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 Maureen Sullivan on March 30, 2010 at 2:54pm
Tonight is the public hearing on the school board budget. It's at 7 p.m. in the Wallace school gym. After the board discussion and public comments, the board votes on whether or not to put it on the ballot for the April 20 election.

Among the important points in the budget:

The proposed local tax levy to support the schools is $36,479,095...exactly the same as last year. So it includes NO tax relief.

The school portion of the tax rate was 1.176 last year. It has not been determined what this year's tax rate will be because that number is dependent on information from the city on rateables. It may, in fact, go up.

Trenton cut $2.4 million in state aid to our district for 2010-11. Filling that gap are close to $1m in one-shot sources of revenue, such as a plan to leaseback our textbooks for a lump sum that we then repay, with interest, over the next five years. In my opinion, there is plenty of fat to cut before we have to think about taking out a loan with the books we already paid for as collateral. The business administrator was able to fill in most of the lost aid with savings from retirements and moving classes around. There are no serious cuts to any departments, and some of them have probably never gotten close scrutiny.

The budget is 2% lower (not 6.5% or 7%) than last year due to attrition, etc. Overall, it's $57.9 million, which includes $7 million in state aid to fund the preschools and $5 million that passes through to the charter schools. When we voted last year the budget was $59.2 million, so about a $1.3 million difference. We're still spending about $46 million on 2,000 kids.

Donna, you asked if people running for the board understand the budget. I think just about anyone can understand these numbers. It's whether or not they think those numbers are acceptable. Real Results doesn't and Kids First does.

I find it amazing and enlightning that they repeat the old line..."if you don't like how much money we spend, move out"...with the same gusto that the Machine used to muster. I think it's quite clear that they hold in contempt anyone who wants to rein in spending and return some money to the taxpayers who fund the whole thing.
Permalink Reply by FAP on March 30, 2010 at 3:13pm
So Maureen even given the numbers you present it seems that Kids' First and you managed to cut spending by at least 1.4 million dollars year over year. If that hadn't have been accomplished we would be looking at a steep tax increase. Well done to both you and Kids' First.

As to cuts you seem to have put some thought into this. Can you itemize for us the specific fat you've identified that can be cut and what, if any, impact those cuts would have on the schools.

Maureen Sullivan said:
Tonight is the public hearing on the school board budget. It's at 7 p.m. in the Wallace school gym. After the board discussion and public comments, the board votes on whether or not to put it on the ballot for the April 20 election.

Among the important points in the budget:

The proposed local tax levy to support the schools is $36,479,095...exactly the same as last year. So it includes NO tax relief.

The school portion of the tax rate was 1.176 last year. It has not been determined what this year's tax rate will be because that number is dependent on information from the city on rateables. It may, in fact, go up.

Trenton cut $2.4 million in state aid to our district for 2010-11. Filling that gap are close to $1m in one-shot sources of revenue, such as a plan to leaseback our textbooks for a lump sum that we then repay, with interest, over the next five years. In my opinion, there is plenty of fat to cut before we have to think about taking out a loan with the books we already paid for as collateral. The business administrator was able to fill in most of the lost aid with savings from retirements and moving classes around. There are no serious cuts to any departments, and some of them have probably never gotten close scrutiny.

The budget is 2% lower (not 6.5% or 7%) than last year due to attrition, etc. Overall, it's $57.9 million, which includes $7 million in state aid to fund the preschools and $5 million that passes through to the charter schools. When we voted last year the budget was $59.2 million, so about a $1.3 million difference. We're still spending about $46 million on 2,000 kids.

Donna, you asked if people running for the board understand the budget. I think just about anyone can understand these numbers. It's whether or not they think those numbers are acceptable. Real Results doesn't and Kids First does.

