This is the Jersey City Board of Education's, special town hall meeting, specializing in the budget. Today is 04/21/2026. In our midst today, we have, obviously our superintendent, Norma Fernandez. We have our business administrator, doctor, Francine Luce. We have, trustee Natalia Iofe, trustee I, Afaf Mohammed, trustee Doctor. George Blunt, and our special guest today, councilman at large Rolando Lovarro from from Missouri City City Council. And today,
was obviously designated, to discuss the budget a little bit further. We did do the proper notifications, in the press, to let them know that we were having a meeting, here today for question and answer. Anyone from the community, would have been able to come. Obviously the town hall meeting is not, as strict as our regular board meeting, so the leniency of back and forth discussion is allowed. Three minutes to speak is allowed. So I was expecting it to be, pretty interactive. So we're we're gonna give the community some time to get here,
but if they don't come we're able to have a discussion among us, with the upcoming budget that is to be voted on on April 30. So with that being said, we're gonna have opening remarks, by our superintendent, and then we're going to turn the meeting over to our business administrator so that she can go through the presentation and then, periodically we'll stop her for questions throughout the, the presentation, instead of waiting until the end so that we can have real time. So we wanna just note that, obviously, there is, no time limit on on speaking when it comes to the public if they come,
and we are streaming live on our, net on our, social media networks. So at this time, madam superintendent. Thank you, vice president Morris. Just wanna, make sure that everyone understands the budget that we are presenting today is to promote and enforce a thorough and efficient education as mandated by the New Jersey constitution. And to do so, we are spending well below what the recommended adequacy is required to provide the services
for all the students in our district as well as the charter schools. So the funds that you will hear today is to provide a thorough and efficient education not only to the for the students enrolled in the Jersey City public schools. It includes the funding that just passes through the district and goes towards the district towards charter school. Having said that, I do wanna keep in mind that this budget,
there is a reduction in force. Some vacancies and some individuals may lose their, positions. The all the unions have been notified. A list has been sent to civil service for them to determine the seniority of individuals in the district. And having said that, we're still focused on providing the best for our students. So with that in mind, I'm going to ask our business administrator,
doctor Luce, to please present the this year's budget for the 2728 school year. Thank you. Thank you, doctor Fernandez. Thank you, vice president Morris. So good evening, and thank you for joining us in this town hall regarding the Jersey City Public Schools budget for the 2627 school year. Just so everyone is aware that the business office, in collaboration with the superintendent, began this process in September to ensure every dollar supports our students' academic and social
emotional needs. The proposal before you was submitted to the county superintendent on 03/27/2026, and now we are moving forward to our final budget, which will be held on 04/30/2026. So for the 2627 school year, we are presenting a total operating budget of $971,223,877 And this plan is designed to maintain a high quality instruction while navigating a complex
landscape of rising fixed costs and shifting state aid. So tonight, I will walk you through how we are allocating these resources, including a $206,200,000 for regular programs instruction and over a $101,000,000 for special education services. The total budget for the 2627 school year proposed is $1,096,541,152.
So as I mentioned, so in the beginning of the budget process, the preliminary budget was submitted to the county on March 27. And, again, our public hearing will be on April 30. So our 2627 budget review timelines, I'm not going to read this word for word as I did in the preliminary budget hearing because we're going to do it again on the final. So I'm just going to give a high level for each of these pages. So this is our timeline, which began on September 15. And, again, the final budget will be held on April 30,
and that includes tonight tonight's hearing at this town hall meeting. We have a number of definitions. The one I am going to read is about the tax levy. That is the one that has come up the most. So the tax levy is the amount of the revenue raised through property taxes funds. We have our fund 11, which is our general expense. Funds. We have our fund 11, which is our general expense, our fund 12, which is our capital outlay, our fund 15, which is our school based budget,
and fund 20, which is special revenue. Fund 30 is our capital projects, Fund 40 is our debt service, and Fund 60 is our food service. So for our 2627 projected revenue, the total operating budget for last year was $914,000,000 For the 2627 total operating budget, we are proposing $971,000,000 That is an increase of $56,000,000
So as you go down this page, so I will give you some clarity as and to clarify the rumors that are out there. So the tax levy and the bank cap for twenty five point two six was approximately $534,000,000 The tax levy for 2627 total is approximately $625,000,000 So just to dispel the rumors that were printed and that are out there,
that is the 17% increase. We are not raising taxes by 17%. It is the difference from the tax levy and including the bank cap from twenty five point two six to twenty six point two seven. The tax levy is not the same as the tax rate. The tax levy does not translate to the tax rate. So that is where everyone is getting 17%. Does anybody have any questions? Madam madam Biele,
I just wanna, you know, reiterate it again because, you know, I've ran into a lot of concerned citizens and, you know, and to their defense, this is a very sophisticated process, sophisticated number. So our seniors, our our young adults in the city, they may not be able to follow, you know, as adequately as some of us. Just explain to them the process of the board of education versus the city, how we're required, the 2%, and and and how we don't raise taxes. Could you just touch on it just briefly?
Yes. So the board of education does not have any authority to raise taxes. That comes from the city. We are required, and I'll explain this a little bit more as we go further, or I should say much more in debt. We are taking the 2% increase that we are mandated to take. So the 2% increase, if you take the local the tax levy and the bank cap from last year and you add the two percent, that is the number we get this year of $545,000,000.
That is the mandate. It is the 2%. Yes. And so to the chair, just to clarify that even though to the naked eye, the difference between 452,000,000 and 545,000,000 doesn't feel like a 2%, but because the property the net property valuations have gone up by almost $1,600,000,000 throughout the city, and that was reflected at the end of the budget. I'm just going back to our last board meeting when we voted for the preliminary, and I'm I asked this question, I think, on record to emphasize that, that the reason for the increase is as the property valuations go up,
thus goes the tax levy, but not because it is being forced to increase. It's because it's a natural process, of growth in property values. The tax rate. The tax rate. Forgive me. The tax rate does not change. It's the total valuations of properties that grow that subsequently influence the higher, levies. So, again, this is the tax levy separate from the tax rate. So we'll talk about that. But, yes, you are correct, and we will further discuss that as we go on. Right now, this is the tax levy.
So we again, when you take the tax levy in the bank cap from 2526 and you increase it by 2%, not 17, you receive the $545,000,000 And I just I just wanted to, because I don't want anyone to think that we're trying to, by any way, embarrass our councilman whether he came today as a spectator. I asked him if he would come and sit on our dais, with us today because, you know, we talk about how we have a relationship with the city council and we're trying to get a relation with the city council.
So I thought that it would be appropriate today, since he was already in the audience, if he wouldn't mind joining us on our dais today, if he wanted, you know, if he wanted to give an in light of, maybe some questions or concerns that you might have been hearing in the in the in the street, so to say, that needed a clarification, regarding the budget, because obviously, you know, the city, I get you guys I don't know if you if the budget's been completed yet. Did the city do their budget yet? No. No. City? No. No. The mayor's not even interested. So I wanna give you an opportunity if you had any questions or concerns on that particular topic.
Councilman councilman large, LaVaro. I mean, I'm here to to understand the budget and understand what, how it's constructed as well as what the numbers are. So this I'm glad you're sharing this. I'll begin then begin there. And as you already suggested, the 17% that's been reported out there, it sounds like it's erroneous reports. And so so just so I understand it, that 17% that people are that that they're reporting is the total change between local tax levy and local tax levy bank cap,
divided by the 25, 26 numbers of that. So yes. So the 70% and I and I don't mind repeating this for clarity purposes because it is this is a lot to digest. The 17% is the local tax levy and bank cap from 2526, the difference from the local tax levy and the bank cap from 2627. Okay? They're taking the two totals Mhmm. And the difference is 17%. With respect to the mandate,
the 2% that we are allowed to increase, which is what we are doing, We are using it's the the tax levy in the bank cap from 2526, which is approximately $543,000,000 If you add 2% on top of that, you receive the tax levy for the following year. So I you can do the math and find out what the tax levy will be for the next year. Right? Because you will take those two numbers and plus, times 2%, you will receive the tax levy going forward as you can see what the projections
will be. The bank cap is a separate conversation that we are using this year, and I'll talk about what the bank cap is and why we're using it as we go through this. Okay? That should not be added in the tax levy to come to the 17%. That is erroneous. Trustee Mohammed? For clarity Yes. So when I'm looking at these columns. Can you tell us exactly in in which column, which numbers are we adding for the 70% of adding or subtracting for the 70%? So in the first column, the twenty five twenty six,
the first two numbers Okay. The first two numbers. And then in the second column, those first two numbers, so it's the totals of each of those. Okay. That is 17%. Okay. In no way does that reflect that the board of education is raising taxes 17%. That is misinformation. Yep. And then for the 2%, we're, adding or subtracting which two? So the 2% is the first two numbers and the twenty five twenty six times 2% will give you the first number in the next column,
the five forty five. Well, I just feel like this is why this is important, because there was originally another town hall scheduled for today, but I canceled it and put the budget, into place because I felt like before we voted on April 30 that this that the not only the residents, but the taxpayers needed to know that the Board of Education is not raising taxes. And then to the the predicted numbers was the we were raising 17%. The city was gonna be 22%, which was gonna be 39%. That's absurd.
