Resources & FAQs

At the Montclair Board of Education meeting on 11/17/2025, District Superintendent Turner shared that the State coulda extend an additional advance on future financial aid to The District in the event Question 2 fails. The new development is a potential short term semi-safety net in case voters reject Q2. At this time, it is unclear how this scenario might affect the timing and scope of the proposed midyear staff cuts. If either Q1 and Q2 is a NO and a state monitor is assigned to the district, the state monitor will make the final decision on how much of the additional advance to take, how much cuts to make, etc. 

The newly announced potential advance on state aid will not solve the long-term fiscal crisis facing the district. If the State Monitor approves it, we would get an immediate cash infusion for the rest of the 2025/2026 school year. However, the advance on state aid would do nothing for the 2026/2027 year and beyond – and, in fact, would leave the district with a larger deficit. In July 2026, the district would again be short $7 million since the state aid advance only covers fiscal year (FY) 2025-2026. In addition to the existing $7M deficit, a NO/NO vote would also remove roughly $2.2 million from our operating budget as NJ would reduce our annual staid aid by roughly $ 2million each year and we would also need to pay the state monitor roughly $200K. This means the 2026/2027 budget would be over $9 million short, assuming current spending levels. 

The foundation of the questions on the December 9th ballot have not changed: do we vote for changes to how we fund our schools so that they are on firm financial ground now and going forward? Or do we take on debt and kick the can down the road when it comes to addressing the long-term financial reality facing the district?

A New Jersey state monitor can’t ignore state law—but they can override a board’s budget vote and approve a district budget that changes the school tax levy more (or less) than local officials wanted, so long as it stays within state rules. Those rules include the 2% tax-levy growth limit and its statutory adjustments (e.g., enrollment/health-cost adjustments, banked cap, etc).

Monitors can override BoE votes and implement taxes that are higher or lower than what the BoE approves. For example, in Belleville in 2024, a monitor stepped in and implemented a 6.4% tax increase while the BoE was deadlocked when considering a 10% increase. In Jackson Township 2024, the BoE rejected a 9.9% increase because they felt it too steep for residents, and the monitor overrode and implemented the increase. In these types of situations, the monitor still operates within the permissible boundaries of tax increases (i.e. the 2% cap, plus exceptions), but they get to decide what to do.

Yes. Montclair would need to pay the state monitor an estimated $125 per hour for a maximum of 32 work hours per week.

The structural deficit refers to the fact that in general, in the past several years, The District’s costs have outpaced the District's revenues. This concept and related consequences were detailed during a public comment presentation by Jewel Jane Simmons and Annie Hirshman at the BOE meeting on 11/17/25. Their presentation was generously shared here (LINK- see above). As explained in the presentation, over the past several years, the district’s major expenses have grown faster than the district’s main revenue source, the local tax levy, which by state law

can only grow by 2 percent each year unless voters approve more. At the same time, other sources of revenue such as state aid and federal funding have been mostly flat or declining. This problem  – the mismatch of rising costs with stagnant revenue – has created the structural deficit and it is important to consider because if the ballot questions are voted down on 12/9, the district receives less revenue for the 10 years going forward, exacerbating the structural problem in an environment where costs are already outpacing revenue.

Listen to Superintendent Turner on the Montclair POD. At this point, cuts really are unavoidable, not only because The District is responsible for maintaining a balanced budget, but because Montclair Schools need to become more efficient to achieve fiscal sustainability. In the face of rising healthcare, transportation and utilities costs, The District will need to make careful cuts to control spending and practice fiscal responsibility.  However, a YES / YES vote allows the District to plan for these cuts thoughtfully, to explore additional sources of revenue, and to improve avenues for community involvement.

Question 2 on the ballot asks voters to improve a permanent increase to the district’s tax levy. There has been some confusion about whether a “permanent” increase means that the additional tax amount ($674 for the median home owner, you can estimate your individual cost HERE) will be added to the tax base every year in perpetuity (so $674 in 2025 plus another $674 in 2026 to be 1348). In reality, a Yes on Q2 will change the tax baseline, not a new $674 in 2026 taxes.

Example: 
• 2024 - $25,000
• 2025 - $25,674
• 2026 - $25,674 + whatever new tax increase based on 2026 decisions (could remain flat)

It’s NOT 25k in 2024, then $25,674 in 2025, then $26,348 in 2026. There’s no automatic new $674 added to the bill. However, if question 2 passes, that $674 (or whatever your COST is) will be incorporated into the base of the future tax levy permanently.

Yes, it’s a legal mandate to meet the terms of IEP.

Superintendent Turner and the Office of Pupil Services have provided verbal reassurance that since IEPs are legal contracts, their terms will continue to be met as it is mandated by law. “Paraprofessionals for Kindergarten” are known colloquially as “Classroom Assistants” and are not present in classrooms as a result of IEP terms. If a child’s IEP calls for Paraprofessional Support, they will continue to have Paraprofessional Support.

This is not to say that there is no prospect for consolidation, as evidenced by the mention of five personnel cuts denoted in “CST/Related Service Providers” on the Budget Cuts slide.

Further, it would be expected that any IEP services provided via Curriculum Support, Reading Interventionists, and/or School Counselors would be consolidated or provided by another specialist, in compliance with the IEP. However, students without IEPs who receive support from these staff would evidently suffer a complete loss of this support.

Clarification of how compliance with IEPs will be met is needed from the district, and parents of children who receive these supports should be advised to follow the situation closely.

We’re angry too! You can be furious about this financial mess AND still vote Yes. Your anger is valid. We know that budgets weren’t honest, controls were weak and communication was poor. While Superintendent Turner has committed to fixing these issues, a Yes/Yes vote is not a thank-you to the people who made those mistakes, it’s a shield for our kids while we insist on real accountability. We believe you can be furious and still recognize that No/No ultimately punishes the district staff and the students, not Hunt, Ponds, the BOE, or anyone else involved in the decisions that brought us here.