Hillsborough's 2026 Budget and Your Tax Bill, Explained

The short version

Hillsborough’s 2026 municipal budget is $43,065,948.77. It raises $30,755,662.73 in property taxes for municipal purposes, $2,330,780.63 (8.20%) more than in 2025.
The municipal tax rate went from 0.314 to 0.322 per $100 of assessed value. The whole general rate, including school and county, went from 2.160 to 2.232.
The Township Committee adopted the budget on June 23, 2026 by Resolution R-217-2026, 4–1. Two earlier steps were split: an emergency spending resolution failed on February 24 for lack of the four votes the law requires, and the cap ordinance passed 3–1.
The school levy is about two-thirds of the bill. The Board of Education, an elected body separate from the Committee, sets it.
Hillsborough reassesses every property every year under a state-approved program. Reassessment shifts shares of the levy among owners; the budgets set the total.

Who sets each part of your bill

Each body adopts its own budget, and the county tax board turns the levies into rates. The rate is each levy divided by the town’s total assessed value.

Part of the rate (per $100)	2025	2026	Set by
School (district)	1.455	1.530	Hillsborough Board of Education
County	0.293	0.284	Somerset County
County library	0.039	0.037	Somerset County
County open space	0.031	0.031	Somerset County
Municipal purpose	0.314	0.322	Township Committee
Municipal open space	0.028	0.028	Township Committee
General tax rate	2.160	2.232
Effective tax rate	2.083	2.167

Fire district taxes are added on top; the 2026 fire levy is $5,328,324. Sources: the county’s 2026 rate sheet and the 2025 Abstract of Ratables.

The 2026 Abstract of Ratables lists the levies behind those rates: school $145,884,174.00, municipal $30,755,662.73, county $27,051,827.40, county library $3,564,120.92 and county open space $2,947,078.66, for a total of $212,873,466.55. In 2025 the school levy on the abstract was $131,874,143.00 and the municipal levy $28,424,882.10.

For the average home (LocalWhy’s arithmetic from the township’s average assessments of $594,089 in 2025 and $628,012 in 2026, and the county’s rates; fire district tax not included):

	2025	2026	Change
School	$8,643.99	$9,608.58	+$964.59
County, library and county open space	$2,156.54	$2,210.60	+$54.06
Municipal purpose	$1,865.44	$2,022.20	+$156.76
Municipal open space	$166.34	$175.84	+$9.50
Total	$12,832.32	$14,017.23	+$1,184.91 (9.2%)

The township’s user-friendly budget, which uses the budget’s unrounded 0.3225 rate, gives the municipal figure as $1,865.44 → $2,028.48 (+$163.04). When the budget was introduced, Patch reported (April 30, 2026) that, “using an average home value of $628,000,” the budget presenter said “the tax rate increase would have about a $56 annual impact.” The two figures are as each source gives them; the April minutes do not record a per-home figure. A single home’s bill moves with its own assessment: the average assessment rose about 5.7%, so a home whose assessment rose less saw a smaller increase than this, and one that rose more saw a larger one.

The 2026 municipal budget

	2025	2026
Total appropriations	$41,172,909.84	$43,065,948.77 (+4.60%)
Amount raised by local taxes	$28,424,882.10	$30,755,662.73 (+8.20%)
Municipal rate (budget table)	0.3140	0.3225
Total assessed value	$9,062,678,900	$9,537,867,300 (+5.24%)
Employees	188 full-time, 35 part-time	178 full-time, 35 part-time

The introduced budget, posted April 29, would have raised $30,792,776.73, an increase of 8.33%, often reported as “8.3%”. The June amendment lowered it to the adopted figure. The county certified the 2026 municipal rate at 0.322.

Where the increase came from, per the user-friendly budget’s comparison with 2025:

Spending up: insurance +$513,684.14 (+10.73%); statutory expenditures such as pensions and Social Security +$473,326 (+9.05%); the reserve for uncollected taxes +$368,627.72.
Spending down: capital −$405,000 (−47.65%).
Revenue down: surplus used −$180,000; local revenues −$693,243; and the 2025 transfer of $868,132 from the Open Space Trust Fund, which does not recur.
Revenue flat: state aid of $3,307,586 (Energy Receipts Tax $3,290,868; Garden State Trust $16,718).
Revenue new: $378,000 from the Municipal Utilities Authority (below).

The 2% levy cap. Separate from the appropriations cap below, state law caps the levy increase at 2% after allowed exclusions. The adopted budget’s cap sheet shows a maximum allowable levy of $30,757,588.34 and an actual levy $1,925.61 under it. The exclusions include health insurance ($377,780), pensions ($417,611), debt service and capital leases ($795,499) and emergencies ($380,272).