Right. So, you know, we needed to get this clear because there has been a lot of misinformation put out into the community and people are actually believing this nonsense. So we need to make sure that we are on the record stating this with proof because I feel like now for some reason we have to prove everything, because we have all of these different groups that are spreading these these rumors that are trying to debunk our our our actual work, that we're doing. Councilman, do you have anything else you wanna say? No. I mean, you're gonna go through the rest of the Yes. We'll go through them. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.
So for our 2627 projected revenue, we have our, total operating budget for 2627 of $971,223,877 which is an increase from last year of $56,357,515. The following slide Can can I ask about that one? Just I'm sorry. If I may, just, payroll tax, is that actual number or projected? For 2627?
Yeah. So the payroll tax, yes, is the number Actual from Yes. In this Yes. From the administration? Yes. Good enough to give that? Okay. Yes. Thanks. But we're still old. Right? So from from our our previous meeting, the mayor's office, the business administrator there, he said that they were going to come up with a mechanism. And as they receive the payroll tax, any additional that they would give to the district. We do not have a particular dollar amount of what that might be. But as everyone knows, the city is flourishing,
so we are hopeful that there will be additional funds. But we did receive 84 from Well, we will. We will, eventually. Okay. We will. Mhmm. Yes. Thank you. Okay. So the next is just a chart reflective of that previous slide. So the following slide. The 2627 projected local tax levy. Okay. So again, you can see the local tax levy from '25 to '26. It's the same numbers that we discussed, and maybe it's easier to see these two numbers just without the remainder of the
other columns. So the $4.52 plus the 82 in the bank cap, 2% gives you the $5.45, 2%. We're taking the 2%. Okay? 2%. Two. Okay. Can I hear it again? 2%? We are using the bank cap. Okay? So if you go down to the bottom of the slide, again, the local tax levy plus the bank cap gives us our total local tax levy, which is $625,304,688
That is a 17% increase in the total tax levy, not the tax rate. It does not translate to the tax rate at all. There are two different things. So for the tax rate, the increase, it is $66.25 per month. That is an average tax increase based on the overall tax assessment. And so to add to, what trustee Ioffe said, it is based on the influence of the net valuation of this city.
And the net valuation has gone up exponentially, and I have those numbers as we go forward. May I ask about the $166.25 per month? Is that based on a certain value of the home? Or Yes. I have that as we at towards the end of the slide, but thank you for asking. So the following slide, this is the bank cap and understanding the unused taxing authority. So there is a a mechanism at the NJD DOE that allows the school districts to accumulate the unused taxes from the 2% statutory tax levy cap over time.
So if we were to not use the 2% this year, it is basically bent for us to use in the future, short term future. You have to use it within three years or you lose it. That's where we are getting our $80,000,000 from. It's our own unused tax levy. Yeah. Any questions on that? The unused is the banked cap? Yes. Yes. The unused banked cap. So you only have three years and then it expires and you don't get it back. And just did we use it last year?
We did. Okay. We used 82,000,000 out last year. That's what was available. We are taking the full amount this year of 80. That is what is available. Okay. This is just a chart. Sorry. Can I just ask just so you understand the bank cap, 82,000,000 in 2526, and then $80,000,026.27? I'm just curious why it's, is that is that amount also based on the rural assessed values of the properties? Or is it, It's it's what is left that we didn't use in previous years of the 2%.
Mhmm. So it's accumulated. We have three years to bank it. Right? And then So just for clarity, I don't have it all in front of me, but I'm gonna give an example. Say, three years ago, we didn't take the 2%. We took a portion of it. That's what was left. So it's been sitting there for us to use now. Okay. So is this it's not from 2526 because you used it in 2526. 2526 is gone. Right. This is what we have available to use for 2627. And it was not used maybe in 2425?
I'm just trying to understand. Yes. Yep. So the chair. But every year, there's a but there's there's money added to it. There is. So even though we don't use it, councilman Mhmm. It's still a rollover. It's kinda like a check kinda like a savings account. You put money in there, then you take it out, and then you have some left. And then you put more money in there, it just rolls over. But we have three years to use It expires. It expires. We have three years to use. Yes. Okay. Abba. Just, from my memory, I remember you using the, reporting us to us using the 2,000,000 last year. The 22%?
Yeah. Well, so we have $8,080,000,000? Yes. I remember, if I'm remembering correctly, you reported that we used 2,000,000. That's how we have the 80 left over. Yes, no? No. No. The 82,000,000 was solely for last year, different from the 80,000,000 this year. The 2,000,002 million might have been from something else. Okay. Okay. Okay. So is there a balance of this bank levy in excess to use the 80,000,000? Is there still a balance to that potentially could be used in 2728? We don't know what that number will be. Okay. But, yes,
there will be something. Okay. But we used all of it. For now? From for now. We used yeah. We used that. Right. We don't know what it will be for next year. Is that, like, surplus from previous From the unused 2% in previous years. I remember you explained this, doctor Luz, to us when you told when you said, I think in a retreat or whatever that we're you we're exhausting everything Yes. To balance this budget. So To balance the budget for this year. Yes. Doctor Luce, can I clarify? So then how would the bank cap become accumulated again, if ever? Like because if there's no probability that the district will not be using the 2%
from now until forever. So does that mean that the this is the one last time that the bank cap will be utilized and never again, or it may get become accumulated again? And how? I I will I will bring something up at the next meeting or at the caucus to explain that more. Maybe I'll have some figures. But, yes, you can accumulate more. Yes. That is correct. It replenishes. Right? Even if you continue to mandatedly use your 2% every time. Okay. Right. Is is it is it generally replenished by Gotta press your button.
Is it, generally replenished by because of unspent dollars from previous budgets? Yes. Yeah. Okay. And we have a similar thing in the city. It's just a Yes. It's called something different. Yeah. Any other questions regarding this now? Madam. Okay. So if we can move on to the regular program instructions, salaries, and program expenses, we have a total of 206,000,000 with an appropriations decrease of $2,784,691. For our co curricular activities,
our total is $5,513,402 with an appropriations decrease of $2,063. For our special education instruction, a total of $101,000,000 with an increase of $2,424,819. For our special education tuition, our total tuition is 29,000,000 with an increase of $4,263,646.
For our attendance, health services, home instruction, guidance, and library, our total is 13,000,000 with an appropriations increase of $948,221. For our improvement of instruction, a total of 22,000,000 with an appropriations decrease of $1,776,069. So that represents some of the vacancies and our reduction at that point. For our general administration,
our total is 13,000,000 with an appropriations decrease of 195,277 thousand $277. For our school administration, our school based budgets, our total is $23,177,549 with a decrease of $1,166,434. For our central services, which is our business office and HR,
total of 9,655,000 with an increase of 385,000. Doctor Luce? Yes. May I just, cut in here around this particular slide, central services? Yes. Only because it got brought up in public comment at our last board meeting for the preliminary budget, and I want to touch upon it because I talked to you about this in our three by threes for the board members on the budget Yes. Because people pointed it out how, oh, we have a reduction in regular instruction,
which is, you know, regular classroom, textbooks, teachers, so on and so forth. And then we have a reduction in improvement of instruction, yet we have an increase in central services, which basically being described as business office and HR. So the natural assumption was like, wait a minute. You're at you're throwing money at HR and business while taking out of the classroom, and you explained to me in a three by three that, in fact, what is happening the increase that is happening in this particular area is not related to HR and business per se,
but it's actually related to instruction, and that is the Edmentum Correct. Tutoring services. I just want on the record, if possible. And and also, high school teachers are paid an extra, stipend for covering an additional class other than their regular duties. So that compensation comes through the business office and HR. That doesn't come out of the school based budget. So every time a high school teacher covers,
then that money is allocated through HR and the business office, not out of the school budget. Thank you. So if I may add as well, we are not oh, thank you. If I may add as well, we are not cutting, classrooms or supplies or anything at the school level. That is what is allocated to the students at the $500 per pupil allocation. They have not been cut. That is the number that it added it to added it up to.
So when you see these increases and decreases, let me be clear again. We are not adding money to a department or taking money away from a department. Each department and each school supplied us with their budget, and that's what was approved because that is what they presented based on the number of students or even in the business office and human resources with Edmentum, the contract, that is what is needed. It's not an increase in money to a particular department and, again, or a decrease to students or schools at all.
