Hoboken Revolt

The Hoboken Tax Reform Coalition

Interim Sup't. Peter E. Carter's Budget Summary Letter- 3/24/10

(emphasis in bold is my own)

http://www.hoboken.k12.nj.us/index.php?q=node/3054


Dear Citizens and Staff,


There is a famous line from an old classic movie which reads, “We’ve got to stop meeting like this.”  In our case, though, it is good for us to meet like this so that I can keep you apprised of what is happening in terms of the budget process.  The Board of Education unanimously approved a tentative spending plan for the 2010-2011 School Year.  The bottom line is that there will be NO INCREASE in the tax levy for the operation of the Hoboken Public Schools.  This GOOD NEWS occurred despite the current $660,000 loss of current state aid, and the $2.4 million reduction in the 2010-2011 State Aid.  At the Budget Hearing on Tuesday, the data will show current appropriations of  $62,013,193, but next year’s appropriations shall be $57,882,147. That’s it!  There is no more to be said.  If this proposed and advertised budget is passed by the Board on the 30th, you have no increase in the tax levy with a lower spending plan.



As presented by the Interim School Business Administrator at the Board’s Budget Workshop on March 22nd, this proposed budget is based in part on
the following assumptions:
 

  1. The board’s budget goal of reducing the tax levy without impacting the educational program still remains in effect.
  2. The state cut this year’s state aid by $669,000 effective February 22, 2010 without any advance warning.
  3. The state told districts to anticipate state aid cuts for next year of up to 15% of our current state aid total, a cut of $1,400,000 for Hoboken.
  4. The state then cut 5% of the total budget with no advance warning, a total cut of $2,400,000 for Hoboken or $1,000,000 more than we were told to anticipate. This is a 26% cut compared to the Hudson County
    average of 8%.
  5. The projected balance to be used as revenue in the 2010-11 budget is $2,100,000, an increase of $700,000 over this year’s total of $1,400,000.
  6. The proposed budget for next year includes almost $900,000 from two one time revenues, a $535,000 revenue from a textbook lease program and a $355,000 revenue from the use of second year ARRA federal carryover
    money.
  7. The projected unreserved, unrestricted fund balance estimated for June 30, 2010 is just over $100,000 dollars.
  8. The proposed budget for 2010-11 estimates miscellaneous revenues which more closely parallel actual revenues in past fiscal years.
  9. The proposed 2010-11 budget includes 14 staff cuts including two (2) principals, one (1) vice principal, one (1) director and ten (10) teachers. Staff reductions will be achieved through attrition due to
    eighteen (18) retirements, twelve (12) filed and six (6) in process.
  10. The proposed budget includes a reduction in utilities due to the temporary closing of Connors for renovations with students relocated to the Demarest building
  11. The proposed budget includes improved scheduling efficiencies with the move of the alternate program from Demarest to the High School Building and the move of the 8th grade to the high school.
  12. The proposed budget was prepared understanding that in addition to the unavailability of large surpluses in future years, the probability of smaller excess revenues and under-expended line items this coming
    year and the likelihood of flat state aid at best over the next few
    years, that available revenues continue to decline.
  13. The proposed budget was prepared with the strong possibility of a reduced tax levy cap of 2 ½ % for the next budget cycle together with the elimination of the various tax cap waivers currently available and
    with the knowledge that dollars below cap any year are permanent for all
    future years.
  14. The proposed budget was prepared with the understanding that the possible new and lower hard tax cap of 2 ½% will coincide with already negotiated salary increases of 4% in future budget years.
  15. The budget was prepared with the understanding that the administration has operated within the framework of the board’s budget goal, not withstanding the various adverse parameters listed above.
  16. This budget was prepared given the late notice of state aid received after the close of business on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 with cuts of $1,000,000 more than the maximum we were told to anticipate.
  17. The revised budgets were “technically” due in the county office today.
  18. This budget is recommended by the Superintendent to the Board of Education subject to 
    the understanding of how the above items will impact future budget
    years.


    Sincerely yours,

    Peter E. Carter

Views: 6

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Donna Antonucci on March 29, 2010 at 1:07pm
We wanted the tax levee to go down. Flat is not an achievement. Less than 10% is pathetic. It had to be greater than a 10% cut ON TOP OF ANY CUTS FROM THE STATE or in my opinion it's just not good enough. I posted my opinion about 6 weeks ago that it had to be at least 10% given the level of waste. 15% would really be more appropriate. We all know there is soooooo much waste at the top of the org chart. The cut in percentage terms they came up with is 6.75% not 7%. I have seen 7% floated around. 6.75% is flat to me.

Back fill the open Principal position with an Assistant Principal and don't back fill the Asst Principal's job. If the promoted person does not want to drive performance by holding his/her staff accountable through proper performance reviews, the Superintendent should write him/her up and fire him/her for poor performance. Keep doing it until people either do their jobs, get fired or leave.

