HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 1 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

GENOVA BURNS LLC
Angelo J. Genova, Esq. (005501979)
Jennifer Borek, Esq. (041131997)
Matthew S. Oorbeek, Esq. (073242013)
494 Broad Street
Newark, New Jersey 07102
(973) 533-0777
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
Jersey City Board of Education and
E.H., a minor, by his guardian ad litem
Shanna C. Givens

JERSEY CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION and
E.H., a minor, by his guardian ad litem,
SHANNA C. GIVENS,

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION: HUDSON COUNTY
DOCKET NO.: HUD-L-

Plaintiffs,

CIVIL ACTION

v.
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, NEW JERSEY
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, DR.
LAMONT REPOLLET, in his official capacity as
Commissioner of Education, NEW JERSEY
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,
ELIZABETH MAHER MUOIO, in her official
capacity as New Jersey State Treasurer
Defendants.

Plaintiffs Jersey City Board of Education (“JCBOE”) and E.H., a minor, by his guardian
ad litem Shanna C. Givens, by and through their attorneys Genova Burns LLC, by way of this
Verified Complaint, against Defendants State of New Jersey, New Jersey Department of
Education (“DOE”), Dr. Lamon Repollet, in his official capacity as Commissioner of Education
(“Commissioner”), New Jersey Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”), New Jersey
Department of Treasury (“Treasury”), and Elizabeth Maher Muoio, in her official capacity as
New Jersey State Treasurer, (collectively, “Defendants”) say:

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 2 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

NATURE OF THE CASE
1.

A growing body of evidence demonstrates that when states invest in their public

schools and create more equitable school financing systems, student achievement levels rise. Yet
for over forty years, the State of New Jersey - which is constitutionally mandated to provide a
“thorough and efficient education” to all of its students - has failed its public-school students in
poorer urban districts with the lack of any comprehensive school funding scheme that would
provide them with the necessary tools to succeed in school and beyond. These failures have
resulted in a series of decisions and orders, first in Robinson v. Cahill then in Abbott v. Burke,
which struck down school funding statutes that violated the State's constitutional duty to provide
a thorough and efficient education to all students. The Abbott rulings established standards for
the right to education for New Jersey public school children, and in 2009, the Abbott Court
approved, as facially constitutional, a statewide weighted student funding formula, implemented
by the State as the School Funding Reform Act of 2008 (“SFRA”).
2.

Unfortunately, now ten years since SFRA was implemented, it remains clear that

Defendants have continuously failed to comply with their obligations to ensure that JCBOE is
funded under SFRA at a level necessary to provide its students with the proper education to
which they are entitled. JCBOE has been fully funded at a constitutionally required level in only
the first year SFRA was implemented, the 2008-09 school year. Since that first year, JCBOE
has steadily been slipping further and further below adequacy. As a result of being funded below
adequacy for a decade in a cumulative amount that exceeds $700 million, JCBOE will be forced
to lay off hundreds of instructional and support staff and eliminate vital programs including
special education programs, athletics, extracurricular activities, and afterschool programs. And
this year, Defendants took steps to ensure that JCBOE falls further below adequacy,

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 3 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

implementing recent amendments to SFRA which will eliminate in excess of $795 million in
state aid to JCBOE over the next five years. In the upcoming 2019-20 school year alone,
JCBOE’s state aid has been cut by over $27 million, leading to the impending termination of
more than 400 teachers and support staff and, consequently, several programs previously offered
by the District.
3.

If the recent amendments to SFRA are permitted to be implemented, resulting in

over $180 million in additional reductions in state aid, the calamity that would ensue would be
insurmountable. Drastic cuts would have to be taken, eliminating hundreds of teaching and
support positions, and eliminating vital programs that ensure that an entire generation of JCBOE
students achieve the educational standards necessitated by the thorough and efficient clause of
the Constitution. These negative impacts would follow thousands of JCBOE students for the rest
of their lives, severely reducing their chances of being accepted into college or other secondary
schooling and their ability to be constructive members of the work force. JCBOE students are a
diverse group, with a large percentage of children coming from low income households with
unique socio-economic issues, including crime, poverty, limited English proficiency and mental
health demands that require above and beyond care, including subsidized meals, special
education and out of district placements due to Individualized Education Plans.

With cuts of

these proportions in a district such as JCBOE, it is easy to see how these recent amendments
would wipe out all of the progress that has been made as a result of school funding reforms
stemming from decades of litigation.
4.

Defendants must now be ordered to comply with their constitutional obligations

to ensure that the multitude of JCBOE students who face these devastating cuts will not be

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 4 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

harmed. Even one child without a proper education is too many – the threat faced here will
affect thousands.
PARTIES
5.

Plaintiff JCBOE is a body corporate and political subdivision of the State of New

Jersey and, pursuant to Title 18A of the New Jersey Statutes, has been established as the public
body responsible for administering the public education of the residents of the Jersey City school
district.
6.

Plaintiff E.H., a minor, through his guardian ad litem, Shanna C. Givens, is a

resident of Jersey City and a student attending a Jersey City public school operated by the
JCBOE, specifically Gladys Nunery PS #29.
7.

Defendant State of New Jersey (“State”) is a sovereign state in the United States

that enacted and enforces the School Funding Reform Act N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-43 to -63, the statute
at issue in this litigation.
8.

Defendant New Jersey Department of Education (“DOE”) is charged with

implementing and enforcing laws and regulations governing education in the State of New Jersey,
with offices located at 100 River View Plaza, Trenton, New Jersey 08625.
9.

Defendant Dr. Lamont Repollet, in his official capacity as Commissioner of

Education (“Commissioner”), is the individual charged with implementing and enforcing laws
and regulations governing education in the State of New Jersey, with offices located at 100 River
View Plaza, Trenton, New Jersey 08625.
10.

Defendant New Jersey Department of Treasury administers the budget of the State

of New Jersey with offices located at 50 W. State Street, Trenton, New Jersey 08608.

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 5 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

11.

Defendant Elizabeth Maher Muoio, in her official capacity as New Jersey State

Treasurer, is the individual charged with administering the budget of the State of New Jersey,
with offices located at 50 W. State Street, Trenton, New Jersey 08608.
12.

Defendant Office of Management and Budget is a division of Defendant

Department of Treasury and is charged with managing the State’s financial assets; and aids in
ensuring that taxpayer resources are allocated in accordance with state laws, regulations, policies
and guidelines, with offices located at 50 W. State Street, Trenton, New Jersey 08608.
VENUE
13.

Venue in Hudson County is appropriate because that is where the cause of action

arose and where Plaintiffs reside, pursuant to Rule 4:3-2.
FACTUAL AND LEGAL BACKGROUND
A. History of New Jersey Education Funding for Public Schools Prior to the School
Funding Reform Act.
14.

For decades, the New Jersey Supreme Court has established and enforced

requirements in almost 30 opinions and orders to ensure that students in poorer urban school
districts have sufficient funding to enable them to receive a “thorough and efficient education”
guaranteed by the New Jersey Constitution.
15.

Specifically, the Constitution requires the Legislature to “provide for the

maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of free public schools for the
instruction of all children in the State between the ages of five and eighteen years.” N.J. Const.
art. VIII, § 4.

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 6 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

16.

While the State has delegated some authority to local districts related to public

education, “the ultimate responsibility for a thorough and efficient education was imposed upon
the State.” Robinson v. Cahill, 62 N.J. 473, 508-09 (1973).
17.

Since 1973, the Supreme Court has enforced these constitutional guarantees for

students in so called “special needs” school districts, first in the Robinson v. Cahill line of cases,
and later in the Abbott v. Burke cases which commenced in 1981.
18.

In 1990, the Supreme Court issued its second Abbott decision ruling in Abbott v.

Burke, 119 N.J. 287 (1990) (“Abbott II”), that the then school funding law, the Public School
Education Act of 1975, was unconstitutional as applied to children in 28 “poorer urban” school
districts.1
19.

The Court specifically held in Abbott II that the school funding mechanism in

place at the time was neither thorough nor efficient, and that it “must be amended to assure
funding of education in poorer urban districts at the level of property-rich districts; that such
funding cannot be allowed to depend on the ability of local school districts to tax; that such
funding must be guaranteed and mandated by the State; and that the level of funding must also
be adequate to provide for the special educational needs of these poorer urban districts in order
to redress their extreme disadvantages.” 119 N.J. at 295.
20.

JCBOE was one of these originally designated “Abbott Districts”.

21.

JCBOE’s designation as an “Abbott District” had not changed prior to the

abandonment of the “Abbot District” designation in favor of the “SDA District” characterization
as used in SFRA.
22.

1

JCBOE has been and is currently designated as an “SDA District”.

The number of districts was subsequently increased to 31.

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 7 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

23.

In response to the Abbott II decision, the Legislature enacted the Quality

Education Act (“QEA”), which provided slight increases in school funding for the Abbott
Districts, including JCBOE, but did not provide substantial equivalence in per-pupil funding with
wealthier districts.
24.

As a consequence, like its predecessor school funding laws, the QEA was held in

Abbott v. Burke, 136 N.J. 444 (1994) (“Abbott III”) to violate the “thorough and efficient”
clause of the Constitution and the Supreme Court directed the Legislature to adopt yet another
replacement school funding law that provided substantial equivalence in funding.
25.

Thereafter, a new school funding statute was enacted, the Comprehensive

Education Improvement and Financing Act (“CEIFA”), but in Abbott v. Burke, 149 N.J. 145
(1997) (“Abbott IV”), it, too, was struck down as unconstitutional.
26.

Subsequent to finding that CEIFA failed to provide a thorough and efficient

education to students in Abbott Districts, the Supreme Court ordered in Abbott IV what came to
be known as the “parity remedy”, that is, until the State enacted and implemented a constitutional
school funding scheme, the Abbott Districts would be afforded parity in per-pupil expenditures
compared to wealthier school districts. Abbott IV, 149 N.J. at 190-191.
27.

Following the parity remedy ordered in Abbott IV, the Supreme Court entered

additional remedial orders, such as in Abbott v. Burke, 153 N.J. 480 (1998) (“Abbott V”),
where, inter alia, the Court ordered the creation of supplemental programs and reforms and
established a process for Abbott Districts to seek additional funding for supplemental programs
and capital improvements.

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 8 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

B. Passage of the School Funding Reform Act of 2008.
28.

In an effort to replace CEIFA with an alternative, and constitutional, school

funding statute, the DOE, along with a consulting firm, used a methodology known as a
Professional Judgment Panel (“PJP”) to develop the new funding mechanism.
29.

The PJP method was used to identify “desired performance standards, then

develop[] prototypical model districts, and finally employ[] panels of experts to determine the
resources needed to reach the selected performance standards in those districts.” Abbott v.
Burke, 196 N.J. 544, 552 (2008) (Abbott XIX).
30.

The State’s “use of the PJP methodology began with a determination that its

performance standards would be the Core Curriculum Content Standards (“CCCS”), which were
deemed in Abbott IV, [], to be a reasonable definition of a constitutionally sufficient, thorough
and efficient education.” Id. at 552-53.
31.

The PJP process involved educators from across the State as well as the use of

experts, resulting in the creation of expert reports as well as public hearings. Id. 552-54.
32.

The PJP process also resulted in the creation of the “Report on the Cost of

Education”, created in conjunction with the DOE and an expert education consulting firm, which
set forth modeling for instructional and support staff necessary to deliver a thorough and efficient
education. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Report on the Cost of
Education.
33.

Ultimately, this process culminated in the creation of the new school funding

formula contained within SFRA.
34.

In January 2008, the State enacted that new school funding statute titled the School

Funding Reform Act of 2008 (“SFRA”), N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-43 to -63, in an attempt to provide

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 9 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

a constitutionally sound mechanism and formula to provide a thorough and efficient education to
the children of the State. Id.
35.

While SFRA was the funding method enacted to provide a thorough and efficient

education, the performance standards would continue to be the CCCS, which the Court in Abbott
v. Burke, 149 N.J. 145, 168 (1997) (“Abbott IV”) found to “spell out and explain the meaning
of a constitutional education.”2
36.

As set forth in the legislative findings accompanying SFRA, the “formula

established under this act is the product of a careful and deliberative process that first involved
determining the educational inputs necessary to provide a high-quality education, including
specifically addressing the supplemental needs of at-risk students and those with limited English
proficiency (LEP), and a determination of the actual cost of providing those programs. The
formula provides adequate funding that is realistically geared to the core curriculum content
standards, thus linking those standards to the actual funding needed to deliver that content.”
N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-44(i) (emphasis added).
37.

SFRA consists of a weighted school funding formula, used to determine state and

local funding levels needed to provide the core curriculum content standards and a
constitutionally required thorough and efficient education.
38.

As a weighted formula, SFRA provides a "base per pupil amount" for elementary

students which is then weighted for middle, and high school students, with additional weighted
funding to support the costs for programs for at-risk students, limited-English proficient (LEP)

The CCCS were created to prepare students for “college and career”, embracing nine subject
areas. N.J.A.C. 6A:8-1.1.

2

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 10 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

students, and students with disabilities. Abbott v. Burke, 199 N.J. 140, 153-54 (2009) (“Abbott
XX”).
39.

The "base per-pupil amounts", together with the aforementioned additional

funding for special needs students and a geographic adjustment, constitute the district’s
“Adequacy Budget.”3 Id. at 155.
40.

The Adequacy Budget is SFRA’s main constitutional metric for assuring that

school districts have sufficient funding to provide their students with a constitutional education
by determining the minimum level of resources that are needed for students to achieve the CCCS.
41.

Pursuant to SFRA, funding for the Adequacy Budget derives from two sources,

a district’s Local Fair Share (“LFS”) and Equalization Aid.
42.

In theory, a district’s LFS is the amount that a district should be able to provide

towards its Adequacy Budget.
43.

The funding for a district’s LFS is derived from the district’s property tax levy.

See N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-38(a).
44.

An inherent limitation existed in a district’s ability to raise revenue to support its

LFS, from 2010 through 2018, due to a cap on yearly increases to property tax rates of two
percent. See Wyns Cert., ¶ 26.

SFRA provides for review and evaluation of the resources and costs necessary to comply with
the CCCS every three years, requiring the Governor, after consultation with the commissioner,
to produce Education Adequacy Reports to the Legislature addressing, inter alia, the weights
which comprise the Adequacy Budget. See N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-46(b). The purpose of the
Education Adequacy Reports was to ensure that SFRA was adjusted to ensure its efficacy as a
school funding mechanism providing for a constitutional education. Two such reports have been
issued since the passage of the SFRA, in 2012 and 2016, both of which were submitted
substantially after their due dates. See Certification of Melvin L. Wyns (“Wyns Cert.”), ¶ 1618. The third report was due to be transmitted to the Legislature by September 1, 2018; however,
this did not occur and no additional Education Adequacy Report has been issued. Id. at ¶ 19.
3

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 11 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

45.

From 2008 to 2010, the revenue cap was four percent.

46.

These property tax caps, in turn, limited the increases in the amount of the local

tax levy to be used for school funding. See gen. Wyns Cert., ¶ 162.
47.

As a practical result, therefore, if a district’s LFS increased by more than two

percent in a year, a shortfall, or local levy gap, would develop since a district could only increase
its local levy towards its LFS by two percent. Id. at ¶ 27.
48.

In essence, a local levy gap would appear when a district’s local school tax levy

did not equal the LFS as calculated pursuant to SFRA. Id. at ¶ 28.
49.

In theory, this local levy gap was intended to be filled by other categories of aid;

however, through Defendants’ application of SFRA, this did not occur as discussed below.
50.

SFRA originally provided five general categories of aid: Equalization Aid,

Categorical Aid, Transportation Aid, Adjustment Aid, and Education Adequacy Aid.
51.

Equalization Aid is state aid used to support the Adequacy Budget by funding the

difference between a district’s Adequacy Budget and its LFS.
52.

By operation of the SFRA formula, as a district’s LFS increases, its Equalization

Aid necessarily decreases, thereby effectively shifting the burden of funding the constitutionally
required thorough and efficient education from the State to the district.
53.

Categorical Aid provides funding on a per-pupil basis for certain expenses,

including special education, and security costs.
54.

Adjustment Aid, which is being phased out and will be completely eliminated in

the 2024-2025 school year, goes to the heart of this litigation and was designed to ensure that
districts would be able to at least maintain their 2007-08 level of spending without significant tax
levy increases.

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 12 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

55.

Adjustment Aid is provided to a district if the sum of its Equalization Aid, Security

Aid, Special Education Categorical Aid, Extraordinary Aid, and Transportation Aid - essentially
the totality of State aid – was less than the district’s 2007-2008 spending plus two-percent.
56.

By operation of the SFRA formula in place prior to its recent amendments, as a

district’s Equalization Aid decreases, its Adjustment Aid increases when a local levy gap exists.
See Wyns Cert., ¶ 25.
57.

The final category of aid included in SFRA is Education Adequacy Aid which is

provided to certain Abbott Districts that were spending below their Adequacy Budgets at the
time SFRA was implemented.
58.

When SFRA was signed into law and initially implemented for the 2008-09 school

year, educational funding for public schools in Jersey City was nearly in line with the Adequacy
Budget level established by SFRA.
59.

Due to the way previous education funding laws were implemented, however, the

budget for public schools operating under JCBOE was supported primarily by funding from the
State, as opposed to funding from local tax revenue, and the amount raised from the district
property tax was below its LFS as calculated by SFRA, forming a local levy gap.
60.

Adjustment Aid was intended to provide those districts with a local levy below

their LFS with the time needed to increase their local levy to an amount equal to their LFS.
Abbott XX, 199 N.J. at 165-166.
61.

Upon the passage and signing of SFRA by then Governor Jon Corzine, the State

sought to reopen the Abbott cases by filing a motion seeking declarations from the Supreme
Court that SFRA satisfies the constitutional requirement that the State provide a thorough and
efficient education to children of the State and that the Supreme Court’s prior remedial orders

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 13 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

concerning the failure by the State to provide a thorough and efficient education to the students
in the Abbott districts are no longer necessary.
62.

The Court ultimately decided, in Abbott v. Burke, 196 N.J. 544 (2008) (“Abbott

XIX”) that the question of SFRA’s constitutionality was not suited for summary disposition and
remanded the matter to a Special Master to develop a full and complete factual and evidential
record addressing the contentions raised by the parties.
63.

Notwithstanding the general presumption of validity of a statute, the Court noted

that its prior remedial orders require that the State bear the burden of proving that SFRA
provides a constitutional thorough and efficient education. Abbott XIX, 196 N.J. at 550, 559.
64.

Following remand, the Special Master conducted evidentiary hearings and heard

testimony from numerous fact and expert witnesses. Ultimately, he submitted a Special Master’s
Report concluding that SFRA was facially constitutional.
65.

Upon review of the Special Master’s Report, the Supreme Court issued its

decision regarding the constitutionality of SFRA. Abbott v. Burke, 199 N.J. 140 (2009) (“Abbott
XX”).
66.

In that decision, the Court found that SFRA was facially constitutional with two

caveats: 1) “that the State will continue to provide school funding aid during this and the next
two years at the levels required by SFRA’s formula each year”; and 2) a mandated review of the
SFRA formula’s weights and other operative parts will occur after three years of implementation
and every three years thereafter to ensure that students were receiving a thorough and efficient
education. Id. at 146.
67.

The Court recognized in Abbott XX, that the Adequacy Budget, as defined by

SFRA, provides the amount of school funding that would provide a constitutionally adequate

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 14 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

education. This was because the Adequacy Budget supplied funding sufficient to educate students
to the CCCS standards and to fund extracurricular and co-curricular activities necessary to
provide a thorough and efficient education. Id. at 153.
C. JCBOE’s School Funding Post SFRA Passage
68.

Since SFRA was enacted, JCBOE’s Adequacy Budget has been steadily rising.

69.

The JCBOE’s Adequacy budget since SFRA was implemented in the 2008-09

school year through the 2018-19 school year, represented as a line graph, is as follows:

$650,000,000

Change in JCBOE Adequacy Budget Since SFRA
Implementation

$600,000,000

Adequacy Budget

$550,000,000

$500,000,000

$450,000,000

$400,000,000

$350,000,000

$300,000,000

School Year

See Wyns Cert., ¶ 144.
70.

While JCBOE’s Adequacy Budget has been rising, its funding level compared to

that Adequacy Budget demonstrates that, other than the first year of SFRA implementation,

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 15 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

JCBOE has fallen further and further below the Adequacy Budget, the amount necessary to
provide a thorough and efficient education.
71.

JCBOE received funding at its Adequacy Budget level only in the first year SFRA

was implemented. Id. at ¶ 15.
72.

During this time that JCBOE was underfunded and below adequacy pursuant to

SFRA, JCBOE was under State control, with local control only being restored on October 18,
2018.
73.

