Oh that was courtesy of the Jersey City Independent.

Wow surprised no one posted this here. I did the math and this budget amounts to over $23000 per student per year. It's a HALF A BILLION DOLLAR BUDGET. Time to say no. Throwing money at the schools is not the answer.

Remember that $40 bucks President Obama wanted you to keep with the Payroll Tax deduction? Well good Ol' Jersey City Board of Ed just took it away - IN MORE TAXES. NOTHING WAS DONE TO CUT SPENDING AND WASTE. NOTHING.

---------

The board of education Thursday adopted a $661.3 million 2012-13 budget, which, if voters approve, will raise an average homeowner?s taxes by $34 (the average assessed house the district is using here is $92,400).

The budget was approved by a 7-1 vote with one vacancy. A public dialogue occurred over two separate meetings, including a special March 26 session attended by about 100 residents. Board president Sterling Waterman set the final vote for the board?s monthly meeting three days later, given some trustees did not attend the hearing.

According to Melissa Simmons, the board secretary and business administrator, the outlay meets the state?s 2 percent limit on spending increases. Though the board came under criticism for increasing property taxes annually, even to the tighter cap enacted in 2011, Simmons told JCI it must raise them by the maximum or the state will penalize it by cutting the district?s annual ?adjustment aid,? at $100 million. Even so, residents can still nix the budget.

Simmons stressed the board did all it could to economize while not seeking layoffs. ?There will be no reduction in classroom teachers and we?ve been efficient in the central office,? she told residents.

This is in stark contrast to 2011-12, when the board threatened to lay off 228 employees due to an expected shortfall in state aid. It restored 178 only after the state Supreme Court narrowly ruled Gov. Chris Christie had to reinstate $21.5 million in special aid traditionally set aside for Jersey City and 30 other districts. Simmons said the new budget assumes this special aid will stay in place. The budget would service almost 29,000 full-time students and pay 4,813 employees working in 37 schools and a central office.

Including revenue from outside sources, the budget ? at $661.3 million ? is $30.6 million higher than what the board adopted last year. Yet it is $12.1 million lower than the proposal Simmons discussed in February with residents during a special meeting at Whitney M. Young School in Greenville.

If voters approve it on April 17, it would raise property taxes by $2.1 million, to $106.4 million. Residents would only vote on the tax levy.

Current expenses would be cut by $27.5 million over the 2011-12 budget, down to $214.6 million. The district expects state aid will basically remain the same, at $418.6 million.

Simmons said the proposal would hike school taxes by $34 (to $1,694) on what the district considers the average assessed house, at $92,400. That number is so low ? and lower than many other North Jersey municipalities ? because Jersey City completed its last revaluation in 1988 and is in the midst of a new state-ordered reappraisal, which must be completed by a 2014 deadline.

Board president Sterling Waterman, vice president Carol Lester and trustees Marvin Adames, Carol Harrison-Arnold, William DeRosa, Patricia Sebron and Angel Valentin voted for the budget. Suzanne Mack, citing concerns over reductions in special education funding, voted no.

?It?s not a perfect budget,? conceded Waterman, who chairs the finance committee. ?I?d rather be at 95 percent than what we had in the prior year.?

Recalling residents? concerns over an alleged lack of transparency with the 2011-12 budget, he insisted the board tried to ?make decisions with the best input we could possibly have? via holding two preliminary public meetings in November and February.

According to the budget summary, major increases include: salary and benefits (up $21.5 million, to $446.6 million); transfers to charter schools, in part to help pay for three new sites this fall (up $8.7 million, to $51.1 million); non-salary school-based expenses (up $1.9 million, to $13.9 million); and out-of-district tuition (up $1.3 million, to $22.1 million).

There were a number of significant decreases. Simmons? summary cited 19 separate areas totaling $28 million. Areas and amounts cut from them include: unemployment insurance with no proposed layoffs ($9.7 million); 109 retirees who will be replaced by new hires making much less ($5.5 million); not filling 42 vacant positions ($2.8 million); eliminating 15 administrative jobs ($1.6 million); and eliminating some stipends ($1.5 million).

In addition, the district anticipates a major slash in spending on federally-funded projects (down $11.8 million, to $23.7 million) and reduced monies for special education (down $2.8 million, to $4.5 million).

Lester said she was conditionally voting yes, though she conceded it did not meet her ideal vision of guaranteeing wi-fi for every classroom, and other amenities including upgraded science labs for each school deemed in need. ?We have to put the focus on getting as much to the children in the classroom as possible. That is our job,? she told residents at the earlier budget hearing.

She noted upon casting her vote Thursday, ?I still have faith we will be able to switch line items around.?

Following the budget vote, district watchdog Riaz Wahid told the board it was stiffing taxpayers even with only the 2-percent hike ? the maximum the state law allows without seeking a waiver.

?Since 2005, (school) taxes have gone up 39.9 percent,? noted Wahid, who asserts the district cannot use the state?s tighter cap as an excuse to keep raising taxes. ?It?s become very expensive just to have more.?

Wahid urged the board to follow Union City?s example and freeze school taxes. Yet Simmons insisted to JCI that the board?s special relationship with the state, whose monies comprise well over half the budget, leaves it no choice.

?If we don?t raise our tax levy by the 2 percent, the state has said they?ll penalize us by cutting our adjustment aid to an equivalent amount,? she explained. Wahid adamantly rejects such logic.