Toms River board conditions possible 99.9% tax-levy increase on receipt of state aid under A4161

The Toms River Regional Schools Board of Education on a June meeting approved a resolution saying the district would increase its 2024–25 property-tax levy by up to 99.9% only if the state Department of Education and governor provide specified additional aid under recently enacted A4161.

The resolution, read aloud by Mr Burns, frames the action as conditional: it cites a cumulative loss of about $137 million in state aid to the district over seven years and states that, with the A4161 stabilized school budget aid grant, Toms River would receive additional state funding. The resolution conditions any levy increase on receipt of not less than $12,358,759 in state aid for 2024–25.

Why it matters: Board members said the district faces a large adequacy gap that a one-time tax-levy authorization cannot close. ‘‘This is a Band‑Aid when you need a tourniquet,’’ said one trustee who voted no, arguing that the state funding formula must be changed. Other trustees said signaling willingness to accept the state grant and a levy increase if the state provides funds is a pragmatic step to keep schools open and preserve programs.

District figures cited at the meeting included per-household cost estimates tied to a potential levy change: roughly $325 per year in Toms River (about $27 per month), about $134 per year in South Toms River (about $11 per month), $270 per year in Beachwood (about $22 per month), and $307 per year in Pine Beach (about $26 per month). Board members and public commenters repeatedly emphasized that these figures do not restore the district to adequacy; trustees said the district remains underfunded by tens of millions of dollars.

What trustees said: At public comment, Deborah Martin of Ortley Beach said she opposed higher taxes and urged the board to push the governor’s office; Rachel Ralado urged members to accept the state opportunity for students’ sake. Trustee Lamb said the measure ‘‘doesn’t help’’ in the long term and voted no; other trustees including Palazo, Nardini and Egan said they would approve the conditional resolution while reserving judgment on any future tax increase absent confirmed state aid.

Votes and next steps: The resolution was read and then debated on the record; the board proceeded to vote on many routine contracts and agenda items afterward. The resolution lists the conditional levy authorization; the transcript records trustee debate and recorded individual votes during the meeting. The district intends to seek the state aid referenced in the resolution, and any formal tax increase would require a later, separate board vote if the state funding is received.

Votes at a glance (as recorded in the meeting transcript): - Resolution re: applicability of A4161 and conditional 99.9% levy: outcome — approved on the board’s recorded roll call and member statements during the meeting (individual roll-call tallies are recorded in the public minutes; the transcript includes member-level yes/no statements but not a single consolidated roll-call table in one place). - Agreement with Lakewood Student Transportation Authority (2024–25): approved (roll call recorded; some members voted no on certain items). - Termination/removal agreement for solar panels at Intermediate School South: approved (roll call recorded as yes). - Professional service contracts and insurance providers for 2024–25: professional contracts approved with some no votes on specific items; insurance policies approved. - Deposits to maintenance and capital reserves (up to $2M each): approved; clerical correction noted that the referenced school year should be 2023–24. - Board secretary’s report, personnel items (with listed recusals), educational agenda items, and multiple policy motions: approved as recorded with several selective no votes and recusals noted.

What is not specified: The meeting transcript contains recorded individual comments and many yes/no declarations, but the consolidated per-member roll-call table for each motion (in a single machine-readable block) is not always presented in an unambiguous block in the transcript provided here. Where the transcript text made per-member votes explicit, those were noted above; where the transcript’s roll-call details were fragmented, the board’s official minutes should be consulted for the formal roll-call record.

The board indicated it will continue discussions with state officials and the Department of Education; any actual tax increase would require subsequent procedural steps consistent with law and board policy.