Okay. No more questions on this? K. So for technology, it's a total of 5,800,000 with an appropriations decrease of a $173,000. For our operations, security services, 10,000,000 with an appropriations increase of 1,600,000. For student transportation, a total of 34,000,000 with an appropriations decrease of $74,000 Health benefits and other employee benefits, total appropriations of 180,000,000
with a total appropriations increase of $11,000,000. And that includes the FICA, the contribution to the pensions, TPAF, that is everything. Workers' comp, it's not just benefits for employees. Can I just chime in on that real quick? Sure. People have made a comment about, you know, a lot of these health benefits. They're contractual, and they have to do with bargaining agreements that have been agreed upon in prior years and whether or not those agreements were responsible and sustainable. The fact that the this is a nationwide crisis,
the health benefits for school district employees and staff going up, It's just across the board. Part of the reason that the districts are suffering and closing schools and, you know, fighting against the funding formula, finally, we're not alone, and is because this is now a statewide problem, and everybody's talking about it. So this is not exclusive to Jersey City, not exclusive to our budget, not exclusive to our decision making of the past. That's just what's happening. That is correct. Any other questions? So for our fund twelve hour capital outlay,
we are allocating $22,000,000. So in a district this size with 40 plus buildings, this is not enough dollars. But it is a slight increase of $57,000 from last year. Now is that gonna put a halt on a lot of our plans for our facilities? We will do what is necessary and safe for the students in the schools. And, it may not we may not have enough money to do things that are ultimately necessary like bathrooms. But as far as the safety aspect? Absolutely. So this is our biggest,
contribution. It is our contribution, our transfer to charter schools. It's a total of 210,000,000 with pre k, which is not on this slide. It is a total of $211,712,100 with an increase from last year of $41,535,582 This is 20% of our total budget from the top that we are contributing to the charter schools. Doctor Lewis, may I ask a question?
The charter school enrollment has been provided in prior meetings, and it's, let's say, roughly 7,000 pupils. So are we meant to understand that we have 26,000 students of our own distributed among, let's say, 40 plus school buildings and then 7,000 charter school students distributed amongst 23 school buildings? It's a very small average per school. Because it's one thing to support a pupil. It's another thing to support a school around a pupil. And if it's I'm just gonna use, like, rough, very I I understand. Numbers. Five kids in the you know,
in a class, and then all the staff that goes into supplying a school, that's a lot. So as you know, the charter schools do not, as you spoke of in prior meetings, trustee Mohammed, charter schools don't have the same mandates as the public schools do, but the total dollar amount travels with the student, which would include part of the capital and the supplies and a portion of every piece of this budget that you're hearing today. Correct. Sorry. Just, like, rough estimation, 7,000 kids divided by 23 schools,
that's, like, 300 kids in a school. Correct. Okay. Mhmm. So the chair Right. And then we we look at how they returned to us as special education students so that it raises, you know, our budget even higher. Is there a percentage of that? Like, do we have a percentage, doctor Fernandez? The, enrollment of students with disability in district on average is double the percentage of enrollment in charter schools. And besides being twice as much, so double a percentage, it doubles.
It's for us, it's like 17% versus, like, a six percent, seven percent in, charter schools. The types of disabilities tend to be more complex. They don't have the, specialized programs for students on the autism, the, hearing impaired, the behavioral students. There are so many classifications as we were discussing today in our special ed committee, but that's not most of the, inclusion students in charter schools tend to be inclusion.
So in the gen ed classroom, these are the students who proceed. Also, the number of, multilingual learners, what used to be English language learners, In the public schools, it's more than double the enrollment in charter schools. We take students at any time of the year. Whenever they show up at our door, we register. Charter schools have their drive in the spring. Summer start in September, and there's not always a, enrollment throughout the year. So stability in our schools is not as high because we take students whenever they
move from wherever they go. So And then to add to what you're saying, doctor Fernandez, we don't have the option of selecting the students. We have to do a we have to take them according to the district of school, oppose the charge As long as they show up with, well, proof of address that they reside here Mhmm. We have to enroll them no matter what they need, wherever they may need it. We have to provide that service. Thank you. To add go ahead. I didn't cut you up. To add to that, we are fortunate enough to have a HATS program that,
actually helps students get back on track so that they're not they don't stay in special education. So we we're we're I just wanted to, just pause for a second and welcome Councilwoman Little, who's here today. Now I just want the public to realize that this was not planned. This was a town hall meeting with the Board of Education talking about the budget, but we are honored, to have the presence of Councilman at Large, LaVaro and also, Councilwoman, Little with us today, which is great because we're able to have a open discussion, from a city perspective,
Board of Education perspective. I haven't had the pleasure of meeting you personally yet, but you know, hi. So, so basically what we're talking about today is the is our the Board of Education's budget that is set to be, voted on on April 30. So we have had several public budget meetings, as well as private meetings to pull us together. So I just felt like we needed to have another town hall meeting before, of course, with the permission of our president, to have another town hall meeting before we actually voted on it so that the public, because this meeting is not as, as strict to policy as our original board meeting.
So we would have dialogue with the community. If they have questions, we'll be able to answer them instead of waiting to the end. And then, like today we have, you two on, you know, if you have anything that you want to mention from the city's perspective or what you've heard. But what we have just debunked so that you know, Councilwoman, that the Board of Education is not raising taxes 17% as the rumors have been told. And not only that, it's gonna be the 2%. And not only that, we've also made it clear that we do not raise taxes. So, if you like, so ask any questions pertaining to anything you can before we move on,
and then we'll have a further discussion at the end, after the, business administrator finishes her her her platform. So is there anything you would like to say? I just possibly misheard you. You said 2%, just to confirm? So it's a we're taking the 2% and as I go through this, I'll explain more. But, yes, just 2% increase which we are mandated to take from last year to this year. We're not raising taxes 17% if it's not 17% increase. And I'd be happy to explain that again and again.
Okay. Thank you. But a lot of it is self explanatory in the packet that you have in front of you. So if you wanna need to catch up. Madam Bia? Thank you. Thank you. If so, if I may move on to the special revenue fund 20, It's a total of $141,000,000 with an appropriations increase of 12,000,000. Special revenue fund 20 is Which one? Yep. Just, and these are dedicated for specific purposes? Doctor Luke, can you elaborate on that? Yeah. Because I what fund twenty is? Yes. Okay. So that's our preschool aid,
IDEA aid, IDEA, individuals with disabilities education act, and our ESS ESEA consolidated aid. So these are, you know, it's title monies. It's special revenue. It's grant money. It's what we receive for our students. Okay? So this is fund 20. This is not the part of the school based budget or a general fund. So meaning that it does not necessarily the way I explain it to people, and correct me if I'm wrong because I try to kind of explain it on
a palatable level, that the Fund 20, even though visibly it is a large chunk of the school district's budget, in this case, 12, 9%, that it doesn't necessarily touch the regular k to 12 classroom, the regular programming, if you will. Am I meaning that it's pre k? Yes. Pre k is definitely a separate field. And then the title funds, even though they may touch a regular student in any kind of programming, but because they're allocated purely based on, let's say, the socioeconomic status of a percentage of students in a given school and they're allocated
to enhance or support, the educational programming, and they're invested into community schools, which is essentially also like a multi, faceted family support. Those are different things that are not your classic k to 12 kind of textbooks class you know, teacher salary. It doesn't if I may, it does not add to the $500 per pupil cycle. It does not. Yes. Right. This has restrictions, and doctor Fernandez However, we do blend. Blend. Right. We take 15,000,000.
15,000,000, and we blend it with the district money Yes. To use for operations. So, we use staffing. All the clinics, the mental health clinics and all the high schools are funded through the title funds. All the mental health grants that we've received, they're part of that money. All the funds that we use for community schools comes out of title funds. These are very specific. Many of them are federal grants with the exception of, early childhood that can only be spent to enhance but not supplant the regular programs.
It's mandated that we have the we implement the regular programs, and we cannot use federal grants to supplant our responsibility to provide a thorough and efficient education. So just like the charter school allocation, it's a huge chunk of the billion plus, but it doesn't necessarily contribute to the superintendent's salary, if you will, which is what usually the misconceptions are. No. They're it's restricted dollars. Yes. Yes. If I can say just ask on the restrictions. So if it's for students with disabilities and the public schools take the the vast
majority of the, students with disabilities and that portion a small much smaller portion goes to the charter schools. Does do the dollars from that special revenue follow them to those charter schools as well? Yes. Yes. Yes. So that's in addition to The regular charter school $11,000,000 contribution. There's a portion of each one of these that will follow students based on a specific need. Right. We funnel all funds coming into Jersey City for education. We don't manage it,
but it comes through that billion dollar. That's why in my opening remarks, I did state that this is the budget for students enrolled in the currently with us in the Jersey City public schools as well as the charter schools. Okay. Does A. Harry Moore is that still under Jersey Public Schools? We pay tuition Yeah. To NJCU who runs the program at A. Harry Moore. And dollars come out of here? Of course. Yeah.
Yeah. Yep. Understood. Well, and just, just so you know, this is a live meeting just for the this is okay. At this we're not gonna take I'm gonna wait, miss Perry. I'm almost towards the I'm gonna wait until after we finish, miss Perry, and then you can come up and ask a question. Okay? Because you're not an elected official. Continue. Okay. So we see if we can move on to the recap. So for our general current expense, it's $738,000,000. Our capital outlay is 22,000,000. Our transfer to our charter schools is 210,000,000.
Our special revenue, again, that's the fund 20, pre k IDEA, 141,000,000 less our title one contribution because that's included in the general fund. That's the 15,000,000 that doctor Fernandez just referred to. So our total budget is $1,096,541,152. Again, it's an appropriations increase of $69,268,030.
