The Lacey Township Board of Education voted 5–2 on June 2 to adopt an amended 2025–26 school budget that district staff said carries a 9.58% tax-levy implication.

Superintendent Brzezinski told the board the amended budget reflects the district’s latest numbers and state-authorized options to make up revenue shortfalls. “This is still going to be painful,” Brzezinski said during the presentation, listing program and staff reductions the district expects if the budget is approved.

The change matters because the adopted levy will raise school property taxes for township residents and because the budget includes planned cuts to personnel and services. Brzezinski and the district’s business administrator, Sharon Ormsby, presented financial figures, and the board heard more than two hours of public comment before the vote.

Key provisions and numbers

- The superintendent described the adopted plan as reflecting a 9.58% tax-levy implication; board discussion and public comments also referred to the number as 9.9% in places.

- Brzezinski gave these funding figures during the presentation: a property-tax-based operating levy figure tied to a 3.15% statutory baseline of about $63,000,000; state aid of $7,700,000; and extraordinary aid of $803,000. She also said the district is pursuing a roughly $400,000 land sale and that a line item described as a “property tax application” is about $3,900,000 (this line was presented by district staff as a change from prior years).

- The superintendent said the total year-to-year budget would be up about 3.35% and that the district did not budget for any currently contractually required salary increases.

Planned operational and personnel impacts

Brzezinski listed specific cuts and operational limits that would be part of the adopted budget: elimination of 17 teaching positions; elimination of two administrator positions; cuts to support staff including two custodial positions, two full-time paraprofessionals, and four grounds workers; no new curriculum materials budgeted; no replacement buses planned; and limited courtesy busing for areas in walking zones (with Forked River School treated differently because of its location on Lacey Road). The superintendent said some school-level programming and “home school” orientations would be maintained if the levy was approved but repeatedly warned the district would face “pain” and operational constraints.

Public comment and community reaction

More than two dozen residents, staff and community leaders addressed the board. Speakers included parents, teachers, and township officials who expressed a mix of support for protecting student services and concern about the size of the tax increase.

- Denise, a resident, said seniors would be hit hard and asked the board to “look in your heart” about the increase. (Public comment transcript identifies her only by first name.)

- Kelly Brenner, a parent, urged the board to retain a dedicated elementary supervisor at each of the district’s three elementary schools to preserve safety, supervision and testing administration.

- Brandon Hurley and others emphasized the long-term consequences of repeated cuts, saying the community must pursue mitigation and corrective plans if the budget passes.

- Several speakers — including Richard Bidnick of Lacey Citizens for Responsible Government — criticized the board for repeating large increases and urged fiscal restraint. Other speakers, including teachers and parents, thanked the board and administrators for their work and warned that cutting paraprofessionals and custodial staff would harm students and operations.

Local officials also spoke. Deputy Mayor Stephen Kennes said the loss from the power plant closure had been minimal so far and clarified how assessed-value changes affect municipal receipts. Members of the township committee and other elected leaders urged collaboration to find long-term solutions.

Board discussion and vote

Board members spoke in several rounds of comment. Board member Armato said he opposed the increase, stating, “I’m opposed to it.” Several other board members emphasized the difficulty of the decision and the need for stability so staff can plan for next year. Board President Claus and others argued that failing to adopt a budget could trigger state involvement and greater uncertainty.

The formal motion to adopt the 2025–26 school budget was moved and seconded during the meeting (the transcript does not record the mover or seconder by full name). A roll-call vote recorded five yes votes and two no votes: Armato and Mrs. Armato voted no; Peters, Bell, Walker, Connerty and Claus voted yes. The motion carried.

What the vote does and next steps

- Outcome: The budget was approved by a 5–2 vote.

- Effect on taxpayers: District speakers provided sample household impacts using district assessment figures; superintendent Brzezinski presented an “average” assessment of $288,906 and showed monthly payment estimates for assessment tiers, but the exact monthly amounts depend on individual assessments and the final equalization/municipal calculations.

- Implementation risks: Board members and the superintendent warned that without additional long-term state support or structural changes the district could face repeated budget crises in future years. The superintendent and board were urged repeatedly in public comments to press the state’s legislative leadership and to organize sustained local advocacy.

Votes at a glance

- Adoption of 2025–26 school year budget — Passed, roll call: Peters, Bell, Walker, Connerty, Claus — yes; Armato, Mrs. Armato — no. (5–2)

The board closed the meeting after a motion to adjourn. The superintendent and district staff will post the final budget documents online as described during the presentation.