Hoboken board presents $88 million operating budget, proposes roughly $6.4M tax-levy increase for 2025–26

The Hoboken Board of Education on May evening presented its proposed $88 million operating budget for the 2025–26 school year, telling residents the plan would rely primarily on the local tax levy and would require a levy increase the presentation variously cited as $6.4 million and $6.37 million — figures the board’s presenters stated would amount to about $236 per year for the average homeowner.

Dana Sullivan, identified in the meeting as the district’s interim business administrator, summarized the state funding context and what the board called “banked cap” capacity. Sullivan said the state’s School Funding Reform Act (SFRA) and recent S‑2 legislation affected aid levels and that the hold‑harmless aid being phased out contributed to the need for the levy increase. The presentation also stated, as calculated by the state’s fair‑share methodology, that Hoboken has a theoretical banked cap capacity of $169,000,000; the presenter clarified this is an ability to raise the levy, not cash on hand.

The presentation emphasized enrollment growth as a primary driver. District slides showed a ten‑year increase in K–12 enrollment (figures cited in the presentation included a 41%–43% increase and a rise from roughly 1,805 students in 2014–15 to 2,587 in 2023–24). To address that growth, the budget would open new classrooms and add staff, including 26 new teachers and additional support personnel, expand dual‑language programming and add a K–12 financial‑literacy initiative.

Presenters listed revenues and expenditures and described the revenue mix as primarily local levy (about $74 million), state aid (roughly $8.6 million, excluding preschool expansion aid), a fund balance contribution and miscellaneous revenue such as grants or donations. They described total revenues near $88 million and said a balanced budget requires revenues to match expenditures.

In listing expenditures, the presentation grouped spending into nine categories and called salaries and benefits the largest line. The slides included a set of categorical figures — for example, a charter‑school contribution figure ($13 million), special education and summer programming (~$7.7 million), facilities (~$4 million), transportation (~$3 million) and co‑curricular activities (~$3.6 million. The presentation also included a salaries-and-benefits figure of $154 million; that figure is inconsistent with the stated single‑year operating total of ~$88 million, and presenters did not reconcile the difference during the meeting.

Presenters highlighted cost pressures: health‑insurance increases (the presentation cited a 14% rise for the current year and a projected 15% for 2026), approximately $1.7 million in increased special‑education costs (including out‑of‑district placements and extended‑year programming), $440,000 in increased special‑education transportation costs and about $700,000 in increased extracurricular/co‑curricular spending.

Board leaders framed the budget as preserving staff and programs amid growth: “we are not cutting teachers. We are not cutting programs,” the chair said during the presentation. The board also named several recent recognitions for the district — including high rankings and Lighthouse awards for all five schools — positioning the proposed investments as sustaining academic and extracurricular success.

The district invited public engagement, noting the user‑friendly budget is posted on the district website and providing an email address for questions; the board also said the full meeting video would be posted to BoardDocs and broadcast on CATV channel 77 and Fios channel 46. No members of the public signed up to speak during the public‑comment period.

The meeting concluded with acknowledgments of staff who worked on the budget. The chair named Dana Sullivan as interim business administrator while the district conducts a search to replace retired business administrator Joyce Goode, and thanked Vicky Lopez, Dr. Johnson, Anna Mara and the finance committee led by Mr. Krupfel. A motion to adjourn carried and the board closed the meeting.

The board’s presentation provided figures and programmatic priorities but included multiple numerical inconsistencies across slides; the district’s posted budget documents and the user‑friendly budget on the district website were cited as the reference source for detailed, reconciled numbers.