How the budget passed

The minutes of these meetings name members only when someone votes no, abstains or is absent. Where every member’s vote can be read from the record, it is given in full below.

Date	Action	Result
Jan 6	Temporary budget (R-14-2026), $13,000,000. The state limit is 35% of 2025 appropriations net of debt and capital, $13,004,568.44	Unanimous, on the consent agenda
Feb 24	Emergency temporary appropriations of $5,389,987.00 (R-90-2026, Consent #4). N.J.S.A. 40A:4-20 requires “a 2/3 vote of the full membership”, four of five	Failed, 3–2 (Payne, Lipani, Britting yes; Gomez, Hand no)
Mar 4 (special)	Revised emergency appropriation, $5,156,987.00, bringing temporary spending to $18,156,987.00	Passed 4–0 (Hand absent)
Apr 28	Ordinance 2026-05 (cap bank) introduced	4–1 (Payne, Lipani, Britting, Gomez yes; Hand no)
Apr 28	Motion to let the public ask questions on the budget presentation	Failed 2–3 (Gomez, Hand yes; Payne, Lipani, Britting no)
Apr 28	2026 budget introduced; hearing set for May 26	4–1 (Payne, Lipani, Britting, Gomez yes; Hand no)
Apr 28	Further emergency appropriation, $2,155,310.68 (total $20,312,297.68)	Approved; no dissent recorded
May 26	Ordinance 2026-05 adopted	3–1 (Payne, Lipani, Britting yes; Hand no; Gomez absent)
May 26	Budget hearing held; adoption postponed	—
May 26	Further emergency appropriation, $1,224,700 (total $21,536,997.68), less $3,200, the members’ June Committee salary, on Hand’s proposal	Minutes: resolution unanimous, then the amendment (Hand, seconded by Britting) approved; the video shows one vote on the resolution “minus $3,200” (Gomez absent)
June 9	Budget amendment introduced; hearing set for June 23	Minutes say “unanimously approved”; see below for the video
June 23	Budget adopted as amended, R-217-2026	4–1 (Payne, Lipani, Britting, Gomez yes; Hand no)

The June 23 vote comes from the state budget filing. The minutes of June 23 had been approved but were not posted as of October 29, 2026. The adopted budget’s Sheet 41, in the budget the Clerk certified as finally adopted on June 23, records the vote by name: ayes Payne, Lipani, Britting and Gomez; nay Hand; none abstaining or absent. The state’s own certification date is blank in the posted copy.

The June 9 tally. The minutes record the amendment’s introduction as “unanimously approved upon the call of the roll”, and they record Committeewoman Hand, in the discussion afterward, as saying she “cannot support the introduction of the amended budget for the second time.” On the township’s video (Part 2, 13:48) the roll call comes before the discussion: Britting, Gomez, Lipani and Payne answer yes; when Hand’s name is called she asks whether questions will still be taken after the vote, and the exchange that follows includes a “yes” that the captions do not attribute to a speaker.

Why the May 26 adoption was postponed. The minutes record the Mayor stating that the lead finance liaison was not present and that “we received late notice from the State regarding a necessary amendment,” which needed public notice and a hearing, and relaying that the state’s comments arrived late on Saturday, May 23.

What members said

Members disagreed on the record. Their stated reasons, in their own words where the minutes quote them:

On the February 24 emergency appropriation. The township attorney told members mid-vote that it needed two-thirds. On the meeting video he says, “So you’re going to have to notify the CFO. He’s not going to be able to pay certain bills,” and the Administrator says it “could be an issue with having things shut off” (the minutes record these as the CFO “will not be able to pay certain bills” and “this could be an issue with keeping the township running and being able to pay the bills”). Committeewoman Hand said the township can set aside 35% of the budget; on the video she says it “is supposed to get us through April. So we shouldn’t have emergency appropriations” (in the minutes’ wording, “which should last until April. Therefore there should not be emergency appropriations”), and that emergency appropriations should cover “specific bills that are due.” Deputy Mayor Lipani said some costs cannot go into the budget until the numbers arrive, such as about $5 million in PERS and PFRS pension payments, plus about $80,000 in payroll per snowstorm and extra salt. On the video the same remarks continue to the no votes: “I believe this is a complete political ploy.” The minutes do not record that remark, and the captions do not name the speaker; the minutes attribute the cost explanation in the same passage to Lipani.

