Lawrence Township board reviews $88M draft budget, cites preschool expansion and referendum as offsets to levy

Superintendent Dr. Klim and Business Administrator Tom Eldridge on Monday presented a draft 2025–26 budget the district described as roughly an $88 million appropriation and said voters’ March 11 approval of the district referendum and state preschool expansion aid helped reduce the district’s local levy burden.

The presentation placed the budget in the context of district strategic goals and the referendum-funded capital program. "Because of your support, we can move forward with our vision for the future of a district of excellence," Dr. Klim told the board and audience, thanking voters after the referendum passed March 11. Eldridge framed the spending plan as a high-level spending projection: "This is a general overview from probably about a 10,000-foot view," he said, and described the advertised appropriation as "an $88 million, almost $89,000,000 appropriation overall." The pair said salaries, benefits, tuition and transportation make up the vast majority of the proposed spending.

Why it matters: board members and administrators said the referendum will fund school facility projects and that federally and state-funded preschool expansion has reduced some costs the general fund would otherwise carry. Eldridge and Dr. Klim said the Preschool Expansion Aid program (PEA) has shifted some administrative and program costs out of the district’s general fund. As Eldridge explained, that shift shows on the district’s financial pages as a negative in the general fund because PEA is paying costs that previously were charged to the district. The presenters said this reduces what would otherwise be required from the local tax levy.

Key details presented and discussed included: Eldridge’s breakdown showing most budget dollars flow to personnel and direct student services; a projected increase in state aid offsetting some federal reductions; an average estimated tax impact of about $140 to the typical home; and program increases in regular and special education. Eldridge said the budget documents and a user-friendly display will be posted on the district website (www.ltps.org) and that the next formal step is submission to the Mercer County Department of Education and the public hearing scheduled for May 7.

During public comment, resident Jim Cleek thanked the district for its referendum outreach but asked whether PEA funding is likely to continue in future years. Board members and Dr. Klim said they have no reason to expect PEA to be singled out for elimination and noted discussions with state and county officials indicating ongoing support. Cleek also asked about who produced referendum mailings; Dr. Klim said the district worked with the New Jersey Education Association’s Office of Government Affairs on publications and with the central communications office for other materials.

The board voted on several routine and formal items tied to the budget process at the meeting. The board approved the personnel slate (P1–P35) and finance items (listed as SBM 1–16), which included routine transfers, transportation payments, grant submissions, contract awards for building maintenance projects (for example, a modular building metal roof and plaster repair at Eldridge Park and ceiling replacements), and moving the advertised budget forward for county submission and the May 7 public hearing. Board members recorded their votes on the record during roll call; for example, the earlier motion to adopt the Feb. 12 minutes recorded one abstention from Ms. Van Heise and affirmative votes from the other named members.

The board also discussed next steps for referendum implementation: architects and construction managers will take part in a phased design and contracting process. Eldridge told the board that the recommended architect contract aligned with typical industry percentages (he cited roughly mid‑range figures in the 6–6.7% range of hard construction costs), and he said the contract will be reviewed by legal counsel and forwarded to the Office of the State Comptroller for review because of its size. Board members asked for volunteer assistance on selection panels for construction management procurement.

No formal change to the advertised budget was made at the meeting; the board moved the proposed budget package to the county office for review and scheduled the official public hearing in May. Administrators told the public they will post detailed budget lines and continue community communications as the district transitions from referendum approval to project design and construction phases.