The line graph below depicts the changes in JCBOE’s funding compared to its

Adequacy Budget, demonstrating whether JCBOE was “above” or “below” adequacy in terms
of SFRA funding:

Funding Compared to Adequacy Level
$20,000,000
$0
($20,000,000)
($40,000,000)
($60,000,000)
($80,000,000)
($100,000,000)
($120,000,000)

Id. at 146.

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 16 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

74.

State education aid for 2010-11 was reduced more than it had been in the previous

year, resulting in school districts receiving approximately $1.6 billion less than SFRA would
have provided if fully funded. See Abbott v. Burke, 206 N.J. 332, 345 (2011) (“Abbot XXI”).
75.

As a result of this cut in state aid, the Abbott plaintiffs filed a motion to compel

the State to comply with Abbott XX and fully fund SFRA, leading to the Supreme Court’s
decision in Abbott XXI.
76.

In Abbott XXI, the Supreme Court ultimately held that the failure to fully fund

SFRA caused significant harm to the students in Abbott districts and that such cuts violated those
students’ constitutional right to receive a thorough and efficient education. Id. at 341.
77.

Consequently, it ordered that the SFRA formula be fully funded for the 2011-

2012 school year as to the 31 former Abbott/SDA Districts. Id. at 376.
78.

Since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Abbott XXI, which reiterated that school

funding must be in line with the formula set forth in SFRA in order for students to have a chance
to receive a thorough and efficient education, the JCBOE public schools have been funded below
the Adequacy Budget level and, therefore, at a level below that which is necessary to provide a
thorough and efficient education. See Wyns Cert., ¶ 15.
79.

Between the 2008-09 school year, the school year SFRA was implemented, and

2019-20 school year, the Adequacy Budget for JCBOE’s schools has increased by more than
thirty one percent (31%) under SFRA. Id. at ¶ 20.
80.

During that same time period, JCBOE’s LFS has increased nearly one hundred

and forty two percent (142%). Id. at ¶ 21.
81.

Because of the confluence of a number of factors, including: 1) an increasing

Adequacy Budget, 2) the reduction in Equalization Aid to JCBOE, 3) the fact that the increases

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 17 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

in Adjustment Aid are capped at 102% of the 2007-08 funding, and 4) the cap placed on JCBOE’s
ability to increase its local levy to support increases in its LFS, JCBOE has fallen further below
adequacy and the constitutional level of funding necessary to provide a thorough and efficient
education to the students of JCBOE. Id. at ¶ 24.
82.

JCBOE has increased its local revenue as permitted by SFRA and the local levy

has increased between 2008-09 and 2019-20 by nearly fifty seven percent (57%). Id. at ¶ 23.
83.

However, as set forth above, SFRA’s two percent property tax cap, only recently

removed, has constrained the speed with which JCBOE can increase its local revenue to provide
funding consistent with its LFS. Id. at ¶ 26.
84.

The JCBOE’s Adequacy Budget for the 2017-18 school year, pursuant to

N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-51, was $584,758,085. Id. at ¶ 116.
85.

Pursuant to SFRA, JCBOE was entitled to receive $214,496,630 in Equalization

Aid, for the 2017-18 school year. Id. at ¶ 117.
86.

Pursuant to the SFRA formula, JCBOE’s LFS for the 2017-18 school year was

$370,261,455. Id. at ¶ 118.
87.

In the 2017-18 school year JCBOE contributed $116,692,448 towards its LFS.

Id. at ¶ 119.
88.

As such, there was a local levy gap in the 2017-18 school year of $253,569,007.

Id. at ¶ 120.
89.

JCBOE was entitled to receive $158,883,988 in Adjustment Aid and $125,411 in

Educational Adequacy Aid for the 2017-18 school year, reducing its local levy gap by these
amounts. Id. at ¶ 121.

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 18 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

90.

For the 2017-18 school year, JCBOE was $94,559,608 “below adequacy” due to

the local levy gap not being filled by Adjustment Aid and Educational Adequacy Aid. Id. at ¶
122.
91.

However, in the 2017-18 school year overall SFRA aid for Jersey City was

reduced below the entitlement amounts required above under SFRA by $8,375,597, increasing
the amount the district was actually “below adequacy” to $101,713,919, an amount larger than
that shown in the preceding paragraph. Id. at ¶ 123.
92.

$1,221,286 of the overall reduction in aid above was in Transportation Aid which

is not considered in this calculation. Id. at ¶ 124.
93.

As a result, JCBOE had to reduce expenditures to balance its budget.

94.

The JCBOE’s Adequacy Budget for the 2018-19 school year, pursuant to

N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-51, was $590,163,255. Id. at ¶ 133.
95.

Pursuant to SFRA, JCBOE was entitled to receive $191,268,212 in Equalization

Aid, for the 2018-19 school year. Id. at ¶ 134.
96.

Pursuant to the SFRA formula, JCBOE’s LFS for the 2018-19 school year was

$398,895,043. Id. at ¶ 135.
97.

In the 2018-19 school year, JCBOE contributed $124,367,357 towards its LFS.

Id. at ¶ 136.
98.

As such, there was a local levy gap in the 2018-19 school year of $274,527,686.

Id. at ¶ 137.
99.

JCBOE was entitled to receive $181,607,480 in Adjustment Aid and $125,411 in

Educational Adequacy Aid for the 2018-19 school year reducing its local levy gap by these
amounts. Id. at ¶ 138.

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 19 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

100.

For the 2018-19 school year, Jersey City was $92,794,795 “below adequacy” due

to the local levy gap not being filled by Adjustment Aid and due to receiving less state aid than
required pursuant to SFRA. Id. at ¶ 139.
101.

However, in the 2018-19 school year overall SFRA aid for JCBOE was again

reduced below the entitlement amounts required above under SFRA by $10,954,857, increasing
the amount the district was actually “below adequacy” to $103,749,652, an amount larger than
that shown in the preceding paragraph, resulting in Jersey City having to reduce expenditures to
balance its budget. Id. at ¶ 140.
102.

The graph below demonstrates the changes in JCBOE’s LFS, the amounts JCBOE

contributed towards the LFS, the amount of Equalization Aid JCBOE received, and the amount
of Adjustment Aid it received since the 2008-09 school year through the 2018-19 school year:

Changes in LFS, JCBOE Tax Levy, Equalization Aid, and Adjustment
Aid Since the Implementation of SFRA

$450,000,000
$400,000,000
$350,000,000
$300,000,000
$250,000,000
$200,000,000
$150,000,000
$100,000,000
$50,000,000
$0

School Year
Local Fair Share

14667438v3 (21651.036)

JCBOE Tax Levy

Equalization Aid

Adjustment Aid

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 20 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Id. at ¶ 145.
103.

From the 2009-2010 school year through the 2018-2019 school year, JCBOE has

been funded at a cumulative level more than $574,772,516 below that which was necessary for
it to provide a thorough and efficient education. Id. at ¶ 142.
104.

During this time, JCBOE was under State control necessitating school funding

decisions to be made and/or approved by the State monitor.
105.

Not only has the Adequacy Budget not been fully funded since SFRA’s second

year of implementation, but Defendants have failed to provide full state aid funding to JCBOE
in the 2017-18 school year in the amount of $8,375,597 and in the 2018-19 school year in the
amount of $10,954,857. Id. at ¶ 143.
106.

Adding insult to injury, JCBOE has been forced to use a portion of its Adequacy

Budget, which is meant to be used solely for operational costs such as staff and programs,
towards its capital expenditures such as school maintenance and repairs.
107.

Under JCBOE’s 10-year Long Range Facility Plan, the School Development

Authority (“Development Authority”) was to provide JCBOE with $1,388,681,525.00 in
funding to construct additional schools and to maintain JCBOE’s existing schools.
108.

Of this over $1.3 billion, however, the SDA has only provided $361,064,210.97

of funding, leading to a shortfall of over $1 billion for JCBOE’s capital expenditures.
109.

This shortfall puts further strain on JCBOE whose buildings are over 100 years

old and are largely in disrepair.
110.

For example, not one of the 40 school buildings in JCBOE can provide safe

potable water for drinking due to lead being present in their pipes, forcing JCBOE to purchase
water from outside private suppliers.

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 21 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

111.

As a consequence of the shortfall in money for capital expenditures, which JCBOE

is entitled to under the Educational Facilities Construction and Financing Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:7G1 et seq., JCBOE is forced to use funds from its underfunded Adequacy Budget to make needed
and vital repairs to its schools, further reducing the money available to educate students.
D. Recent Amendments to SFRA Causing Jersey City to Fall Further Below
Adequacy.
112.

Notwithstanding that the public schools of Jersey City were operating at $103.7

million less in funding than its Adequacy Budget required in the 2018-19 school year, the State
enacted and began to implement amendments to SFRA, effective as of July 24, 2018 (the
“Amendments”) that will substantially worsen JCBOE’s financial situation.
113.

Pursuant to the Amendments, set forth, in part, at N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-68(b), the

Adjustment Aid that JCBOE receives from Defendants is being phased out over a six-year period
as follows:
a. A 13 percent reduction in the 2019-2020 school year;
b. A 23 percent reduction in the 2020-2021 school year;
c. A 37 percent reduction in the 2021-2022 school year;
d. A 55 percent reduction in the 2022-2023 school year;
e. A 76 percent reduction in the 2023-2024 school year; and
f. A 100 percent reduction in the 2024-2025 school year.
114.

These reductions, which are estimated to result in a total cumulative reduction of

school aid of at least $795 million to Jersey City by the 2024-2025 school year, will cause JCBOE
to fall further below adequacy. See Wyns Cert., ¶ 149.

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 22 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

115.

As a result of the 13 percent reduction in Adjustment Aid for the 2019-20 school

year, which is a reduction in funding from the 2018-19 school year of $27,192,633 and of
$38,147,490 from the version of SFRA which was held to be constitutional in Abbott XX,
JCBOE will be forced to take drastic steps to balance the budget which will directly affect
JCBOE’s ability to comply with CCCS. Id. at ¶ 150.
116.

Until JCBOE recently received notice of the actual amount of cuts to Adjustment

Aid for the 2019-20 school year totaling $27,192,633, it had been estimated that these cuts would
only amount to approximately $14,000,000.
117.

The thirteen percent cut in Adjustment Aid equates to a reduction in JCBOE’s

total state aid by 6.6%. Id. at ¶ 151.
118.

The JCBOE’s Adequacy Budget for the 2019-20 school year pursuant to N.J.S.A.

18A:7F-51, was $622,876,777. Id. at ¶ 152.
119.

Pursuant to SFRA, JCBOE was entitled to receive $148,837,309 in Equalization

Aid, for the 2019-20 school year. Id. at ¶ 153.
120.

Pursuant to the SFRA formula, JCBOE’s LFS for the 2019-20 school year was

$474,039,468. Id. at ¶ 154.
121.

For the 2019-20 school year, JCBOE plans to contribute $134,854,704 towards

its LFS. This is an 8.43% increase over the 2018-19 contribution. Id. at ¶ 155.
122.

Nonetheless, even after this significantly increased local contribution, there was

a local levy gap for the 2019-20 school year of $339,184,764. Id. at ¶ 156.
123.

JCBOE was entitled to receive $181,981,470 in Adjustment Aid and $125,411 in

Educational Adequacy Aid for the 2019-20 school year reducing its local levy gap by these
amounts. Id. at ¶ 157.

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 23 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

124.

For the 2019-20 school year, Jersey City was $157,077,883 “below adequacy”

due to the local levy gap not being filled by Adjustment Aid and Educational Adequacy Aid. Id.
at ¶ 158.
125.

Due to the reduction in Adjustment Aid for the 2019-20 school year, which

equates to a reduction in funding of approximately $27,192,633, JCBOE will be forced to take
drastic steps to balance the budget which would directly affect JCBOE’s ability to comply with
the CCCS.
126.

JCBOE received the 2019-20 state aid notice setting forth the reduction in

Adjustment Aid for the 2019-20 school year on or about March 8, 2019.
127.

Additionally, JCBOE’s charter school tuition was increased by $6.2 million for

the 2019-20 school year due to increased charter school enrollment.
128.

It is clear that JCBOE’s below adequacy funding has directly impacted its

students, leading to a per weighted-pupil shortfall for the 2019-20 school year equaling $3,405.00
and with a per weighted-pupil shortfall in funding existing in each year since the SFRA was
implemented other than in the initial year of implementation, the 2008-09 school year. See Wyns
Cert., ¶ 159.
129.

The below chart reflects how JCBOE’s below adequacy funding has resulted in a

shortfall in funding in per weighted-pupil from the 2009-10 school year to the 2019-20 school
year:

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 24 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

School
Year

Weighted
Enrollment

Adequacy
Budget

Adequacy
Budget/
Per
Weighted
Pupil

2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
2018-19
2019-20

43,921
43,624
48,108
43,395
40,722
41,366
45,778
46,875
46,921
46,426
46,119
46,126

$473,854,172
$486,315,450
$489,564,151
$497,534,646
$491,127,159
$517,593,230
$579,277,523
$601,290,845
$588,836,489
$584,758,085
$590,163,255
$622,876,777

$10,789
$11,148
$10,176
$11,465
$12,060
$12,513
$12,654
$12,828
$12,550
$12,595
$12,797
$13,504

Adequacy
Budget
Funding
$474,873,146
$480,344,364
$462,640,757
$490,855,850
$489,658,119
$494,363,390
$487,635,226
$488,786,917
$487,945,925
$483,044,166
$486,413,603
$465,798,894

Adequacy
Budget
Funding/
Per
Weighted
Pupil
$10,812
$11,011
$9,617
$11,311
$12,024
$11,951
$10,652
$10,427
$10,399
$10,405
$10,547
$10,098

Shortfall

Shortfall/Per
Weighted
Pupil

$0
$5,971,086
$26,923,394
$6,678,796
$1,469,040
$23,229,840
$91,642,297
$112,503,928
$100,890,564
$101,713,919
$103,749,652
$157,077,883

$0
$137
$560
$154
$36
$562
$2,002
$2,400
$2,150
$2,191
$2,250
$3,405

Id. Wyns Cert., ¶ 160.
130.

On March 20, 2019, JCBOE adopted and filed its tentative budget pursuant to

N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-5 and 18A:7F-6 for the 2019-20 school year. See Wyns Cert., Ex. X
131.

As set forth in the tentative budget, JCBOE will have a tax levy equaling

$134,854,704.00, which includes a ten percent (10%) increase in JCBOE’s school tax,
representing a two percent (2%) increase in property taxes.
132.

The tentative budget also provides that JCBOE will receive $381,497,338 in state

aid for the 2019-20 school year.
133.

Along with adopting the tentative budget, JCBOE made a preliminary budget

presentation on March 20, 2019. See Wyns Cert., Ex. X.
134.

The 2019 Preliminary Budget Presentation, together with the Certified tentative

budget, indicates the cuts that JCBOE will have to make to balance its budget as a result of the
State’s cuts to Adjustment Aid as well as cuts resulting from being funded below adequacy.

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 25 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

135.

As a result of the reduction in Adjustment Aid for the 2019-2020 school year,

JCBOE must now cut 410 individuals, of which 370 individuals currently hold instructional
positions and 40 hold instructional support positions in the following areas:
a.

4 full time crises intervention teachers.

b.

5 full time library media specialists.

c.

1 full time applied technology arts specialist.

d.

11 full time general education kindergarten teachers.

e.

115 full time general education teachers in the first through fifth grades.

f.

1 full time AEP Social Studies teacher in its middle schools.

g.

4 full time Social Studies teachers in its middle schools.

h.

5 full time English teachers in its middle schools.

i.

6 full time Math teachers in its middle schools.

j.

3 full time Science teachers in its middle schools.

k.

23 full time Science teachers in its high schools.

l.

18 full time Math teachers in its high schools.

m.

1 full time Math teacher in its 7-8th grades.

n.

1 fully time Cosmetology teacher in its high schools.

o.

33 full time general education teachers in its high schools.

p.

5 full time Business teachers in its high schools.

q.

1 full time Special Education English teacher in its high schools.

r.

17 full time English teachers in its high schools.

s.

16 full time Social Studies teachers in its high schools.

t.

1 full time Life Skills teacher in its high schools.

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 26 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

u.

1 full time Technology/Media teachers in its high schools.

v.

1 full time Special Education World Language teacher in its 6-8th grades.

w.

1 full time Special Education World Language teacher in its high schools.

x.

7 full time World Language Teachers in its high schools.

y.

54 full time General Special Education Teachers in its high schools.

z.

2 full time Special Education Pull Out Support Teachers in its high
schools.

aa.

3 full time Special Education-Autistic Teachers in its high schools.

bb.

1 full time Special Education Cognitive Impairment Teachers in its high
schools.

cc.

1 full time Special Education In-Class Replacement Teachers in its high
schools.

dd.

22 full time Special Education In-Class Support Teachers in its high
schools.

ee.

1 full time Special Education Learning/Language Disability Teacher in its
high schools.

ff.

1 full time Special Education Teacher in its pre-kindergarten schools.

gg.

1 full time Special Education Teacher-bilingual in its high schools.

hh.

1 full time Special Education Home Instruction Teacher in its high schools.

ii.

2 full time Lead Special Education Teacher in its high schools.

jj.

12 full time Guidance Counselors.

kk.

4 full time Job Placement Coordinators.

ll.

3 full time Assistant Principals in its elementary schools.

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 27 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

136.

mm.

2 full time High School Principals.

nn.

5 full time school nurses.

oo.

1 full time social worker.

pp.

3 full time Elementary School Math Supervisors.

qq.

10 full time Special Education Supervisors.

These cuts to instructional and support staff will have a direct effect on courses

and programs which JCBOE is able to provide its students.
137.

As a result of the aforementioned cuts and changes to the educational services that

JCBOE provides to its students, JCBOE’s ability to provide its students with an education in
compliance with the CCCS, and with the constitutional requirement of a thorough and efficient
education, will be further jeopardized.
138.

As a result of the aforementioned cuts and changes to the educational services that

JCBOE provides to its students, graduation rates for JCBOE’s students will be negatively
affected.
139.

As a result of the aforementioned cuts and changes to the educational services that

JCBOE provides to its students, standardized test scores for JCBOE’s students will be negatively
affected.
140.

These cuts will exacerbate the problems already facing JCBOE as its teacher and

staffing levels are already out of compliance with the SFRA modeling as established in the Report
on the Cost of Education, even prior to the aforementioned cuts going into effect. See Exhibit A.
141.

Because JCBOE is already understaffed, it does not have the resources necessary

to provide a thorough and efficient education to its students and the aforementioned cuts will

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 28 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

only move the students of JCBOE further away from receiving their constitutional right to receive
a thorough and efficient education.
142.

In the 2018-19 school year, the SFRA models provide that JCBOE should have

7.57 librarians/media specialists spread among all of its high schools.
143.

However, due to funding below the Adequacy Budget level, JCBOE only

employed 4 librarians/media specialists prior to the aforementioned cuts taking affect, which
equates to 47.2% below the SFRA models.
144.

In the 2018-19 school year, the SFRA models provide that JCBOE should have a

total of at least 513 teachers in its high schools.
145.

Due to funding below the Adequacy Budget level, JCBOE employed 529 teachers

in their high schools prior to the aforementioned cuts taking affect, which equates to only 3.1 %
above the SFRA models.
146.

With the aforementioned cuts, the number of high school teachers in JCBOE

schools fall below the number required by the SFRA models.
147.

In the 2018-19 school year, the SFRA models provide that JCBOE should have a

total of 34.11 technology specialists employed in its high schools.
148.

However, due to funding below the Adequacy Budget level, JCBOE employed

only 29 technology specialists in its high schools, which equates to 15.0% below the SFRA
models.
149.

In the 2018-19 school year, the SFRA models provide that JCBOE should have a

total of 18.36 directors/supervisors employed in its high schools.
150.

However, due to funding below the Adequacy Budget level, JCBOE employed

only 5 directors/supervisors in its high schools, which equates to 72.8% below the SFRA model.

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 29 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

151.

In the 2018-19 school year, the SFRA models provide that JCBOE should have a

total of 42.82 reading specialists/reading recovery teachers employed at its high schools.
152.

However, due to funding below the Adequacy Budget level, JCBOE employs no

individuals in these positions.
153.

In the 2018-19 school year, the SFRA models provide that JCBOE should have

employed a total of 867.03 teachers in its middle schools.
154.

However, due to funding below the Adequacy Budget level, JCBOE employed

468.22 teachers in its middle schools, which equates to 46.0% below the SFRA model.
155.

In the 2018-19 school year, the SFRA models provide that JCBOE should have

employed a total of 19.11 library/media specialists in its middle schools.
156.

However, due to funding below the Adequacy Budget level, JCBOE employed

only 9.33 library/media specialists in its middle schools, which equates to 51.1% below the
SFRA model.
157.