So for our synopsis, this is just about our staffing and vacancies, our collective bargaining agreements. Everyone is intact. We with the exception of PSA that we will be currently negotiating in the short term. The next page is our resolution to we will have obviously one to adopt our final budget. Okay? That's being prepared. So if we can move on to the tax rate, and this is where we discuss the net valuation. So the 2627 average home assessment is $487,501
with a proposed tax rate of point zero one one nine. So the '26 net valuation taxable dollar amount is $48,684,370,320 That is an increase from last year of $1,670,338,300.
And, again, just to reiterate, as the net valuation increases, it stabilizes the tax rate. Because just in simple terms, there's more to spread around. Could you just elaborate on you said the tax evaluation? Who Tax val yes. The net valuation. Who who, who raises and lowers that? What what brand? Like So the the valuation is based on, the city and the amount of properties that are coming in and So the city. That's that's where we get the information from.
Yes. No. I just wanted to just for the for the public just for the public's Right. City's taxes. Yeah. Right. Okay. I have a question. How how frequently does the do the properties get assessed? Is this, like, an ongoing process? Or does it have to do like, because we've had revaluations, for example, and those were deliberate to kind of redistribute the taxable wealth. But regular valuation in this case, who does the tax assessor automatically monitors that growth? Is that part of their process? So I'm not that familiar with it,
but, the tax assessor could speak to that. I'm certainly happy to to discuss that with him. But as I understand it, when new properties come online, and, or or even when properties maybe, come off of abatements or renovated and so forth, their their valuation has changed. But for properties that have not changed in in their form, they they they they don't get their assessment doesn't change until there's a revaluation. Right? So but new construction, new properties, that that's all contributing to this increase in tax valuation.
Well, one can say or councilman, one can say that it's done every year because 2025, the net is different from obviously from 2026. So so to answer your question, it's probably done yearly, because again, because it's a different number. Yeah. Clearly, it's not a given. And I think to the councilman's point, I think as time goes on, especially that, you know, some of the abatements that are currently in place may have been given sufficient number of years ago, and they do come like, they could be thirty years. They could be fifteen years. I've been in Jersey City for over twenty years by now,
so I'm sure some of those new constructions have now come out. So this jump could very well be down to some of those factors because it would be great to just assume that this could just keep growing because we know we're, like, the wealthiest, considered to be perceived to be the wealthiest city in the state by property valuations. But, I guess we really don't know. It just depends on whatever factors each year. Well, the city should be able to we know we have some idea of what our projected growth and development is. Right?
So and and they should be able to project what the the valuation of those properties are gonna be over time when they if they if they stay on track and they develop and build what they're supposed to build. So we should be able to plan for kind of long term, growth of that valuation base, right, to be able to plan more prudently, not just for the city, but also for the Jersey public schools, to be able to understand and be able to to to look forward for five year over a five year period, and be able to better plan our our work here.
Councilman, at your leisure, are you able to get that information to find out if something like that is in place? We we could certainly we should be doing that. In fact, I'm I I know from talking to the administration, I haven't asked them specifically about these particular numbers, but they are looking at long term projections on these things. So Okay. But that's a fantastic point, if I may. Because if if it is something that could be at least initiated, that could answer the district's problem with regard to the state's expectation of adequacy budget. Because, a couple of our meet well,
actually, no. At our last board meeting, when we had the specialist from the Education Law Center, he explained that as far as the state of New Jersey is concerned, the local fair share, which we keep hearing about, the expected local fair share that the municipality is expected to contribute to its public schools is over $700,000,000 which is where we always we're the ones that always say, oh, but there's the difference, the difference that the city owes the schools. So we also know, realistically, that the city is currently just realistically unable to provide such a local fair share,
that even between this new, local levy of 540,000,000 plus, as well as the payroll tax, even that is not, equaling to what the state is expecting the local fair share to be. However, if there is some kind of estimation possible with regards to those growths and processes and abatements, you know, changes in abatements, then we could see something, some light at the end of the tunnel collectively. Yeah. No. I think we should be able to see that. And, I mean,
we're we're dealing with our own budget challenges in Jersey City, and certainly, it's hard to look beyond this twenty twenty six cycle for us. We're on a calendar year budget. But we should be able to project longer beyond that, and I will certainly talk to administration. I'm sure councilwoman Little will as well, to be able to project long longer term, at least at five years, three to five years. Councilwoman Little, anything? I agree these discussions are necessary, but, you know, also would like to echo Councilman LaVarra's point.
Sorry. Is that better? It's better. Alright. I agree these conversations are necessary, but also would like to echo Councilman LaVarra's point that, this year, we are in a highly constrained budget environment. Can can I just ask as well? Because it's it was said that, if this the fair share, that, Natalia and miss Yaffe said that, that state state administrators or state personnel, I'm not sure who, state legislators maybe, saying what that we're not paying our fair share around that and that the city is not acting up. Can can you just elaborate on that so I can better understand that?
About our role in sort of making sure that the Jersey public schools get their fair share. Trustee, I We're laughing only because it's, like, my favorite thing to talk about. That's all we talk about. That's all we talk about. Well, doctor Lewis, feel free to stop me and just, like, talk like a grown up about this. Go ahead. The adequacy budget is dictated by the current school funding formula. And that is why we're laughing because that is the biggest pet peeve here amongst us on the board. And that is why that is a major part of our advocacy,
you know, towards the state and has been thus. Because the state looks at the taxable wealth of Jersey City, but they don't look at abatements. That's the problem. So they look at the full amount of of potential taxable, you know, value, and they estimate well, they calculate the 700 plus million dollar, fair share based on that purely. They don't care. Well, not that they don't care, but it's not a factor in their calculations, abatements, other factors. So the clear cut approach is like,
look, we see the the worth of the city. We know how much the city can potentially provide to to their their public schools. Just do it. Period. That's the extent of their approach to Jersey City public schools. And based on that perception, the state funding has been continuously cut, cut, cut, cut to the point of bare minimum. So we are now, just to kind of roughly go back to the old the numbers that were being presented, the state allocation is currently almost 50% less than our charter school bill.
So if you're the state of New Jersey and you're giving a certain amount of money to Jersey City public schools, which is, in this case, let's say, a 126,000,000, whatever that amount is, but they said, but out of this $126,000,000 that we're paying you, we want you to pay out $210,000,000 to charter schools. Those are kind of the rough numbers that that I operate on because that's really the big picture. So our argument to the state legislature is that you can't look at our city just based on its outward wealth and based on whatever surface numbers that you're looking
at. You have to consider the socioeconomic status of students that are enrolled in Jersey City public schools, and then you have to look at the fact that not all properties are currently paying taxes at full value. They're paying pilots. They're doing whatever other doing, but they're not capable of producing this local fair share. That's it. That's the the bottom line. And then the the inequity lies from our perspective is that we are still, by definition, considered a high poverty district inside pretty much the wealthiest city in the state.
And that is where a lot of the negative politics come in from the state level because they're like, why aren't you able to fix your problems by yourselves? You have all this wealth. And that's where we kind of try and It's a formula. Bring in the nuances, you know, and explain to them what stands behind the surface. So our perspective is simple. We have 26 between twenty six and twenty eight thousand students at any given time. The three quarters of these kids are low income. Period. They are, you know, that is why we're considered a a high poverty district,
an at risk district, and operate as such. Mhmm. So that's it. And that's the argument that we're coming with. Some of the legislations that are hopefully being looked at on a state level is to change the funding formula and to provide the school funding based on need of the students as opposed to based on the wealth of the municipality. So that's But you should also you you should also know the council members should also know that, you know, we didn't just start this conversation this year. Like, we've been talking about this for over I know for the three years that I've
been here. Mhmm. We've been talking about it. We've been meeting with legislature the the legislature, and it's just not an easy process. It's it's not an easy process to change, but yet, you know, the community the community just doesn't understand that there is a process in place that we have to follow in order to get these mechanisms changed so that it could be better. And the impatience is not helping any because we're dealing with the number factor that we have right now based on an old formula that's not working at all. And then we have our I oppose the old formula,
by the way, just publicly. It was, Oh, you did? Yeah. I did. Absolutely. Yeah. So but I We are, maybe. Yeah. I was Or the current it's the current formula. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Not the old I was talking a lot with, about this, with assembly woman Brennan, and, she has some thoughts on this as well. And I also saw, I saw an article recently that sounded like the state may have some appetite for for making some tweaks to the school funding formula, with this new, governor Cheryl administration. So, I guess I'm cautiously optimistic, but also I'll believe it when I see it. Yeah. But I think it would be a really good thing for,
for Jersey City. I think, senator McCurgie, was also working on right? Natalia was also work you you should know that, you know, we've worked with several assembly people, and I I know that, assemblywoman Brennan is doing as much as she possibly can. But I don't know if they still do it in the legislature, like, when you have a preexisting piece of legislation that has not been, sent to the floor or to a committee yet. Whoever an incoming whenever an incoming assembly person comes in, they can then take, leadership over that particular piece of legislation and continue it.
Because what what the problem has been is that our, state, legislative, group is like a revolving door. We can't keep anybody there long enough to finish the job. So, you know, that's what part of the problem is, and then it dies, and then it comes back. So it I'm pretty sure, bills have to be reintroduced in the beginning of each assembly session regardless of whether or not the assembly member is still there or not. It could lay well, when I was an aid to an assembly person, they had to petition for that legislation to then be a lead on that.
