With an enrollment of a little over 120 students, Frelinghuysen Township School is small. Its Board of Education meetings generally see few attendees.
So the presence of the modest but alert crowd that had gathered for the May 13 Board of Education meeting immediately conveyed that something was out of the ordinary.
The official agenda items were few and positive. Chief School Administrator Jarlyn Veras celebrated school staff in recognition of Teacher Appreciation Week and thanked the PTO for their efforts to make the occasion special.
The school had its first-ever Career Day on May 15 and looks forward to the May 20 and 21 performance dates of “Seussical the Musical.”
Board’s explanation of the budget sparks confusion and accusations
Those and the other agenda items took about 10 minutes to finish. The final item on the agenda lasted three times as long: public comment.
For half an hour, the larger-than-usual assemblage of Frelinghuysen residents spoke to the board with strong concerns about the recently approved budget for the 2026–2027 school year and the way it was communicated to the public.
One major focus of disagreement was a letter that the district mailed to Frelinghuysen residents dated April 13.
That April letter, signed by the Frelinghuysen Township School Board of Education, first detailed the school’s successes in programming and student achievement. It went on to describe the school’s fiscal challenges, brought on by years of reduced state aid and rising costs outside of the district’s control, such as sharp spikes in staff health benefits costs and tuition for the nearby charter school. So far, so understandable.
The trouble came down to two sentences about halfway through the letter: “To ensure the continued operation of our school and the delivery of a thorough and efficient education, the board is anticipating approving a 3.2% increase in the local tax levy plus the local share of preschool in the amount of $261,792. The combination of these two items equates to a $9.44 increase per month per $100,000 of assessed value.”
FTS is no stranger to tax increases after years of increasing costs and decreasing state aid. In the past, its budget presentations have varied in their explanations of the tax levy. Frelinghuysen’s public hearing for the 24–25 budget displayed the tax levy increase as a total dollar amount for the township, as well as the estimated impact on individuals’ taxes based on the average property assessment. That impact was expressed twice, once as a yearly dollar amount and once as a monthly dollar amount.
The April 2026 letter used some but not all of these explanation strategies, leading to confusion. As local residents Crea Mallery and George Allaman said during public comment, many residents read the letter and assumed their taxes would increase by a total of 3.2% this year—larger than the standard 2% allowed, but still pretty small.
Unfortunately, the most common understanding of the letter was also incomplete. FTS’ budget for next school year will include two changes in the tax levy, not just one.
The first change is the one that everyone understands: The general fund tax levy will increase by 3.2% next school year.
The second change lies in that $261,792 figure. This is the Allowable Local Share that FTS must pay for its three-year preschool expansion program. In the first year of the program, the 25–26 school year, the state government covered all expenses. In the 26–27 school year, the second year, the state will cover only $174,528 using a budgeting formula outlined in the letter. That leaves FTS to foot the rest of the bill. FTS draws most of its funding from the local tax levy—and so, that must be the funding source for the school’s share of the preschool program.
So, next year’s tax levy for FTS will include both an increase in the general fund school levy as well as additional taxes for the preschool expansion. If FTS had expressed the combined tax increase for next year as a total dollar amount, it would have listed the total school levy for next year’s budget: $3,004,884. That’s $350,049 greater than last year’s total school levy, an increase of 13.19%.
To someone expecting a 3.2% tax increase, that’s a much larger number. The letter’s wording raised suspicions in some residents, who called it “deceiving” and “misleading.”
Why the confusing explanation was also accurate
Board president Kim Neuffer said that she took “full responsibility” for the letter while contending that there was no ill intent in its wording.
The goal of the letter, she argued, was clarity. In previous years, residents had complained about a lack of forewarning from the school board when it raised taxes. She’d hoped the letter, sent prior to the school’s public budget hearing, would proactively address and prevent similar complaints this year.
Some residents saw underhanded intent in the letter’s separation of the 3.2% increase in the general fund school levy and the $261,792 amount for the preschool program. Regardless of intention, there was a logistical requirement for separating the two amounts: the preschool funds are not part of the general tax levy.
Why does that matter? An increase in the general fund tax levy would create a permanent increase for later budgets. Imagine tax levy increases like compounding interest: If a ridiculously small school budget of $100 increases by 10%, its budget would go up by $10. The tiny school would enter its next year with a total budget of $110. If another 10% increase happens the year after that, the budget would go up by $11—a larger amount, since the 10% is now coming out of a larger number.
To follow this analogy, that 3.2% increase in FTS’ general school levy will compound; it will permanently increase the size of the school’s tax levy. The $261,792 additional funding for the preschool program will not; it is an expense specific to 26-27 that will not otherwise affect future finances. The difference is vital for accounting and accuracy.
All the same, residents argued, describing the general fund tax levy as an annual percentage and the total household impact as a monthly number created unnecessary confusion, leading some to lose trust in the board.
What’s next: staying afloat, hopes to avoid similar increases next year
One feature of the preschool expansion program is that state funds given for the purpose can be used for other school expenses. That’s how FTS plans to allocate most of the $174,528 funding from the state.
Both tax draws were necessary, Neuffer argued. “If we didn’t take this route, we would have cut over $200,000 from our budget. That would have been devastating to this district. I understand that it’s a huge tax increase, and it’s not ideal. We don’t want to do it any more than anybody else.”
There isn’t much to cut from the district, according to 40-year board member David Hocking. The school has one teacher per grade, one part-time art teacher, and one part-time gym teacher, for an idea of its staffing.
Does this mean the preschool program will lead to another substantial tax bill in 27–28, its third and final year? While the answer isn’t certain in advance, there’s a concrete reason for optimism based on how the state determines program costs.
The total cost of a school’s preschool program is set by its “universe”—an estimate of the number of local children eligible for the program. The “universe” number isn’t determined by actually counting three- and four-year-olds in the area. Instead, it’s guessed by doubling current first-grade enrollment.
Next year, Veras estimates that first-grade enrollment will be lower. This would lower Frelinghuysen’s “universe,” including the total cost of the preschool program. She also said that this past school year also saw financial pressure from unexpected expenses that the district does not expect next year.
“There’s a very high chance that the following year we could sustain the program with some of our own funding,” Veras said.
Some attending residents pointed to Frelinghuysen’s higher proportion of seniors. People 65+ comprise about 26% of Frelinghuysen’s population, a rate that’s 1.5 times higher than that of New Jersey, according to Census Reporter. Restricted to a fixed income, Frelinghuysen’s disproportionately high population of seniors are especially pressured by tax increases. At the same time, cuts in state and federal aid leave FTS with few other choices for funding.
The difficult situation led some present to consider more drastic options.
“As a senior in this town of 48 years, when I look at that, I say to myself, how do we continue with such a low enrollment?” said resident Doris Poyer. “And trust me, I was never one to say regionalize, but I’m starting to think this is not sustainable. Not on the backs of taxpayers.”
Frelinghuysen’s next Board of Education meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, May 27.
Chip O'Chang is an educator, fiction writer, and lifelong resident of New Jersey. He has also written for My Life Publications and NJ Indy. He lives in the NJ Skylands with his partner, two cats, and and a bearded dragon.
- Chip O'Chang, Contributing Writerhttps://ridgeviewecho.com/author/chip-ochang-contributing-writer/
- Chip O'Chang, Contributing Writerhttps://ridgeviewecho.com/author/chip-ochang-contributing-writer/
- Chip O'Chang, Contributing Writerhttps://ridgeviewecho.com/author/chip-ochang-contributing-writer/
- Chip O'Chang, Contributing Writerhttps://ridgeviewecho.com/author/chip-ochang-contributing-writer/
