Toms River board, citing multimillion-dollar state aid shortfall, authorizes lawsuit and submits tentative budget

Toms River, N.J. — The Toms River Regional School District on July 3 presented a tentative 2024–25 budget that administrators said leaves the district $26.5 million short for the coming school year and reflects cumulative state funding losses they put at about $137 million over several years. Superintendent Michael Sid said the district had exhausted reserves and “used all of our surplus and reserves” and warned the shortfall could force cuts to staff and programs.

“This district is $26.5 million short on its budget to complete the 24–25 school year,” the superintendent said, calling the state’s actions the cause of the revenue crisis and urging the community to lobby Trenton. He added that the funding changes combined with a statutory cap on local levy increases meant the district could not raise local revenue to close the gap.

Why it matters: Board members and local officials said the shortfall could mean program eliminations, hundreds of positions lost and steep tax increases if alternative funding is not secured. At the meeting, administrators and elected officials framed the issue as a dispute over the state's school-funding formulas and the limits placed on local levy increases.

Board attorney William Burns, who addressed meeting attendees after the superintendent, said district leaders had pursued state and legislative channels but would also pursue legal remedies. “The district has been working with members of the state legislature, the commissioner of Education, the Department of Education, the governor staff … in an attempt to secure the minimum funding needed,” Burns said, and the board has retained outside counsel to “exhaust all legal remedies for the district.”

The board adopted a resolution authorizing the Bush Law Group and Hartman Duff LLC to commence litigation in state or federal court against the State of New Jersey, including departments, boards and political subdivisions, to seek redress for damages that, the resolution says, were caused by the state’s actions or inactions. The motion to authorize counsel (mover: Kidney; second: Plaza) was recorded and approved with multiple members voting yes.

Public reaction: Several local elected officials and residents who spoke during public comment urged vigorous advocacy. Assemblyman Paul Kitra (10th Legislative District) praised the board’s stance and accused Trenton of prioritizing political choices in the budget process: “What we have here is a budget that is fully reflective of the majority party’s priorities,” he said. Lawrence Coio, identified as mayor of Pine Beach, said residents are fearful about large tax increases and program losses.

Board deliberations and votes: Board members publicly explained their votes during the meeting. Several members—including Capone, Nardini, Ean and others—said they would vote no on the tentative budget as proposed because they said it relied on unsustainable options such as selling assets or imposing near-100% levy increases; those members nevertheless thanked administrators for their work. The transcript records multiple board members declaring a vote of “no” on the budget; the meeting also included the formal motion to submit the tentative budget to the county office (mover: Nordini; second: Kidney). The board then moved to authorize litigation and approved the resolution to retain outside counsel.

What the board authorized: The resolution gives the named law firms authority to “take all action necessary and proper to commence litigation in state and/or federal courts against the State of New Jersey” to seek remedies for the district’s alleged damages. The board identified the Bush Law Group (including Hope Blackburn) and Hartman Duff LLC as counsel to pursue those claims.

What’s next: The board urged residents to contact state elected officials and the governor, and it said it will pursue litigation and continue advocacy in Trenton while preparing to open schools in September. The board adjourned after a final round of public comment.

Reporting notes: The board’s presentation repeatedly referenced state law and the so-called S2 legislation as contributing to funding reductions; the transcript records those references but does not include a response from state officials. Where the record shows a numeric figure (for example, the $26.5 million shortfall or the board’s estimate of roughly $137 million in cumulative cuts), the article attributes those amounts to the district’s presentation or the board attorney.