In the 2018-19 school year, the SFRA models provide that JCBOE should have

employed a total of 19.11 technology specialists in its middle schools.
158.

However, due to funding below the Adequacy Budget level, JCBOE employed

only 7.33 technology specialists in its middle schools, which equates to 61.6% below the SFRA
model.
159.

In the 2018-19 school year, the SFRA models provide that JCBOE should have

employed a total of 47.77 guidance counselors in its middle schools.
160.

However, due to funding below the Adequacy Budget level, JCBOE employed

only 20.33 guidance counselors in its middle schools, which equates to 57.4% below the SFRA
model.

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 30 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

161.

In the 2018-19 school year, the SFRA models provide that JCBOE should have

employed a total of 19.11 nurses in its middle schools.
162.

However, due to funding below the Adequacy Budget level, JCBOE employed

only 9.33 nurses in its middle schools, which equates to 51.1% below the SFRA model.
163.

In the 2018-19 school year, the SFRA models provide that JCBOE should have

employed a total of 19.11 media aids in its middle schools.
164.

However, due to funding below the Adequacy Budget level, JCBOE employed

only 5.33 media aids in its middle schools, which equates to 72.1% below the SFRA model.
165.

In the 2018-19 school year, the SFRA models provide that JCBOE should have

employed a total of 57.32 clerical/data entry staff in its middle schools.
166.

However, due to funding below the Adequacy Budget level, JCBOE employed

only 29.00 clerical/data entry staff in its middle schools, which equates to 49.4% below the
SFRA model.
167.

In the 2018-19 school year, the SFRA models provide that JCBOE should have

employed a total of 19.11 Principals in its middle schools.
168.

However, due to funding below the Adequacy Budget level, JCBOE employed

only 10.33 Principals in its middle schools, which equates to 45.9% below the SFRA model.
169.

In the 2018-19 school year, the SFRA models provide that JCBOE should have

employed a total of 19.11 Assistant Principals in its middle schools.
170.

However, due to funding below the Adequacy Budget level, JCBOE employed

only 7.33 Assistant Principals in its middle schools, which equates to 61.6% below the SFRA
model.

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 31 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

171.

In the 2018-19 school year, the SFRA models provide that JCBOE should have

employed a total of 62.78 security guards in its middle schools.
172.

However, due to funding below the Adequacy Budget level, JCBOE employed

only 39.54 security guards in its middle schools, which equates to 37.0% below the SFRA model.
173.

In the 2018-19 school year, the SFRA models provide that JCBOE should have

employed a total of 131.03 reading specialists/reading recovery teachers in its middle schools.
174.

However, due to funding below the Adequacy Budget level, JCBOE employed

only 50.63 reading specialists/reading recovery teachers in its middle schools, which equates to
61.4% below the SFRA model.
175.

In the 2018-19 school year, the SFRA models provide that JCBOE should have

employed a total of 6.84 social workers in its middle schools.
176.

However, due to funding below the Adequacy Budget level, JCBOE employed

only 4 social workers in its middle schools, which equates to 41.5% below the SFRA model.
177.

In the 2018-19 school year, the SFRA models provide that JCBOE should have

employed a total of 28.15 librarians/media specialists in its elementary schools.
178.

However, due to funding below the Adequacy Budget level, JCBOE employed

only 27.24 librarians/media specialists in its elementary schools, which equates to 3.2% below
the SFRA model.
179.

In the 2018-19 school year, the SFRA models provide that JCBOE should have

employed a total of 28.15 technology specialists in its elementary schools.
180.

However, due to funding below the Adequacy Budget level, JCBOE employed

only 19.24 technology specialists in its elementary schools, which equates to 31.7% below the
SFRA model.

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 32 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

181.

In the 2018-19 school year, the SFRA models provide that JCBOE should have

employed a total of 28.15 nurses in its elementary schools.
182.

However, due to funding below the Adequacy Budget level, JCBOE employed

only 27.24 nurses in its elementary schools, which equates to 3.2% below the SFRA model.
183.

In the 2018-19 school year, the SFRA models provide that JCBOE should have

employed a total of 126.58 Instructional Aids in its elementary schools.
184.

However, due to funding below the Adequacy Budget level, JCBOE employed

only 109.43 Instructional Aids in its elementary schools, which equates to 13.5% below the
SFRA model.
185.

In the 2018-19 school year, the SFRA models provide that JCBOE should have

employed a total of 253.15 reading specialists/reading recovery teachers in its elementary
schools.
186.

However, due to funding below the Adequacy Budget level, JCBOE employed

only 223.85 readings specialists/reading recovery teachers in its elementary schools, which
equates to 11.6% below the SFRA model.
187.

In the 2018-19 school year, the SFRA models provide that JCBOE should have

employed a total of 28.15 media aids in its elementary schools.
188.

However, due to funding below the Adequacy Budget level, JCBOE employed

only 17.24 media aids in its elementary schools, which equates to 38.7% below the SFRA model.
189.

In the 2018-19 school year, the SFRA models provide that JCBOE should have

employed a total of 16.64 social workers in its elementary schools.

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 33 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

190.

However, due to funding below the Adequacy Budget level, JCBOE employed

only 6.2 social workers in its elementary schools, which equates to 62.7% below the SFRA
model.
191.

As the above demonstrates, JCBOE was significantly understaffed such that the

SFRA modeling was not met by JCBOE even prior to the cuts necessitated by the reduction in
Adjustment Aid for the 2019-20 school year.
192.

Increased funding, not a reduction, is needed in Jersey City in order for JCBOE’s

students to receive a thorough and efficient education.
193.

By way of further example, actual classroom spending per pupil was $10,000 in

the 2008-2009 school year, the first year the SFRA was implemented.
194.

Budgeted classroom spending per pupil for the 2017-18 school year was

$10,787.00, only a 7.87% increase despite the fact that JCBOE’s 2017-18 Adequacy Budget
increased by 23.4% over its 2008-09 Adequacy Budget. See Wyns Cert., ¶ 125.
195.

By amending SFRA to phase out Adjustment Aid, JCBOE will fall further below

the Adequacy Budget as calculated by SFRA, contrary to the Orders of the Supreme Court in
Abbott XX and XXI.
196.

Due to being funded at a level below the Adequacy Budget since the 2009-10

school year, JCBOE will be forced to cut hundreds of additional instructional and support staff,
on top of those cuts being made due to the phase out of Adjustment Aid, as well as eliminate
various programs, including special education programs, after school programs, athletics, and
extracurricular activities.
197.

JCBOE cannot overcome the local levy gap that will exist as a result of the phase

out of Adjustment Aid.

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 34 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

198.

Based upon 2019-20 data and the 2019-20 level of Adjustment Aid, in order for

JCBOE to fund its schools at the level required by the Adequacy Budget, JCBOE would have to
increase its local levy by $157,077,883, or more than one hundred sixteen percent (116%) its
2019-20 level. See Wyns Cert., ¶ 161.
199.

Due to Jersey City's past inability to increase local revenue at a rate necessary to

meet its LFS obligations because of SFRA’s 2% cap, it is impossible now for JCBOE to fund its
LFS to enable it to reach adequacy, as Jersey City would have to increase their property tax rates
by 33 percent. Id. at ¶ 162.
200.

Even if JCBOE were able to increase its tax rates to raise higher levels of revenue

to meet the LFS and Adequacy Budget, the percentage increase in taxes would likely have
devastating effects on the tax base, preventing these increased revenues from being realized.
201.

This inability to raise increased levels of local revenue through higher tax rates is

referred to as “municipal overburden” in the Abbott line of cases.
202.

In Abbott XX, the Court specifically noted that the plaintiffs were concerned with

municipal overburden, but it held that this issue was alleviated due, in part, by Adjustment Aid.
203.

However, with the elimination of Adjustment Aid and JCBOE’s practical inability

to increase local revenue to satisfy LFS and fund its schools in an amount consistent with the
Adequacy Budget calculation in SFRA, Defendants cannot provide the students of JCBOE with
a constitutionally sufficient education.
E. Newly Enacted Payroll Tax In Jersey City
204.

In conjunction with amending SFRA to, among other things, eliminate Adjustment

Aid to districts such as JCBOE, the Legislature also amended N.J.S.A. 40:48C-15, effective
July 24, 2018, to permit any municipality with a population exceeding 200,000, which includes

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 35 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Jersey City , to enact an ordinance which would permit the collection of an employer payroll tax
not to exceed 1% (the “Payroll Tax Statute”). Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct
copy of the Payroll Tax Statute.
205.

The Payroll Tax Statute was also amended to provide that if any municipality

subject to the act had a median household income of $55,000.00 or greater, than all of the
employer payroll tax collected would be deposited into a trust fund to be used exclusively for
school purposes. N.J.S.A. 40:48C-15(d)(1).
206.

This median household income provision is applicable only to Jersey City

currently, as no other municipality has both a population in excess of 200,000 and a median
household income of $55,000.00 or greater, as recognized by the Statement of the Assembly Bill
introduced on June 11, 2018.
207.

The Statement of the Assembly Bill also specifically stated that “[t]he bill would

help offset certain reductions in State school aid that may be in effect after State fiscal year 2018,
as is currently being considered by the Legislature in the form of Senate Bill No. 2 of 20182019.”
208.

The Senate Bill No. 2 referenced in the Statement of the Assembly Bill is the

recently enacted amendment to SFRA that, among other things, eliminates Adjustment Aid to
JCBOE.
209.

Following the passage of the Payroll Tax Statute, Jersey City adopted Ordinance

18-133 implementing a 1% employer payroll tax to take effect on January 1, 2019 (the “Payroll
Tax Ordinance”). Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the Payroll Tax
Ordinance.

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 36 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

210.

Upon information and belief, revenue from the payroll tax will not be collected

until April 30, 2019.
211.

The Payroll Tax Statute and the Payroll Tax Ordinance contain no guaranteed

revenue amount, nor do they provide that the revenue must be of a sufficient amount to fully
offset JCBOE’s loss of Adjustment Aid as a result of recent amendments to SFRA.
212.

Upon information and belief, no formal analysis has been done by the New Jersey

Office of Legislative Services regarding the anticipated revenue from the payroll tax that will be
available to JCBOE to help in offsetting losses in state school aid.
213.

A review of data regarding the levels of state school aid that JCBOE will receive

in the 2019-20 school year makes it possible to determine when the payroll tax education trust
fund may be depleted as a result of reductions in state aid. See Wyns Cert., ¶ 177.
214.

If the payroll tax generated revenue of $40 million per year, which would require

a payroll subject to the ordinance of $4 billion, JCBOE’s trust fund would be depleted by the
2021-22 school year, and in fact would be negative in that year. Id. at ¶ 180.
215.

The 2021-22 school year is three years before the complete phase out of

Adjustment Aid as set forth in the recent amendments to SFRA.
216.

If the payroll tax generated revenue of $50 million per year, which would require

a payroll subject to the ordinance of $5 billion, JCBOE’s trust fund would be depleted by the
2021-22 school year. Id. at ¶ 181.
217.

The 2021-22 school year is three years prior to the complete phase out of

Adjustment Aid as set forth in recent amendments to SFRA.

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 37 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

218.

If the payroll tax generated revenue of $60 million per year, which would require

a payroll subject to the ordinance of $6 billion, JCBOE’s trust fund would be depleted by the
2022-23 school year, and in fact would be negative in that year. Id. at ¶ 182.
219.

The 2022-23 school year is two years prior to the complete phase out of

Adjustment Aid as set forth in recent amendments to SFRA.
220.

If the payroll tax generated revenue of $70 million per year, which would require

a payroll subject to the ordinance of $7 billion, JCBOE’s trust fund would be depleted by the
2022-23 school year, and in fact would be negative in that year. Id. at ¶ 183.
221.

The 2022-23 school year is two years prior to the complete phase out of

Adjustment Aid as set forth in recent amendments to SFRA.
222.

If the payroll tax generated revenue of $80 million per year, which would require

a payroll subject to the ordinance of $8 billion, JCBOE’s trust fund would be depleted by the
2023-24 school year, and in fact would be negative in that year. Id. at ¶ 184.
223.

The 2023-24 school year is one year prior to the complete phase out of Adjustment

Aid as set forth in recent amendments to SFRA.
224.

Additionally, while the Statement of the Assembly Bill indicates that the Payroll

Tax Statute was enacted to offset losses in Adjustment Aid as a result of recent amendments to
SFRA, the Payroll Tax Statute actually provides that revenue from the tax is to be used to cover
loss of all state school aid, not just Adjustment Aid. N.J.S.A. 40:48C-15(1)(d)(2).
225.

As such, to the extent there are reductions in other forms of state school aid,

payroll tax revenue will not replace Adjustment Aid in dollar for dollar exchange.

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 38 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

226.

An additional limitation on the capacity of payroll tax revenue to offset losses in

Adjustment Aid to JCBOE is that, unlike Adjustment Aid, charter schools in Jersey City are
entitled to revenue generated by the payroll tax. N.J.S.A. 40:48C-15(d)(1).
227.

Even if the revenue generated by the payroll tax were sufficient to cover the loss

of Adjustment Aid, which will not be the case, it will not replace Adjustment Aid losses to noncharter public schools in JCBOE on a one to one basis since the payroll tax revenue will be
shared with charter schools.
228.

Therefore, it is virtually certain that payroll tax revenue will be less than the loss

of Adjustment Aid every year.
229.

This estimated payroll tax collection is far below the amount of Adjustment Aid

that JCBOE will lose as a result of the recent amendments to the SFRA, to say nothing of the
shortfall to JCBOE’s Adequacy Budget.
230.

Furthermore, because JCBOE’s tentative budget was submitted on March 20,

2019, prior to any payroll tax revenue being collected or distributed to JCBOE, JCBOE cannot
include any payroll tax revenue in its tentative 2019-20 budget, while the budget will reflect the
loss of over $27 million in Adjustment Aid.
231.

The Payroll Tax Statute and Ordinance was recently the subject of on-going

litigation, proceeding under the caption Mack-Cali Realty Corp., et al. v. State of New Jersey,
et al., Docket No.: HUD-L-4903-18.
232.

In that matter, the trial court granted the State’s motion to dismiss, effectively

permitting the payroll tax to go into effect in Jersey City.

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 39 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

233.

However, this decision will likely be appealed and a stay of payroll tax in Jersey

City may be sought and obtained, further calling into question whether JCBOE will receive
funding from the payroll tax in the near future.
234.

JCBOE has the potential to ensure that its students receive the best possible

opportunity for a quality education, and to aid them in becoming productive members of society,
but the current public-school financing system as recently amended ensures that JCBOE efforts
will go unrealized.
LEGAL CLAIMS
COUNT I
(Thorough and Efficient Education – SFRA is Unconstitutional)
235.

Plaintiffs repeat and restate the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs of the

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
236.

The New Jersey Constitution provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Legislature

shall provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of free public
schools for the instruction of all children in the State between the ages of five and eighteen years
old. N.J. Const. art. VIII, § 4, ¶ 1 (“Thorough and Efficient Clause”).
237.

The Thorough and Efficient Clause of the New Jersey Constitution makes a

thorough and efficient education a fundamental right for all New Jersey children, including
JCBOE’s students.
238.

The Thorough and Efficient Clause provides that it is the State’s obligation to

ensure that the students of JCBOE receive a thorough and efficient education.
239.

As set forth above, the Legislative findings incorporated into SFRA state that the

“formula established under [SFRA] is the product of a careful and deliberative process that first
involved determining the educational inputs necessary to provide a high-quality education,

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 40 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

including specifically addressing the supplemental needs of at-risk students and those with limited
English proficiency (LEP), and a determination of the actual cost of providing those programs.
The formula provides adequate funding that is realistically geared to the core curriculum content
standards, thus linking those standards to the actual funding needed to deliver that content.”
N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-44(i).
240.

The SFRA is only constitutional to the extent that it ensures that the resources

necessary for a thorough and efficient education, defined by CCCS, are provided. Abbott XX,
199 N.J. at 170.
241.

As the Adequacy Budget was developed to ensure that districts had the resources

necessary to provide CCCS, funding for a thorough and efficient education must be at the
Adequacy Budget level and any amount of funding below that is violative of the Thorough and
Efficient Clause.
242.

The Supreme Court has held that former Abbott/SDA District’s, which includes

JCBOE, are entitled to special constitutional consideration.
243.

While the State can meet its constitutional obligation of providing a thorough and

efficient education to the students of New Jersey by delegating some of that obligation to local
school districts, if any shortfalls exist in funding necessary to provide a thorough and efficient
education, the obligation falls on the State to ensure sufficient funding. Robinson v. Cahill, 69
N.J. 133, 142 (1975).
244.

Since 2009, the second year of SFRA implementation, JCBOE school funding has

never matched its Adequacy Budget, meaning that since 2009, JCBOE has not received sufficient
funding for the resources necessary to provide a thorough and efficient education. See Wyns
Cert., ¶ 15.

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 41 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

245.

The sum of JCBOE’s Adequacy Budget deficit since 2009 exceeds half a billion

dollars, all incurred while JCBOE was under State control. Id. at ¶ 142.
246.

Defendants have failed to ensure that the students of JCBOE receive funding that,

at a minimum, equals the Adequacy Budget and as such, has failed to ensure that the students of
JCBOE have obtained a thorough and efficient education for the past ten (10) years, a time in
which JCBOE was under State control.
247.

While the Court in Abbott XX found SFRA facially constitutional, it recognized

that there was “no absolute guarantee that SFRA will achieve the results desired by all. SFRA
deserves the chance to prove in practice that, as designed, it satisfies the requirements of our
constitution.” 199 N.J. at 169.
248.

JCBOE, however, continues to fall further below adequacy, with funding in

JCBOE for the 2018-19 school year at $103,713,919 below the Adequacy Budget and at
$157,077,833 below the Adequacy Budget for the 2019-20 school year. See Wyns Cert., ¶ 158.
249.

Not only has JCBOE’s Adequacy Budget not been fully funded since the 2008-09

school year, but also state aid to JCBOE has not been fully funded for several school years during
this time period, namely in the 2010-11 school year (which resulted in the Abbott XXI decision),
the 2017-18 school year, and the 2018-19 school year.
250.

In the 2010-11 school year, JCBOE received $26,835,520 less in funding than

required under the SFRA formula, contributing to the failure of to JCBOE fund its schools at
the Adequacy Budget level. See Wyns Cert., ¶ 54.
251.

As a result of the Appropriations Acts enacted in the 2017-18 and 2018-19 school

years, state aid has been reduced from what JCBOE should have received pursuant to SFRA. Id.
at ¶¶ 123, 140

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 42 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

252.

In the 2017-18 school year, JCBOE received $8,375,597 less in funding than

required under SFRA, contributing to a shortfall of JCBOE’s funding in the amount of
$101,713,909 below adequacy for that school year. Id. at ¶ 123.
253.

In the 2018-19 school year, JCBOE received $10,954,857 less in funding than

required under the SFRA, contributing to a shortfall of JCBOE’s funding in the amount of
$103,749,652 below adequacy for the current school year. Id. at ¶ 140.
254.

Due to these shortfalls in state aid, Defendants essentially replaced SFRA with an

underfunded version of the statute, actions which have been found to violate the New Jersey
Constitution. Abbott XXI, 206 N.J. at 360.
255.

In addition to this shortfall in funding, Defendants have underfunded

Extraordinary Aid since the SFRA’s inception, resulting in a total shortfall of $13,722,026, and
only 62.8% of the required amount, from the 2008-09 through 2017-18 school years. See Wyns
Cert., ¶ 169.
256.

Extraordinary Aid is aid from the State that provides reimbursements to districts

for special education expenses that exceed $40,000.00. Abbott XX, 199 N.J. at 156.
257.

For costs of special education exceeding $40,000.00 for direct instructional and

support services, SFRA mandates that the State reimburse the district ninety percent of the costs.
Id. at 156-57.
258.

For private out-of-district special education programs, SFRA requires that the

State reimburse districts seventy-five percent of the costs exceeding $55,000.00. Id. at 157.
259.

Since SFRA was enacted and implemented in the 2008-09 school year, however,

Defendants have failed to fully reimburse JCBOE the costs expended for special education that
it was required to provide, in violation of SFRA.

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 43 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

260.

Specifically, Defendants have failed to fully reimburse JCBOE the costs expended

for special education that it was required to provide in each of those six school years under SFRA
resulting in a total shortfall for those school years of $13,722,026 and only 62.8% of the required
amount. See Wyns Cert., ¶ 169.
261.

Based upon the reimbursement level for the 2017-18 school year of 50.12% and

the Extraordinary Aid funding that is available in the State budget for FY 2019 and recommended
for FY2020, it is expected that the reimbursement level for the 2018-19 and 2019-20 school
years will be no more than 50% of the required level under SFRA. Id. at ¶ 170.
262.

