 changes, and recent shifts in state aid.

“Because of this, we’ve had to change a little bit the way that we have recruited,” McGahn said, describing a 125% rise in multilingual students over recent years and district efforts to hire or “grow your own” teachers from paraprofessionals. Dawson explained the 2% cap and the limited exceptions districts can use — such as supplemental allowances for large health‑insurance increases or unusual enrollment growth — and said the new state law enacted last September allows districts to ask voters in special elections whether to exceed the cap.

Residents pressed district leaders on several specifics. Victor Sloan, a resident and parent, questioned why the district could not show more detailed line‑item changes and asked whether past budget choices justified asking taxpayers for more. “How can you ask us to trust you to live within your means when you haven’t done it in your past?” Sloan asked.

Board President Ryan Birkenstock said the district will seek voter approval to increase the levy — he described the planned request as a 4% increase in the budget that would translate to a smaller percentage change on homeowners’ total tax bills — and said trustees are simultaneously pursuing operating cuts and other cost controls. Birkenstock said the district has already reduced positions in previous budget cycles and will continue to make reductions if needed.

District officials listed the largest recurring cost categories as teacher and staff salaries, state‑required benefits (health insurance and pension costs), operations and maintenance for six buildings, transportation and special education. The presentation showed historic operating budget figures and state‑aid fluctuations and noted that federal COVID relief (ESSER/ARP) temporarily increased the operating budget in 2021–22 and 2022–23 for one‑time purchases and services such as 1:1 student devices, a district assessment (NWEA/MAP) and short‑term mental‑health contracts.

Officials said some ESSER/ARP spending is now built into ongoing operating costs — for example, the district added technology staff and diagnostic assessment subscriptions — and other pandemic‑era supports have been reduced as those federal funds expired. McGahn said mental‑health partnerships funded by ESSER were significant but many of those positions were temporary and some were later reduced.

Transportation costs were a frequent topic. Officials said the district budgeted about $5.1 million for transportation in 2020–21, roughly $5.4 million in 2021–22, about $5.5 million in 2022–23, and moved to roughly $6.7 million in 2023–24; the current budget figure is near $7.0 million. The district described a 50/50 cost‑sharing model with Hunterdon Central for some transportation personnel and said it hired a transportation supervisor in anticipation of a temporary dissolution of the joint transportation arrangement. Board members said the district intends to keep that supervisor even if it reconvenes a shared service with Hunterdon Central, because district leaders expect operational efficiencies and better local oversight.

Officials repeatedly warned that if the March 11 question fails, large reductions would be required. McGahn and Birkenstock cited planned or already enacted cuts: the board previously voted to cut more than 30 positions; the preliminary budget and upcoming board agenda include additional reductions (McGahn cited four more teacher reductions, two guidance counselors and the facility manager on the next agenda). Birkenstock said the district would also eliminate junior varsity athletics, all Class III school resource officers and other programs if the ballot question does not pass. The board did not make those cuts contingent only on the outcome of the vote; several reductions are already under consideration as part of a multi‑year “five‑year budget” planning effort.

Parents and residents asked about alternatives: increasing grant‑seeking, outsourcing services, subscription (pay‑to‑ride) bussing instead of courtesy bussing, and changing insurance plan offerings. Dawson described efforts the district has taken — contracting food services and custodial work, offering lower‑cost insurance plans and benefit waivers for employees with alternate coverage — but said many district costs are fixed and constrained by collective‑bargaining contracts and tenure rules that limit how quickly personnel expenses can be reduced.

Several residents urged clearer communications and wider dissemination of the district’s materials; officials said printed brochures and updated online FAQs would be distributed in the two weeks before the vote. Birkenstock and McGahn said the board is meeting with municipal leaders to discuss how local pilot housing programs affect enrollment and district costs and is pressing state legislators for changes to the funding formula.

The district did not take a formal vote at the town hall. The board’s plan to ask voters to authorize a levy increase will appear on a March 11 special‑election ballot; officials said the district must meet county and Department of Education deadlines (including a roughly 60‑day lead time for the board of elections and DOE review) to place the question before voters.

The town‑hall concluded with officials promising to post answers to remaining virtual questions and update the district’s FAQ page. Residents were urged to consult the district website for the brochure and detailed budget information.

If the special‑election question passes, the board said the additional revenue would not fully close the district’s multi‑million‑dollar projected gap and that the board would still pursue further budget reductions and multi‑year planning to try to make the district’s budget sustainable.