I find it amazing and enlightning that they repeat the old line..."if you don't like how much money we spend, move out"...with the same gusto that the Machine used to muster. I think it's quite clear that they hold in contempt anyone who wants to rein in spending and return some money to the taxpayers who fund the whole thing.
Permalink Reply by Maureen Sullivan on March 30, 2010 at 4:59pm
Forde:
The reductions include $100,000 in what's known as "breakage," replacing two teachers at the top of the pay scale with two teachers at the bottom of the pay scale (starting salary next year for a rookie teacher is $46,410.) Several positions will be eliminated when the Alternative high school students and eighth graders move back into HHS (this was done for space reasons and to realign some programs, not to cut costs). Another 2.5 positions will be lost because of the end of the Reading First grant. More retirements will cut out $300,000. The reduction in health care benefits due to retirements saves $132,000. There aren't any layoffs planned...attrition will open up positions. Plus there's a reduction in the cost of utilities with the closing of Connors for renovations.

Under this spending plan, the International Baccalaureate program is eliminated. There are other personnel moves that I will let the superintendent address tonight.

So as you can see, the board was not faced with any real difficult decisions in getting to a flat budget and flat tax levy. The next dollars cut could have gone to tax relief.

Right off the bat I would have cut the board's travel budget, to avoid the fiasco of having the majority of board members (not Theresa or Carrie or me) approve another member's trip to Chicago, which was later over-ruled by the county superintendent. I know that's only a few thousand dollars, but it would have sent a sign to all of our 379 full-time and 111 part-time employees as well as the taxpayers that we'll start the belt-tightening with ourselves.

I have also come out against using federal stimulus money to start a new program...take-home laptop computers for 8th graders...when that $225,000 could have gone to more immediate needs. For instance, last week, a critical system failure knocked out the district's entire mail system...as much as 10% of the data may be gone for good (including all of my board emails). We also need a new phone system.

Other cuts include personnel and contracts. As I said before, with only one vote, there's only so much I can get accomplished.


FAP said:
So Maureen even given the numbers you present it seems that Kids' First and you managed to cut spending by at least 1.4 million dollars year over year. If that hadn't have been accomplished we would be looking at a steep tax increase. Well done to both you and Kids' First.

As to cuts you seem to have put some thought into this. Can you itemize for us the specific fat you've identified that can be cut and what, if any, impact those cuts would have on the schools.

Maureen Sullivan said:
Tonight is the public hearing on the school board budget. It's at 7 p.m. in the Wallace school gym. After the board discussion and public comments, the board votes on whether or not to put it on the ballot for the April 20 election.

Among the important points in the budget:

The proposed local tax levy to support the schools is $36,479,095...exactly the same as last year. So it includes NO tax relief.

The school portion of the tax rate was 1.176 last year. It has not been determined what this year's tax rate will be because that number is dependent on information from the city on rateables. It may, in fact, go up.

Trenton cut $2.4 million in state aid to our district for 2010-11. Filling that gap are close to $1m in one-shot sources of revenue, such as a plan to leaseback our textbooks for a lump sum that we then repay, with interest, over the next five years. In my opinion, there is plenty of fat to cut before we have to think about taking out a loan with the books we already paid for as collateral. The business administrator was able to fill in most of the lost aid with savings from retirements and moving classes around. There are no serious cuts to any departments, and some of them have probably never gotten close scrutiny.

The budget is 2% lower (not 6.5% or 7%) than last year due to attrition, etc. Overall, it's $57.9 million, which includes $7 million in state aid to fund the preschools and $5 million that passes through to the charter schools. When we voted last year the budget was $59.2 million, so about a $1.3 million difference. We're still spending about $46 million on 2,000 kids.

Donna, you asked if people running for the board understand the budget. I think just about anyone can understand these numbers. It's whether or not they think those numbers are acceptable. Real Results doesn't and Kids First does.

