North Hunterdon-Voorhees board advances preliminary 2025-26 budget after hours-long debate

The North Hunterdon-Voorhees Regional High School District Board of Education voted on March 18 to forward its preliminary 2025-26 budget to Hunterdon County for review after a long public and board discussion about tax levies, rising costs and available reserves.

Board members and administrators laid out cost pressures driving the proposed increase beyond the 2% standard cap: the district recorded an unexpected state aid increase of about $217,000 but still faces a projected shortfall of roughly $216,255 for next year, officials said. Major upward pressures named during committee discussion included a roughly 20% increase in electric rates (an impact administrators estimated near $200,000), a 10% increase in transportation costs and double-digit increases in medical benefits and prescription costs. The administration recommended a 2.66% tax levy increase to close the gap while retaining program and staff levels.

Why it matters: The preliminary budget determines what the district will submit to the county for compliance review and frames the final budget the board will consider in April. Raising the tax levy above 2% is allowed by state rules in limited circumstances, but it draws public scrutiny because it increases property-tax bills for district residents.

Administrators said personnel and benefits comprise roughly 70–75% of district spending, and that a combination of attrition, careful purchasing and use of reserves are available levers to manage the shortfall. The business office also reported roughly $428,444 would be raised by moving from a 2.00% to a 2.66% tax levy on a roughly $65 million budget base, figures administrators used for planning. Board members and commenters weighed whether further internal efficiencies could reduce the levy increase without cutting instruction.

Board action and votes: An initial roll-call on the motion to submit the preliminary budget did not achieve the required majority of the full board and therefore failed at that moment. After additional discussion and a request that outstanding questions be compiled and placed in the committee folder for review, a motion to reconsider and move the budget forward to the county for technical review passed on a subsequent roll-call vote. The board signaled that amendments remain possible before the final adoption vote in late April.

Public input and board questions: Members of the public and several board members pressed administrators on specific line items and asked for more granular documents, including five-year projections showing how the district would avoid a longer-term fiscal “cliff.” Speakers also asked about reliance on food-service profits and grants for equipment, the impact of solar energy and whether capital reserves or “banked cap” had been used in prior years. Administrators said the district had returned leftover referendum funds to taxpayers in past years rather than retaining them as capital, which reduced current reserve balances.

Next steps: The board asked administration to compile the committee-level questions and responses in the board file area, and to continue committee review of potential savings (including procurement and transportation strategies). The county review will check statutory and format compliance; the board may amend the proposed budget before its final adoption vote in April.