On the March 4 revision. Committeewoman Gomez said she and Committeewoman Hand had voted no on February 24 (Payne, Lipani and Britting voted yes); the statute requires two-thirds, which on a five-member committee is four votes. The minutes record that she then met the Administrator and CFO and “made amendments cutting line items”; on the township’s video she says the cuts came to “almost a quarter of a million dollars.” Asked by Committeeman Britting why about $200,000 for police operating expenses was removed, she said the CFO had told her it was a buffer not needed right now (the minutes: “because it was a buffer and not needed for anything immediately, according to CFO Bushnell”), and that she had not spoken to the Chief. The minutes record that she and Committeewoman Hand “want to pay for things due right now” and expected further emergency appropriations as other items came due, and that Deputy Mayor Lipani said “the line items are not additional taxes or discretionary expenses” and would need to be added back. The revised total was $233,000 less than the February version.

The minutes of March 4 record that the Mayor “clarified that the CFO has not yet started the 2026 budget but does not foresee a tax increase for the residents.” Later that night, in public comment, the minutes record, the Mayor “further stated that the prior substantial tax increase was from the Board of Education.” On the video she tells a resident that the substantial increase he mentioned was the Board of Education’s, not the township’s. The budget introduced April 28 raised the municipal levy 8.33%. The budget adopted June 23 raised it 8.20%, to $30,755,662.73, and the municipal rate went from 0.314 to 0.322.

On the budget itself. The minutes of the May 26 hearing record Deputy Mayor Lipani stating that “this year was a difficult budget, most of which was out of their control,” that “health care costs went up over 20%” and that the budget “removes services to the community”; on the video he says health-care costs rose “20 plus%.” The minutes record Committeeman Britting explaining that “the township started the year $870,000 in the hole going into pension payments and higher insurance costs” (on the video he gives about $870,000 to $900,000), and that the 8.3% increase applies only to the municipal portion. The minutes record that Committeewoman Hand “read a comment into the record by absent Committeewoman Gomez.” On the township’s video, Gomez’s statement says the surplus fund stood at over $6 million in 2021 and ended 2025 below $3 million, and that the township’s S&P credit rating had been downgraded, raising the interest rate on its debt. On June 9 the minutes record Committeewoman Hand saying her opposition rested on “concerns of the immediate impact on residents and the long-term budget issues” and on the senior-chapter cut, and that the Committee should look at consultant and legal fees; the Mayor said she agreed with her on that. On the video Hand says the budget “increases the local tax levy by 8.3% this year,” that the levy “has increased by more than 37% over the past three years, nearly 50% over the past four years,” and that the larger issue is “increased spending, rising debt obligations, and the continued draw down of our surplus reserves.” Committeewoman Gomez said she shared Hand’s concerns; she voted for the budget on June 23.

The cap ordinance (Ordinance 2026-05)

The Local Government Cap Law limits the increase in a town’s appropriations to 2% “unless authorized by ordinance to increase it to 3.5%.” Ordinance 2026-05 raises 2026 appropriations “by 3.5%, amounting to $1,186,121.02,” which is “$508,337.58 in excess of the increase … otherwise permitted.” Any unused amount is banked for the next two years.

The two figures fit: $1,186,121.02 is 3.5% of the prior-year cap base of $33,889,172.10, and $508,337.58 is the part above 2% (LocalWhy’s arithmetic from the adopted budget). This cap limits spending; it is separate from the 2% levy cap above. At the May 26 hearing, the minutes record, the Mayor explained that the ordinance “is to establish the cap bank and not on the actual budget.”

The senior-chapter funding

The 2025 budget gave “Contribution to Senior Citizens Organizations” $31,000, which the Mayor said was $15,500 to each of the two senior chapters. The introduced 2026 budget had $0. The minutes name 13 members of the public who spoke at the May 26 hearing, most of them on the senior-chapter cut. The June amendment set the line at $1.00.

The minutes record the Mayor replying on May 26 that “it has been against the law to give money directly to the senior chapters.” On the township’s video she says it “was actually against state law that we were giving it to you in the first place,” and reads the state constitution’s bar on appropriations “to or for the use of any society, association or corporation whatever.”
The minutes record the township attorney stating the same night that “there is nothing that prohibits appropriation for senior services; it is giving the money directly to the clubs that is the problem.”
On June 9, as the minutes record it, the Administrator called the $1 “a place holder to allow for money to be potentially placed back in at the end of the year,” and said “the legal/illegality of providing money is no longer the issue.”