Defendants failure relating to Extraordinary Aid has caused JCBOE to fall further

below adequacy, thus contributing to Defendants’ failure to assure that JCBOE students receive
a thorough and efficient education.
263.

As the Court in Abbott XXI held, former Abbott/SDA districts’ “right to full

funding is a constitutional mandate.” 206 N.J. at 463.
264.

In Abbott XX, when the Court authorized Defendants to replace the then current

educational funding method with SFRA, it did not authorize “some underfunded version of
SFRA” but instead required full funding. Abbott XXI, 206 N.J. at 360.
265.

The Supreme Court has established that if the State fails to fully fund the SFRA

formula or changes the formula in a way that reduces funding to a former Abbott/SDA District,
the State bears a heavy burden of proof to demonstrate that those acts are compatible with the
constitutional requirements of providing a thorough and efficient education.
266.

As set forth above, Defendants have failed to ensure that the Adequacy Budget

level of funding has been achieved in JCBOE.

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 44 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

267.

As such, Defendants have failed to provide a thorough and efficient education to

the students of JCBOE in violation of their constitutional mandate to do so.
268.

Defendants’ violation of the New Jersey Constitution has irreparably harmed the

students of the JCBOE by failing to ensure funding at a level necessary to provide a thorough
and efficient education, specifically the Adequacy Budget.
269.

This harm will ultimately limit students’ educational opportunities and irreversibly

affect their long-term prospects for employment and their ability to be productive members of
society.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demands the following relief:
a. A declaration that Defendants have failed to provide necessary funding to JCBOE
to enable it to reach its Adequacy Budget;
b. A declaration that Defendants have failed to provide full funding to JCBOE for
all state aid categories set forth in SFRA;
c. A declaration that that Defendants have failed and continue to fail to provide a
thorough and efficient education to the students of JCBOE’s schools;
d. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from providing
state aid in amounts below that which is required by SFRA to JCBOE;
e. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from reducing
funding to JCBOE causing it to fall further below the Adequacy Budget;
f. An order requiring Defendants to provide funding to JCBOE to enable it to fund
its schools at the Adequacy Budget level;
g. Attorneys’ fees and costs of this action; and
h. Such other and further relief as the Court determines to be just and appropriate.

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 45 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

COUNT II
(Thorough and Efficient Education-Challenge to SFRA Amendments)
270.

Plaintiffs repeat and restate the allegations of the foregoing paragraphs of the

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
271.

To provide the funding necessary for a thorough and efficient education, school

funding must be at the level set forth by the Adequacy Budget.
272.

As set forth above, JCBOE has been “below adequacy” since the 2009-10 school

year. See Wyns Cert., ¶ 15.
273.

When the Supreme Court ruled that SFRA was facially constitutional in Abbott

XX, the plaintiffs argued that SFRA failed to pass constitutional muster because it failed to
account for municipal overburden in the former Abbott/SDA Districts. 199 N.J. at 165.
274.

Municipal overburden, a concern in the Abbott line of cases since Abbott II and

even the Robinson v. Cahill lines of cases which preceded them, is “a condition in many poorer
districts where the cost of local government-, police, firefighters, other municipal employees,
road maintenance, garbage collection, etc.- is so high that the municipality and the school district
are reluctant to increases taxes for any purpose, including education.” Abbott v. Burke, 119 N.J.
287, 325 (1990).
275.

The Court in Abbott XX found that SFRA was designed to eliminate the concern

of municipal overburden, specifically that the SFRA formula was “designed to supplement the
funding for those districts that cannot raise their LFS to the amount required, to ensure that they
still receive their Adequacy Budget and are fully funded.” Abbott XX, 199 N.J. at 165.
276.

The Court in Abbott XX recognized specifically that Adjustment Aid was included

in SFRA to make up the difference between a district’s LFS and its previous year’s tax levy. Id.

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 46 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

277.

In order to ensure that municipal overburden would not occur, SFRA provides

for its periodic review, requiring the Commissioner to study limitations on growth levels in
districts and the districts’ ability to meet the LFS. Id.
278.

While the State has produced two Educational Adequacy Reports, both well past

their respective deadlines with the third not yet being produced notwithstanding its due date in
September 2018, these reports have not been complete as they failed to address districts such as
JCBOE’s ability to meet their LFS. See Wyns Cert., ¶¶ 17-19.
279.

Notwithstanding that no review of districts’ ability to meet their LFS has occurred,

the defendants in Abbott XX expected every district to be able to contribute its fair share and,
while achievement towards that goal proceeded, Adjustment Aid would be reduced. Abbott XX,
199 N.J. at 165-66.
280.

JCBOE, however, has been falling further below adequacy since SFRA was first

implemented. See Wyns Cert., ¶ 146.
281.

In fact, JCBOE’s local levy gap continues to increase, as opposed to decrease as

predicted by the Supreme Court when it found SFRA facially constitutional.
282.

The conditions highlighted by the Court in Abbott XX for the continuance of

Adjustment Aid, specifically that districts be afforded time to incrementally raise their local tax
levy to the LFS level to avoid significant tax levy increases, do not yet exist in JCBOE as Jersey
City would have to increase their property tax rate by 33% based upon 2018 Equalized Property
values. See Wyns Cert., ¶ 162.
283.

Students in JCBOE have not received a thorough and efficient education since the

2008-09 school year, the only time that JCBOE funding was at the Adequacy Budget level, and

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 47 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Defendants’ recent action in amending SFRA to phase out Adjustment Aid only exacerbates
JCBOE’s below adequacy financial condition.
284.

By amending SFRA to eliminate Adjustment Aid, as set forth in N.J.S.A.

18A:7F-68(b), Defendants will cause JCBOE to fall further below adequacy.
285.

Defendants bear the burden of demonstrating that any significant changes to the

funding formula set forth in SFRA do not undermine the effort to ensure that students in all
districts, and especially the former Abbott/SDA districts, receive a constitutionally required
thorough and efficient education.
286.

The recent amendments to SFRA cause direct harm to the students of JCBOE as

a consequence of the reduction in school funding.
287.

Jersey City’s Adequacy Budget for the 2019-2020 school year is $622,876,777.

See Wyns Cert., ¶ 152.
288.

As a result of the phase out of Adjustment Aid due to amendments to SFRA,

JCBOE will receive $27,192,633 less in Adjustment Aid for the 2019-20 school year than it did
in the previous school year. Id. at ¶ 150.
289.

With the 13% reduction in adjustment aid for the 2019-2020 school year, JCBOE

will receive $465,798,894 for education funding for the 2019-2020 school year from
Equalization Aid, its local levy, Adjustment Aid, and Educational Adequacy Aid. Id. at ¶¶ 152158
290.

The amount of funding JCBOE will receive for the 2019-2020 school year for

education funding is $157,077,883 less than the amount set forth in JCBOE’s Adequacy Budget.
Id. at ¶ 158.

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 48 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

291.

As a result of the drastic reduction in school aid, JCBOE will be forced to reduce

expenditures in order to balance its budget, as set forth at paragraph 135 above.
292.

As a result of the aforementioned cuts and changes to the educational services that

JCBOE provides to its students, JCBOE’s ability to provide its students with an education in
compliance with CCCS will be eliminated.
293.

As a result of the aforementioned cuts and changes to the educational services that

JCBOE provides to its students, graduation rates for JCBOE’s students will be negatively
affected.
294.

As a result of the aforementioned cuts and changes to the educational services that

JCBOE provides to its students, standardized test scores for JCBOE’s students will be negatively
affected.
295.

The elimination of Adjustment Aid, and the corresponding cuts in expenditures,

as set forth above and necessitated by the reduction in aid, violate the Thorough and Efficient
Clause.
296.

Defendants have failed to provide JCBOE with the funding needed to provide a

thorough and efficient education to the students of JCBOE, thereby violating the Thorough and
Efficient Clause.
297.

The impacts upon JCBOE students will increase year-by-year as Adjustment Aid

is phased out between now and the 2024-25 school year.
298.

The elimination of Adjustment Aid will reduce funding for JCBOE in the amount

of at least $209,174,103 in the 2024-25 school year. See Wyns Cert., ¶ 163.

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 49 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

299.

Even if the Payroll Tax Statute and Ordinance are upheld as constitutional, the

payroll tax revenue will not be sufficient to cover the reduction and ultimate elimination of
Adjustment Aid. See Wyns Cert., Ex. Z.
300.

These reductions in, and the ultimate elimination of, Adjustment Aid, will cause

JCBOE to fall further below the Adequacy Budget, which represents the amount necessary to
provide a thorough and efficient education.
301.

Defendants’ violation of the New Jersey constitution will cause irreparable harm

to the students of Jersey City by eliminating instructional and support staff, as set forth in
paragraph 135 above, exacerbating the issue within JCBOE schools where instructional and
support staff are already well below SFRA modeling.
302.

This harm will ultimately limit students’ educational opportunities and irreversibly

affect their long-term prospects for employment and their ability to be productive members of
society.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand the following relief:
a. A declaration that the reductions in and ultimate elimination of Adjustment Aid
provided by N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-68(b) denies JCBOE the ability to provide its
students with a thorough and efficient education;
b. A preliminary and permanent injunction of N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-68(b);
c. Attorneys’ fees and costs of this action; and
d. Such other and further relief as the Court determines to be just and appropriate.

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 50 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL
Pursuant to Rule 4:25-3, Angelo J. Genova, Esq. is hereby designated as trial counsel
for Plaintiffs in the above matter.
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Rule 4:5-1, I hereby certify to the best of my knowledge that the matter in
controversy is not the subject of any other action pending in any court or the subject of a
pending arbitration proceeding, Additionally, I hereby certify to the best of my knowledge that
I know of no party who should be joined in the action at this time.
GENOVA BURNS LLC
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
Jersey City Board of Education and
E.H., a minor, by his guardian ad litem
Shanna C. Givens
s/ Angelo J. Genova
ANGELO J. GENOVA
JENNIFER BOREK
Date: April 29, 2019

14667438v3 (21651.036)

 HUD-L-OO1710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 51 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

VERIFICATION
I. Sudhan Thomas, am President of Plaintiff Jersey City Board of Education. I hereby
certify that the facts set forth in the accompanying Veri?ed Complaint are true and accurate
based upon my first~hand knowledge, except as to those allegations recited upon information and
belief, are a matter of public record. or are within the ?rst-hand knowledge of others who have

certified to the information.

Dated: April 29, 2019

 

 

146674386 (211551.036)

HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 52 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

VERIFICATION
1, Franklin Walker, am the Acting Superintendent, of the Jersey City Public Schools. I
hereby certify that the facts set forth in the accompanying Veri?ed Complaint are true and
accurate based upon my ?rst-hand knowledge, except as to those allegations recited upon
information and belief, are a matter of public record, or are within the first~hand knowledge of

others who have certi?ed to the information.

Dated: April 29, 2019

?0 

FRANKLIN WALKER

 

1466?438v3 (21651036)

HUD-L-OO1710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 53 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

EXHIBIT A

HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 54 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Report on the Cost of Education

Allen Dupree
New Jersey Department of Education
Division of Finance
Office of School Funding
Dr. John Augenblick
Justin Silverstein
Augenblick, Palaich and Associates, Inc.

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 55 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Executive Summary
The following report was prepared by the New Jersey Department of Education (the
Department) and Augenblick, Palaich, and Associates, Inc. (APA), a nationally
recognized education consulting firm with more than 20 years experience in education
policy and school finance. The report describes work undertaken by staff from both
organizations over the past several years.
The primary purpose of this report is to calculate the costs New Jersey school districts
face in meeting state performance and accountability standards. Costs addressed include:
1. A per-student base cost (which reflects only the cost of serving students with no
special needs); and
2. Adjustments to the base cost that reflect the added cost of serving special need
students (including special education students, at-risk students and English
language learners).
To identify these costs, the report used two nationally recognized study approaches. The
Department weighed the strengths and weaknesses of each approach, and then selected
one the Professional Judgment Panel (PJP) approach whose results form the basis of
the report s findings. The tables below identify the median base cost and added cost
weights identified using the PJP approach.
These costs reflect the price of putting resources into schools and districts that panels of
educators from across the state say are needed for students to meet New Jersey s
academic performance expectations. It is critical to note, however, that panelists only
identified a set of resources to be used in a series of hypothetical school scenarios and did
not specifically examine any existing school or district in the state. It is therefore not
appropriate to suggest that any specific resources or programs identified by the panels
should be applied in all New Jersey schools. Nor can the report be used to determine
which portion of these resources should be paid for at the state or local level.
Instead, the panel recommendations are perhaps best viewed simply in terms of
identifying an overall level of funds which should be available to purchase personnel,
resources, and programs as individual school or district leaders see fit. The advantage of
such an approach is that it gives the flexibility to educators to decide how best to meet the
specific needs of their students. These are the professionals who: 1) work with children
in classrooms on a daily basis; 2) have the experience and training to make the best
decisions possible on the types of resources needed for students to meet state standards;
and 3) have the greatest understanding of the unique characteristics of their district and
student population that might warrant a different way of deploying resources.
As shown in the tables below, the process used identified a base cost and added weights
for students with special needs in both K 8 and K 12 districts. The base cost shown

i

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 56 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

below is only a median cost. For more information on how this cost might vary by
district size or grade span, please see Sections V and VI below.
Median Base Cost for New Jersey s K 8 and K 12 districts

K
K

8
12

$7,367
$8,496

Added Cost Weights for Students with Special Needs
Special Education
Speech
Moderate
Severe
Extended School Year
Preschool Disabled

K

8 Districts

K

12 Districts

0.46
1.95
7.39
0.48
3.23

0.41
1.42
4.08
0.42
2.84

At-Risk

0.63

0.45

LEP

0.81

0.37

ii

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 57 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Section 1: Introduction
In 2002, the New Jersey Department of Education (Department) began conducting
analyses to develop recommendations for a new State education funding law and to
determine the cost of providing educational services consistent with the state s Core
Curriculum Content Standards (Standards). These analyses followed up on a conference
sponsored by the Department that brought together educators from across the state to
discuss studies that were being undertaken in other states. These studies use different
methodologies to calculate the costs school districts face in meeting state performance
and accountability standards. Costs addressed by the studies typically include:
1. A base cost (which reflects only the cost of serving students with no special
needs); and
2. Adjustments to the base cost that reflect the added cost of serving special need
students (including special education students, at-risk students and English
language learners).
After considering the various methodologies used in other states, the Department decided
to utilize two approaches, the Successful School Districts (SSD) approach, and an
approach using Professional Judgment Panels (PJP). To conduct these approaches, the
Department entered into a contract with Augenblick, Palaich and Associates, Inc. (APA,
formerly Augenblick and Myers), a nationally recognized education consulting firm with
extensive experience assisting government entities and stakeholder organizations with
this type of analysis. APA s John Augenblick and Justin Silverstein were primarily
responsible for the work undertaken for the Department.
As discussed in the next section, the underlying assumption of the SSD approach is that a
uniform base cost figure can be estimated by examining the basic expenditures of New
Jersey school districts that fulfill state education accountability expectations. The
underlying assumption of the PJP approach is that all education service delivery costs
including a base cost and adjustments for students with special needs can be determined
by costing out those services that panels of New Jersey educators identify as being
needed in hypothetical school districts. Neither of the approaches considers the costs of
transportation or capital.
Section II:

Methods for Determining the Cost of Education

Over the past ten years, researchers and policy experts have developed several
approaches to calculate the resources needed for schools and districts to achieve a
particular student performance level. These efforts are designed to identify a cost that
has meaning beyond simply reflecting available state revenue. Four approaches have
emerged as ways to determine such a cost:
(1) The successful school district approach (SSD);
(2) The professional judgment panels approach (PJP);
(3) The evidence-based approach; and

1

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 58 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

(4) The cost function approach.
The logic of the successful school district approach (SSD)1 is that one can identify the
cost of providing a quality education by reviewing the expenditures of those school
districts in which students are meeting some measurable performance standard. The
process begins by developing criteria by which school districts can be evaluated. Data
are analyzed to identify the districts that meet the criteria and financial data are used to
calculate per pupil regular education expenditures. The median expenditure among the
successful districts is deemed the necessary base cost for providing quality educational
services to students with no special needs. Importantly, the SSD approach can only
identify a base cost. If the full cost of meeting the standard is to be identified, another
approach must be used to determine adjustments required for special needs students. The
SSD method has been used to estimate the cost of education in a number of states,
including Colorado, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New York and Ohio. 2
The professional judgment panels approach (PJP) begins with the identification of a set
of desired performance standards or outcomes and the creation of at least one
hypothetical school district. Next, a panel (or multiple panels) of education practitioners
are assembled and tasked with answering the question, What resources do you need to
provide students in the hypothetical district(s) the educational opportunities that will
allow all of them to meet the specified educational standards
The panelists recommend resources for a school district that has no students with special
needs. Then they recommend additional resources associated with providing programs
and services for special need students. Panelists are instructed to identify resources
without regard to their cost; however, the panelists are also told to limit recommendations
to only what is necessary to meet the educational outcomes or standards and to refrain
from constructing a dream school. Once the panelists have completed their work, the
cost of the specified resources is determined. The result of this process (known as
costing out ) yields a base per pupil amount for general education as well as the
additional cost of providing services to students with special needs. Maryland, Kansas,
Oregon and New York are a few states in which the PJP approach has been applied. 3
The Evidence-Based approach (EB) represents a third method used to assess educational
costs associated with meeting performance standards. This method is similar to PJP in
that the resources that are necessary to meet an educational objective are identified and
the cost of such resources is determined. The difference between the two methods is how
the resources are identified. While the PJP approach relies on the collective judgment of
practitioner panels, the EB method utilizes the results of previously existing studies to
determine what resources are necessary.

1

If sufficient data are available, one can conduct the analysis at the school, rather than the district level.
A Costing Out Primer, published by the National Access Network. The report is available at
www.schoolfunding.info/resource_center/costingoutprimer.php3.
2

3

A Costing Out Primer.

2

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 59 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

A last approach that has been explored to identify costs associated with meeting
education standards is the cost function (or econometric modeling approach). Using
complex statistical procedures, this process uses a variety of input data and outcome
measures to predict the cost of providing educational services that will yield a specific
level of educational outcomes. The approach is based on observed relationships between
student performance and district expenditure data after controlling for other factors.
Each of the approaches discussed above has certain advantages and limitations to
consider. Of the four methods, SSD is the most easily implemented once the necessary
data are available. Additionally, the concept is intuitive and readily understood by a wide
range of stakeholders. There is, however, one notable weakness. As previously
mentioned, this method is not suitable for determining the additional costs associated
with serving students with special needs, and requires that an alternative approach be
used to make that determination.4
Unlike SSD, the PJP analysis provides both a base cost and the adjustments for special
needs students. Because it actively involves school and district personnel, the PJP
process is also very transparent. Some have argued, however, that there is not a clear
connection between the resources that result from this process and any set of educational
outcomes.
The EB approach attempts to rely on research that links specific educational programs to
student outcomes. However, there is no clear consensus among studies regarding the
efficacy of any specific set of educational reforms working for all students in all districts.
The research used to justify certain resources also does not link these resources to the
educational objectives or performance standards of any specific state. Additionally, the
approach does not address a number of costs that districts face in providing education
services such as operations and maintenance.
The cost function methodology seeks to link performance and spending data. The
method suffers from two important shortcomings. First, the approach relies on large
amounts of specific data that is often not readily available. Second, the procedure
involves the use of complex statistical techniques that are not readily understood by the
parties who would be directly impacted by the results.
Given the relative strengths and weaknesses of each approach, the Department decided to
implement two methods, SSD and PJP. The following sections of this report explain the
implementation of each method in more detail.
Section III:

Successful School Districts

The SSD methodology is conceptually straightforward and can be readily implemented if
certain data are available. The cost of providing quality educational services is
determined by identifying districts that have met some predetermined level of student
4

Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in Maryland in 1999 2000 Using Two Different
Analytic Approaches Augenblick and Myers, Inc., September 2001.

