Middletown board adopts 2026–27 budget amid heated debate over proposed school closures

The Middletown Township Board of Education late Wednesday adopted its final 2026–27 general fund budget and faced hours of public comment and procedural dispute over a separate plan to close three district schools.

The board’s business administrator, Amy Dy, presented the final budget as the meeting opened the public hearing on the plan. Dy said the district’s proposed general fund budget totals $201,445,122, representing a 2.91% overall increase and a proposed tax levy increase of 3.07% that includes a 1.07% healthcare adjustment. Key changes from the tentative budget included reallocating $360,000 from the maintenance reserve toward equipment and projects, a $100,000 playground equipment allocation, and an estimated $260,000 for kindergarten bathroom work and playground upgrades at Beayshore Elementary. Dy said tuition-driven special‑education costs had increased and that projected personnel reductions of about 40 positions were included and expected to be absorbed largely through attrition.

“After utilizing these two components of the tax levy, you will have no banked tax levy pack going forward for future year,” Dy said while walking through revenue and expense projections. She characterized several project estimates as preliminary and said costs for capital work will be refined through design and bidding.

The board then moved to a roll‑call vote on the final budget. The motion to adopt the 2026–27 budget carried on a recorded vote. Administration noted the budget as adopted will still require routine follow‑up for individual bids and contract awards.

The budget vote came amid a prolonged, often contentious public‑comment and board‑member exchange about a separate proposal to reduce the district’s footprint by closing three schools. Parents, students, teachers and community groups filled the meeting and delivered public comments that ranged from technical questions about the LRFP’s capacity calculations to personal appeals about the disruption that closures would cause.

Several speakers urged delay. “Closing our schools doesn’t need to happen,” said one public commenter, summarizing a common refrain. Many asked that the district complete the strategic‑planning and redistricting analysis that began last year before approving closures, and requested more detail on how special‑education programs, playground safety, transportation routing and one‑time renovation timelines would be handled if schools are consolidated.

The district’s external architect, Alan Barnett of BWS Architects, reviewed the LRFP amendment earlier in the meeting and said the capacity calculations reflect state formulas based on square footage and a district class‑size standard of 25 students per general‑education classroom. He told the board that some specialty spaces — pull‑out special‑education rooms, science labs and some art/music areas — are carved out of capacity calculations under state practice and that scheduling and program placement remain district administrative tasks.

Board members pressed both the architect and administration for programmatic detail. “We have a plan of where kids can fit but no plan of what they’re going to do when they’re there academically,” one board member said during the question period, reflecting the distinction raised repeatedly by commenters between ‘science’ of square‑footage capacity and the ‘art’ of scheduling and program design.

Superintendent Dr. Alone reiterated that consolidation planning and LRFP amendment work were underway and that any LRFP change requires county and state review before closures could take effect. She said the administration must be prepared to implement the board’s will while the State Department of Education evaluates submitted amendments.

Procedural disagreements broke out late in the meeting about whether new motions were properly in order after public comment and about the timing of reconsideration votes. After several motions, points of order and legal consultation on Robert’s Rules, the board reconsidered and carried a motion to approve the LRFP amendment as presented that evening; board members and the administration emphasized that county and state approvals would still be required before any closure would be implemented.

What’s next: The LRFP amendment must be routed through the county office and the Department of Education for formal review and approval before any school‑closure action could take effect. The administration said it will provide follow‑up detail on program placement, transportation routing and firm cost estimates for renovations and playground work as bids and design work progress. Board members and community leaders asked for a sustained strategic‑planning process and more opportunities for stakeholder input prior to any final, binding decisions about school closures.

Reporting note: Direct quotes and figures above come from the district presentation and the public hearing transcript provided by the Middlesex County/NJDOE process. The district’s formal LRFP submission and any county/state correspondence will be the controlling documents for procedural timelines and final approvals.