I find it amazing and enlightning that they repeat the old line..."if you don't like how much money we spend, move out"...with the same gusto that the Machine used to muster. I think it's quite clear that they hold in contempt anyone who wants to rein in spending and return some money to the taxpayers who fund the whole thing.
Permalink Reply by rosethorn on March 30, 2010 at 5:47pm
Meatloaf -- you're sounding just as desperate as the machine did in its last dying days. If you don't like the high taxes, then move out of town. If you don't like the corruption, then move out of town. If you don't like how we keep the budget so fat, then move out of town. The machine always loved it when a newcomer moved out of town because that was one less vote against them. Now Kids First is the new machine. Keep the status quo. Don't pay attention to how little we did. Ignore that tax cut you didn't get, even though we still have the second-highest per pupil costs in the entire state. There's no fat here. You gave away the game, Meatloaf, when you told us to look elsewhere for taxes to be cut, that KF never had any intention of keeping its promises from a year ago. Board members are not supposed to act like PTO moms focused only on the schools. They represent the entire town--whether they pay taxes or not and whether they have kids in school or not. KF forgot that this year. More specifically, the problem has been Rose Markle and Irene Sobolov. Donna -- I think it got hard for Rose right at the first meeting last April. Anyone following this can see she's been the main impediment to progress all year. When Irene joined in December, she got an ally. This town did well last year to elect Minutillo, Sullivan and McAllister on the board. No one who voted for them should regret that. They did as much as they could but they never really had five votes for major reforms. But now we have a chance to drop Markle and Sobolov from the board and elect candidates who will help Minutillo, Sullivan and McAllister finally make the changes we thought we would get this past year. Let's hope we take advantage of this chance.

Meatloaf said:
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.
Permalink Reply by Donna Antonucci on March 30, 2010 at 5:54pm
I just found out from the Admin office that the BOE signed the custodians' contract on 1/26 the day AFTER Christie came out with those 4 bills that would have given us 1.5% of salaries as contributions to healthcare. Given that their deal is more meager - $20-25/month per employee, this isn't a concession. It's insulating a group from reform.

I don't want to hear they didn't know. The news broke early on Monday morning and they meet on Tuesday nights. It was all over NJ.com, Hobokennow, Hoboken Revolt. Plus Christie talked about it immediately when he was sworn in. It was introduced with tremendous support and passed 36:0.
Permalink Reply by Sven on March 30, 2010 at 6:18pm
Meatloaf said:
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. ...

Meatloaf, I don't know who you are, and quite frankly, I also don't particularly care. But I find your attitude as represented by the highlighted passage above very disturbing. These are the sorts of lines we are used to hearing from prior administrations and boards. I really had hoped that with the election of KF last year we had moved beyond this sorry state of affairs where any criticism or voicing of opposing opinions is met by the status-quo folks with their call upon us to move away from Hoboken. Well, let me fill you in to a little secret here. Many of us, including myself, have made this town their home and intend to keep it that way. We will not go away! So you better start accepting this fact.
Permalink Reply by ditto on April 9, 2010 at 12:35pm
Isn't the IB program being replaced with the Advanced Placement program which is cheaper and will serve more students? The IB program only graduates a few students a year and costs the district approx $150K per year. Isn't this the very type of cost savings you are demanding?

Maureen Sullivan said:
Forde:
The reductions include $100,000 in what's known as "breakage," replacing two teachers at the top of the pay scale with two teachers at the bottom of the pay scale (starting salary next year for a rookie teacher is $46,410.) Several positions will be eliminated when the Alternative high school students and eighth graders move back into HHS (this was done for space reasons and to realign some programs, not to cut costs). Another 2.5 positions will be lost because of the end of the Reading First grant. More retirements will cut out $300,000. The reduction in health care benefits due to retirements saves $132,000. There aren't any layoffs planned...attrition will open up positions. Plus there's a reduction in the cost of utilities with the closing of Connors for renovations.

Under this spending plan, the International Baccalaureate program is eliminated. There are other personnel moves that I will let the superintendent address tonight.

