LACEY – After months of debate, shifting numbers, and emotional appeals from parents, staff, and residents, the Lacey Township Board of Education voted June 4 to approve a final budget for the 2025-2026 school year that includes a 9.58 percent increase to the tax levy. The decision, made during a tense and lengthy board meeting, follows weeks of confusion and revisions that left many taxpayers struggling to understand the impact on their household budgets.
“They say third times a charm,” said Acting Superintendent William Zylinski, referring to multiple budget proposals submitted for board approval. The second version passed by a majority, but despite that approval, a third version still emerged – leaving many wondering why another revision was needed at all.
It appeared the district had settled on a 7.57 percent tax increase after adopting the amended tentative budget on May 1. That version was submitted to the Executive County Superintendent of Schools and received formal approval on May 8.
Meanwhile, changes at the state level made additional funding opportunities available to districts like Lacey. Under the proposed FY2026 New Jersey State Budget, Lacey qualified to apply to the Commissioner of Education to increase spending in order to access Tax Levy Incentive Aid (TLIA).
To be eligible, school districts must be considered both below their local fair share and below the state-defined adequacy level for education spending. These are both budget numbers put out by the State that determines what a budget should be and how much of it should come from taxpayers.
Lacey qualified under both categories and therefore was eligible to increase spending by as much as $17.5 million and qualify for up to $877,070 in TLIA. The district requested to raise expenditure by $4.1 million and qualify for $196,526 in aid, pending NJDOE approval.
This prompted yet another budget hearing at the Board’s May 15 meeting, leading to the final adoption of the revised plan on June 4.
Zylinski emphasized that the final amended budget adopted by the board reflects hard choices made to preserve essential services. The 9.58 tax increase is estimated to cost the average homeowner assessed at $288,906 about $33.94 more per month, or $407.25 annually.
The approved budget avoids the implementation of grade banding – a cost-saving measure that would have shifted students among elementary schools based on grade level rather than neighborhood zones. Instead, the district will maintain its current structure of three neighborhood elementary schools.
Still, Zylinski outlined the sacrifices the district must make under the approved plan: elimination of 17 teaching positions, two administrators, two custodians, four grounds workers, and two full-time paraprofessionals. The district has also deferred bus replacements and new curriculum purchases and will continue cost-saving measures like limiting courtesy busing. Attempts will also be made to sell property owned by the district with an estimated value of $400,000.
“We have not budgeted for any salary increases that are contractually obligated at this point,” added Zylinski. “Which includes the bulk of our employees.”
Deep Community Concerns
Several parents, teachers, and community members spoke passionately in favor of the budget, despite the tax increase, arguing that further cuts to staff and programs would harm students, particularly those with special needs. Multiple speakers emphasized that safety, supervision, and stability – especially in the elementary schools – must remain top priorities.
Kelly Brenner warned against the dangers of reducing administrative oversight at the elementary level, calling the supervision of young children during arrival and dismissal “crucial for ensuring student safety and well-being.” Another parent, Margaret Styciura, stressed the importance of stable classroom environments for all students, especially those with complex needs.
“What’s most alarming right now is the potential to move toward increasing class sizes well beyond what’s legally allowed,” Brenner said. “These caps are in place to protect the quality of instruction and ensure every student has access to meaningful support.”
Educators including Michael Ryan, president of the Lacey Township Education Association, expressed dismay over continued staff losses -163 over eight years – and argued that the board had no choice but to adopt the revised budget. “I’m not a fan of this budget,” Ryan said, “It’s not what we want, but this is something you have to do.”
Critics of the district and school board expressed outrage over the financial burden of a significant tax hike followed by last year’s similar increase. Denise from Forked River spoke on behalf of seniors and all others living on fixed incomes. “They do try to donate to the fire department,” she said. “They already told me, then, how are they going to do that?”
Former School Board Member Regina Discenza accused past board decisions of setting the district on an unsustainable course, citing employee raises over the 2 percent cap in prior contracts. She questioned whether the district was prioritizing athletics over academics and predicted further erosion of services like transportation and food service.
Community activist Richard Bidnick offered sharp criticism, labeling the board “dishonest” and “out of touch” with the 70 percent of Lacey households without school-aged children. He emphasized the need to “live within our means” and called for new leadership with experience in turning around underperforming districts. “I don’t like living in crisis mode,” Bidnick said, blaming a lack of long-term planning after the passage of state funding changes under S-2.
S-2 was the bill that cut funding to many local districts over the last seven years. Often, the district would not learn of the exact cuts until deep into their budget creation for the next year.
Board members acknowledged the emotional nature of the decision, while emphasizing the board’s ultimate responsibility to the children of Lacey. “It’s that sense of community and love that you have for your students and parents,” said Board Member Linda Walker, a retired educator. “You get involved with the teachers as well.”
The meeting ended with lingering tension as Cheryl Armato and Salvatore Armato cast the only votes against the budget, citing concerns over transparency. Cheryl questioned how the superintendent could predict five affirmative votes in a letter to the state, suggesting the use of a “straw poll” that could undermine public trust and violate open meeting laws. Board President Kim Klaus denied any pre-vote tallying and said board members were only contacted to gauge priorities after learning a revote was possible. “There was no straw polling,” Klaus said. “I was hoping we’d get five votes tonight.”
The post Lacey School Budget Gets 9.58% Tax Hike appeared first on Jersey Shore Online.