3

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 60 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

performance and examining the base cost expenditures in these districts. In this study,
the median basic expenditure per pupil among these successful districts is considered to
be the base cost for all districts. The analysis is limited to K 8 and K 12 school
districts in order to align the costs with those obtained using the PJP methodology.
Three steps were required to carry out the SSD analysis in New Jersey. First, measurable
criteria for defining success were developed. Second, analysis was conducted to
determine which school districts satisfied the chosen criteria. Third, fiscal data was
analyzed to determine the base spending of identified successful school districts. The
base cost derived from the SSD methodology was derived from all districts that satisfied
the success criteria.
In establishing the criteria for defining a successful district, the analysis focused on
student performance on the four State assessments administered during the 2004 2005
school year.5 While it is understood that such exams do not measure all of the benefits
schools impart on their students, there are at least three key reasons why these represent
the best parameters for measuring school district success:
1) Student performance on these exams is a direct measure of districts ability to
educate students to the CCCS. The State exams are designed to assess students
mastery of the CCCS at a given point in the academic career. This is consistent
with the objective of determining the cost of providing educational services that
meet the State s Standards.
2) The measures are uniform for all districts and are not based on self-reported
data. Other available student performance measures are based on self-reported
data that are not routinely verified by the Department and do not allow for
systematic comparisons across districts. Using State assessment scores ensures
that all districts are compared to a standard using the same rubric.
3) The standards for success have already been established and are known by
school district officials. N. J. A. C. 6A:8-4.4 specifies the proficiency rates
school districts are to achieve in order to meet the adequate yearly progress
(AYP) thresholds required under the State s No Child Left Behind plan. Table 1
summarizes the AYP thresholds applied to the 2004 05 school year assessments.
Table 1
Required Proficiency Rates on State Assessments: 2004
NJ ASK3
NJ ASK4
GEPA
HSPA

Language Arts
75
75
66
79

2005 School Year
Mathematics
62
62
49
64

5

The four State assessments are the New Jersey Assessment of Knowledge and Skills for third and fourth
grade (NJ ASK3 and NJ ASK4), the Grade Eight Proficiency Assessment (GEPA) and the High School
Proficiency Assessment (HSPA).

4

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 61 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Given that the success criteria are defined, available data was evaluated to determine
which districts met the standards. This analysis utilized the districts assessment data as
summarized in the 2005 New Jersey School Report Card (the downloadable databases are
available at http://education.state.nj.us/rc/rc05/database.htm). Districts were considered
successful if the proficiency rate for the total student population was greater than or equal
to the proficiency rate thresholds shown in Table 1 for all tests administered in the school
district. Any test data that were suppressed for confidentiality reasons did not impact a
district s potential success status.
It should be noted that these data are different in two key respects relative to the
information used to determine whether or not a district is in need of improvement under
NCLB. First, the report card data used in this analysis provide test scores when at least
11 students were tested. For purposes of determining AYP status, there must be at least
20 valid test scores. Second, the report card data include all students who sat for the
exam in a given district, while the AYP determination omits students who were not
continuously enrolled in the school for the past year. The result of these differences is
that the criteria used to identify successful districts are more stringent than those used to
determine a district s AYP status. Districts are more likely to be assessed since the
number of students needed to be included in the analysis is lower. Additionally, the
inclusion of students who are in the school for less than one year makes attaining the
threshold more challenging (since this is a group that typically does not perform as well
on State assessments as students who have not transferred schools in the past year).
A review of the assessment data from the 2004 2005 school year identified 305 New
Jersey school districts in which the total student population successfully met the
established criteria. The 305 districts represented 69 percent of the K 8 or K 12 districts
included in the analysis (these districts, as well as the districts per pupil basic education
expenditures for the 2004 05 school year, are listed in Appendix 1).6 Nearly threequarters of K 8 districts and 64 percent of K 12 districts were classified as successful
using this procedure. Figure 2 shows the percent of districts in each DFG classification
that were classified as successful.
Once the successful districts were identified, enrollment and financial data were used to
determine the basic spending per student for each district. Specifically, the data from the
October 2004 Application for State School Aid (ASSA) were used to provide a count of
students on roll in the relevant districts. The fiscal year 2005 audit summary data
provided all of the expenditures incurred by districts. It was necessary to omit
expenditures that were not related to basic student education or which tended to vary
greatly from one year to the next (such as legal judgments against the school district).
Additionally, capital and transportation costs were excluded. Appendix 2 provides a
listing of the line items that were incorporated into the analysis.

6

One district was omitted due to an insufficient number of students taking all tests administered in the
district that year.

5

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 62 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Figure 2
Percent of School Districts Classified as Successful, by District Factor Group
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
A

B

CD

DE

FG

GH

I

J

District Factor Group

Having identified the pertinent expenditures, the basic expenditures per pupil in each
successful district was calculated and the median expenditure across districts was defined
as the overall base cost. Table 2 shows these figures for K 8 and K 12 districts.
Table 2
Cost of Education Using Successful School District Methodology
Median Per Pupil Expenditure
Number of Districts
Section IV:

K 8 Districts
$8,004
164

K 12 Districts
$8,493
141

Professional Judgment Panel

The PJP method involves asking a panel (or multiple panels) of education practitioners to
identify the resources necessary to educate students in a hypothetical school district to a
specific educational standard. There are three stages involved when utilizing this
approach. First, one must develop a number of hypothetical school districts that reflect
the actual demographics of school districts in the state. Second, panels consisting of
education professionals are assembled to determine what resources would be needed in
the hypothetical school districts to obtain a specific set of academic outcomes. In the
third stage, the resources identified as necessary by the panelists are costed out. The

6

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 63 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

resulting dollar amounts represent the cost of providing educational services consistent
with the identified Standard.
Stage 1: Developing the Hypothetical School Districts
In the first stage of the process, the Department provided APA with detailed information
regarding the size of New Jersey school districts and key student characteristics (such as
the percent of students who are low-income, special education classified or exhibit
limited English proficiency)7. As APA requested, districts were arrayed based on their
total enrollment and placed into quintiles with approximately an equal number of
students. For example, quintile 1 contained the 341 smallest school districts and had
approximately 267,000 students. Since quintile 2 included larger districts, a similar
number of students was obtained with only 106 districts. Table 3.A summarizes
information relating to the quintiles and the percent of students in each who were lowincome or limited English proficient. Table 3.B contains data related to the special
education classification rates within each group. More detailed data (not shown)
provided similar information by district grade span within each quintile.
Table 3.A
School District Characteristics, by Quintile
Quintile 1
Quintile 2
Quintile 3
Quintile 4
Quintile 5

# students
267,235.5
268,120.5
265,135.0
262,585.5
275,675.5

# districts
341
106
56
33
15

% Low Income
10.7
11.9
16.1
22.0
47.8

% LEP
2.3
2.5
3.5
5.5
7.3

Table 3.B
School District Special Education Distribution, by Quintile
Quintile 1
Quintile 2
Quintile 3
Quintile 4
Quintile 5

% Tier II
8.1
7.9
8.5
8.1
8.0

% Tier III
3.3
3.6
3.3
3.0
3.6

% Tier IV
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.8

% Total
13.1
13.2
13.4
12.7
13.4

After reviewing the data, APA requested additional demographic information for six
district groupings: 1) K 8 districts with enrollment less than 350 students, 2) K 8
districts with enrollment between 350 and 600 students, 3) K 12 districts with enrollment
7

For the purpose of this analysis, low-income, special education and limited English proficiency data were
obtained from the districts Application for State School Aid. The Special Education Annual Data Report
was used to obtain information on the number of students who only receive speech therapy services.

7

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 64 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

less than 1,300 students, 4) K 12 districts with enrollment between 1,300 and 3,999
students, 5) K 12 districts with enrollment between 4,000 and 7,999 students, and 6) K
12 districts with at least 8,000 students. The information provided across the six groups,
as shown in Appendix 3, included the number of school districts in the category, the total
number of students and average enrollment, the average number of schools and school
size, and the percent of students classified as low-income, limited English proficient or
special education.
After analyzing the data, six hypothetical school districts were created, as shown in Table
4. One may notice that the grade spans included do not cover the full range of district
grade spans that actually exist in New Jersey. This is because it was determined that it
would be unnecessary to specify models for all extant district grade configurations. Since
the resources are to be developed at the school level, it was decided that the resources
could be rearranged afterwards to estimate the cost associated with other grade spans not
included in the PJP analysis. This process is discussed in more detail in Section V of this
report.
Stage 2: Professional Judgment Panel Meetings
Having developed the six hypothetical districts, the next stage was to assemble panelists
to determine what resources were needed to provide all New Jersey students with the
opportunity to meet the state s performance standards. Three rounds of panel meetings
were held:
1. In the first round, Department personnel provided recommendations of the
resources needed in the six hypothetical schools.
2. During the second round multiple panels, representing various types of school
districts throughout the state, reviewed and modified the resources identified in
round one.
3. The third round used one panel of district-level policy makers from various
school districts to provide a final set of recommendations.
Members of APA staff facilitated all panel meetings. The first panel meeting took place
at the Department headquarters in Trenton from January 21 to 23, 2003. Seven
Department employees were selected to participate in the panel based on their previous
experience in school districts and expertise in education administration or other specific
program area (such as special education). A list of participants and their job titles at the
time the meeting was conducted is provided in Appendix 6.
The panelists were first given background materials and instructions that included key
information about the process. They also received an abridged version of the Standards,
required proficiency rates on the state assessments, and other graduation, school day, and
school year requirements. These documents are included in Appendix 4. Next, the
panelists began identifying the resources that would allow each hypothetical district to
provide its students with the opportunity to achieve the Standards. The panelists

8

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 65 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Table 4
Characteristics of Hypothetical School Districts

Enrollment Range
Hypothetical District
Enrollment
Number of Hypothetical
Schools
K 5
6 8
9 12
Other
Hypothetical School
Enrollment
K 5
6 8
9 12
Other

K 8 Districts
Very Small
Small
Less than 350
350 - 600
225

1 (k 8)

495

1 (K 8)

K 12 Districts
Moderate
Large
1,300 3,999
4,000 7,999

Small
Less than 1,300
1,040

1
1 (K 8)

Very Large
At least 8,000

2,470

5,330

13,520

3
1
1

6
2
1

15
5
3

380*
570**
760

410*
615**
1,640

416*
624**
1,387

225

495

320
720

10%
20%

10%
20%

10%
20%

10%
20%

10%
20%
40%

10%
20%
40%
60%

Percent of Special Education
Students
Mild
Moderate
Severe

4.0%
12.4%
1.5%

3.3%
11.5%
1.8%

2.6%
12.5%
1.9%

2.4%
11.2%
1.7%

2.0%
11.8%
1.6%

1.8%
11.0%
1.7%

Percent LEP Students

1.2%

1.3%

2.8%

3.2%

4.4%

7.1%

Percent of Low-Income
Students
Low
Moderate
High
Very High

* To reduce respondent burden, the panelists were asked to develop resources for a K 5 school with 400 students.
** To reduce respondent burden, the panelists were asked to develop resources for a 6 8 school with 600 students.

9

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 66 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

recommendations included: 1) the resources needed assuming that none of the students possessed
any special needs; and 2) additional resources for students who receive special education
services, come from low-income families, or demonstrate limited English proficiency.
For the second round of panels, nominations for PJP participants were solicited. The Department
sent letters to various education-related organizations requesting names of individuals to be
included (the organizations from which nominations were requested are listed in Appendix 5).
Upon receiving nominations, the Department contacted the individuals regarding their
availability for the two-day meeting. After receiving responses from the nominated individuals,
the Department developed a final list of invitations. The decision regarding who among the
available nominees should be included on the panels was based on the desire to include a
diversity of panelists along three dimensions: 1) current or previous work experience in specific
positions (e.g., superintendents, principals, teachers, business administrators, special education,
at-risk education, and English language learner specialists), 2) experience in school districts with
different demographics (urban versus suburban and small versus large), and 3) experience
working in different geographic areas of the state. Appendix 6 contains a list of those who were
invited and their affiliation at the time that the meeting occurred.
The second panel meeting took place February 20-21, 2003, at the Holiday Inn in Jamesburg, NJ.
The participants were divided into five groups: one group focused on the two K 8 models while
the other four each focused on one of the K 12 hypothetical districts. In addition to the same
instructions that were provided to the first panel members, this group also received a copy of the
spreadsheets containing the resources recommended by the first panelists. Rather than
specifying the resources in a vacuum, the groups reviewed and modified the original set of
recommendations. Again, the resulting spreadsheets are not included in this report but are
available from the Department upon request. Appendix 7 provides a list of the individuals who
were invited to participate in the meeting and their affiliation at that time.
The Department convened a final group of panelists from school districts to review and modify
the results from the second round (the invitees are listed in Appendix 8). In a meeting held at
DOE headquarters on March 11-12, 2003, the panel received the same instructions and
background material as the previous panel, as well as the spreadsheets completed from the
second round of the process. This group made modifications that represented the final set of
recommendations to be used to determine the cost of providing educational services to meet the
Standards.
Appendix 9 contains the final series of tables that list the resources for each hypothetical district.
The tables show the detailed resources for each district. The final hypothetical districts have
resources for general education (which includes gifted and talented programs) special education,
programs for at-risk students, and individuals with limited English proficiency as well as central
office administration services.
Stage 3: Costing-Out Analysis
The third stage of the PJP work involved determining the cost of the resources specified by the
panelists. The participants specified certain resources, such as instructional supplies and

10

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 67 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

materials, in terms of a per-pupil cost. Personnel resources, however, were expressed in fulltime equivalent (FTE) terms. Calculating the cost of personnel required using some estimate of
the salaries and benefits associated with each FTE position. Appendix 10 lists the salaries 8 and
benefits associated with the various personnel used to calculate the educational cost (benefits
equal 20 percent of the salary). It should be noted that salary costs for certificated staff (such as
teachers, administrators and student support personnel) is based on the median salary increased
by 1.5 percent to account for differences observed between teachers salaries in New Jersey and
nearby states. Table 5 summarizes the costs that were derived using the final set of resources
specified.
Table 5
Base and Additional Costs in Hypothetical School Districts

District Level Costs
District Administration
Operations & Maintenance
Other
Total General Education Costs
School Level
Instruction
Support
School Administration
Operations & Maintenance
District Level Costs
Total Base Costs9
Additional Costs for Special Needs
Special Education
Mild
Moderate
Severe
Preschool Disabled
Extended School Year
Limited English Proficiency
Low-Income Students
Low Concentration
Moderate Concentration
High Concentration
Very High Concentration

V. Small
K-8

Small
K-8

Small
K - 12

Moderate
K - 12

Large
K - 12

Very Large
K 12

2,299
642
112

1,481
513
111

971
562
117

529
494
263

529
463
328

372
469
286

7,004
4,967
1,397
606
33
3,054
10,057

5,758
4,746
721
275
15
2,105
7,863

7,126
5,456
912
741
17
1,649
8,775

6,928
5,305
916
672
35
1,286
8,215

6,816
5,252
888
637
39
1,320
8,136

6,889
5,266
909
674
41
1,126
8,016

4,487
16,495
69,840
25,705
3,698

2,855
14,113
47,179
24,729
3,839

1,203
11,452
30,657
19,261
3,569

3,552
12,978
37,018
22,709
3,697

3,027
10,974
33,459
24,328
3,269

3,337
11,455
33,881
27,437
3,421

8,570

4,335

3,386

2,751

2,792

3,381

4,218
5,464

4,882
5,126

4,266
4,266

3,732
3,783

3,607
3,708
3,772

3,690
3,752
4,127
2,930

8

The median salary observed in current data for each position was used in the costing-out process. The median is a
preferred measure relative to the mean because it is less likely to be positively or negatively skewed by outlying
observations.
9
Total base costs may not equal the sum of total general education cost and district level cost due to rounding.

11

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 68 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Section V:

Application of PJP Results

The PJP results can be used to determine a base cost and adjustments for special needs students
for every district in the state. Generally, APA uses the results of the PJP panels as they are
identified by the panelists. In New Jersey, however, the Department felt an adjustment to the
results was needed to avoid supporting inefficiencies created by poor economies of scale in very
small school districts. These inefficiencies are displayed in Figure 3. Figure 3 apportions the
total base cost of the six model school districts into three broader categories: instruction,
administration and other.10 The figure reflects the lack of economies of scale in the smallest
hypothetical districts, where approximately one quarter of the total estimated base cost is
consumed by administrative expenditures. By comparison, administration accounts for only 15.5
percent of the base cost in the larger K 12 districts.
The Department felt that a core objective of this exercise was to determine not only the cost of
meeting the Standards but to do so in an efficient manner. The total base costs of the very small
and small K 8 districts were therefore adjusted so that administration equals 15.5 percent of the
total base cost (matching the percentage of administrative cost in the larger K 12 districts). This
yielded a revised base cost of $8,460 and $7,223, respectively. This adjustment was made by the
Department and does not follow APA s general PJP procedures.
Figure 3
Distribution of Costs in Hypothetical School Districts
11,000
10,000
9,000

2,185

8,000

1,607

7,000
6,000

1,708

1,718

1,704

1,202

1,166

1,046

5,456

5,305

5,252

5,266

Small
K - 12

Moderate
K - 12

Large
K - 12

Very Large
K - 12

1,360
2,905

1,712
1,757

5,000
4,000
3,000
4,967

4,746

Very Small
K-8

Small
K-8

2,000
1,000
0

Instruction

Administration Other

10

For the purposes of this analysis, instructional and administrative expenditures are defined in a manner consistent
with the Uniform Chart of Accounts for New Jersey Public Schools. This document can be found at
http://www.nj.gov/njded/finance/fp/af/coa/coa.pdf.

12

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 69 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Next, a series of formulas was developed to calculate the base per pupil cost for all school
districts. It was not possible to simply assign every district one of the six base cost figures. As
Figure 4 shows, economies of scale exist that should be accounted for when applying a base cost
to a school district. To accommodate these differences, a series of equations were developed to
account for the differences in costs based on size of district. The K 8 and K 12 figures are
treated separately. The resulting equations were as follows:
(1) K 8 districts, less than 500 students: [(4.581*(500-ENR)]+$7,223
(2) K 8 districts, 500+ students: $7,223-[0.369*(ENR-500)]
(3) K 12 districts, less than 1,000 students: [0.369*(1,000-ENR)]+$8,775
(4) K 12 districts, 1,000 2,500 students: $8,215 [0.369*(ENR-1,000)]
(5) K 12 districts, 2,500 13,500 students: $8,136 [0.019*(ENR-2,500)]
(6) K 12 districts, more than 13,500 students: $8,016
Figure 4
Base Costs in Hypothetical School Districts,
Including Small District Adjustment
9,000

8,500

8,000

7,500

7,000

6,500

6,000

5,500

5,000

0

2000

4000

6000

8000
K-8

10000

12000

14000

K - 12

Next, base cost figures were developed for districts with grade configurations not covered by the
six hypothetical models included in the PJP analysis. Specifically, there were school districts
serving grades K 6, grades 7 12 and grades 9 12 for which base cost figures had to be derived
from the results already obtained. Since the panelists identified resources at the school level, it

13

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 70 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

was possible to isolate the cost associated with specific grade spans and apply the base figures to
these districts.
Given the number of grades that overlap between a K 6 school district and the K 8 hypothetical
district, the K 8 base cost was applied to the former grade span without any additional
adjustment. Data from the moderate, large, and very large K 12 districts were used to identify
the base cost in three discrete grade spans (the small K 12 hypothetical could not be used for this
purpose because it did not contain separate elementary and middle schools).
Table 6 shows how the data from the three hypothetical districts were used to develop an
additional cost weight for districts operating grades 7 12 and 9 12. The total base costs
(including school and district-level costs) associated with each grade span were derived from the
original PJP results. These results are displayed in the section of Table 6 titled Base Cost.
Table 6
Grade Span Base Cost in Moderate, Large and Very Large K through 12 Hypothetical
Districts
Moderate K - 12

Large K - 12

Very Large
K - 12

Base Cost
K 5
6 8
9 12
K 12

7,558
8,000
9,420
8,215

7,592
8,034
9,006
8,136

7,399
7,840
9,032
8,016

Derived Base
Cost
7 12
9 12

8,931
9,420

8,671
9,006

8,621
9,032

Ratio to
K 12 Cost
7 12
9 12

Average
1.09
1.15

1.07
1.11

1.08
1.13

1.08
1.13

The base cost for a school district serving grades 7 12 was determined by calculating the
weighted average base cost for the corresponding grades. For example, using the data from the
moderate K 12 district, the base cost for students in grades 6 8 and 9 12 are $8,000 and $9,420,
respectively. The weighted average of these two figures (after accounting for the number of
students at each grade level in the hypothetical school district) is $8,931. This calculation was
replicated for the other two hypothetical districts and the results are shown in the section labeled
Derived Base Cost. The base figure for districts serving grades 9 12 is identical to the cost of
educating high school students in the hypothetical K 12 districts.

