Bernards Township board submits preliminary 2025–26 budget proposing 3.97% tax levy increase; staff reductions planned

The Bernards Township School District presented a preliminary 2025–26 operating budget that would raise the school tax levy 3.97% and requires $2,510,000 in expense reductions in order to close a projected gap, Superintendent Nick Marcarion said at the board’s regular meeting.

Marcarion told the board the district “lost 3% of our state aid” and that the reduction “will translate to approximately $364,000 in lost state aid,” and described a first-pass budget gap that initially approached $6 million before cuts and adjustments.

The board voted, by roll call, to submit the preliminary budget to the state for review. The motion to approve submission was moved by Brent (board member) and seconded by Janice (board member); the vote was 8–0 in favor.

Why it matters: The presentation lays out how rising health‑benefit costs, higher utilities and custodial contract increases, and lower state aid converge to force either higher local taxes or cuts to district staffing and discretionary spending. Administration said the board must submit this preliminary budget now and hold a public hearing on May 5 before final adoption.

Administration’s figures and proposals

Marcarion and Business Administrator Jim Rollo said the district’s fiscal year runs July 1–June 30 and that, after multiple rounds of line‑by‑line reductions, the district moved from roughly a $6 million shortfall to about $4.4 million. To close the remainder, administrators proposed roughly $2.51 million in expense reductions and an above‑cap levy adjustment of 1.97 percentage points on top of the standard 2% cap, producing the 3.97% levy figure.

Rollo described the budget’s major cost drivers: “Salaries, 59.7%, benefits, 16.1%,” he said, noting that salaries and benefits together account for roughly 75% of the budget. Rollo warned health benefits are the largest source of pressure, and projected the district’s health‑benefits cost center rising to about $18.2 million for 2025–26.

Rollo and Marcarion attributed the rapid rise in the board’s health‑benefit costs in part to the state law change from “chapter 78” to “chapter 44,” which, they said, changes how employee contributions are calculated. Rollo explained that under chapter 44 employee contributions are tied to salary rather than to health‑care cost increases, limiting districts’ ability to negotiate plan changes to share increases; the administration said that constraint remains in force until the law permits renegotiation in 2027.

Specific revenue and offset items

Administrators said the district plans to use a health‑care cost adjustment (about $1.7 million) and a small amount of previously banked tax levy authority (about $153,000) to reduce local impact, along with $2.51 million in expense reductions. They also described using reserves to smooth debt service, including a $479,312 transfer from capital reserve this year to keep debt service payments level.

Capital projects and grants

Rollo described capital work planned for the summer, including a Mount Prospect roof replacement budgeted at about $1.5 million (administration said the district expects to receive roughly 40% back through a Regular Operating District (ROD) grant). The district also plans “direct install” energy projects at Cedar Hill and Oak Street—upgrades that administrators said utilities will fund roughly 50%–60% of if the buildings meet the program criteria.

Other line items called out in the presentation included a projected 25% wholesale electricity price increase starting June 1 (which administrators said would raise the district’s electricity costs by roughly $147,000 despite planned HVAC efficiencies), a custodial contract increase tied to Aramark’s settled labor costs, and a possible replacement of the district phone system and a 54‑passenger school bus purchase.

Estimated taxpayer impact and timeline

Rollo presented a preliminary total revenue figure of about $128 million across operating, special‑revenue and debt funds. Using preliminary assessed values, the administration estimated the average residential property’s school tax impact at about $405.92 for the year if the proposed levy and budget remain as presented.

Marcarion said the board must submit the preliminary budget this month for state review and will hold the formal public hearing on May 5; he cautioned that the May hearing is when the public can comment on the final numbers before adoption.

Board and public response

Board members acknowledged the difficulty of the choices. “There are limits,” Marcarion said, noting that while the administration will attempt to minimize program impacts, some staffing changes will be necessary. Board members said they expect administration to pursue attrition and other “least‑harm” options before layoffs, and to involve administrators and supervisors in line‑by‑line reviews.

Public commenters urged additional scrutiny of administrative staffing levels and consultant use and recommended further review of transportation routes and extracurricular offerings to find additional savings.

Votes at a glance

- Approve submission of the 2025–26 preliminary budget to the state for review; motion moved by Brent (board member), seconded by Janice (board member); roll‑call vote 8–0, outcome: approved. (Note: submission is for state review; final adoption requires the May public hearing and a subsequent vote.)

- Approve minutes of prior meeting; motion moved by Dave (board member), second by Keith (board member); roll‑call vote 8–0, outcome: approved.

- Approve personnel committee recommendations as presented; motion moved by Janice (board member), seconded by Mike (board member); roll‑call vote 8–0, outcome: approved.

Ending

Administration said it will return to the board on May 5 with a final proposed budget and with details on how the $2.51 million in expense reductions were achieved. The board and administration emphasized they will attempt to protect classroom programs where possible while complying with statutory limits and the district’s funding realities.