Members gave differing accounts on the record of how the line came to be removed, as the minutes record them:

Date	Who	What the minutes record
May 26	Mayor Payne	”it has been against the law to give money directly to the senior chapters”
May 26	Committeewoman Hand	”Committeewoman Gomez did not remove funding for the seniors. It was removed from the budget when the liaisons received it to review”; and “the CFO discovered the potential illegality of providing the senior chapters money directly”
May 26	Deputy Mayor Lipani and Committeewoman Gomez	”questioned that issue” (the potential illegality)
May 26	Committeeman Britting	listed “decreases in senior programs” among three items he “finds very frustrating”
June 9	Committeewoman Gomez	”did not advocate for the removal of funding for the senior chapters”; she had reached out to Congresswoman Coleman and the Rotary Club as potential funding sources
June 9	Deputy Mayor Lipani	Gomez “ran her campaign on affordability yet taxes were increased, lost employees, cut social services, and took money away from the senior groups”; he “took exception to Committeewoman Gomez taking credit for the Rotary Club donation,” and that as a Rotarian he had “quietly reached out to the Administration office 3 weeks ago without any intention of announcing it to the public”

The minutes record no reply from Gomez to Lipani’s June 9 remarks. On the video (Part 2, 44:07) Gomez replies that she also spoke to the president of the Rotary Club, and says she was “simply trying to inform the public.” Earlier on the video she says, “To be clear, I never asked for the funding to be removed,” and the Mayor says she had received an email with Gomez’s signature saying the funding could not be given on legal grounds. On July 28 Foothill Acres donated $10,000, split equally between the two chapters at the donor’s request. On September 8 the Committee created a Community Partner Grant Advisory Committee (R-288-2026) to award donor-funded grants to local groups. Whether the chapters have received any of those grants is not in the record.

The MUA payment

In 2026 the Hillsborough Municipal Utilities Authority (HMUA), the township’s sewer authority, transferred $378,688 from its reserves to the township.

The township asked for it in a letter dated January 21, 2026.
On February 11 the HMUA amended its 2026 budget (Res. #26-0211-15), adding a “Municipal Appropriation” of $378,688 and raising its appropriations from $7,573,750 to $7,952,438.
On March 25 it approved the transfer (Res. #26-0325-01).
State law (N.J.S.A. 40A:5A-12.1) lets an authority give the town that created it surplus “not to exceed 5% of the annual costs of operation.” The payment is exactly 5% of $7,573,750, rounded.
The township budget books it as “MUA Surplus, $378,000.00.” The 2025 budget had no such item.

Judy Haas of Titus Court asked about it on April 28. The township attorney said the payment is expressly authorized by state statute. The minutes record Committeewoman Hand saying the township “sent a letter to the MUA asking for a 5 percent contribution, which does not happen every year,” and the Administrator saying “it has happened in the past, the state allows it, and the committee asked for it.” On the township’s video Hand also says the letter was sent on behalf of the Township Committee, which had not discussed or voted on it, and that she learned of it the day it was sent; she was told from the dais that the matter had come before the Committee and she had voted yes.

Annual reassessment

Hillsborough reassesses every property every year. The state’s list of approved revaluations and reassessments includes Hillsborough (district 1810) every year from 2017 through 2026, under N.J.A.C. 18:12A-1.14. The county’s 2026 equalization table flags 16 of Somerset’s 21 municipalities, Hillsborough among them, as reassessment towns. The July 28 minutes record the township attorney saying the program “is done throughout Somerset County.”

How close to market: the county’s 2026 ratio for Hillsborough is 97.21% (2025: 96.72%).
What it does: the assessor’s page says “the overall tax rate typically does not increase during an annual reassessment program unless budgets of all or any of the Government entities have increased.” Reassessment moves shares of the levy between owners; the levies set the total.
Inspections: the township says interior inspections run on a five-year rolling cycle.

The school budget and state aid

The Hillsborough Board of Education’s 2026–27 budget is $181,752,725, with a general-fund tax levy of $146,455,968, 1.31% more than in 2025–26 (NJ Department of Education summary). State aid to the district for 2026–27 is $16,858,333, $519,761 (2.99%) less than the year before. The township’s own state aid is flat at $3,307,586. The tax bill is calendar-year, so the school levy on it blends two school years.

Patch reported (May 1, 2026) that the Board of Education adopted the 2026–27 budget “Thursday night” on “a 5-4 vote with Board members Ehrenkrantz, Jackson, Trujillo, and Davis voting no,” after Board member Paul Marini proposed removing four line items, which he said “would leave the district at a 1.31 percent increase.” Patch did not name the five members who voted yes, and LocalWhy has not seen the Board’s minutes of that meeting.