So as you can see, the board was not faced with any real difficult decisions in getting to a flat budget and flat tax levy. The next dollars cut could have gone to tax relief.

Right off the bat I would have cut the board's travel budget, to avoid the fiasco of having the majority of board members (not Theresa or Carrie or me) approve another member's trip to Chicago, which was later over-ruled by the county superintendent. I know that's only a few thousand dollars, but it would have sent a sign to all of our 379 full-time and 111 part-time employees as well as the taxpayers that we'll start the belt-tightening with ourselves.

I have also come out against using federal stimulus money to start a new program...take-home laptop computers for 8th graders...when that $225,000 could have gone to more immediate needs. For instance, last week, a critical system failure knocked out the district's entire mail system...as much as 10% of the data may be gone for good (including all of my board emails). We also need a new phone system.

Other cuts include personnel and contracts. As I said before, with only one vote, there's only so much I can get accomplished.


FAP said:
So Maureen even given the numbers you present it seems that Kids' First and you managed to cut spending by at least 1.4 million dollars year over year. If that hadn't have been accomplished we would be looking at a steep tax increase. Well done to both you and Kids' First.

As to cuts you seem to have put some thought into this. Can you itemize for us the specific fat you've identified that can be cut and what, if any, impact those cuts would have on the schools.

Maureen Sullivan said:
Tonight is the public hearing on the school board budget. It's at 7 p.m. in the Wallace school gym. After the board discussion and public comments, the board votes on whether or not to put it on the ballot for the April 20 election.

Among the important points in the budget:

The proposed local tax levy to support the schools is $36,479,095...exactly the same as last year. So it includes NO tax relief.

The school portion of the tax rate was 1.176 last year. It has not been determined what this year's tax rate will be because that number is dependent on information from the city on rateables. It may, in fact, go up.

Trenton cut $2.4 million in state aid to our district for 2010-11. Filling that gap are close to $1m in one-shot sources of revenue, such as a plan to leaseback our textbooks for a lump sum that we then repay, with interest, over the next five years. In my opinion, there is plenty of fat to cut before we have to think about taking out a loan with the books we already paid for as collateral. The business administrator was able to fill in most of the lost aid with savings from retirements and moving classes around. There are no serious cuts to any departments, and some of them have probably never gotten close scrutiny.

The budget is 2% lower (not 6.5% or 7%) than last year due to attrition, etc. Overall, it's $57.9 million, which includes $7 million in state aid to fund the preschools and $5 million that passes through to the charter schools. When we voted last year the budget was $59.2 million, so about a $1.3 million difference. We're still spending about $46 million on 2,000 kids.

Donna, you asked if people running for the board understand the budget. I think just about anyone can understand these numbers. It's whether or not they think those numbers are acceptable. Real Results doesn't and Kids First does.

I find it amazing and enlightning that they repeat the old line..."if you don't like how much money we spend, move out"...with the same gusto that the Machine used to muster. I think it's quite clear that they hold in contempt anyone who wants to rein in spending and return some money to the taxpayers who fund the whole thing.
Permalink Reply by ditto on April 11, 2010 at 11:37am
The laptop program has been in discussion since at least December 2009; where were your objections then? Didn't Carter clearly state that the federal stimulus money must be used directly for students and not for capital or other improvements as you suggest (the email and phone system)?

The IB program (a cost of approx $150K per year) is being replaced with the Advance Placement (AP) which is cheaper and increases the number of students who can participate. Only students who took a full IB course load were able to graduate with the IB certificate: a total of 2 students last year I believe. AP students can also carry credits forward to college. Isn't this the very type of cost cutting and savings you are arguing for?

The budget is reduced. The tax levy is slightly reduced at less than 1% (but it is the only reduction in NJ) which means that Hoboken is the only municipality in NJ not passing along a tax increase to make-up for the cuts in state aid.

What exactly is the level of tax relief you are arguing for?