Per Ruth McAllister in the Hoboken Reporter, the Custodians' contract requires them to contribute to healthcare premiums - "the first in the state". Nice try. Christie's legislation was driving like a train at 100 MPH through the Legislature and it was a fait en complete. Unless that contract were signed prior to January 25th (when Christie announced the bills with more sponsors than needed to pass), it's not a concession. Further it's less of a give back than what we would have gotten had they waited from the legislation so the contract really protected the custodians from contributing the minimum that they should have. I OPRAd the contract and Carter said it wasn't finalized. If it's not finalized than why was Ruth talking about the terms in the paper? Why are we settling for less than what the new legislation would provide? Either my OPRA request was denied unlawfully or they skirted in a poorer deal just before the legislation passed.

From what was written in the Hoboken Reporter, the contributions are substantially less than if they waited for the legislation to pass. It sounds like she was saying employees will pay a fixed nominal amount like $20 - 25/month towards healthcare premiums or $300/year. If the AVG custodian makes $50K per year, under the new legislation that employee would pay $750/year. What a rip off.
Permalink Reply by Meatloaf on March 29, 2010 at 5:36pm
Donna, has this regulation requiring payment of health insurance passed yet?

Donna Antonucci said:
We wanted the tax levee to go down. Flat is not an achievement. Less than 10% is pathetic. It had to be greater than a 10% cut ON TOP OF ANY CUTS FROM THE STATE or in my opinion it's just not good enough. I posted my opinion about 6 weeks ago that it had to be at least 10% given the level of waste. 15% would really be more appropriate. We all know there is soooooo much waste at the top of the org chart. The cut in percentage terms they came up with is 6.75% not 7%. I have seen 7% floated around. 6.75% is flat to me.

Back fill the open Principal position with an Assistant Principal and don't back fill the Asst Principal's job. If the promoted person does not want to drive performance by holding his/her staff accountable through proper performance reviews, the Superintendent should write him/her up and fire him/her for poor performance. Keep doing it until people either do their jobs, get fired or leave.

Per Ruth McAllister in the Hoboken Reporter, the Custodians' contract requires them to contribute to healthcare premiums - "the first in the state". Nice try. Christie's legislation was driving like a train at 100 MPH through the Legislature and it was a fait en complete. Unless that contract were signed prior to January 25th (when Christie announced the bills with more sponsors than needed to pass), it's not a concession. Further it's less of a give back than what we would have gotten had they waited from the legislation so the contract really protected the custodians from contributing the minimum that they should have. I OPRAd the contract and Carter said it wasn't finalized. If it's not finalized than why was Ruth talking about the terms in the paper? Why are we settling for less than what the new legislation would provide? Either my OPRA request was denied unlawfully or they skirted in a poorer deal just before the legislation passed.

From what was written in the Hoboken Reporter, the contributions are substantially less than if they waited for the legislation to pass. It sounds like she was saying employees will pay a fixed nominal amount like $20 - 25/month towards healthcare premiums or $300/year. If the AVG custodian makes $50K per year, under the new legislation that employee would pay $750/year. What a rip off.
Permalink Reply by Overtaxed on March 29, 2010 at 7:45pm
Donna, as always, she's at the top of the game! Thank you for taking the time to analyze BoE's underachievement. I doubt that these are the people we need to elect.
Permalink Reply by Donna Antonucci on March 30, 2010 at 8:12am
Yes it passed a week ago Monday. So if a contract were signed just before that we would have to wait until it expires before we get to take advantage of the new legislation. I OPRAd the Custodian's contract on 3/10 and the request was denied, yet Ruth was talking about the terms in the Hoboken Reporter which they legally cannot do until it's finalized.

What am I driving at . . . . it was done but they unlawfully denied me a copy? Why? What's in it?

The transparency of the BOE is so incredibly poor. The Municipality has come a long way but the District is obstructive. It doesn't make feel good about what they are saying because I can't verify it for myself.

Meatloaf said:
Donna, has this regulation requiring payment of health insurance passed yet?

Permalink Reply by Donna Antonucci on March 30, 2010 at 8:18am
I don't know if they are not the right group to re-elect. I don't know that I will vote for Rose. I think we are at the part where it gets really hard and I suspect that Rose knows too many of the employees and administrators that need to be moved around, let go or demoted. I am concerned that those in the new reform group don't understand the rules. Do they know the budget like the back of their hand? I asked this because if a candidate has not mastered these two items then then can not come up with an executable plan. You need to know the rules and the budget to come up with a strategy and I am not convinced that they know it i.e., it has not been demonstrated to me.

Sometimes you have to vote just against someone because who ever is in is so wrong (like the old board from a year ago). At some point you have to vote for something.

I am eager to hear articulate, detailed, executable plans.

