Haddonfield board adopts tentative 2025–26 budget amid cuts, one-time offsets and state aid drop

Haddonfield Board of Education members on March 20 approved a tentative 2025–26 budget that totals roughly $54.6 million and sets the operating (general) budget at about $40.8 million. The board voted to submit the tentative budget to the county office as required by state timelines after a detailed presentation on district revenues, expenditures and options for closing a multimillion-dollar gap.

The budget presentation, led by the district budget presenter identified in the meeting as Carlos (Staff member, budget presenter), said the district is heavily reliant on local property taxes — roughly 87% of revenue — and faces a 2.16% reduction in state aid, a drop the presenter estimated at about $72,000 for 2025–26.

Why it matters: Board members and administrators framed the budget as a response to multiple simultaneous cost pressures — rising health-insurance and behavioral-services costs, a jump in property/casualty premiums, rising transportation expenses and a projected increase in electricity prices. Those pressures, combined with the district’s high reliance on local taxes, constrain options for maintaining programs and staffing without either dipping into reserves or increasing local revenue sources.

Carlos told the board the district began the budget season with a projected deficit in the millions. He listed three levers the district can use to close the gap: add revenues (including modest increases to activity fees and tuition for an extended kindergarten program), reduce appropriations (including cuts to supplies and a careful approach to staffing through attrition) and renegotiate contracts where procurement rules allow. “This was very hard,” Carlos said of preparing the budget, adding it was the “toughest one yet” in his tenure presenting budgets.

Key numbers and clarifying details discussed at the meeting: - Total governmental funds (tentative): about $54,600,000. - Fund 10 (operating/general fund): about $40,800,000. - Fund 20 (grants and student activities): about $1,200,000. - Fund 40 (debt service): roughly $1,000,000 higher than last year because of a recently passed bond referendum. - State aid reduction for 2025–26: ~2.16% (~$72,000 reduction as presented). - Unassigned fund balance reported in the presentation: about $1,000,000; the board agreed to use $300,000 of that balance to help balance next year’s budget. - Salaries and benefits account for roughly 70–74% of the operating budget, the presenter said. - Health-insurance increase cited: about 13%, which the presenter estimated at roughly $800,000 in additional cost year over year. - IDEA (federal special-education) funds: the district receives a little over $500,000, per the presentation. - Title I eligibility: the district became ineligible for Title I next year because its low-income percentage is below the program threshold cited at the meeting (the presenter said the district is below 2%).

What the board approved and next steps: The board voted to adopt the tentative 2025–26 budget and to implement procedures required by NJAC 6A:23A-5.2 regarding pupil legal costs. The budget will be submitted to the county office; the county has until April 20 to review all district budgets, and the board plans a public adoption vote in May, per the timetables cited in the presentation.

How the district plans to bridge the gap: Presenters outlined a combination of one-time and recurring moves. One-time offsets include use of a portion of unassigned fund balance and drawing on an insurance “excess” surplus that the district releases from an aggregate excess liability fund. Recurring measures under discussion include modest increases to activity fees, expanded tuition revenue tied to an extended kindergarten offering (presenters emphasized the intention to phase that out once district construction allows universal kindergarten without tuition), and staffing reductions by attrition where possible rather than layoffs. The presenter said administrators first looked at cutting stipends and non–student-facing extra compensation before considering reductions that would directly affect instruction.

Board and public concerns: Several board members voiced discomfort over the idea of keeping tuition for extended kindergarten on the table after residents approved a facilities referendum they said was intended to support universal kindergarten. One board member said she was “very uncomfortable” placing a “big giant asterisk” next to the referendum promise and urged the board to pursue alternatives. Public comment reiterated that pilot (payment-in-lieu-of-taxes) revenues for a nearby Woodmont rental project are not guaranteed to the district and cannot be relied upon in the budget.

Federal/state funding and broader context: Board members described the district’s situation as part of a larger South Jersey funding shortfall. The presentation referenced new guidance discussed by the New Jersey Association of School Business Officials about a “tax levy incentive aid” program the state had announced earlier in the day; presenters said eligibility and details were unclear, but they flagged it as a potential source of aid if clarified. The district also faces timing mismatches: state aid is based on prior-year enrollment snapshots (the presenter noted October 15 counts), so new students arriving during the year generally do not bring immediate additional state revenue.

Vote at a glance: The board approved the 2025–26 tentative budget and the NJAC 6A:23A-5.2 implementation resolution. The roll-call votes on the tentative budget recorded eight yes votes, no votes: none, abstentions: none (roll call recorded at the meeting transcript).

What’s next: If the county approves the tentative budget review, the board will hold a public adoption vote in May. Administrators said they will continue budget committee work through the spring, continue outreach about potential state aid and pilot revenue, and pursue cost-savings and contract discussions where procurement rules permit. The board also discussed making advocacy for school-funding reform a formal board goal to press for changes to the state formula affecting South Jersey districts.

Ending note: The presentation repeatedly emphasized the district’s limited flexibility because salary and mandated special-education expenses comprise the bulk of spending. Board members asked staff to continue seeking options that limit instructional impacts and to return with more information on pupil legal costs and other line items before the adoption vote.