Maureen Sullivan said:
Forde:
The reductions include $100,000 in what's known as "breakage," replacing two teachers at the top of the pay scale with two teachers at the bottom of the pay scale (starting salary next year for a rookie teacher is $46,410.) Several positions will be eliminated when the Alternative high school students and eighth graders move back into HHS (this was done for space reasons and to realign some programs, not to cut costs). Another 2.5 positions will be lost because of the end of the Reading First grant. More retirements will cut out $300,000. The reduction in health care benefits due to retirements saves $132,000. There aren't any layoffs planned...attrition will open up positions. Plus there's a reduction in the cost of utilities with the closing of Connors for renovations.

Under this spending plan, the International Baccalaureate program is eliminated. There are other personnel moves that I will let the superintendent address tonight.

So as you can see, the board was not faced with any real difficult decisions in getting to a flat budget and flat tax levy. The next dollars cut could have gone to tax relief.

Right off the bat I would have cut the board's travel budget, to avoid the fiasco of having the majority of board members (not Theresa or Carrie or me) approve another member's trip to Chicago, which was later over-ruled by the county superintendent. I know that's only a few thousand dollars, but it would have sent a sign to all of our 379 full-time and 111 part-time employees as well as the taxpayers that we'll start the belt-tightening with ourselves.

I have also come out against using federal stimulus money to start a new program...take-home laptop computers for 8th graders...when that $225,000 could have gone to more immediate needs. For instance, last week, a critical system failure knocked out the district's entire mail system...as much as 10% of the data may be gone for good (including all of my board emails). We also need a new phone system.

Other cuts include personnel and contracts. As I said before, with only one vote, there's only so much I can get accomplished.


FAP said:
So Maureen even given the numbers you present it seems that Kids' First and you managed to cut spending by at least 1.4 million dollars year over year. If that hadn't have been accomplished we would be looking at a steep tax increase. Well done to both you and Kids' First.

As to cuts you seem to have put some thought into this. Can you itemize for us the specific fat you've identified that can be cut and what, if any, impact those cuts would have on the schools.

Maureen Sullivan said:
Tonight is the public hearing on the school board budget. It's at 7 p.m. in the Wallace school gym. After the board discussion and public comments, the board votes on whether or not to put it on the ballot for the April 20 election.

Among the important points in the budget:

The proposed local tax levy to support the schools is $36,479,095...exactly the same as last year. So it includes NO tax relief.

The school portion of the tax rate was 1.176 last year. It has not been determined what this year's tax rate will be because that number is dependent on information from the city on rateables. It may, in fact, go up.

Trenton cut $2.4 million in state aid to our district for 2010-11. Filling that gap are close to $1m in one-shot sources of revenue, such as a plan to leaseback our textbooks for a lump sum that we then repay, with interest, over the next five years. In my opinion, there is plenty of fat to cut before we have to think about taking out a loan with the books we already paid for as collateral. The business administrator was able to fill in most of the lost aid with savings from retirements and moving classes around. There are no serious cuts to any departments, and some of them have probably never gotten close scrutiny.

The budget is 2% lower (not 6.5% or 7%) than last year due to attrition, etc. Overall, it's $57.9 million, which includes $7 million in state aid to fund the preschools and $5 million that passes through to the charter schools. When we voted last year the budget was $59.2 million, so about a $1.3 million difference. We're still spending about $46 million on 2,000 kids.

Donna, you asked if people running for the board understand the budget. I think just about anyone can understand these numbers. It's whether or not they think those numbers are acceptable. Real Results doesn't and Kids First does.

I find it amazing and enlightning that they repeat the old line..."if you don't like how much money we spend, move out"...with the same gusto that the Machine used to muster. I think it's quite clear that they hold in contempt anyone who wants to rein in spending and return some money to the taxpayers who fund the whole thing.

▶ Reply to Discussion

RSS

Events

© 2012   Created by Administrator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service