Collingswood district board votes to apply for statetax-levy incentive after debate over staffing and taxpayer impact

Collingswood Public School District officials voted in a committee-of-the-whole session to submit an application to the New Jersey Department of Education for the statetax-levy incentive program, a one-time exception to the 2% local tax cap designed to help districts close budget shortfalls.

Dr. McDowell, who presented the proposal, described the program as “a one time exception to the 2% tax cap law,” and laid out three funding scenarios the state would review and the board could adopt if the state approves an amount. Under the districtpresenterscenarios, a full-approval scenario was estimated to raise the average homeownercost by about $49 per month while delivering a one-time infusion of approximately $37,500 in state aid; a mid-level scenario was shown at about $38 per month with roughly $27,500 in one-time state aid; and a minimal scenario would raise about $24.92 per month with about $15,000 in state aid. Dr. McDowell said the districtwould decide later which level to accept if and when the state approves an amount and emphasized that the application alone does not change the budget.

Why it matters: the stateprogram is intended to help districts close an "adequacy" gap the state calculates to determine the minimum necessary funding to provide a thorough and efficient education. Dr. McDowell said the state had identified Oakland as locally underfunded and below educational adequacy, and that the program is an opportunity to reduce a budget shortfall created by earlier reductions in state aid.

Board action and process: the board voted to submit the application to the state. The application is slated for submission on Monday, April 14; the state will review and notify the district what it will approve. The board will then deliberate and — if the state approves an amount — consider whether and how to include the approved revenues in the final district budget at a public hearing scheduled for May 6 and a regular board meeting on April 29. Board members repeatedly noted the application is not a final budget approval but an initial step to access the incentive program.

Public reaction and tradeoffs: during two public-comment periods, parents and residents urged caution about permanently raising local taxes and urged the board to prioritize retaining current staff. Jennifer Mulgar, a parent and district employee, said, "I make $38,100 for a 12 month position," and asked the board to consider how increases affect families on fixed incomes. Jackie Walters, who works in the district, warned against hiring staff who might be laid off if future funding tightens, saying, "we don't want to hire people, train people and then lay them off." Others urged the board to balance restoring staff with protecting taxpayers and to consider alternatives such as in-house services or tuition-based programs where appropriate. Several speakers voiced support for pursuing state aid; resident Connor Reardon said he voiced his “full throated support” for applying.

Outcomes and next steps: the board approved the motion to apply by roll-call vote (all voting board members recorded voted yes). If the state approves an amount, the board will return to public deliberations before deciding a final amount to include in the 2025-26 budget. Dr. McDowell emphasized the application would require line-item justifications and that the district would rely on school-based priority lists provided by building staff when deciding how to use any approved funds.

What the board did not do: the board did not adopt a final budget, did not commit to a particular levy increase, and did not provide binding allocations for particular programs. Any permanent levy increases would be reflected in future budgets only after further board action and public hearings.

Where this goes next: the district will submit the state application on April 14. The stateDepartment of Education will review the submission, notify the district of an approved amount, and the board will decide at subsequent public meetings whether to include the stateincentive revenues in its final 2025-26 budget.

Ending note: board members and members of the public framed the choice as a tradeoff between restoring staff and services that directly affect student support, and protecting taxpayers from a permanent levy increase. The boardvoted to apply for the program and will take further action only after the state response and additional community input.