14

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 71 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

The ratio of these derived base costs to the K 12 base costs was calculated in each of the three
models. The average across these three ratios represents the additional weight to be applied to
students enrolled in school districts that only operate the higher grades; the additional weight for
students in districts operating grades 7 12 is 0.08 while the high school district weight is 0.13.
These weights were multiplied by the base costs derived from equations 3 through 6 above to
yield the base costs for these school districts.
Next, a weight was developed to account for the additional cost of students educated in county
vocational school districts. In determining an additional weight to account for the higher cost,
the objective was to adjust for factors not already considered elsewhere in the cost determination.
For example, because of the smaller class sizes required and the more costly supplies and
materials needed in vocational schools, additional costs need to be added to the basic
expenditure.
Table 7 contains the average per pupil expenditures in county vocational school districts and
other districts in the state that serve the high school grades only. Three specific cost areas,
general education, administration and maintenance (which account for 72 percent of the total
expenditures), were identified as areas in which county vocational districts, by their very nature,
were likely to incur higher expenses. The total difference between high school and county
vocational school districts expenditures was divided by the total expenditure in high school
districts to provide an additional weight used to determine the base cost figure for county
vocational districts. This weight was applied to the equations 3 through 6 in addition to the high
school grade span weight discussed previously.
Table 7
Per Pupil Expenditures in County Vocational and High School Districts

General Education
Administration
Maintenance
Total of Selected Exp.
Total Exp.

County Vocational
Districts
4,702
1,982
2,258
8,942
12,498

High School Districts
4,518
1,098
1,309
6,925
9,780

Selected Expenditures as a % of Total HS District Expenditures

Difference
184
884
949
2,017
20.6%

Table 5 has already shown the base costs derived from the PJP resources as well as the additional
costs per pupil associated with special needs students. These additional costs are expressed in
weights relative to the base cost figures in Table 8.
To make the data in Table 8 usable in a state funding formula, the results must be studied to
determine the appropriate special need student weights to use for all districts. In some states, the
results lend themselves to creating different weights based on district size and type. As seen in
table 8, the weights for New Jersey s districts are first broken out by type of district (K 8 or K
12).

15

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 72 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Table 8
Weight of Special Education, Limited English Proficiency and At-Risk Programs Relative
to Base Cost in Hypothetical School Districts

Special Education
Speech
Moderate
Severe
Ext. School Year
Prek Disabled
At-Risk
10%
20%
40%
60%
LEP

Very Small
K 8

Small
K 8

Small
K 12

Moderate
K 12

Large
K 12

Very Large
K 12

0.53
1.95
8.26
0.44
3.04

0.40
1.95
6.53
0.53
3.42

0.14
1.31
3.49
0.41
2.20

0.43
1.58
4.51
0.45
2.76

0.37
1.35
4.11
0.40
2.99

0.42
1.43
4.23
0.43
3.42

0.50
0.65

0.68
0.71

0.49
0.49

0.45
0.46

0.44
0.46
0.46

1.01

0.60

0.39

0.33

0.34

0.46
0.47
0.51
0.37
0.42

The weights for New Jersey s K 8 and K 12 districts differed enough for all special need
student categories that they were examined separately. Specifically, we looked to see if there
was any variation within the two separate types based on district size. What we found was that
district size did not significantly impact the weights. Since this was the case, we took the
average of the weights in the K 8 and K 12 school districts; the resulting final weights are
shown in Table 9. It should be noted that the weight shown for speech students in the small K
12 district is substantially lower than the corresponding program in other hypothetical districts.
To avoid depressing the final weight for K 12 districts, only the results for the three larger K 12
hypotheticals were used to determine the averages.
Table 9
Final Weights for Special Education, Limited English Proficiency and At-Risk Programs
Special Education
Speech
Moderate
Severe
Extended School Year
Preschool Disabled

K

8 Districts

K

12 Districts

0.46
1.95
7.39
0.48
3.23

0.41
1.42
4.08
0.42
2.84

At-Risk

0.63

0.45

LEP

0.81

0.37

As seen in Table 8, the at-risk weights were not only examined by district type and size, but the
concentration of at-risk students was also addressed. The results did not lead us to create a
16

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 73 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

concentration factor either by district type or size. We again simply took the average of all the
weights within a district type to create an at-risk weight. Though all the weights for at-risk were
used in creating the K 12 average it would be possible to drop the low figure of .37 and create a
higher weight of .47 for the K 12 at-risk weight.
The base cost per pupil and adjustments for special needs students assume that all school districts
can hire similarly qualified personnel for the same salary. There are at least two factors beyond a
school district s control that may cause this assumption to be inaccurate. First, the cost of living
in a certain region can influence salary demands. A potential employee may demand a higher
salary to work in a school district in which the surrounding housing market is more expensive.
Second, a teacher may also require additional compensation to work in a more challenging
environment.11
This concern was addressed by including the Geographic Cost of Education Index (GCEI)
developed by Dr. Jay Chambers for the National Center for Education Statistics.12 The GCEI
uses detailed data on local community, school district and individual teacher characteristics to
estimate the impact of factors beyond a school district s control to measure the differential salary
requirements across districts. The analysis resulted in the development of a cost index for each
school district in the country (where the national average of the index equals 1). For
implementation purposes, New Jersey school districts were taken from the publicly available
data. The GCEI was rescaled such that the average for all New Jersey school districts equals
one.
VI:

Comparing SSD and PJP Results

Having implemented both the SSD and PJP methodologies, a decision had to be made regarding
which set of results (or combination of the results) should be used as the cost basis for meeting
New Jersey s education Standards. Table 10 compares the results of the two methods. For these
purposes, the PJP figures reflect the median district s base cost after applying the formulas
included in equations 1 through 6. There is essentially no cost difference in K 12 districts when
the two methods are used. In the case of K 8 districts, the base cost derived from the SSD
method is approximately 9 percent higher than that observed from PJP. This difference is likely
caused in part by the reduction in administrative expenditures in the smallest districts.
Table 10
SSD and PJP Base Cost Comparison
K
K

8
12

SSD
8,004
8,493

PJP
7,367
8,496

Difference
637
-3

% Difference
8.6
0.0

11

William J. Fowler, Jr. and David H. Monk, A Primer for Making Cost Adjustments in Education, U. S.
Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, March 2001.
12
A detailed discussion of the GCEI is beyond the scope of this report. Readers who would like to read more
information can access a copy of Chambers report at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/9804.pdf (last accessed on
November 16, 2006).

17

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 74 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

For three reasons, it was decided that the PJP results would be used as the basis for defining the
cost of education. First, PJP determines the cost of providing both general education services as
well as the additional services that are required by students with special needs. Second, the PJP
method accounts for the different economies of scale experienced by districts of different sizes.
Third, PJP is a more public process that incorporates input from those individuals responsible for
educating students to the Standards.
Section VII: Comparing Current and PJP Based Expenditures
After determining the base cost and the additional weights for providing services to students with
special needs, districts enrollment data were utilized to determine districts budgetary needs
based on their specific student population and the corresponding costs. For purposes of this
analysis, the budget deemed necessary to provide students with educational opportunities
consistent with the Standards is called the program cost (PC). Appendix 11 provides a more
detailed description of the data that were utilized to calculate the districts PC as well as their
expenditures on items consistent with the contents of the program cost.
In the aggregate, school districts currently spend an amount consistent with the PC that has been
calculated based on the PJP recommendations. Districts spent $15.6 billion on the programs and
services that were included by the panelists. This is 0.9 percent less than the $15.8 billion total
PC for all school districts. As Table 11 shows, New Jersey is unique in this respect. In many
states where similar studies have been conducted, there is a more substantial difference between
overall current expenditures and the costs identified through the PJP process.
Table 11
Actual Expenditures and Program Costs in Various Professional Judgment Analyses
State / Adequacy Estimate
Kansas 13
Maine 14
Maryland 15
New Jersey
New York Method 116
New York Method 2
New York Method 3
New York Method 4
South Dakota17
Wisconsin 18

Actual Expenditure Relative to Adequacy
-8.1%
-11.0%
-48.7%
-0.9%
-17.4%
-19.3%
-20.5%
-24.0%
-37.5%
-32.8%

13

Calculation of the Cost of a Suitable Education in Kansas in 2000-2001 Using Two Different Analytic
Approaches, May 2002.
14
Equity and Adequacy in Funding to Improve Learning for All Children
15
Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in Maryland in 1999 2000 Using Two Different Analytic
Approaches, September 2001.
16
The New York Adequacy Study: Determining the Cost of Providing All Children in New York and Adequate
Education Volume 2 Technical Appendices, March 2004
17
Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in South Dakota, Augenblick, Palaich and Associates, Inc,
January 17, 2006, Table V-1B.

18

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 75 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

As Figure 5 shows, the aggregate figure masks the wide variation observed when one compares
individual districts actual expenditures to PC. Just under half of all school districts (46 percent)
have actual expenditures less than PC. More than a quarter of all districts spend within +/- 5
percent of PC while a majority (54 percent) of districts spends within +/- 10 percent.
Figure 5
District Actual Expenditures Relative to Program Cost
20.0%
18.0%
16.0%
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%

25 to 50%
Below

10 to 25%
Below

5 to 10%
Below

0 to 5% Below

0 to 5%
Above

5 to 10%
Above

10 to 25%
Above

25 to 50%
Above

50% or More
Above

Spending Relative to Program Costs

Overall, the PC identified through the professional judgment process are perhaps best viewed in
terms of identifying an overall level of funds that should be available to purchase personnel,
resources, and programs as individual school or district leaders see fit. The advantage of such an
approach is that it gives the flexibility to educators to decide how best to meet the specific needs
of their students. These are the professionals who: 1) work with children in classrooms on a
daily basis; 2) have the experience and training to make the best decisions possible on the types
of resources needed for students to meet state standards; and 3) have the greatest understanding
of the unique characteristics of their district and student population that might warrant a different
way of deploying resources.

18

Funding Our Future: An Adequacy Model for Wisconsin School Finance Institute for Wisconsin s Future, June
2002

19

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 76 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 1
School Districts Included in Successful School Districts Analysis
K through 8 Districts
County

Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Burlington
Burlington
Burlington
Burlington
Burlington

District

Brigantine City
Estell Manor City
Hamilton Twp
Linwood City
Margate City
Mullica Twp
Northfield City
Port Republic City
Weymouth Twp
Allendale Boro
Alpine Boro
Carlstadt Boro
Closter Boro
Demarest Boro
East Rutherford Boro
Englewood Cliffs Boro
Franklin Lakes Boro
Harrington Park Boro
Haworth Boro
Hillsdale Boro
Ho Ho Kus Boro
Little Ferry Boro
Maywood Boro
Montvale Boro
Moonachie Boro
Northvale Boro
Norwood Boro
Oakland Boro
Old Tappan Boro
River Vale Twp
Rochelle Park Twp
South Hackensack Twp
Upper Saddle River Boro
Woodcliff Lake Boro
Wyckoff Twp
Eastampton Twp
Evesham Twp
Hainesport Twp
Lumberton Twp
Medford Lakes Boro

Per Pupil Regular
Educ. Expend.

$7,871
$8,619
$5,614
$7,410
$12,571
$6,764
$6,408
$11,411
$6,836
$7,822
$18,382
$12,035
$7,836
$8,740
$10,591
$13,222
$9,889
$7,513
$8,775
$7,889
$8,795
$6,052
$8,176
$8,569
$12,228
$7,640
$7,587
$8,801
$7,720
$8,594
$10,402
$9,089
$9,553
$8,629
$7,993
$6,284
$7,490
$7,658
$6,263
$7,158

DFG

CD
DE
CD
GH
DE
B
DE
FG
B
I
I
DE
I
I
CD
I
I
I
I
GH
J
CD
FG
I
B
FG
I
I
I
I
FG
CD
J
J
I
FG
I
FG
FG
I

20

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 77 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

County

Burlington
Burlington
Burlington
Burlington
Burlington
Burlington
Burlington
Burlington
Burlington
Burlington
Camden
Camden
Camden
Camden
Camden
Camden
Camden
Camden
Camden
Cape May
Cape May
Cape May
Cape May
Cape May
Cape May
Cumberland
Cumberland
Gloucester
Hunterdon
Hunterdon
Hunterdon
Hunterdon
Hunterdon
Hunterdon
Hunterdon
Hunterdon
Hunterdon
Hunterdon
Hunterdon
Hunterdon
Hunterdon
Hunterdon
Hunterdon
Hunterdon
Hunterdon

District

Medford Twp
Mount Laurel Twp
Pemberton Borough
Riverton
Shamong Twp
Southampton Twp
Tabernacle Twp
Washington Twp
Westampton
Woodland Twp
Bellmawr Boro
Berlin Boro
Brooklawn Boro
Gloucester Twp
Merchantville Boro
Mount Ephraim Boro
Somerdale Boro
Stratford Boro
Voorhees Twp
Avalon Boro
Dennis Twp
Sea Isle City
Stone Harbor Boro
Upper Twp
Wildwood Crest Boro
Greenwich Twp
Stow Creek Twp
Logan Twp
Alexandria Twp
Bethlehem Twp
Califon Boro
Clinton Town
Clinton Twp
Delaware Twp
East Amwell Twp
Flemington-Raritan Reg
Franklin Twp
Frenchtown Boro
High Bridge Boro
Holland Twp
Kingwood Twp
Lebanon Twp
Milford Boro
Readington Twp
Tewksbury Twp

Per Pupil Regular
Educ. Expend.

$7,534
$7,364
$10,576
$9,370
$7,695
$8,262
$8,015
$10,219
$7,473
$11,004
$5,909
$6,191
$7,277
$6,547
$7,360
$6,171
$6,279
$6,490
$7,831
$23,679
$6,589
$17,952
$16,442
$7,200
$12,475
$9,309
$7,847
$8,814
$7,505
$8,469
$10,528
$7,244
$7,182
$8,288
$8,340
$7,349
$8,312
$11,876
$8,592
$7,462
$6,674
$8,510
$9,798
$8,097
$9,184

DFG

I
I
CD
GH
GH
DE
GH
A
GH
DE
B
DE
B
DE
DE
CD
CD
DE
I
FG
CD
B
FG
FG
B
CD
CD
FG
GH
I
I
I
I
GH
I
I
I
FG
GH
FG
FG
I
FG
I
J

21

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 78 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

County

Hunterdon
Middlesex
Middlesex
Monmouth
Monmouth
Monmouth
Monmouth
Monmouth
Monmouth
Monmouth
Monmouth
Monmouth
Monmouth
Monmouth
Monmouth
Monmouth
Monmouth
Monmouth
Monmouth
Monmouth
Monmouth
Monmouth
Monmouth
Monmouth
Monmouth
Monmouth
Morris
Morris
Morris
Morris
Morris
Morris
Morris
Morris
Morris
Morris
Morris
Morris
Morris
Morris
Morris
Morris
Morris
Ocean
Ocean

District

Union Twp
Cranbury Twp
Milltown Boro
Belmar Boro
Brielle Boro
Colts Neck Twp
Deal Boro
Eatontown Boro
Fair Haven Boro
Farmingdale Boro
Freehold Twp
Howell Twp
Little Silver Boro
Manalapan-Englishtown Reg
Marlboro Twp
Millstone Twp
Monmouth Beach Boro
Neptune City
Oceanport Boro
Rumson Boro
Sea Girt Boro
Shrewsbury Boro
Spring Lake Boro
Spring Lake Heights Boro
Tinton Falls
West Long Branch Boro
Boonton Twp
Chester Twp
Denville Twp
East Hanover Twp
Florham Park Boro
Hanover Twp
Harding Township
Lincoln Park Boro
Long Hill Twp
Mendham Boro
Mendham Twp
Morris Plains Boro
Netcong Boro
Riverdale Boro
Rockaway Boro
Rockaway Twp
Washington Twp
Bay Head Boro
Lavallette Boro

Per Pupil Regular
Educ. Expend.

$8,377
$10,550
$7,985
$8,193
$7,130
$7,894
$10,957
$9,165
$7,055
$11,084
$6,733
$7,359
$8,270
$6,768
$7,175
$6,614
$7,515
$6,663
$7,166
$7,833
$11,547
$7,467
$9,928
$7,833
$7,540
$7,171
$7,911
$8,583
$6,477
$8,878
$8,410
$8,767
$11,727
$7,732
$7,584
$8,758
$8,742
$10,256
$9,108
$9,155
$7,219
$8,872
$7,293
$12,312
$11,265

DFG

GH
J
FG
CD
GH
I
FG
I
DE
GH
FG
J
GH
I
I
I
CD
GH
J
I
I
I
FG
GH
FG
I
J
I
GH
I
I
J
FG
I
J
J
I
DE
FG
FG
I
I
I
DE

22

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 79 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

County

Passaic
Passaic
Passaic
Passaic
Passaic
Passaic
Salem
Salem
Salem
Somerset
Somerset
Somerset
Somerset
Somerset
Sussex
Sussex
Sussex
Sussex
Sussex
Sussex
Sussex
Sussex
Sussex
Union
Union
Union
Warren
Warren
Warren
Warren
Warren
Warren
Warren
Warren

District

Bloomingdale Boro
Little Falls Twp
North Haledon Boro
Ringwood Boro
Totowa Boro
West Paterson Boro
Alloway Twp
Mannington Twp
Quinton Twp
Bedminster Twp
Branchburg Twp
Green Brook Twp
Warren Twp
Watchung Boro
Andover Reg
Byram Twp
Frankford Twp
Green Twp
Hardyston Twp
Lafayette Twp
Montague Twp
Stanhope Boro
Sussex-Wantage Regional
Garwood Boro
Mountainside Boro
Winfield Twp
Alpha Boro
Great Meadows Regional
Greenwich Twp
Harmony Twp
Hope Twp
Lopatcong Twp
Pohatcong Twp
White Twp

Per Pupil Regular
Educ. Expend.

$8,559
$7,404
$6,726
$7,974
$8,152
$7,972
$6,262
$7,638
$7,189
$10,290
$8,710
$8,448
$8,977
$8,899
$8,227
$6,501
$8,419
$7,455
$7,756
$7,425
$8,270
$6,970
$7,310
$8,884
$8,277
$12,985
$8,480
$7,595
$5,669
$8,572
$9,293
$7,066
$7,965
$8,649

DFG

FG
FG
FG
GH
CD
DE
DE
CD
A
I
I
GH
I
I
FG
I
FG
I
FG
GH
B
GH
DE
DE
I
B
B
GH
I
DE
FG
DE
DE
DE

23

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 80 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

K through 12 Districts
County

Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Bergen
Burlington
Burlington
Burlington
Burlington
Burlington
Burlington
Burlington
Burlington
Camden
Camden
Camden
Camden
Camden
Camden
Cape May

District

Bergenfield Boro
Bogota Boro
Cresskill Boro
Dumont Boro
Emerson Boro
Fair Lawn Boro
Fort Lee Boro
Glen Rock Boro
Hasbrouck Heights Boro
Leonia Boro
Lodi Borough
Lyndhurst Twp
Mahwah Twp
Midland Park Boro
New Milford Boro
Paramus Boro
Park Ridge Boro
Ramsey Boro
Ridgefield Boro
Ridgefield Park Twp
Ridgewood Village
Rutherford Boro
Saddle Brook Twp
Teaneck Twp
Tenafly Boro
Waldwick Boro
Westwood Regional
Wood Ridge Boro
Bordentown Regional
Burlington Twp
Cinnaminson Twp
Delran Twp
Florence Twp
Maple Shade Twp
Moorestown Twp
Palmyra Boro
Audubon Boro
Cherry Hill Twp
Collingswood Boro
Haddon Heights Boro
Haddon Twp
Haddonfield Boro
Ocean City

Per Pupil Regular Ed.
Expend.

$7,884
$8,565
$8,485
$8,987
$9,072
$9,174
$9,458
$9,606
$8,871
$8,930
$7,932
$8,757
$9,185
$9,040
$8,149
$9,595
$9,143
$8,825
$5,998
$8,173
$9,041
$8,988
$7,933
$10,781
$10,267
$8,719
$8,692
$7,855
$8,013
$6,640
$7,918
$7,302
$7,858
$8,036
$7,924
$6,891
$7,550
$8,939
$9,111
$8,610
$8,613
$8,836
$12,388

DFG

FG
DE
I
FG
GH
GH
FG
J
FG
GH
B
DE
I
GH
FG
GH
I
I
DE
DE
J
GH
DE
GH
I
GH
GH
FG
FG
FG
FG
FG
DE
CD
I
DE
DE
GH
FG
GH
FG
J
DE

24

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 81 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

County

Essex
Essex
Essex
Essex
Essex
Essex
Essex
Essex
Essex
Essex
Gloucester
Gloucester
Gloucester
Gloucester
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Mercer
Mercer
Mercer
Mercer
Mercer
Mercer
Mercer
Mercer
Middlesex
Middlesex
Middlesex
Middlesex
Middlesex
Middlesex
Middlesex
Middlesex
Middlesex
Middlesex
Middlesex
Middlesex
Middlesex
Middlesex
Middlesex
Monmouth
Monmouth
Monmouth
Monmouth

District

Caldwell-West Caldwell
Cedar Grove Twp
Glen Ridge Boro
Livingston Twp
Millburn Twp
Montclair Town
Nutley Town
South Orange-Maplewood
Verona Boro
West Orange Town
Monroe Twp
Pitman Boro
Washington Twp
West Deptford Twp
Bayonne City
Kearny Town
North Bergen Twp
Secaucus Town
East Windsor Regional
Ewing Twp
Hamilton Twp
Hopewell Valley Regional
Lawrence Twp
Princeton Regional
Washington Twp
W Windsor-Plainsboro Reg
Dunellen Boro
East Brunswick Twp
Edison Twp
Highland Park Boro
Metuchen Boro
Middlesex Boro
Monroe Twp
North Brunswick Twp
Old Bridge Twp
Piscataway Twp
Sayreville Boro
South Brunswick Twp
South Plainfield Boro
Spotswood Boro
Woodbridge Twp
Hazlet Twp
Holmdel Twp
Manasquan Boro
Matawan-Aberdeen Regional

Per Pupil Regular Ed.
Expend.

