Oakland board approves $450,000 tax-levy adjustment to restore staff, limit outside control

Oakland Board of Education members voted 7–1 on May 6 to adopt a budget adjustment using New Jersey’s tax levy incentive program that increases the district’s local tax levy by $450,000 (a 10.63% adjustment) and would restore staff and cover rising costs.

The measure matters because the board said failing to adopt an approved budget before state deadlines would transfer budget authority to the county superintendent and the New Jersey Department of Education. Board members and administrators repeatedly cited declines in state aid, increases in health-care and transportation costs and potential cuts to federal programs as reasons to use the state tax-levy incentive now.

Board President (unnamed) and Superintendent Dr. McDowell opened the public hearing explaining that the district applied first for the full amount the state allowed, then revised the application after internal discussion. “It’s a one-time opportunity to raise local tax levy and reduce budget deficits and potential funding shortfalls,” Dr. McDowell said during the presentation. The district said the revised application for $450,000 was approved by the state; the board’s vote tonight ratified that adjustment.

Business Administrator (unnamed) presented the revenue and line-item context: Oakland’s projected enrollment was increased by roughly 14 students for 2025–26 under the state’s five-year weighted average; the district reported a certified surplus of $399,000 to carry forward; the local tax levy on the agenda was $6,880,970. The district intends to withdraw $300,000 from tuition reserve, $102,000 from the maintenance reserve and $15,000 from the capital reserve to balance the budget. The presentation showed funding shares of about 64% local taxes and 27.7% state aid, with smaller shares from surplus, tuition and miscellaneous income.

The board and administration said the largest new line items funded by the levy adjustment are the restoration of two teaching positions cut in prior cycles, higher health-benefit costs and rising transportation and out-of-district tuition costs. “The two positions we are asking for would go towards targeted instruction for our students with IEPs, for our students who are struggling academically,” Dr. McDowell said. Administrators also warned that federal programs (including Title I and IDEA) and Medicaid reimbursements for some school-based services are uncertain, and cited a recently canceled multi-year mental-health grant in nearby Collingswood as an example of shifting grant priorities.

Several board members described the decision as difficult. Mr. Schaffer said he remained uncomfortable and voted no; others expressed hesitation but concluded the board should retain local control of budgeting. “If the budget is not approved, all budgeting decisions will then be turned over to the county superintendent and the Department of Education,” a board speaker said during the hearing. Multiple board members told the public they would pursue further review of administrative and non–student-facing costs even after approving the levy adjustment.

Board practice and next steps: Board members emphasized that the vote tonight approves the dollar amount and program participation; specific line-item allocations to account numbers are to be set by district administration, as permitted under current practice and Trenton’s guidance. The district noted it must file final budget documents with the state by the deadline the next day.

The vote on agenda item 4.01 passed on a roll call: yes — DeMarco, Faubel, Love, Marmion, Rotondo, Stotts, Taby; no — Schaffer. The board also recorded an earlier special-meeting roll call (April) that approved reapplication for $450,000 with seven in favor, one against and one absent. The board held two public-comment periods during the hearing and invited community feedback before finalizing line-item details.

The board said it will continue outreach for additional revenue streams and partnerships, monitor potential federal and state funding changes, and review administrative spending for longer-term sustainability.