Evesham board agrees to seek extra local tax levy to close $15 million adequacy gap; vote stops short of deciding amount

The Evesham Township School District Board of Education voted April 14 to submit an application to the state for additional local tax levy authority after Superintendent Dr. Smith told the board the district is approximately $15,000,000 below the state’s adequacy calculation.

Dr. Smith opened the public presentation by saying the state’s recently updated adequacy numbers created a unique opportunity for districts that fall below adequacy to raise local levy “up to that full amount” and that Evesham could seek roughly $14.9 million (the district’s recommended figure), to bring the district to adequacy. “This is our fourth budget meeting within about the last two months,” Dr. Smith said. “We are 15,000,000 below adequacy.”

Why it matters: The board’s vote to submit the application preserves the district’s ability to ask voters — through the local tax levy application to the state — for extra, recurring local revenue aimed at restoring program cuts, shoring up capital maintenance and starting to address long-term facilities needs. The board’s action does not itself set a final dollar amount; it authorizes staff to prepare budget scenarios for the board’s April 28 final budget vote.

Most important facts

- The board passed agenda item 6.1 — to submit the application acknowledging eligibility for the additional levy authority — by roll call. Several members said “yes — all” and several said “yes — some,” indicating there was not unanimity about asking for the full available amount. The motion was made by Board member Michael Thompson and seconded by Board member Butromowicz.

- Administration outlined three “buckets” of uses if local levy authority is taken: (1) restore previously proposed staffing and program cuts, (2) add positions and services to move toward “adequacy,” and (3) shore up capital reserves for critical infrastructure. Dr. Smith and Business Administrator Mr. Yates said the district would submit the application and then produce a line-item budget showing how any requested additional levy would be allocated.

- Dr. Smith presented tax-impact scenarios the district had modeled: taking none of the additional local authority would raise taxes 5.4% under the baseline; taking some of the authority would increase taxes about 15.4%; taking the full amount would increase taxes about 25.4% (district figures presented by administration). The board did not set a final amount on April 14.

Board discussion and technical context

Board members pressed administration for details about what “adequacy” means and how the state computed the district’s shortfall. Mr. Yates and Dr. Smith pointed to publicly available state resources — the Department of Education’s Taxpayer Guide to Education Spending and the state’s most recent Education Adequacy Report — as the sources for the shortfall calculation. Dr. Smith also noted the state would contribute approximately 5% of the district’s requested additional levy amount as an incentive (she cited roughly $710,000 on a $14.2 million base).

Administration and facilities staff outlined what the capital bucket would fund first if the board chose to put money into capital reserves. Tom Donahue, the district’s certified education facilities manager, said the district has more than 700 water-source heat pumps — “a heat pump in every room” —many 25–35 years old and increasingly impossible to repair because parts are no longer manufactured. Donahue and maintenance foreperson Brian Pearson estimated districtwide capital needs at roughly $80–100 million; they said a $7–8 million annual deposit into capital reserves would begin to address the most urgent items (roof work at two schools, parking-lot repairs, HVAC controls and phased heat-pump replacement), but would not eliminate long-term needs.

Transportation and outsourcing

A sizeable portion of public comment focused on the district’s plan to outsource some or all transportation operations. Several school bus drivers and aides said district-run transportation provides continuity, knowledge of routes and daily contact with students, and warned that contracting out routes could reduce service quality and raise costs once private providers add their overhead. Drivers and aides said absences spiked after a January announcement that routes could be privatized, and they urged the board to keep transportation in-house. Administration noted some runs are already externally contracted and said a detailed comparative estimate for privatization vs. in‑house operations was being prepared.

Public comment and staff input

Teachers, union representatives and students urged the board to use the opportunity to restore cuts that affect class sizes, electives and the middle‑school team model. Linda Masterman, a Marlton Middle School teacher, said, “We are tired. The teachers are exhausted,” and warned that eliminating teams and adding classes would reduce opportunities for one‑on‑one support. ETA and ETEA leaders spoke in favor of taking the available authority to restore staff and services, provided core cuts are restored first.

Vote and next steps

The board approved submission of the application (agenda item 6.1). The roll call recorded members saying “yes — all” or “yes — some,” which administration interpreted as authority to proceed while the board continued to debate the requested amount. After the vote the board directed the business office to prepare a detailed, line‑item budget for the additional levy (if any) and present scenarios before the board’s final budget vote on April 28. The business administrator said the application requires an itemized explanation of how any additional levy would be allocated.

Ending

Board members and members of the public repeatedly urged continued advocacy at the state level even as the district pursues local options. Several members of the public and board urged more district outreach to build public understanding and buy‑in before any final decision on an amount. The board’s April 28 budget meeting will be the next formal decision point.