0:01The submission of the 2025-2026 budget was a major agenda item, with the board approving a general fund of $42,820,016, a special revenue fund of $6,236,328, and a debt service fund of $1,286,163. The local tax levy for the general fund matched the debt service fund at $19,864,812. A healthcare adjustment of $724,999 and a withdrawal of $50,000 from the capital reserve for maintenance were included, alongside a cap of $25,000 for travel expenses over the coming school years. The board scheduled a public hearing for April 28, 2025, to further discuss these financial plans.

During the meeting, there was a discussion about the distinctions between the general, special revenue, and debt service funds. Board members sought clarity on budgetary allocations and the rationale behind certain financial decisions, particularly the borough’s collaboration in addressing the budget deficit. There was an acknowledgment that while the partnership aimed to prevent layoffs, programmatic adjustments would still be necessary based on student needs and long-term planning.

One board member raised concerns about the implications of decreased salary allocations, noting the intention to avoid staff reductions. The board chair explained that while initial budget proposals included cuts, those had been restored due to the borough’s financial contributions. Variations in salary lines were attributed to retirements and the typically lower salaries of new hires compared to their predecessors.

The topic of staff raises also surfaced, with assurances given that anticipated raises had been factored into the budget, even though contract negotiations were ongoing. The budget discussion highlighted ongoing email communications addressing budget-related queries.

18:35A significant part of the meeting focused on the board’s understanding of the budget process. Concerns were raised about the clarity and comprehensiveness of information available to board members before casting their votes. The administration committed to presenting the finalized budget to the finance, buildings, and grounds committee to ensure board members were well-informed about high-level decisions affecting the budget.

The conversation underscored the distinction between understanding the broader steps of the budget process and avoiding micromanagement of line items. A board member emphasized that asking questions was essential to their role and not an overstep, reiterating the importance of being informed before making decisions. The administration planned to involve multiple committees, such as finance, curriculum, and personnel, to enhance understanding of how budget decisions impact educational programming and staffing.

New board members expressed a desire for more clarity, noting previous budget discussions had been less informative. The board acknowledged the challenges faced in the budget-making process, especially given recent financial shortfalls and the effort to reverse prior cuts. The budget presented was seen as a product of rapid adjustments.

Public comments included a plea from a district teacher and representative of the Collingswood Education Association, urging the board to refrain from further staff cuts. The representative highlighted the difficulties of operating with a reduced staff and stressed the importance of educators in student success. They noted the emotional toll of layoffs and the need to maintain adequate staffing levels to support educational needs.