$8,682
$9,362
$9,387
$10,158
$9,850
$9,075
$7,963
$9,077
$7,898
$9,733
$6,437
$8,931
$7,980
$7,020
$6,918
$8,474
$6,545
$9,956
$8,099
$8,026
$6,976
$10,046
$8,507
$9,510
$7,702
$9,175
$7,452
$8,082
$8,174
$8,969
$9,782
$8,110
$8,800
$7,957
$7,513
$8,141
$6,721
$8,491
$8,262
$8,286
$7,249
$8,582
$8,689
$8,302
$9,360

DFG

I
I
I
I
J
I
FG
I
I
GH
CD
FG
FG
DE
CD
B
B
DE
GH
DE
FG
I
GH
I
I
J
FG
I
GH
GH
I
FG
FG
FG
FG
GH
DE
I
FG
DE
DE
DE
I
GH
FG

25

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 82 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

County

Monmouth
Monmouth
Monmouth
Monmouth
Morris
Morris
Morris
Morris
Morris
Morris
Morris
Morris
Morris
Morris
Morris
Morris
Morris
Ocean
Ocean
Ocean
Ocean
Ocean
Ocean
Ocean
Ocean
Ocean
Passaic
Passaic
Passaic
Passaic
Salem
Salem
Somerset
Somerset
Somerset
Somerset
Somerset
Somerset
Sussex
Sussex
Sussex
Sussex
Union
Union
Union

District

Middletown Twp
Ocean Twp
Upper Freehold Regional
Wall Twp
Boonton Town
Butler Boro
Sch Dist Of The Chathams
Jefferson Twp
Kinnelon Boro
Madison Boro
Montville Twp
Mount Olive Twp
Mountain Lakes Boro
Parsippany-Troy Hills Twp
Pequannock Twp
Randolph Twp
Roxbury Twp
Barnegat Twp
Brick Twp
Jackson Twp
Lacey Twp
Manchester Twp
Plumsted Twp
Point Pleasant Boro
Point Pleasant Beach Boro
Toms River Regional
Hawthorne Boro
Pompton Lakes Boro
Wayne Twp
West Milford Twp
Pittsgrove Twp
Woodstown-Pilesgrove Reg
Bernards Twp
Bridgewater-Raritan Reg
Hillsborough Twp
Montgomery Twp
Somerset Hills Regional
Somerville Boro
Hopatcong
Newton Town
Sparta Twp
Vernon Twp
Berkeley Heights Twp
Clark Twp
Cranford Twp

Per Pupil Regular Ed.
Expend.

$7,890
$8,590
$8,448
$8,468
$8,897
$10,063
$9,331
$8,337
$8,684
$9,546
$9,146
$8,569
$11,198
$10,015
$8,459
$8,403
$8,539
$8,321
$6,143
$6,232
$7,535
$7,946
$6,874
$7,044
$9,358
$7,035
$8,100
$8,781
$8,409
$8,218
$7,673
$7,982
$8,150
$8,023
$7,571
$7,289
$10,363
$9,033
$7,583
$8,601
$7,783
$7,965
$9,432
$8,610
$8,307

DFG

GH
FG
GH
GH
FG
DE
J
GH
I
I
I
GH
J
GH
GH
I
GH
CD
DE
DE
DE
B
DE
FG
FG
DE
DE
FG
GH
FG
CD
FG
J
I
I
J
I
FG
FG
CD
I
FG
I
FG
I

26

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 83 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

County

Union
Union
Union
Union
Union
Union
Union
Warren

District

Kenilworth Boro
New Providence Boro
Roselle Park Boro
Scotch Plains-Fanwood Reg
Springfield Twp
Summit City
Westfield Town
Hackettstown

Per Pupil Regular Ed.
Expend.

$9,304
$8,939
$7,950
$8,857
$10,497
$9,781
$8,493
$8,565

DFG

DE
I
DE
I
GH
I
I
DE

27

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 84 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 2
Expenditure Line Items Included in Regular Education Expenditure Calculation
Line
Number
2710
4890
5070
6080
6140
6200
6260
6420
6480
6570
6840
6900
7610
7000
7090
7625
7636
7500
20210
20430
20540
20710
20820
20930
21320
21540
21710
21820
21930
22040
22210
22430
Unallocated
Benefits
7700
7710
7720
7730
7731

Description
Total Regular Programs - Instruction
Total Basic Skills/Remedial - Instruction
Total Vocational Programs Local Instruction
Total School Sponsored Cocurricular & Extracurricular Activities Instruction
Total School Sponsored Athletics - Instruction
Total Other Instructional Programs Instruction
Total Community Services Programs/Operations
Total Undistributed Expenditures Attendance & Social Work
Total Undistributed Expenditures Health Services
Total Undistributed Expenditures Support Services - Regular
Total Undistributed Expenditures Improvement of Instructional Services
Total Undistributed Expenditures Media Services / School Library
Total Undistributed Expenditures Instructional Staff Training Services
Total Undistributed Expenditures Support Services General Administration
Total Undistributed Expenditures Support Services School Administration
Total Undistributed Expenditures Required Maintenance for School Facilities
Total Undistributed Expenditures Other Oper. & Maint. Of Plant Services
Total Undistributed Expenditures Other Support Services
Allocated Benefits: Total Regular Programs Instruction
Allocated Benefits: Total Vocational Programs Instruction
Allocated Benefits: Total Other Instructional Programs Instruction
Allocated Benefits: Total Community Services Programs/Operations
Allocated Benefits: Total Attendance and Social Work Services
Allocated Benefits: Total Health Services
Allocated Benefits: Total Other Support Services Students - Regular
Allocated Benefits: Total Improvement of Instructional Services
Allocated Benefits: Total Educational Media Services / School Library
Allocated Benefits: Total Instructional Staff Training Services
Allocated Benefits: Total Support Services General Administration
Allocated Benefits: Total Support Services School Administration
Allocated Benefits: Total Operations and Maintenance of Plant Services
Allocated Benefits: Total Business and Other Support Services
Equipment Preschool/Kindergarten
Equipment Grades 1 5
Equipment Grades 6 8
Equipment Grades 9 12
Equipment Home Instruction

Appendix 2 - 1

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 85 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Line
Number
7960
8070
8080
8090
8100
8110
8130
8140
8150
8155
8156
8160
8200
8210
MINUS
Multiple
Lines
Multiple
Lines
2505
2506
2511
6980
7130
7135
7140
7355
7629
7620

Description
Equipment
Equipment
Equipment
Equipment
Equipment
Equipment
Equipment
Equipment
Equipment
Equipment
Equipment
Equipment
Equipment
Equipment

Basic Skills/Remedial Instruction
Vocational Programs Local Instruction
School-Sponsored and Other Instructional Programs
Undistributed Expenditures -Instruction
Undistributed Expenditures- Support Services Students Regular
Undistributed Expenditures- Support Services Students
Undistributed Expenditures- Support Services Instr. Staff
Undistributed Expenditures- General Admin.
Undistributed Expenditures- School Admin.
Undistributed Expenditures- Central Services
Undistributed Expenditures- Admin. Information Technology
Undistributed Expenditures- Operation of Plant Services
Undistributed Expenditures- Other Support Services
Undistributed Expenditures- Non-Instructional Services

T.P.A.F. Contributions

ERIP

Other Retirement Contributions - ERIP
Preschool -Salaries of Teachers
Local Contribution Transfers to Special Revenue
Local Contribution Transfers to Special Revenue
Judgments Against the School District
Interest on Current Loans
Interest on Lease Purchase Agreements
Interest in Bond Anticipation Notices
Increase in Sale/Lease-back Reserve
Rental of Land & Building other than Lease Purchase Agreement
Increase in Maintenance Reserve

Appendix 2 - 2

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 86 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 3
School District Demographic Data Submitted to APA
K 12
8,000+

K 12
4,000 7,999

K 12
1,300 3,999

K 12
Less than 1,300

K 8
350 - 600

K 8
Less than 350

Number of Districts

31

53

107

27

54

40

Number of Students

419,527

282,511

262,060

28,734

26,071

8,669

Average District Size

13,533

5,330

2,449

1,064

483

217

Average Number of Schools
Grades K 5
Grades K 6
Grades K 8
Grades 6 8
Grades 9 12

4.4
1.9
2.0

2.1
0.8
1.0

0.9
0.5
0.8

0.4
0.1
0.5

0.4
-

0.7
-

Average School Size
Grades K 5
Grades K 6
Grades K 8
Grades 6 8
Grades 9 12

372
691
1,381

407
738
1,225

354
525
677

319
543
468

341
-

155
-

Free Lunch Eligible

39.7

20.6

13.1

16.6

13.6

12.5

Limited English Proficiency

7.1

4.4

3.2

2.8

1.3

1.2

In County Vocational Dist

1.5

0.9

1.1

1.9

0.6

0.9

Proportion of Students:

Appendix 3 - 1

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 87 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Special Education
Mild
Moderate
Severe

K 12
8,000+

K 12
4,000 7,999

K 12
1,300 3,999

K 12
Less than 1,300

K 8
350 - 600

K 8
Less than 350

1.76
10.99
1.73

2.00
11.81
1.57

2.37
11.18
1.67

2.64
12.53
1.86

3.30
11.48
1.82

3.97
12.44
1.51

Appendix 3 - 2

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 88 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 4
Materials Provided to Professional Judgment Panel Participants

BACKGROUND FOR HYPOTHETICAL SCHOOL AND DISTRICT
PANELS
The task you are undertaking over the next three days is part of the work Augenblick &
Myers, Inc. (A&M) is doing for the New Jersey Department of Education (DOE). DOE is
undertaking a variety of studies to support a recommendation for a new state aid formula to be
used in 2004-05. The purpose of the studies is to create a rational basis for the parameters that
drive the allocation of state aid. Two of the studies are designed to estimate the fiscal needs of
every school district in the state: (1) one study uses the professional judgement approach to
estimate a base cost figure, common to all students, and some of the adjustments to that figure
that take into consideration the higher costs associated with students with special needs as well
as school district grade configuration and enrollment level and (2) another study uses the
successful school district approach to estimate a base cost figure. For the next few days, you
will be participating in activities designed to implement the professional judgement approach.
In order to fulfill the objectives of the professional judgement approach, A&M will be
facilitating the work of multiple panels of people whose job is to identify the resources needed
by hypothetical schools and school districts so that students will be able to meet a variety of state
standards related to elementary and secondary education. You are a member of the first panel,
which will be specifying the resource needs of elementary, middle, and high schools of different
size in school districts of different size. In February, five different panels (one for each size
hypothetical school district) composed of people who work in school districts throughout the
state will be reviewing your work. In March, a final panel will review the work of the five
panels and provide some advice about the resource prices that should be used in costing out the
resources that will have been identified. In the end, DOE will develop, with assistance from
A&M, a base cost figure as well as several adjustments in recognition of the higher costs of
certain programs, such as special education. These figures will then be used in developing the
new state aid system.
The professional judgement approach has been used in other states to estimate the cost of
meeting state standards (what is sometimes described as the cost of an adequate education, or
adequacy). For example, under court order, Wyoming used the approach to specify the cost of
those resources groups of professional educators, like you, thought were necessary to fulfill state
education requirements. The approach has also been used in places such as Colorado, Indiana,
Kansas, Missouri, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, and
Wisconsin to study education costs. In 2002, the Maryland legislature used the
recommendations of a state study group that had used the professional judgement approach as
the basis for changing the school finance system. While there are many variations of the
professional judgement approach, they all are used under the same general assumption: a group

Appendix 4 - 1

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 89 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

of experienced people can specify the resource needs of hypothetical schools once they know
what the schools are expected to accomplish.
It is important to remember that none of the panels that will meet between now and
March is charged with designing the best possible schools or school district. The purpose of the
exercise is not to build a school that fulfills every fantasy you ever had about what the very best
school should look like. Rather, you need to design schools/districts that meets the objectives
that the state has identified and only those objectives. We, and DOE, are relying on your
professional judgement about what resources are needed to assure that students, and schools, can
meet those objectives, including the kinds of courses that should be offered, the numbers of
people that should be employed, the ancillary activities and expenses needed to support those
programs and people, and so on.
We will provide you with a lot of additional material about the state s objectives, about
the characteristics of hypothetical schools, and about how to report the resources you feel are
necessary. You will be given time to discuss the approaches you want to take to organize the
hypothetical schools. It is important to remember that this is a collaborative process. We
strongly encourage the panel to reach consensus about each of the important decisions you will
be asked to make. A team from A&M will be with you over the three days to provide assistance
to you to facilitate the process by answering questions, taking notes, and recording your
decisions but not to influence the choices you make.
One thing we need you to think about as you go about your work is how to distinguish
the resources needed to educate regular students from those needed to educate students with
special needs. Given DOE s objectives, we need to be able to separate the resources you believe
are required to serve pupils with special education needs, pupils at risk of failing in school, and
students with limited English proficiency (LEP) pupils.
Just so you know A&M is a Denver based consulting firm that works almost exclusively
with state level policymakers on issues related to funding education. Today you will be working
with John Augenblick, Justin Silverstein, and Jennifer Sharp from A&M.

Appendix 4 - 2

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 90 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

INSTRUCTIONS TO NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT PANEL MEMBERS
Augenblick & Myers, Inc.
Denver, Colorado
January 21-23, 2003
Trenton, New Jersey
1.

You are a member of a panel that is being asked to design multiple sets of
hypothetical schools elementary, middle, and high school. This group is also
responsible for designing the district level organization that would include several
hypothetical schools. The hypothetical schools and school districts are
hypothetical they do not exist and they may never be created. They are a
convenient way to identify the resources that schools with a particular set of
characteristics should have in order to accomplish a specific set of objectives.

2.

This panel will be working today, tomorrow, and Thursday. On the first day we
will focus on elementary school districts (K-8) identifying resources for both
schools and the school district in two different size districts. We will also begin
identifying school level resources for a small K-12 district. On the second day we
will review the work of the first day and then identify the resources for
hypothetical schools in a moderately-sized district, a large district, and a very
large district. Finally, on Thursday, we will review the work of the previous day
and then identify the resources needed at the district level for moderate, large, and
very large districts.

3.

The characteristics of the hypothetical schools and school districts are shown on a
separate page. The characteristics that define the schools include their
enrollment, grade span, the proportion of pupils with special education needs, the
proportion of pupils with limited English proficiency (LEP), and the proportion of
students at risk of failure (as identified by using free lunch eligibility as a proxy).

4.

The objectives that need to be accomplished by the hypothetical schools are
shown on a separate page. The objectives can be described broadly as either
education opportunities/programs/ services or as levels of student performance.
These objectives are shown on separate sheet of paper.

5.

In designing hypothetical schools or school districts, we need you to provide
some very specific information so that a cost of the resources needed to meet the
above objectives can be calculated. The fact that we need this information should

Appendix 4 - 3

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 91 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

not constrain you in anyway in designing the hypotheticals. Your job is to create
a set of programs/curriculums designed to serves students with particular needs in
such a way that the specified objectives are met. Use your experience and
expertise to organize personnel, supplies and materials, and technology in any
way you feel confident will produce the desired outcomes.
6.

You can make certain assumptions about the hypothetical schools and the
environment in which they exist. These assumptions may not characterize the
school, or the school district, in which you work and we will devote some time to
discussing the assumptions after you have completed your work.

Teachers:

You should assume that you can attract and retain qualified personnel and
that you can employ people on a part-time basis if needed (based on tenths
of a full-time equivalent person).

Facilities:

You should assume that the hypothetical school has sufficient space to
meet the requirements of the program you design.

Revenues:

You should not be concerned about where revenues will come from to pay
for the program you design. Don t worry about federal or state
requirements that may be associated with some kinds of funding. You
should not think about whatever revenues might be available in the school
or district in which you work or about any of the revenue constraints that
might exist on those revenues.

Timing:

You may create new programs or services that do not presently exist that
you believe address problems that arise in schools. You should assume
that such programs or services are in place and that no additional time is
needed for them to produce the results you expect of them.

2.

We encourage you to be creative and innovative. There is no single right
approach to the task. For example:
-

You may base your design on a whole-school approach (such as Roots
and Wings), a charter school approach (such as Edison), or any other
philosophical basis (such as Montessori) with which you are familiar.

-

You may want to use block scheduling.

-

You may want to have a longer or shorter school day or a longer or shorter
school year (for some or for all students) than you use currently.

Appendix 4 - 4

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 92 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

-

You may expect some students to obtain some courses using education
television, the internet, or through experiences in the community or in
post-secondary education.

-

You may choose to supplement professional staff with community
volunteers.

Appendix 4 - 5

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 93 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

This summary provides information on New Jersey s Core Curriculum Content Standards and
state requirements that potentially impact the cost of providing a thorough and efficient
education. Section I outlines the state s standards in the nine content areas. Section II shows the
level of success districts are expected to achieve on the statewide assessment exams linked to
these standards. Section III highlights the courses and numbers of credits students are required
to take in high school in order to receive a diploma. Section IV summarizes state requirements
regarding the length of the school day and year.
I: Core Curriculum Content Standards
The Core Curriculum Content Standards (Standards) define what all students must know and be
able to do by the end of their public school education. The Standards specify expectations in
nine content areas.
Visual and Performing Arts
Standard 1.1

(Aesthetics) All students will utilize and synthesize aesthetic knowledge
and skills in response to dance, music, theater, and visual art.

Standard 1.2

(Creation and Performance) All students will utilize those skills, media,
methods, and technologies appropriate to each art form in the creation,
performance and presentation of dance, music, theater, and visual art.

Standard 1.3

(Elements and Principles) All students will demonstrate an understanding of
the elements and principles of dance, music, theater, and visual art.

Standard 1.4

(Critique) All students will apply, develop, and reflect knowledge of the
process of critique.

Standard 1.5

(History/Culture) All students will understand and analyze the role,
development, and continuing influence of the arts in relation to world
cultures, history, and society.

Comprehensive Health and Physical Education
Standard 2.1

(Health Promotion) All students will achieve optimal wellness by learning
and applying health promotion concepts and skills.

Standard 2.2

(Life Skills) All students will achieve optimal wellness by learning and
applying personal, interpersonal, and life skills.

Standard 2.3

(Drugs and Medicines) All students will achieve optimal wellness by
learning and applying substance abuse prevention concepts and skills.

Appendix 4 - 6

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 94 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Standard 2.4

(Human Sexuality and Family Life) All students will achieve optimal
wellness by learning and applying concepts and skills that support healthy
sexuality and positive personal relationships.

Standard 2.5

(Movement) All students will achieve optimal wellness by learning and
applying movement concepts and skills.

Standard 2.6

(Fitness) All students will achieve optimal wellness by learning and
applying fitness concepts and skills.

Language Arts Literacy
Standard 3.1

(Reading) All students will understand and apply the knowledge of
sounds, letters, and words in written English to become independent and
fluent readers, and will read a variety of materials and texts with fluency
and comprehension.

Standard 3.2

(Writing) All students will write in clear, concise, organized language that
varies in content and form for different audiences and purposes.

Standard 3.3

(Speaking) All students will speak in clear, concise, organized language
that varies in content and form for different audiences and purposes.

Standard 3.4

(Listening) All students will listen actively to information from a variety of
sources in a variety of situations.

Standard 3.5

(Viewing and Media Literacy) All students will access, view, evaluate, and
respond to print, nonprint, and electronic texts and resources.

Mathematics
Standard 4.1

(Number and Numerical Operations) All students will develop number
sense and will perform standard numerical operations and estimations on
all types of numbers in a variety of ways.

Standard 4.2

(Geometry and Measurement) All students will develop spatial sense and
the ability to use geometric properties, relationships, and measurement to
model, describe and analyze phenomena.

Standard 4.3

(Patterns and Algebra) All students will represent and analyze relationships
among variable quantities and solve problems involving patterns,
functions, and algebraic concepts and processes.

