Collingswood borough and school board agree to short-term funding to cover $3.6M deficit, set September referendum

Collingswood board leaders and borough commissioners on March 10 announced a joint plan to close a projected $3.6 million budget shortfall for the 2025–26 school year using a mix of borough pilot funds, short‑term borrowing and a borough commitment to provide roughly $750,000 this coming year while the district and borough pursue a voter referendum in September 2025 for longer-term relief.

Miss Coleman, the district business administrator and chief financial officer, told the board that a state change to how local fair share is calculated — moving to a three‑year average — reduced Collingswood’s state aid and widened the gap between what the state expects the district to raise and what the district can generate under the local 2% cap. "One of the big reasons why we're here today is a $3.6 million budget deficit for the coming school year," she said, describing expiring short‑term grants and ongoing inflationary pressures.

Under the joint statement the borough and district released about an hour before the meeting, borough leaders identified reassignable pilot payments and limited surplus that can supply about $750,000 toward the coming year’s shortfall. Borough officials said they intend to borrow short‑term notes to provide the rest of the cash needed for 2025–26, begin interest‑only payments in 2026 and use a combination of rolling debt and future budget mechanics (including a possible state change to allow districts below their local fair share to exceed the 2% cap) to minimize lasting tax impacts.

A borough official described the financing as analogous to construction financing for a home addition: short‑term notes now with an option to roll into longer‑term financing later. The official estimated a modest ongoing debt service impact tied to interest payments starting in 2026, and said the borough plans to reconcile the borrowing over time so the arrangement will have only a small tax effect if the planned referendum and other revenue actions succeed.

District leaders also said the short‑term funding is aimed at avoiding staff layoffs: "That $3.6 million ... is going directly to saving staff positions for next year," Miss Coleman told the audience. The board emphasized the arrangement is intended to be a stopgap that preserves current services while the joint committee plans facilities work and the district prepares a referendum for voter approval.

The joint statement listed six main points that the presenters summarized at the meeting: 1) immediate borough funding to reduce the 2025–26 deficit (about $750,000 identified); 2) a borough review of district finances and a commitment to short‑term funding for the remainder of the gap using low‑impact mechanisms; 3) use of any timely state statutory changes that would allow the district to exceed the 2% cap if enacted; 4) shared recreation and athletic facility development; 5) formation of a joint district–borough facilities and equity committee that will include public representatives; and 6) a plan to go to voters in September 2025 on a referendum for longer‑term revenues.

Board members repeatedly thanked borough leaders and district staff for the collaborative work and emphasized that the arrangement buys time to plan and to pursue state advocacy. The board postponed submission of a tentative budget to the county until it completes the necessary technical reviews with borough auditors and the district’s auditors; officials noted a March 19 county deadline for a preliminary filing and planned a special meeting to finalize that step.

Public comment at the meeting was lengthy and wide‑ranging. Residents pressed for clarity about whether the September referendum would raise taxes, how the borough’s contribution and any borrowing would affect local taxpayers, and what contingency plans exist if a fall referendum fails. Multiple speakers urged the board to settle a teachers contract; a leading public commenter, Trey Ramsburg, called the arrangement "a bailout" and criticized the board for not having completed a contract with the teachers’ union. A teachers’ representative, Robin Hogan, president of the CA and a Sharp Elementary teacher, praised the partnership but urged that the pathway be used to make progress toward stronger teacher pay and to redirect savings from avoided legal costs into the contract.

In committee and consent business the board approved routine items by roll call: minutes of the Feb. 24, 2025 regular meeting were approved by voice vote; finance committee item 7.02 (the preschool budget submission to the New Jersey Department of Education, a separate grant) passed by roll call; and personnel item 8.02 (a three‑year contract with the Collingswood Building Services employees Association) also passed by roll call with all members recorded as voting yes during the meeting’s roll calls.

Officials said next steps include formalizing the borough funding agreement, completing the technical budget reviews with auditors, forming the joint facilities/equity committee with public members, and beginning an intense public engagement process ahead of the September referendum. The board closed the meeting after the posted agenda items and public comment.

(Recorded at a March 10, 2025 special meeting of the Collingswood Board of Education; borough and district issued a joint statement summarizing the six‑point partnership plan.)