You know, it just doesn't roll over. If an assembly person, say for instance, last year doesn't get reelected, then their legislation sits there until another assembly person says, hey, I would like to sponsor this or cosponsor this in the in the legislature. Right. But but even if they do get reelected, they still have to reintroduce it. Yeah. But my my my issue was that we can't keep it it it's it's like a revolving door. So it's hard to keep legislation intact. So, who had something to do with, doctor Fernandez? Well, I can just add to that. Go ahead. So, there's something I wanna add. So when we talk about the school funding formula,
it's not the whole formula that we find difficult because the the formula as a whole accounts for the needs of the students currently enrolled. For instance, in Jersey City, the city the poverty level at the city level, it's about, 15%. And yet the student population enrolled in our schools, the the poverty level is at 60. So that's part of the issue.
But the way that the formula calculates how much money is necessary to educate students with disability, economically disadvantaged students, the to educate multilingual learners. That accounts for the necessary funding for more complex, needs, students with disability based on their disability, that part. But it's how they calculate how much money the local fair share that's problematic because
the city's not actually raising that money. It's just not there. It it is not there. So that's that's the part how they calculate the wealth, that it's on a made up number. It's not on collected funds. Yep. They look at the buildings and you're rich. Yeah. But the city hasn't collected the necessary taxes. Madam Begay? If I if I may just add one more thing, just this whole in terms of the advocacy with the state and legislation, just to add some historical context to that.
You know, that state funding formula was changed in 2018. Right? And the the the one thing that changed for Jersey City and Hudson County, was that, we lost our state legislative leadership. We had the assembly speaker coming out of Hudson County, mister Prieto, assemblyman Prieto. And politics matters, elections matter. He protected us, from that that state funding formula. And and he did that, not necessarily out of the goodness of his and I don't know him personally. I'm just saying it wasn't, he he was protecting Hudson County because Jersey City is part of Hudson County.
Mhmm. And people asked him at that time. And then when he left, we had no no one you know, if you're the assembly speaker or the state senate president, you can stop things from coming to the floor, and you can make sure things come to the floor, including, legislation that would amend the school funding formula. We don't currently have that representation, and we have great legislators who have taken office at this point. And, we need to work with them, but we also have to be able to give them the, political backing so that they can Absolutely. Enforce the will and make sure that Jersey City and Hudson County is well represented, in the state legislature and in those debates around school funding formulas.
So A lot of it boils down to politics. It is. Because it has absolutely nothing to do with the The logic of, with the logic of it. Either it's because whoever is sitting as mayor at that particular time doesn't get along or whoever the county executive is and they're at war, whoever the speaker is, and the people who are being hurt the most are the constituency of most of those people. So it's politics. Iofe? May I just, on that exact point, draw a contrast in terms of numbers with Newark? I love using Newark as a comparison,
and it has been in the news lately. So just for, you know, for the benefit of the council people, Jersey City public schools receive approximately a $126,000,000 from the state this year. Newark receives $1,400,000,000 from the state this year. Right? And that's an increase. So we received the decrease from the prior year. They received an increase from the prior year in millions of dollars. And in if you look at the difference between student population, again, we go between twenty six six to 28,000 students. Newark goes between 43 plus thousand students.
It's not a huge difference if you look at the pots of money that are being distributed. So senator Mukherjee suggested that I look at the difference in tax rates and property valuations, and we did. And so granted, yes, Newark apparently has a higher tax rate than Jersey City. Jersey City has approximately 2%, and Newark has almost 4% tax rate. Also, New York's property values are significantly less, almost by half, than Jersey City's, well, I don't want to say estimated property values, but property values that are not necessarily taxed the way that the state thinks. So as a result of these perceptions and politics,
which the councilman described, you know, it's not just numbers. Right? The formula may be there, but it's all of these political perceptions that are layered on top of the formula that equal the actual funding distributions to our school districts. And that is why our district has been consistently cut, whereas some who, yes, they may have different circumstances, but it's just exponentially so much more that it makes no sense at all other than a political explanation. Trustee Ioffe. I mean, I'm sorry. Mohammed. Counselor.
What? Belan? Armed with this information. Counselor in the middle, now that you're in Rhode Island as a this talk been one of our meetings, and you're armed with this information. What do you plan to do with it? You're gonna take it back to the mayor and the council? I'm just curious what do you what are you gonna do with this information? Well, first, I need to, review this more thoroughly. I apologize. I got here a little late. I was coming from my job in New York, so I got here as soon as I could. But I am going to need to review it a little more closely. You know, certainly, we will be having discussions, but,
you know, I will be reviewing this and reviewing other, sources of information too. Yeah. For from from my part, you know, I'll I'll I'll take a deeper dive, talk to the superintendent, board members as well, moving forward. But then the one thing I do want to do is definitely dispel the idea that there's a tax increase, or a 2% levy or rate increase in that in that regard. And and I think that matters to your point, not just because you take a lot of heat for it, which you do, but,
but also because the the the perceptions of that and whether, whether money is being managed well or and and things of that nature and whether it's being responsible. I mean, we have we're we're not to talk, about that because we have a $254,000,000 deficit. We don't know how to handle that. So it's the old thing of don't throw stone stones at a glass house or something like That's the proper term. Like that. Right? Yeah. So, I think, I I'll bring that back and, urge my colleagues and the administration to say, you know, we we need to be,
work collaboratively, on this and, and that, I think this schools are doing, again, on first blush and looking at this, it looks like it's a it's a it's a well constructed budget to me personally, without having done a deeper dive on the on the numbers. But, No. I I just think what I appreciate, to doctor Blunt's point, is that you actually came to the source. What happens is we have so many people that are believing these rumors and they're broadcasting them and on these high pro, these platforms and no one's coming to actually get the truth.
And we're constantly defending our budget. Then we have this one over here saying this one. So I'm I'm happy that you that you two came today so that you can get firsthand clarity on what we're going to, present on April 30, the work that was put into this, taken into consideration the city and the residents of, residents well-being and the amount of work that our VA, has put into making sure that we don't, go above, where we need to go, where taxes would would primarily on the city and have to have to go up
because you're right you do have issues of well I'm not gonna say you we because we all live in the city have issues of our own that we have to deal with but, who had something, Mohammed? But I know you were closing out but I wanted to jump in and ask, I've, if anyone could, either VA or, trustee, I hope you would elaborate on pilot program, how that affects our budget as well. There you go. It doesn't It doesn't It doesn't have it right back to the to the council. Well, the question is about how the pilots work. Right? The that's your question that when a property is abated,
instead of taxes, regular property tax payment, they make a pilot, aka payment in lieu of taxes, which the city does receive, but I imagine it's a smaller amount than the normal tax payment. And then I also know that the county schools, once upon a time, they managed to obtain a percentage of that pilot payment. So we are in a position as Jersey City public schools that are not eligible for any portion of the pilot revenues, whereas the county schools are eligible, to at least 5%.
Correct me if I'm wrong. And so So we should that's where the conversation is. Yeah. I think, old tax abatements, the the breakdown was so the city would receive less. The property owner who was got the tax abatement would pay less. Mhmm. But the city would receive more. Mhmm. Right? So historically, for older tax abatements, that was 95% of the money, I think, went to the city of Jersey City, and then 5% went to the county or maybe in my normal role. When is that Didn't that happen during your presidency? What's that? I I think that happened under your leadership, as council president.
What happened? The, the pilot the the actual discovery of the the proper use of the pilot program. I'm not sure what, referencing, but No. Because I that is that that's something that was Do you have you have no You have a a heckler. No. I was just saying that in a good way under your when you were council president, a lot of that stuff was was, under control, obviously, because Well well, tax abatements, new tax abatement issuances Yeah. Ceased around 2018, generally speaking. Yeah. And, but it was also around that time that, the city council adopted,
I say adopted, it's, expressed their will and intent through resolution to provide more tax tax I mean, dollars for new tax abatements. That's what I'm saying. And I forget what the number was, but I it was well over 30%, I think, to go to the Jersey City Public Schools, I I believe. And, I don't remember off the top of my head. But then there were no due tax payments issued. So you weren't getting that money anyway, right? So, and the city wasn't getting issuing tax payments. And then more recently, as it was explained, shared with me by the administration or someone in the administration, I don't recall who, but, there were maybe seven tax abatements in 2025.
