Moorestown board approves two-question school referendum for Sept. 16 special election

The Moorestown Township Board of Education voted unanimously June 24 to place two ballot questions on a special election set for Sept. 16 that would fund school building renovations, additions and site improvements totaling $108.3 million.

The referendum combines academic-space projects and building-system upgrades in Question 1 and campus operations and athletic-site work in Question 2. If approved by voters, district officials estimate about $18.7 million in state aid and an average monthly tax impact of roughly $54 on the average assessed home in Moorestown.

Dr. McNealy, a district staff member who presented the plan to the board, said the package is intended to address enrollment growth, aging infrastructure and full‑day, tuition‑free kindergarten readiness. "We see the need for space. So that we have outdated infrastructure and we know that this is our opportunity to begin to get our facilities ready to provide full day tuition free kindergarten," Dr. McNealy told the board during the presentation.

James Heiser, the district's business administrator, described how the items were grouped and how the state funding formula affects eligible versus ineligible costs. "Ineligible costs don't mean that the project's not important. It's simply the funding formula that the state DOE has set aside for what is an eligible project versus what isn't an eligible project," Heiser said, explaining why some work (for example, turf surface material) is not fully state‑funded even when related site work can be.

Question 1 is the larger package of interior renovations and targeted additions. It includes security and fire-panel replacements, public-address upgrades, HVAC and roof replacements, and classroom reconfigurations to create kindergarten‑compliant classrooms (including required toilet facilities and minimum square footage). The district proposes two additions to the middle school — one a 24,500‑square‑foot addition to house sixth grade and another a new full‑size gym — and renovations to other gym and stadium facilities. The presentation estimated Question 1 at about $80.3 million; district staff said the state funds 40% of eligible costs and historically pays roughly 80–85% of that 40% under the current formula.

Question 2 would create an operations center on the main campus to relocate maintenance and grounds functions out of an instructional wing of the high school, freeing space for academic uses. It also includes athletic enhancements — three new turf fields with lighting along Bridgeborough Road, drainage work and traffic‑flow improvements tied to moving the bus depot. The district estimated Question 2 at $28 million, with roughly $2.7 million of state aid and an estimated $17 monthly tax impact on the average assessed home. "It’s important to note question 2 can only pass if question 1 is also approved. They are contingent on one another," Heiser said.

Board members conducted a public‑comment period before the vote; no members of the public spoke on the referendum during that allotted time. The board then approved a resolution to place the two questions on the September 16 ballot. The roll call vote registered all present board members in favor; the motion and second were not recorded in the transcript by name.

District presenters said the referendum is intended both to address immediate building‑system needs (roofs, end‑of‑life HVAC equipment that uses R‑22 refrigerant, communications systems) and to create long‑term instructional capacity by shifting grade bands and renovating classrooms. District staff told the board that, for example, a recent summer billing to recharge R‑22 systems cost about $11,000, underscoring replacement urgency.

The administration plans outreach this summer and into the fall: detailed project pages, explanatory videos from principals and administrators, and a page on the district website under the referendum tab (mtps.com). Officials said the ballot language is still subject to legal phrasing requirements and will include the state‑funded portion and the estimated tax impact (expressed as a monthly amount).

What the board approved tonight is placement of the referendum questions on the ballot and the district’s proposal for the grouping of projects. The projects themselves, the state eligibility determinations and the final tax impact for any individual homeowner will depend on state review and the actual voter outcome. If both questions pass, the district estimated total state aid of roughly $18.7 million toward $108.3 million of work; if voters do not approve, no bond proceeds from this referendum would be available for these projects.

The board adjourned after moving to a general public‑comment period, which drew no speakers. The district will continue community education about the proposed projects and how residents can register or vote by mail for the Sept. 16 special election.