Overtaxed said:
Donna, as always, she's at the top of the game! Thank you for taking the time to analyze BoE's underachievement. I doubt that these are the people we need to elect.
Permalink Reply by Overtaxed on March 30, 2010 at 9:45am
But that's why they have a counsel, to inform themselves before they make a decision. I will not vote for kidsfirst given their last year's performance. Why would anyone in their right mind vote for Leon, who will be 'sensitive' to the students' needs, but had said anything at all about the taxpayers? Does he not know how much money goes into this poor performing school district?
Permalink Reply by Meatloaf on March 30, 2010 at 10:56am
Not sure if you know about the idea of the BOE, but they are there for the kids, not to have tax reform. It's great that Leon wants to be "sensitive" to the students. And if you don't like the district, move, or don't use it.

Overtaxed said:
But that's why they have a counsel, to inform themselves before they make a decision. I will not vote for kidsfirst given their last year's performance. Why would anyone in their right mind vote for Leon, who will be 'sensitive' to the students' needs, but had said anything at all about the taxpayers? Does he not know how much money goes into this poor performing school district?
Permalink Reply by Sven on March 30, 2010 at 11:02am
Meatloaf said:
Not sure if you know about the idea of the BOE, but they are there for the kids, not to have tax reform. It's great that Leon wants to be "sensitive" to the students. And if you don't like the district, move, or don't use it.

Great line, meatloaf! Let me think, where have I heard that one before? Oh, right, that's what the status-quo defenders always use as their last resort when they run out of real arguments.
Permalink Reply by Meatloaf on March 30, 2010 at 11:28am
Seriously, you really think the job of the BOE is to get tax refund? What planet are you from? There are soooo many other areas in this city where you can get tax reform, and yet you keep trying to take it from the kids. It's probably because most of the people who want the tax money from the BOE don't have kids in the school district so they don't care about taking money from the kids of the city. I know Maureen Sullivan's kids don't go there. And Elizabeth Markevitch's child is supposed to be going there. But that is yet to be seen.

Sven said:
Meatloaf said:
Not sure if you know about the idea of the BOE, but they are there for the kids, not to have tax reform. It's great that Leon wants to be "sensitive" to the students. And if you don't like the district, move, or don't use it.

Great line, meatloaf! Let me think, where have I heard that one before? Oh, right, that's what the status-quo defenders always use as their last resort when they run out of real arguments.
Permalink Reply by Dave Kaplan on March 30, 2010 at 12:06pm
"Taking away from the kids."

How exactly is reducing dead weight administration (like an assistant principal's position, for example), taking away from the kids?

KF ran on fiscal responsibility, at least in part.

If they are now unwilling to deliver on that portion of their platform, I'm unwilling to vote for them again.

I have not made up my mind in this election... both of these groups have quite a bit of explaining to do. I look forward to their responses to the Hoboken Revolt questionnaire.



Meatloaf said:
Seriously, you really think the job of the BOE is to get tax refund? What planet are you from? There are soooo many other areas in this city where you can get tax reform, and yet you keep trying to take it from the kids. It's probably because most of the people who want the tax money from the BOE don't have kids in the school district so they don't care about taking money from the kids of the city. I know Maureen Sullivan's kids don't go there. And Elizabeth Markevitch's child is supposed to be going there. But that is yet to be seen.

Sven said:
Meatloaf said:
Not sure if you know about the idea of the BOE, but they are there for the kids, not to have tax reform. It's great that Leon wants to be "sensitive" to the students. And if you don't like the district, move, or don't use it.

Great line, meatloaf! Let me think, where have I heard that one before? Oh, right, that's what the status-quo defenders always use as their last resort when they run out of real arguments.
Permalink Reply by Overtaxed on March 30, 2010 at 12:31pm
Meatloaf,
your comments are so fallacious that it's not even worth commenting. I will just say this: the taxpayers' money certainly doesn't reach the kids. I would never send my children to a failed school system such as ours. Look at Zimmer's kids: why is that even the Mayor is keeping her own kids away from Hoboken's schools? However, sponsoring KidsFirst is wrong, dear Mayor! Case closed.

Meatloaf said:
Seriously, you really think the job of the BOE is to get tax refund? What planet are you from? There are soooo many other areas in this city where you can get tax reform, and yet you keep trying to take it from the kids. It's probably because most of the people who want the tax money from the BOE don't have kids in the school district so they don't care about taking money from the kids of the city. >
Permalink Reply by Meatloaf on March 30, 2010 at 2:16pm
Why does everyone want to talk about everything on this website, where only a handful of people respond and probably read? Why not ask the candidates yourself the questions you wanted answered? Then leave the city. If you won't send your kids here and you don't like the taxes or anything about it, leave. Have you ever stepped foot into the school? Talked to the kids? How do you know it's failing? And comparing us to a school like Stuyvesant is not probable. Try comparing to Jersey City or Union City. A town that is similar to our own. That would make more sense and then you might see similar comparisons.

Kids First has done a great job getting read of the people that they can legally. You just can't fire people under contract. Breaking a contract without probable cause, other than you make too much money, will cost the tax payers more. And I think you should be smart enough to know that much.

▶ Reply to Discussion

RSS

Events

© 2012   Created by Administrator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service