And, I mean, for myself personally, I'd I'd say that, I am not, and I've said this publicly on the record, I'm not against tax abatements if it allows for the development of affordable housing in Jersey City, and if it incentivizes that in some way or makes it possible to build affordable housing. And that's where I think the need comes in in terms of the the funding formula. If they're calculating those affordable units as, as somehow part of the Market rate. The market rate tax valuation and so forth that determines the the state aid, that needs to change because, we have a lot
of tax evaded properties that are 100% affordable housing. Right? So, very low income residents and so forth. And to to include that in the mix is, a an erroneous faulty formula, frankly. It's just it's unfair if if that's the case. I would also recommend that in your, your, perception of, tax abatements that some portion of a school, benefit be added into, the abatement as well, where either a developer would be so cautious to maybe, I don't know, build a school, since most of our building's over a 100 plus years old and a majority of
our funding goes into, as the BA stated, making sure that they remain safe in their old structures. So we are in desperate need of brand new schools, I e, one of the other big, newsworthy, events with the PS sixteen, overcrowdedness. If we had another school, then, you know, that maybe that could be factored in in in the negotiation process, with the next, round of abatements if if you will be so kind. Yeah. So Councilwoman? So, yeah, really quickly. I I think what the councilman was trying to say was that it it has changed, and now every time an abatement is granted,
the schools will receive some amount over 30%. It's just that fewer tax abatements have been fewer pilot agreements have been, done since that was passed. It it was when you were on the council. Right? I was at the council. We so it's not a law, I should say. It's really it's by resolution. It was by resolution is how I recall. I'll I'll have to go back and check the history books and the stuff. But, but but there was a commitment to to allocate more portions of any new tax abatements to the Jersey City public schools.
Yeah. And I'm I'm glad we're talking about it because I don't think that's factored into the revenues. No. I'm possibly right. So there there haven't been many, frankly, new new tax abatements and, issued since that time that that that will was expressed and but should definitely take a look at that. I I there's at least at least seven that were approved last year is my understanding. They're not online yet, but, could certainly look to see if there's anything else out there. And then Just for clarification to, Councilwoman Little. No. I was just, basically making a recommendation for future, tax pay students that the board of education be considered.
Yeah. Yeah. The the other the other thing I was going to, mention was that I agree with you for on the need for a new public school facility, particularly downtown, where we're seeing such overcrowding at p s sixteen. On my end, every time I meet with a developer, if the if the site is is large enough and appropriate to support a school, I ask them, can you show us a version with the school? What would that look like? And Thank you for saying that. We appreciate that. Yeah. We appreciate that. And, we also, I I put forward a resolution,
and and councilman LaVaro was actually, our first cosponsor on it. And we passed the resolution stating the city council's support of s three three eight two, which would put as a ballot question, in November if it is if it is passed in time, 10,500,000,000 in SDA funds. Yes. In in bonding, with and the state is in a much better position to bond than than the city. It's had nine consecutive credit rating upgrades. And, 7,000,000,000 of those 10.5 would be dedicated for SDA districts. And, if that is on the ballot in November, I've expressed my intent to,
you know, mobilize volunteers. Oh, he cut you off. Oh, I'm sorry. I cut you off. Oh, is that what that does? I didn't realize that. I didn't realize part. It's okay when you see it ripped. I don't have the video on. Okay. Okay. But we caught we got no stuff at just the last four weeks. Yeah. Knock doors. Knock doors. Mobilize volunteers and voters and get out the vote for it because I think, you know, I I'm happy to throw my support behind this bill, and I think it's something that could really benefit Jersey City students. Yes. It's important. We appreciate that greatly. Madam superintendent? If I may,
for the record, we have never received any, funds coming from pilots. So it may have passed a few years back, but the district has never received any funds for from pilot properties. Well, if it's still on the books, you know, you should be able to go back and look and see it. Maybe there's some bullet points. There might be some maybe it might be some old note, for the we have that on record. Right? I think. Yeah. Ioffe? Yes. I want to go back to the p s 16 issue real quick, and thank you, Councilwoman Little,
for saying what you said, that you are, bringing into conversations with developers because that's exactly what our parent community wants to hear, that people are being proactive, that they're listening. I want to ask a question of, councilman Navarro since you were the champ one of the champions of the original ICO. And we were told once upon a time when we asked, about the possibility of developers considering building this additional school downtown as a as a community give back. We were told that there's very little chance of that because the ICO precludes it
because it basically absorbs every possible community giveback that the developer is willing to provide. Do you think that the current ICO Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance is an obstacle for such an initiative, or can there be like, is it set in stone and because it's there, they will never ever be able to, you know, be willing to consider such a project? Or can can it be worked around, or can exceptions be made? I just want to Gonna be a minute. So I I can't speak to the legality of it. The the the previous ICO that the mayor,
previous mayor, put forward, which allowed for 5% affordable housing and then allowed, developers to opt out of building more affordable housing by doing different things, different givebacks. That was challenged in court, and it was legally shot down. The court said it's not you aren't permitted to do that without zoning, and and trading off zoning for, for not it has to be traded off for affordable housing and not for other other benefits. You can't trade off affordable housing for other benefits.
So so that was legally challenged by Fair Share Housing Center, and, the court struck it down. And then the last administration and last council increased it, the requirement on the ICO to 10% out essentially outside of downtown and then 15% in in downtown. I'll speak very frankly about it that, because I I I made the promise on the campaign trail, which is that I'm pushing for 20%, which is I pushed back in, when I was previously on the council. And so the goal for me is to get it to 20%.
And then to your question about, well, whether that precludes them from being able to include a school, it for me, it depends on the the, the economics of the development, and that's something that we should look at with the developer and, and having those conversations. What's the capital stack as they call it, and these developers call it and so forth and developing people, what are they putting into it. And so we can encourage them to put in, apply for state affordable housing trust fund dollars, things like that, the city's affordable housing trust fund, but also, state, tax incentives as well for affordable housing.
And then, and then as far as kind of schools go, you were asking about tax abatements. I'm not making a promise here, but for me, I'd be receptive to the idea of tax abating, developments that would provide a school facility. And then the other thing, I would do is, and I said this back then when there was a previous proposal, to build a school that that they said precluded, because the economics didn't make sense around it. I I suggested that, we could consider, and I said that when we had a better financial situation for Jersey City. But bonding and spending the money ourselves to to build a school,
and take that off the books of the developer, so to speak financially, the, in their in their capital consideration, their their their performance that they were putting together around that stuff. So so I think there is a way to get there. I'm I'm not, but we just have to have, kind of discussions with developers around that, and work with the Jersey City public schools around that to make sure we're we're looking at sites that also work for everybody around that and, and make sure the economics work ultimately. And, for me personally, I'm I'm open to all of it and figuring out how it all works. Obviously,
we're slightly constrained right now because we have a huge $254,000,000 budget deficit. Yeah. That makes it challenging to accomplish a lot of these things that we promised, frankly, at this point. So Well, we're excited about that. All we need is someone to be receptive Yep. In order for an idea to formulate. Councilwoman, before you go, go go ahead. Go ahead. I was just gonna speak more on the ICO and and development of schools. If if I recall correctly, I believe the version of the ICO that passed does allow the ICO to be waived with a council vote,
for a specific project. And at the time, I advocated strongly against that because, I thought it was a pay to play disaster waiting to happen because, you know, you have a developer who's a who's a big donor, and then all they ask for a waiver of the ICO, and lo and behold, the council votes for it. So at the time, that was my thinking. But now five years later that we are here, if if a pilot is not on the table for a new school and they cannot make the finances work with the ICO, we we could potentially reach some compromise where maybe they do 10% affordable housing instead
of 15, and they build the school, or something of that nature depending on the size of the up zone that they're getting. But, you know, so but that would require I I think it might be I don't remember if it's a six if it's a six vote council majority or or if it's a simple majority, but, I believe it can be waived by a council vote for a specific project. I obviously don't advocate for that to be overused or used, in But, But, obviously, you know, the need is there. So Yeah. But I I think I think if that were to happen,
I think a school might be the best possible use for that provision. Well, I'm confident that based on this meeting, that the two of you can come to some type of understanding and bring it back to the council to maybe come up with some type of ideal as to how we can make that work. I'm gonna allow the I want the BA to finish up because I I need to hear from the public as well. So just finish your I'm at the very end, so thank you for your patience through all of this, and and thank you for providing this additional information. So just to just a quick reiteration that,
it would be an average of $66.25 per homeowner, in utilizing, the tax levy and the bank cap. And if you go to the last the next slide. Again, just a quick recap on the net valuation, okay, and the growth of the city. Over the past few four years, the net average from the past four years budget, including the 2627 proposed budget, the increase for the average tax home for the average homeowner, their taxes would be $49.33
over four years. So there is no again, just to reiterate, there is no 17% increase increase from what was always my question when I first read that. So I just wanna just so everyone understands, we are proposing. Where'd you read that at? 17%? Where do you write it? Yeah. In the Jersey City Times. Oh, just asking. Yes. Alright. New Jersey City Times and all the flyers that are going around the city at this point in time. Doctor Luceen, isn't it a fact also that in some of our more recent some of our
recent budgets for the JCBOE, I want to say 2023, 2024, and 2024, 2025, there have been consistent decreases to the average household be with along with the balanced budget. And that happened for the same reason that we're seeing now because the net property values have increased due to whatever factors that we don't, you know, we don't know. And as a result, even with the 2% mandatory, that the board of ed is required to request of the municipality, the the average increase to the property holder was in fact a decrease.