R-300-2026. On September 22 the Committee passed a resolution “urging the New Jersey Legislature to reform school funding and municipal aid, fund state mandates, and authorize development impact fees.” A motion by Committeewoman Gomez to table it got no second. It passed 3–0–1: Payne, Lipani and Britting yes; Gomez abstaining; Hand absent. It asks the state to:

reform school funding and municipal aid “so that Hillsborough taxpayers receive a fair and adequate level of State support”;
let towns charge “reasonable development impact fees to fund schools and other infrastructure”;
stop unfunded mandates and fund existing ones; and
distribute aid “based on the demonstrated needs of each community, without regard to the political affiliation of any municipality or its elected officials.”

Its findings cite “more than $465,100” in unfunded state-mandate costs identified for the 2027 municipal budget. The resolution has no fiscal effect of its own, and no state reply is on record. Committeeman Britting said it “is bringing awareness to the public”; the minutes do not record the reasons the Mayor and Deputy Mayor gave, or the questions Committeewoman Gomez asked.

The Mayor’s property-tax pledge

Patch reported (June 25, 2026) that Mayor Payne signed the “Mayor’s Pledge for Property Tax Relief,” which, she said, is “formally calling on the governor and state Legislature to fully restore our Energy Tax Receipts and increase municipal aid.” Patch quoted her at that week’s Tuesday Committee meeting: “Hillsborough is facing skyrocketing costs due to inflation, rising utilities, healthcare, and insurance,” “alongside expensive new state mandates like stormwater management,” and, from a township release, “Property taxpayers deserve meaningful relief, and that relief must begin with a stronger commitment from the State.” The June 23 minutes are not yet posted, so LocalWhy has not checked the pledge against the record. The township’s Energy Receipts Tax aid is $3,290,868 in both 2025 and 2026.

Residents’ response

Residents raised taxes at many Committee meetings in 2026. The minutes name 13 members of the public who spoke at the May 26 budget hearing, most of them on the senior-chapter cut. At the July 28 meeting, after estimated tax bills went out in July, about a dozen speakers raised tax bills, affordability and the annual reassessment; one, Shansha Kur, asked to pause the reassessment program. Patch and the Hillsborough Beacon reported Aleicia Uccardi’s claim that a new residents’ group had grown to “over 500 residents” in a week; that figure is the speaker’s own and has not been verified. On August 25 the township posted written answers to the questions (“Questions from Public Answered”), and on August 12 the Mayor, the County Tax Administrator and the Tax Assessor discussed the program in a video the Beacon reported on.

Debt the budget carries

The Mindel tract note: $13,055,443 at 3%, due November 11, 2026, partly serviced from the Open Space Trust. See Mindel tract.
The SCIA lease-purchase: $1,460,000 in 2026. See Belle Mead depot.
Old capital costs: the adopted budget adds $200,000 for a deferred charge under Ordinance 2009-15. The 2025 audit’s corrective action plan, approved unanimously on September 8, says projects under Ordinances 2008-49 and 2009-15 were finished without the debt being fully issued, and that “amounts will be raised in future budget(s)” to fund them. LocalWhy reads the $200,000 as the first such amount; the budget does not say so.

What is not known

The June 23 minutes: the discussion and any motions before adoption.
The purpose of the $350,000 in “adopted emergencies” and the $380,272 emergency exclusion.
What the “late notice from the State regarding a necessary amendment” said; no state letter has been found.
Whether any senior-chapter money was restored by a year-end transfer.
When the 2027 budget will be introduced, and how the “$465,100” mandate estimate was refined.
The appeal deadline. The township’s August 25 answers say appeals are due “by April 1 of each tax year.” The Division of Taxation’s guide says appeals are due April 1, “or May 1 where a municipal revaluation or reassessment has been implemented.” Ask the county board before relying on either.

What residents can do

Read the filings. The introduced and adopted budgets, the user-friendly budget, audits and debt statements are on the township’s financial documents page.
Speak at the budget hearing. The budget is introduced and then heard at a later meeting, where “objections to said Budget and Tax Resolution may be presented by taxpayers or other interested persons.”
Check your assessment. Compare it with recent sales and, if it looks too high, appeal to the Somerset County Board of Taxation. An appeal concerns the assessment, not the rate.
Follow the school budget at Board of Education meetings and elections; the Committee has no authority over it.
Apply for state relief. Residents 65 and older, and those receiving Social Security disability benefits, apply for the Senior Freeze, ANCHOR and Stay NJ programs on one form, the PAS-1; the finance liaison reminded residents on August 25 that it is due November 2, 2026.