Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Operating Referendum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Collingswood board advances drafting of $5M operating referendum; targets Aug. ballot language
Summary
At a July 13 committee meeting, district staff and board members agreed to draft ballot language seeking about $5.0 million (with 5.5 million considered) for an operating referendum to shore up the district's multiyear budget gap; the board set deadlines for wording and public messaging ahead of August meetings.
Collingswood Public School District — At a July 13 committee-of-the-whole meeting, district staff and board members advanced plans to prepare ballot language for an operating referendum that would raise roughly $5.0 million to close a persistent budget gap.
Staff member (S2) explained two legal routes the district could use — citing 18A:22-40 (the Robbinsville approach) and a more limited recent legislative interpretation — and laid out tax‑impact scenarios for the board to consider. "Preferably, like, if you now involve the DOE and the county office, they're gonna say go with the Murphy," S2 said, and walked the board through three price bands ranging from about $2.5 million to a "shoot for the moon" $4 million–$4.5 million option.
The discussion focused on tradeoffs between a smaller, politically more palatable request and a larger ask that would close more of the district's current local fair-share gap. Committee member (S4) summed the operational decision: "The question itself is to get us $5,000,000," a figure that several members signaled they could support while reserving the option to adjust wording and amount before formal vote.
Why it matters: staff said the district faces a structural funding shortfall that has accumulated over more than a decade and that, without new local revenue, the district may have to cut programs beyond what state funding requires. Staff estimated the local fair-share gap at roughly $4.6 million this year and projected it could grow next year. In practical terms, S2 presented per‑home tax impacts for various ask sizes: for example, a $5 million referendum was described as a roughly $1,420 annual increase — about $118 per month — under current ratable assumptions.
Board members pressed for clear voter messaging and tangible examples of what a household would "get back" for the tax increase — sports, social workers and other local services that the state funding formula does not guarantee. Several members warned that promising restorations without accounting for likely cost increases (health care, negotiated raises) could damage public trust if those items could not be sustained.
Procedural next steps: board members asked staff to circulate draft ballot language and one‑page explanatory materials. Staff said the county needs approximately 60 days’ notice to add a question to a November ballot; the board agreed to provide word‑smithing feedback by about Aug. 10 so the Committee of the Whole can consider final language in August and, if approved, forward it to the county for inclusion.
The board did not take a formal binding vote on the final dollar amount at the July meeting; members used a nonbinding show-of-hands to gauge support and identified $5.0 million to $5.5 million as the working range to present to the public and to the county for scheduling and ballot drafting.
What’s next: staff will update executive content with exact numbers, draft the ballot question and circulate wording to board members by the August feedback deadline. The board plans a formal vote on the ballot question and any related resolution in August so the county can meet its posting and ballot‑printing deadlines.