At one year Or zero. Or, you know, total That's correct. Yeah. And so, again, so over four years, this total is $49.33. We can hear you. So Okay. But you're not allowed to speak. It's not public. It is not public. It's not public speaking time yet. You're gonna have your opportunity to speak. Continue, please. So, again, what we are proposing is the tax levy of $545,000,000 and the $80,000,000 bank cap. That is what's part of our budget. And,
again, it is just the the $545,000,000 is a 2% increase from last year. So I wanna just thank everybody for their time, thank everyone who came tonight for their support, and, for our council people who came, and even provided much additional information that is needed to us and for continued support. So thank you, everyone. Okay. Thank you, madam BA. So just like I explained before, this is not a regular board meeting. So, obviously, we're gonna have, at this time public comment. I'm not required to have the preamble read,
because this is a town hall meeting. However, however, we will be, we will like for you to remain respectful, and, also, respectful to not only just the elected officials, but everyone who was in the room. You'll have three minutes to speak, and in that three minutes, you can comment on it, whatever it is or speak about whatever it is that you would like to speak on. Again our council people were not scheduled to be here, they were here to come as spectators. I asked them to join our to join the dias. So any city related questions outside of the budget we ask that you would wait and ask them that during their meeting.
So at this time we're gonna open up, for public speaking. Anybody? I hope you believe miss Perry had something to say. Good evening. I am here tonight with specific questions about the use of federal title funds, particularly title one and the level of transparency provided to the public. First, what percentage of this proposed budget is allocated to salaries and benefits overall? And within title one specifically, what is the total dollar amount, not percentage, being used to fund salaries?
Two years ago during a budget presentation, over $1,000,000 in title one funds was allocated to the salaries of just four employees. Similar amounts, again, over $1,000,000 were budgeted from other title funds for small numbers of staff. That raises serious concerns. Both this year's auditor and last year's auditor identified this as a deficiency. As was clearly stated, when title funds are used for salaries, there must be clear documentation showing exactly who was paid and how much.
I formally requested that information for both two years ago and last year, and I have yet to receive it. Now we are reviewing another budget, and the same lack of clarity remains. Recently, one of the employees previously tied to those title funded salaries left the district, and public board documents show a payout of vacation time exceeding $250 per day. That only heightens the need for transparency around how these federally funded salary allocations are
being structured. So tonight, I am asking for clear answers. How many employees in this proposed budget will have their salaries funded through title one or any of the title funds? And what is the total projected dollar amount for those salaries? This is not just a budgeting question. It is a compliance issue, and it is a matter of public trust. Federal funds come with federal requirements. Transparency is not optional. I respectfully requested that this information be provided publicly in writing and in a way
that clearly identifies each position and corresponding salary funded through title sources. When I raised my hands earlier, I imagine that this conversation would have went under the fund 20. If I am correct, thank you for that. But, also, could you answer those questions? Thank you. Sure. Stay at the mic, please. Come back to the mic. Because I told you this is not a regular meeting. So, we're gonna answer your questions today so that we won't be accused of not being transparent. So I'm gonna ask if you would ask your question one at a time. First question. The first question is,
how much of the budget overall is for salaries and benefits? I think we discussed that in the presentation, but I'm sure you Yes. Go ahead. And if you wanna chip in What I mean, I heard you talk about what slide was it. I got it. Page 18. You got it? Page 13. Right? Page 13. Page 13. There you go. Okay. But do we have a ballpark, like, to give her? Okay. Employees benefits as the percentage of salaries is 42.84%. It's in this budget presentation. So that was the answer. Right? What was it again?
That is the percentage of Of benefits. Yes. The employee benefits as a percentage of salaries is 42.84%. The percentage of salaries in this budget, the total budget, is close to 80%. Your second question? Excuse me? Your second question? Yes. Hold on. How much of what percentage of this proposed budget is allocated to salaries and benefits? No. And within that title one specifically, what is the total dollar amount, not percentage, being used to fund salary? That's title one.
Then you could tell me for the title of the course. I don't have the exact dollar amount for title one. Approximate? I I do not have that information in front of me. I'm just prepared to do this presentation this evening. I don't have the breakdown of every single fund in front of me. Alright. Do you remember the auditor speaking about the deficiency of how when you're paying the, employee salaries through the title funds that we must have a, name of you know, like, we must know who the employees are and how much of that is being used for salary?
So it wasn't considered a deficiency. Yes. I'm very well aware. I work very closely with the auditors. And, actually, it's already going to be on board docs for this month. It's already been posted. It's not live yet, obviously, because we're working on finalizing the book. You will the title one salaried employees will be listed. Right. So then my last question Okay. For now is the employee. There were four employees two years ago. And I can say their names, but I won't I won't Okay. There were four employees.
They were allocated over a million dollars for just those four under title one. There were other titles where the same type of breakdown was brought about. And like I said, one of those employees is now moved on, but they are being paid out $255 for vacation days. So the point is this here. Are we actually taking a million dollars of any of the title funds and putting it towards four people for salaries? The answer is no. Okay.
That I wanna make sure that because we are in a transparent mode, have you asked all questions, and have we answered all your questions sufficiently? Hold on because this is unusual. Yes. But we put, you know, I mean, the notion that we're not transparent and we don't answer I wanna make sure that we answer your questions today. That's why we have town hall meetings. And I'm assuming No. I've asked all my questions. That's all your questions? Thank you, miss Perry. I appreciate you. Next, speaker, mister Nelson. Thank you, and I appreciate your presence and your working collaboratively. Thank you,
council persons, Navarro and Little, for being here and for others who are watching. I am tempted to comment on some of the discussions you've already had, but I wanna be sure to first get out a couple of questions that that may have been addressed earlier. I was at a doctor's appointment with my son, so I tuned in late. One, there's been a lot of concern as people know about the special education audits that's going to be released and also call for a comprehensive audit. So my question is, is there money dedicated in the proposed budget that could allow up to whatever amount that would likely cost for a comprehensive programmatic audit for special education.
Should I pause? Who wants to ask that? You or the superintendent? Oh. Welcome. You wanna So there is always money that is allocated to continue auditing whatever areas of the, programs within the district. Obviously, we do an annual fiscal audit, but we do departmental audits just to make sure we continue to be in compliance on a much smaller scale. So whatever it is we need to do, we will continue to do. Did did that answer your question? Thank you. That that answers that the process continues. So I I look forward to future commitments as the public and the district talk
about that. Coming back to some of the comments made, just my understanding about the abatement and pilots is that the and I did ask the city clerk this last month that the former mayor made a executive order that permitted that percent goes to schools. That executive order stands unless city council or the current mayor revokes that. So it's possible. The other thing that I knew last year is that it doesn't go into action unless the city council passes the explicit resolution to do to share money with the
school for that's attached to a specific agenda item. So I correct me if I'm off base, but that's my understanding. Second, some of you probably listened to the budget hearing the assembly budget hearing last Wednesday of the education commissioner and the SDA executive director. One of my favorite lines from when, the chair asked, executive director DaSilva, will you have enough money if the referendum is approved and if it passes? And, Councilwoman Little correctly described that referendum in question. And he hemmed a little bit and said, he referred to the 10.574
SDA, 2.54 ROVs, But he said, I don't wanna say it's just a drop in the bucket, though we need a lot more than that. So what they have in the treasury gets them through the current list through 2032. What comes out of the referendum and bonding future is going for a future stake. I just wanna say that, j c j c together has a public action next Monday evening. You are all welcome. I will send emails to reinforce this, but thus asking the mayor to rigorously enforce the employer payroll tax and to publicly
disclose a bunch of things. So he is gonna commit to that. We're we're working with the the action. The power comes in what leads up to the action, but also in the follow through. Same thing will approach the district. So so we get the information to be in sync, what we hear from the city, what we hear from the school district, to benefit. So is there a question in there for us, or is that just? If not, your statement is fine. I just was curious. I will echo, what doctor Fanjos said that there's a lot of things such as grants that are to supplement,
not supplant, but supplement what we're doing. And so I've said in past years, I'll repeat again, the importance for the health clinics and wellness programs that we think about institutionalizing our support for that. I know I believe it's not possible this year. We're fortunate to have the grant money now, but we need to make sure we are institutionalizing support for that so we can sustain those programs for years to come. It's so essential for our wellness, for the learning potential of our scholars and the and the health of our staff. Well And, those that I've got I could drill down to show the math on various things.
No. We're good. Want to get out of here by four 1AM. Yeah. I appreciate that. And as always, mister Nelson, we thank you for, being so efficient. Very good. So it comes comes back to sustained funding, certainly not just invest in infrastructure, but also to maintain what we are investing in as a community Got it. Collaboratively. Thank you so much, mister Nelson. Did is there anyone else that would like to speak? I know someone was shouting. Did you wanna say something in the mic on the record or no? Okay. Any other further discussion that we have, amongst ourselves before we close? Because we have we have another,
what, fifteen minutes before we close? Because I had another question if I may. Go ahead. There were two, funds. One is called the capital outlay, Fund 12, and the other one is Fund 30, capital projects. Just wondering what the distinction is between those two. I'm looking at page five and six. So it's Fund 12 capital outlay and Fund 30 capital projects. Okay. That's a good question. So for clarity, Fund 12 capital outlay, So that is the $22,000,000 that we are we have to use for our buildings,
whether it's to put a new roof on, you know, upgrade any HVAC, anything in the schools, paint. Electrical. Yeah. Electrical, anything. Alarm. So fund 30, capital projects, and just to reiterate the definition, the source of revenue in this fund would be the sale of bonds, grants, or transfers from the general fund to augment the grant, separate accounting. We don't have anything to sell. So that would be right. So it's zero? So we don't have anything. I mean, fund thirty zero it's a zero balance?
