Montgomery board adopts smaller bank-cap budget option after contentious public hearing

The Montgomery Township Board of Education on April 29 adopted a modified 2025–26 budget that adds $779,863 from previously earned bank-cap credits to the district’s base budget, the administration said after a public hearing that ran for several hours.

The hearing presented four options the administration calculated in response to a tentative budget adopted in March. Business Administrator Andrew Italiano and Superintendent Mary McLaughlin outlined the choices for the board and the public: (1) use $2,600,000 from bank-cap/waiver funds (net tax effect ~4.98% for homeowners in samples provided by administration); (2) use $1,600,000 (net ≈3.79%); (3) use $779,863 (net ≈2.87%); or (4) adopt only the previously advertised 2% levy increase (no bank-cap use). After public Q&A and board discussion the board voted to adopt option 3, the administration said.

Why it mattered: Board members and district officials said salary and benefits account for about 85% of the district’s budget, and rising benefit costs and transportation and special-education outlays are driving deficits. The administration framed the bank-cap options as a way to “broaden the base” now to avoid deeper program cuts at a later date. Opponents and many residents warned any increase is burdensome, while teachers and parents urged the board to use the maximum available funds to avoid staff reductions and protect programs.

What the chosen option does: The adopted option adds $779,863 to the budget using bank-cap credits. In the administration’s breakdown that additional sum would allocate roughly $382,131 toward staff salaries and benefits and about $397,732 toward operations and maintenance. The adopted final budget figures listed in the resolution read: general fund $91,602,856; special revenue $1,062,987; anticipated revenue $12,781,471; debt service $5,256,913; for a total base budget reported as $110,705,227. The administration told the board the district intended to complete the stated uses by June 2026.

Public comment and board questioning: The public comment period was lengthy and strongly contested. Dozens of parents, teachers, alumni and representatives of the Montgomery Township Education Association urged the board to select the largest option (option 1) or at least option 2, saying small per-household increases preserve programs that drive student outcomes and town property values. Others — including several speakers who said they work in real estate or represent long-time residents — cautioned about the tax burden on middle-class and fixed-income households.

Board members pressed the administration for clarifications on the bank-cap mechanics (how credits are earned, three-year expirations) and the composition of the increased dollars. Business Administrator Italiano walked the board through the sources of the bank-cap credits (health-care adjustments and prior-year under-levies) and answered multiple questions about tax-impact examples the administration had prepared. Several board members asked for more detail about what specific positions would be preserved under each option; Italiano said the option 3 allocation would restore a meaningful subset of previously proposed salary cuts but leave others in place.

Other budget context raised at the meeting: administrators described transportation increases tied to mandated bus replacement schedules and noted the district is JFAC (meaning comparatively low state aid). They also described capital needs (ADA walkway at UMS, a roof/chiller project with partial state grant matches) and a separate, developing facilities assessment by an architect that could highlight larger future referendum needs.

Outcome and next steps: The board passed the final budget modification (the option 3 resolution read into the record as agenda item 3.29). A roll call was taken and the motion carried. The administration will implement the stated uses and report back to board committees as required. Several board members and community commenters asked the administration to continue pursuing grants, procurement efficiencies and extraordinary-aid (‘‘excess cost’’) reimbursements for special education to limit recurring local tax burden.

Ending note: The vote prompted visible emotion across the room; many teachers and parents had urged using more bank-cap funds to avoid layoffs, and many residents cautioned about added taxes. The administration repeated it will continue to monitor enrollment, state aid, and federal funds and report back to the board on both implementation and the architect’s facilities plan.