Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Leonia board reviews tentative 2026–27 budget; finance lead cites $2M increase and 5.8% estimated tax‑levy impact
Summary
Superintendent and finance lead presented a tentative 2026–27 budget showing roughly a $2 million increase driven by higher employee benefits, out-of-district tuition and insurance costs; the business lead estimated a 5.8% tax‑levy increase and set a May 5 public hearing for the final budget.
Leonia’s school leadership on Monday laid out a tentative 2026–27 budget that would increase district spending by about $2,000,000, with an estimated 5.8% rise in the school tax levy for the average home under last year’s assessed values.
"We have an overall budget increase of over $2,000,000," said Doctor Nisenoff, the district finance lead, who walked the board through the presentation and the revenue and expenditure drivers. He said employee benefits, particularly health‑care costs, account for roughly $1.3 million of the increase, and that higher out‑of‑district tuition placements and increased property/casualty insurance are significant contributors as well.
The presentation outlined revenue shifts the administration expects next year. Doctor Nisenoff said state aid will fall by about $200,000 when a projected drop in extraordinary aid is included, and miscellaneous revenues tied to SREC (solar renewable energy certificate) values could decline by about $100,000. He noted a roughly $2 million swing in tuition revenue tied to the district’s arrangement with Edgewater, calling for a review of the tuition formula between the two districts to reduce year‑to‑year volatility.
"This is truly a tentative budget," Nisenoff said, noting that approval tonight would enable the district to submit the budget to the county for review and that the county or state may request changes before final adoption in May. He told the board the county submission deadline is imminent and that the public hearing is scheduled for the board’s May 5 meeting.
Board members pressed for more detail on several items. One member questioned the timing of principal and interest for the turf‑field lease, asking whether the payment schedule could be reviewed to reduce interest costs. Another asked how reassessment of property values in the borough might alter the per‑home tax impact; Nisenoff said the levy amount is the dollar amount to be raised, and assessment changes change each homeowner’s share rather than the levy itself.
The superintendent, Doctor Karamanos, emphasized programmatic priorities that the budget is intended to sustain, including expanding gifted education, maintaining AP and academy pathways, adding mental‑health clinicians, and continuing sustainability projects such as electric‑bus deployment and charger installations.
Public commenter Arthur Jay urged the board to explain large line items and asked if rising insurance premiums reflected a worse claims history or other factors. The administration said insurance costs reflect experience‑rating and pool averages and promised to follow up on specific invoices and contract savings, including potential utility‑contract comparisons.
The administration said no capital projects are budgeted at this time in the general fund but that the board can approve capital work later via resolution if needed. Nisenoff also recommended preserving the district’s maintenance reserve for emergency needs rather than routine use.
The board did not take a final vote on the budget at the meeting; they approved the consent agenda and will consider any required adjustments before the May public hearing.
The next procedural step is the county review after the board files the tentative budget; the administration said it will update the board with additional figures and any county feedback prior to the May 5 public hearing.