Is that Right. Notice? Okay. And you you don't have the authority or, power to to bond? No. Yes. How does ESIP then factor with the bonds? Okay. ESIP okay. That's a little bit more complicated. Right? But that has nothing to do with this. The ESIP is not included in this at all. The ESIP is a separate project that we did do a bond, not district money. I No. And I didn't mean to throw you doctor Lucy. No. That's okay. I just don't wanna misspeak. Yeah. So it's a $122,000,000, and it's put in Wilmington Trust.
And so the money, you know, has earned some interest in whatever, and so we're we use that. We pay these bills on a monthly basis as you see on the board docs. We used some money from several years ago was put aside for that. We made a small contribution, but it has nothing to do with the school budget. It's not part of this at all. Interestingly, we have someone going to do an ESIP presentation at the board meeting. So we'll talk about that a lot more in-depth at that time. Is ESIP an acronym for something?
Yes. Saving improvement plan. Yes. And, the only reason I bring it up is because the terminology was used, and it we were in the news for that time because it was like the largest, or the first in the state of its kind energy savings improvement plan that is essentially self paying. Yes. And that and the bond was involved which was also, you know, kinda new for the time and it was a very proud achievement. So basically, there are certain improvements that are ongoing that are related to energy savings return.
That kind of pay for for themselves because of of just the way it's been bonded, which is great. Like and that's something that's always there. It just can't be applied to improvements across the board. I wanted to say I don't wanna get in-depth about that to confuse the two situations because because it has nothing to do with our bottom line or our school budgets. It's a completely separate entity and is paid differently as well. But we will talk about that Thursday in a separate portion of the meeting. Doctor Fernandez? Also,
that has paid for some improvements in our buildings Yes. LED lights, some roofs Roofs. Boilers. And, actually, this summer, three of our high schools will have, common areas, the air con HVAC. HVAC. Ventilation. Ventilation. I don't say air conditioning, but ventilation improvement, because we invested some funds into, you know, making sure that ventilation so this summer, some of our high schools will be shut down for a period of time so the work can be accomplished once school's closed.
So when you hear that the schools are closed, that's you know, it's a but The ESIP replenishes itself as well? The ESIP replenishes itself. Replenishes itself. Itself. But because it's an energy savings program, it's a it's a, short term and long term goal where we will receive, a decrease in our costs. Mhmm. Right. So we're doing we did solar panels, new roofs, LED lighting. So it's those items that would save us money. And as you could imagine, our utility bill bills, even throughout the state,
we have a major increase in our bills as well. So this has been very helpful. Did that answer your question, councilman? It it does. Yeah. Well, just to follow-up on it. It's the the capital outlay fund 12 then. Is is there a pot of funds that are that come from or a source of funds that comes to to replenish that dollar amount? Or is it just part of your general funding? You just basically allocate a dedicated portion. What we allocate. Yep. Yes. Yep. Understood. Alright. So I don't wanna get in any trouble by the president. I don't wanna go over the time that was allotted to me.
So and I know she's probably watching right now. Our president, President Velasquez was supposed to be here, but because if a fifth person was here would have been a quorum, she decided that she wanted to watch from home. So, I just wanted to acknowledge our president, and let her know that we still think about you. You're here with us in spirit. We have your, placard here, but, we are gonna have closing remarks. Doctor. Blunt? Something quick? I think that's Go ahead. First of all, my closing remarks will be to thanks to the council for being here.
I've known mister Levaro for many, many years, and to see you here is a good thing. Thank you for coming. Just met you, miss Little, but you had a good presentation, so we thank you for being here. I know that the the the trust of this was to be transparent. Mhmm. And I think we have accomplished that. Thank you, doctor brunt blunt. Trustee Mohammed? Just, thank you for having this committee meeting, although we had another topic. Yeah. It's being put off over and over again. But this is important as well, understanding the budget and ask for the public to understand and have a deeper understanding.
Also, we've got to talk about some other, funding options and also what's happening with the council. So I appreciate you both for being here as well. And congratulations again and and Thank you. For you, miss Little. That's all I have to say. Thank you, trustee Mohammed. Trustee Ioffe? Thank you, vice president, for organizing this. And totally to reiterate what, other board members have said, I want to recall an attempt by the JCBOE to have, like, a full on joint meeting with the council, and mister Navarro might remember this.
I do. That was very productive. Exactly. And that's the contrast that I'm trying to make. It was I mean, granted it was COVID, and but the best attempts were made and it was, you know, tried to be live streamed. The reset the, you know, transmission was pretty bad. But it was you know, people were trying to decipher the budget. It was a lot of it was a mess. And I'm I'm speaking as a member of the public at the time trying to understand how the board of education and the council can possibly collaborate, have a conversation. Yeah. And ever since then, since I got on the board, there have been a lot of like,
well, how do we talk to the council? How do we collaborate? How do we and short of our committee meetings, which are just, singular monthly opportunities to engage any given legislator at a time, we haven't had an opportunity such as this. And so to have a public round table on a very vital topic, which is funding, as well as brainstorming at the same time, I you know, to me, it was extremely valuable. I think it's the first of its kind, hopefully not the last. And I thank you both very much for being here and for contributing,
you know, your knowledge and ideas, something that we could build off of. Madam superintendent. Thank you, vice president Morris. I wanna thank the council for coming this evening. Councilman, LaVaro, thank you for meeting with me separately just to understand. It really is this budget. We look thoroughly at everything. We cut back. We are implementing efficiencies. We are reducing some vacancies that will go unfilled just so that we can make
ends meet. This is the bare minimum to educate our students, but our children, our future deserves so much more. And investing in a in our youngest scholars is so important because that is really what will set Jersey City apart from other towns, that successful, population. So thank you. Thank you, madam superintendent. Councilwoman Little? Well, I have a lot to sink my teeth into. I, you know, I think this was a a
good thing that we had this meeting. I thank you for having me here. I also want to thank the members of the public who attended and who are tuning in online as well as, Sarah from the Jersey City Times who's, recording all of this, so that we can share it with the public. So, you know, I there's a lot for me to read and, but I look forward to working to make Jersey City work for everyone, and that includes our students. Well, we appreciate that, counsel. Are those, Girl Scout cookies for us? Or The girl scouts got me outside the door.
Oh, okay. Councilman Navarro? Sure. Just I'll say begin by saying thank you to all of you, for having this town hall and being very transparent and open with the public. I think, I think it was great, frankly. I think you did a great job. And I'm looking forward to sinking my teeth into it as well. The the one thing it's I just wanna say looking forward, forward thinking about this, you know, the the past is the past and this, and I'm I'm glad I sit behind in a past, frankly. And, looking forward and moving forward together, working together, I'm not speaking for the administration. They could speak for themselves.
But I know that, from my experience in working with them to date, they've been very open and, want to be work together and to be able to collaborate. And I think that's the intent of everyone on the city council as well. The one thing, we we may not agree on everything at the end of the day, but, there's an openness to work together, and to have the the conversations and and respectful dialogue around that. And for for my part, coming back to the city council, there were two priorities for me, and it's affordability here in Jersey City. And the second one is education and making sure that,
we have the resources to make sure that our students have a quality education, but also protecting taxpayers in the process and being able to because I know they've been so overtaxed and burdened. And that's not just the Jersey Public Schools. That's Jersey City City Of Jersey City and Hudson County and the state of Jersey and everyone else. Right? So, so that'll be a focus, and I'm looking to work collaboratively with you to make sure that we achieve those goals. And I'm I'm excited. Looking forward to all of this. Thanks. Well, councilman, LaVaro, thank you very much. We're happy to have you back,
on the council. I've always been, I'm not gonna say a fan, but friendly, to your leadership. But but for the most part, you've always made very sound decisions, I can say, as president and as council person, so I thank you for that. On behalf of our president, president Noemi Velasquez, we wanna thank you, for coming and being a part of, of this meeting. We do believe in transparency. Sometimes we just can't do it because it's personnel related, but we are as transparent as we most possibly can when it's it provides it to be public. Our superintendent catches it, all the time from the public,
and we we bog her down with questions and concerns, and yet she always keeps her composure, through it. So we we're very happy to have a steady, composed superintendent that's able to, handle some of the fire, as well as our BA who, has who receives a lot of fire from the community, but it comes with the position. So I want to thank the trustees for coming today, Doctor. Blunt, Trustee Mohammed, Trustee Iofe for being a part of this conversation, and we're looking forward to making sure that we continue this collaborative conversation,
and transparency moving forward. So again, today is April 21, 2026. This This is the Jersey Public Schools Town Hall meeting, subject to budget. Our next town hall meeting, always do this till the end, will be next month, but we'll be talking about trauma informed practices that I've been pushing off. So June 2, our discussion with June 3, it would be trauma informed, practices. So I promise you, I set it on the record, that is what we're gonna have our meeting about on June 3. Okay? So again, thank you very much, for, all of the viewers at home and to our public,
speakers. Thank you very much. And, we hope to continue this, in the near future. Thank you.