Appendix 4 - 7

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 95 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Standard 4.4

(Data Analysis, Probability, and Discrete Mathematics) All students will
develop an understanding of the concepts and techniques of data analysis,
probability, and discrete mathematics, and will use them to model
situations, solve problems, and analyze and draw appropriate inferences
from data.

Standard 4.5

(Mathematical Processes) All students will use mathematical processes of
problem solving, communication, connections, reasoning, representations,
and technology to solve problems and communicate mathematical ideas.

Science
Standard 5.1

(Scientific Processes) All students will develop problem-solving, decisionmaking and inquiry skills, reflected by formulating usable questions and
hypotheses, planning experiments, conducting systematic observations,
interpreting and analyzing data, drawing conclusions, and communicating
results.

Standard 5.2

(Science and Society) All students will develop an understanding of how
people of various cultures have contributed to the advancement of science
and technology, and how major discoveries and events have advanced
science and technology.

Standard 5.3

(Mathematical Applications) All students will integrate mathematics as a
tool for problem-solving in science, and as a means of expressing and/or
modeling scientific theories.

Standard 5.4

(Nature and Process Of Technology) All students will understand the
interrelationships between science and technology and develop a
conceptual understanding of the nature and process of technology.

Standard 5.5

(Characteristics of Life) All students will gain an understanding of the
structure, characteristics, and basic needs of organisms and will
investigate the diversity of life.

Standard 5.6

(Chemistry) All students will gain an understanding of the structure and
behavior of matter.

Standard 5.7

(Physics) All students will gain an understanding of natural laws as they
apply to motion, forces, and energy transformations.

Standard 5.8

(Earth Science) All students will gain an understanding of the structure,
dynamics, and geophysical systems of the earth.

Appendix 4 - 8

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 96 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Standard 5.9

(Astronomy & Space Science) All students will gain an understanding of
the origin, evolution, and structure of the universe.

Standard 5.10

(Environmental Studies) All students will develop an understanding of the
environment as a system of interdependent components affected by human
activity and natural phenomena.

Social Studies
Standard 6.1

(Social Studies Skills) All students will acquire the critical thinking,
problem solving and research and social skills and dispositions needed for
effective citizenship in a democratic society.

Standard 6.2

(Civics) All students will demonstrate knowledge, understanding, and
appreciation of the foundation, values, and principles of American
democracy and the rights, responsibilities, and roles of a citizen in a
democratic society.

Standard 6.3

(The Humanities) All students will have an enriched and broader
understanding of the social studies through the study of the related areas of
the humanities (literature, art, philosophy, music and architecture).

Standard 6.4

(World History) All students will demonstrate knowledge and
understanding of major events and issues in world history from pre-history
to the modern world.

Standard 6.5

(United States History) All students will demonstrate knowledge and
understanding of major events, personalities and issues in the history of
the United States of America.

Standard 6.6

(New Jersey History) All students will demonstrate knowledge and
understanding of major events, personalities and issues in the history of
New Jersey.

Standard 6.7

(Economics) All students will acquire an understanding of key economic
principles in relation to individuals, institutions, and governments.

Standard 6.8

(Geography) All students will acquire and apply understanding of the
spatial contexts of people, places and the environment on earth.

Standard 6.9

(Sociology and Anthropology) All students will demonstrate understanding
of societal and cultural structures and functions and how they have
contributed and continue to contribute to our everyday experience.

World Languages

Appendix 4 - 9

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 97 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Standard 7.1

(Communication) All students will be able to communicate in at least one
world language in addition to English. They will use language to: engage
in conversation; understand and interpret spoken and written language;
present information, concepts, and ideas while making connections with
other disciplines; compare the language/culture studied with their own;
and participate in multilingual communities.

Standard 7.2

(Culture) All students will demonstrate an understanding of the
perspectives of a culture(s) through experiences with its products and
practices.

Technological Literacy
Standard 8.1

(Computer Applications) All students will use computer applications to
manipulate and communicate information.

Standard 8.2

(Technology Education) All students will develop an understanding of the
nature and impact of technology, engineering, technological design, and
the designed world as they relate to the individual, society, and the
environment.

Career Education and Life Skills
Standard 9.1

(Career Awareness) All students will develop career awareness, planning,
and employability skills.

Standard 9.2

(Career/Technical Arts) All students will demonstrate career planning and
employability skills, and develop the foundational knowledge and skills
necessary for further study in a selected occupational area.

Standard 9.3

(Critical Thinking) All students will use critical thinking, decision-making
and problem solving skills.

Standard 9.4

(Self-Management) All students will demonstrate interpersonal and selfmanagement skills.

Appendix 4 - 10

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 98 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

II: Assessment Criteria
The Standards are further delineated by cumulative progress indicators for each benchmark grade
level. The statewide assessment system is designed to measure student progress towards
achieving the standards. Districts are evaluated based on the percent of students (overall as well
as subpopulations) that test at the proficient level or better according to the following schedules.
Grades 3 through 5 Exams
2004
2007
2010
2013

2005
2008
2011
2014

Language Arts Literacy
75
82
91
100

Mathematics
62
73
88
100

Language Arts Literacy
66
76
87
100

Mathematics
49
62
79
100

Language Arts Literacy
79
85
92
100

Mathematics
64
74
86
100

Grades 6 through 8 Exams
2004
2007
2010
2013

2005
2008
2011
2014

Grades 11 Exam
2004
2007
2010
2013

2005
2008
2011
2014

Appendix 4 - 11

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 99 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

III: Graduation Requirements19
Completion of at least 110 credits (equivalent of 22 courses)
At least 20 credits in language arts literacy
At least 15 credits in mathematics
At least 15 credits in science
At least 15 credits in social studies
At least 3.75 credits per year in health, safety, and physical education (distributed over
150 minutes per week)
At least 5 credits in visual and performing arts
At least 5 credits in technological literacy, career education, and life skills
At least 5 credits in world languages.
IV: Other Requirements
Length of School Year:
Length of School Day:

180 days
Minimum of 4 hours of instructional time (2.5 hours for
kindergarten)

19

In the 2004 2005 school year, the first year in which the school funding formula would be effective, the junior
and senior classes will be required to have 10 credits in visual, performing, and/or practical arts with no requirement
for technological literacy, career education and life skills. These same students will also be required to complete 10
credits in world languages.

Appendix 4 - 12

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 100 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 5
Organizations from which Professional Judgment Panel Nominations Were Requested
Education Law Center
Garden State Coalition of Schools
New Jersey Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development
New Jersey Association of School Administrators
New Jersey Association of School Business Officials
New Jersey Education Association
New Jersey Principals and Supervisors Association
New Jersey School Boards Association
Public Education Institute

Appendix 5 - 1

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 101 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 6
Professional Judgment Panel Invitees Round 120
Name
Ms. Eunice Couselo
Dr. Bruce Greenfield
Ms. Vicky Guo
Dr. Michael Klavon
Dr. Robert Riehs
Dr. Judith Weiss
Ms. Melinda Zangrillo

Title
Director
County Superintendent
County Business Administrator
Director
Educ. Prog. Development Spec.
Assistant Commissioner
Planning Associate

Affiliation
Office of Special Populations
Ocean County
Hudson County
Office of Vocational/Technical, Career and Innovative Programs
Office of Academic and Professional Standards
Northern Regional Services
Office of Special Education Programs

20

The listings in Appendices 6 through 8 reflect the individuals who were invited to participate in the professional
judgment panels. To ensure open discussion, DOE personnel did not attend and the consultants did not record
attendance. As a result, the names listed in this appendix would not account for individuals who were unable to
attend without providing notice in advance.

Appendix 6 - 1

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 102 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 7
Professional Judgment Panel Invitees Round 2
Name
Mr. Steven Block
Mr. Anthony Campisi
Mr. Samuel Citron
Ms. Gail Cohen
Mr. Angelo DeSimone
Ms. Mary Ellen Eck
Ms. Annette Edmonds
Mr. Richard Flamini
Ms. Edithe Fulton
Ms. Elizabeth George
Dr. Bertha Henson
Ms. Carmen Holster
Mr. Richard Horowitz
Ms. Kelly Ippolito
Mr. Paul Kadri
Dr. Carole Kernan
Mr. John Knorr
Dr. Richard Konet
Dr. Ted Kozlik
Ms. Suzane Krewson
Dr. Walter Mahler
Dr. Thomas McMahon
Mr. Robert Murphy
Dr. Charles Murray
Mr. Joseph Pompeo
Mr. Robert Reid
Dr. Lester Richens
Dr. Andrew Rinko
Mr. Lou Ripatrazone
Ms. Magda Savino
Mr. Jeff Scott
Mr. David Shaftner
Mr. Richard Sullivan
Ms. Regina Swierc
Mr. Jerry Tarnoff
Mr. Dennis Ventrello
Dr. Carmina Villa
Ms. Barbara Williams
Mr. Fred Wright
Dr. Debra Zamparelli

Title
Director
WSR Facilitator
Principal
Assistant to the Superintendent
Business Administrator
Superintendent
School Business Administrator
Supervisor
President
School Business Administrator
Supervisor of Instruction
Principal
Principal
School Business Administrator
Superintendent
Director of Special Services
School Board Member
Principal
Director of Special Services
Teacher
Superintendent
Superintendent
Principal
Superintendent
Principal
Principal
Superintendent
Superintendent
Superintendent
Principal
Asst. Sup. for Business
Business Administrator
Assistant Director
Superintendent
Superintendent
Principal
WSR Facilitator
Director
Business Administrator
Director

Affiliation
Education Law Center
Paterson School District
Voorhees Middle School (Voorhees Twp Public Schools)
Cherry Hill Public Schools
Hawthorne Public Schools
Riverton Public School
Greenwich Township School District
South Plainfield Board of Education
New Jersey Education Association
Mount Arlington Public School
Vineland City Board of Education
Washington Elementary School (Little Ferry Public Schools)
J. Fithian Tatem Elementary School (Haddonfield Public Schools)
Cresskill Public Schools
Moorestown Public Schools
Summit Public Schools
Galloway Township Public Schools
Parsippany High School
Westfield Public Schools
Holland Township School
Springfield Public Schools
Barnegat Township School District
East Brunswick High School (East Brunswick Public Schools)
Mercer Co. Special Services School District
Wallington High School (Wallington Public Schools)
Wildwood Elementary School (Mountain Lakes School District)
Belmar Public Schools
Bedminster Schools
Roxbury Public Schools
Joseph H. Brensinger Elementary School (Jersey City Public Schools)
South Brunswick Public Schools
East Windsor Regional School District
New Jersey School Boards Association
Warren Co. Special Services School District
West Orange Public Schools
Brookside Elementary School (Monroe Twp School District)
Long Branch School District
Irvington Board of Education
Eastern Camden County Regional School District
Tinton Falls Board of Education

Appendix 7 - 1

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 103 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 8
Professional Judgment Panel Invitees Round 3
Name
Dr. Pablo Clausell
Dr. Jacqueline Cusack
Dr. Len Elovitz
Mr. Peter Genovese
Dr. Patricia Hoey
Mr. Brian O Leary
Mr. Bruce Quinn
Dr. Morton Sherman

Title
Superintendent
Superintendent
Professor
School Business Administrator
Superintendent
School Board Member
Superintendent
Superintendent

Affiliation
Perth Amboy Public Schools
Pequannock Township Public Schools
Kean University, College of Education
Long Branch Public Schools
Harrison Township School District
South Orange-Maplewood Public Schools
Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District
Cherry Hill Public Schools

Appendix 8 - 1

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 104 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9
Final Professional Judgment Panel Resources

Appendix 9 - 1

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 105 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 1.A
Very Small K 8 School District
Elementary School Model
General, LEP and Special Education
Regular Education
Enrollment
Instructional Staff
Classroom Teachers
Other Teachers
Instructional Aides
Substitute Teachers
Resource Teacher
Self-Contained Teacher
Support Staff
Librarians / Media Specialists
Technology Specialists
Counselors
Nurses
Psychologists
Social Workers
LDTC
Speech Therapist
Occupational Therapist
Physical Therapist
Administrative Staff
Principal
Assistant Principal
Clerical / Data Entry
Other Costs
Professional Development
Supplies & Materials
Equipment
Technology
Assessment
State Assessment
Student Activities
Safety & Security

LEP

Spec. Education Mild

225

3

13.0
2.5

0.4

10 days @ $100

10 days @ $100

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

9

Spec. Education
Moderate

28

Spec. Education
Severe

3
1.0

2.0
10 days @ $100
3.0
2.0

3.0
10 days @ $100

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2

$1,250 / personnel
$25 / pupil

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil

$1,250 / personnel
$150 / pupil

$1,350

$3,000

0.0
0.5
2.0
$1,250 / personnel
$300 / pupil
$50 / pupil
$150 / pupil
$5,000
$35 / tested pupil
$100 / pupil

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil
$50 / pupil

$7,500

Appendix 9 - 2

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 106 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 1.B
Very Small K 8 School District
Elementary School Model
At-Risk Education
Enrollment
Instructional Staff
Instructional Aides
Reading Specialists / Basic Skills
Substitute Teachers
Support Staff
Social Workers
Parent Liaison
Other Costs
Professional Development
Supplies & Materials

Low At-Risk Concentration

23

Moderate At-Risk Concentration

46

1.0

2.0
2.0
10 days @ $100

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil

Appendix 9 - 3

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 107 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 1.C
Very Small K 8 School District
Elementary School Model
Other Education Programs
Gifted & Talented
Enrollment
Instructional Staff
Classroom Teachers
Other Teachers
Instructional Aides
Substitute Teachers
Support Staff
Nurses
Psychologists
Social Workers
LDTC
Speech Therapist
Occupational Therapist
Physical Therapist
Other Costs
Professional Development
Supplies & Materials
Equipment
Assessment
Other

Special Education
Preschool

Extended School Year

15

5

12

0.1

1.0

2.0

10 days @ $100

1.0
10 days @ $100

4.0
10 days @ $100

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05

0.6
0.2
0.2

$50 / pupil

$1,250 / personnel
$200 / pupil
$50 / pupil
$25 / pupil

After School Programs
½ At-Risk, LEP &
Special Ed

Summer School
Programs
½ At-Risk, LEP
18 Special Ed

$480 / pupil

$400 / pupil

$50 / pupil

Appendix 9 - 4

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 108 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 2.A
Small K 8 School District
Elementary School Model
General, LEP and Special Education
Regular Education
Enrollment
Instructional Staff
Classroom Teachers
Other Teachers
Instructional Aides
Substitute Teachers
Resource Teacher
Self-Contained Teacher
Support Staff
Librarians / Media Specialists
Media Aides
Technology Specialists
Counselors
Nurses
Psychologists
Social Workers
LDTC
Speech Therapist
Occupational Therapist
Physical Therapist
Administrative Staff
Principal
Assistant Principal
Clerical / Data Entry
Other Costs
Professional Development
Supplies & Materials
Equipment
Technology
Assessment
State Assessment
Student Activities K 5
Student Activities 6 8
Safety & Security

LEP

Spec. Education Mild

495

6

27.0
5.5

0.4

10 days @ $100

10 days @ $100

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

17

Spec. Education
Moderate

57

Spec. Education
Severe

9
2.0

3.0
10 days @ $100
5.0
3.5

5.0
10 days @ $100

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3

0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.2

0.3
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.3

$1,250 / personnel
$25 / pupil

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil

$1,250 / personnel
$150 / pupil

$2,700

$9,000

0.0
0.5
2.0
$1,250 / personnel
$300 / pupil
$50 / pupil
$150 / pupil
$11,000
$35 / tested pupil
$50 / pupil
$150 / pupil
$7,500

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil
$50 / pupil

Appendix 9 - 5

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 109 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 2.B
Small K 8 School District
Elementary School Model
At-Risk Education
Enrollment
Instructional Staff
Instructional Aides
Reading Specialists / Basic Skills
Substitute Teachers
Support Staff
Social Workers
Parent Liaison
Other Costs
Professional Development
Supplies & Materials

Low At-Risk Concentration

50

Moderate At-Risk Concentration
99

2.0
2.0
10 days @ $100

4.0
4.0
10 days @ $100

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil

Appendix 9 - 6

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 110 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 2.C
Small K 8 School District
Elementary School Model
Other Education Programs
Gifted & Talented
Enrollment
Instructional Staff
Classroom Teachers
Other Teachers
Instructional Aides
Substitute Teachers
Support Staff
Nurses
Psychologists
Social Workers
LDTC
Speech Therapist
Occupational Therapist
Physical Therapist
Other Costs
Professional Development
Supplies & Materials
Equipment
Assessment
Other

33

Special Education
Preschool

Extended School Year
11

20

0.2

2.0

3.0

10 days @ $100

2.0
10 days @ $100

6.0
10 days @ $100

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2

1.0
0.4
0.4

$50 / pupil

$1,250 / personnel
$200 / pupil
$50 / pupil
$25 / pupil

After School Programs
½ At-Risk, LEP &
Special Ed

Summer School
Programs
½ At-Risk, LEP & 37
Special Ed

$480 / pupil

$400 / pupil

$50 / pupil

Appendix 9 - 7

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 111 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 3.A
Small K 12 School District
Elementary School Model
General, LEP and Special Education
Regular Education
Enrollment
Instructional Staff
Classroom Teachers
Other Teachers
Instructional Aides
Substitute Teachers
Resource Teacher
Self-Contained Teacher
Support Staff
Librarians / Media Specialists
Media Aides
Technology Specialists
Counselors
Nurses
Psychologists
Speech Therapist
Occupational Therapist
Physical Therapist
Administrative Staff
Principal
Assistant Principal
Clerical / Data Entry
Other Costs
Professional Development
Supplies & Materials
Equipment
Technology
Assessment
State Assessment
Student Activities K - 5
Student Activities 6 - 8
Safety & Security

LEP

Spec. Education Mild

720

20

40.0
9.0

1.0

10 days @ $100

10 days @ $100

19

Spec. Education
Moderate

90

Spec. Education
Severe

14
2.0

3.0
10 days @ $100
8.0
3.0

6.0
10 days @ $100

0.3

0.7
0.2
0.2

1.0
0.6
0.4

$1,250 / personnel
$25 / pupil

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil
$50 / pupil
$3,000

$1,250 / personnel
$150 / pupil
$100 / pupil
$10,000

1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0

1.0
1.0
2.5
$1,250 / personnel
$300 / pupil
$50 / pupil
$150 / pupil
$16,000
$35 / tested pupil
$50 / pupil
$150 / pupil
$7,500

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil
$50 / pupil

Appendix 9 - 8

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 112 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 3.B
Small K 12 School District
Elementary School Model
At-Risk Education
Enrollment
Instructional Staff
Instructional Aides
Reading Specialists / Basic Skills
Substitute Teachers
Support Staff
Social Workers
Parent Liaison
Other Costs
Professional Development
Supplies & Materials

Low At-Risk Concentration

72

Moderate At-Risk Concentration
144

3.0
3.0
10 days @ $100

6.0
6.0
10 days @ $100

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil

Appendix 9 - 9

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 113 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 3.C
Small K 12 School District
Elementary School Model
Other Education Programs
Gifted & Talented
Enrollment
Instructional Staff
Classroom Teachers
Other Teachers
Instructional Aides
Substitute Teachers
Support Staff
Nurses
Psychologists
Social Workers
LDTC
Speech Therapist
Occupational Therapist
Physical Therapist
Other Costs
Professional Development
Supplies & Materials
Equipment
Assessment
Other

Special Education
Preschool

Extended School Year

50

16

24

0.3

2.0

3.0

10 days @ $100

4.0
10 days @ $100

6.0
10 days @ $100

After School Programs
½ At-Risk, LEP &
Special Ed

Summer School
Programs
½ At-Risk, LEP &
40 Special Ed

$480 / pupil

$400 / pupil

1.0

1.0
0.5
0.5
$50 / pupil

$1,250 / personnel
$250 / pupil
$50 / pupil
$25 / pupil

$20 / pupil

Appendix 9 - 10

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 114 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 3.D
Small K 12 School District
High School Model
General, LEP and Special Education
Regular Education
Enrollment
Instructional Staff
Classroom Teachers
Other Teachers
Instructional Aides
Substitute Teachers
Resource Teacher
Self-Contained Teacher
Support Staff
Librarians / Media Specialists
Media Aides
Technology Specialists
Counselors
Nurses
Lunchroom Aides
Speech Therapist
Occupational Therapist
Physical Therapist
Administrative Staff
Principal
Assistant Principal
Department Chairs
Clerical / Data Entry
Other Costs
Professional Development
Supplies & Materials
Equipment
Technology
Assessment
State Assessment
Student Activities
Security Guard
Safety & Security

LEP

Spec. Education Mild

320

9

28.0

0.5

10 days @ $100

10 days @ $100

8

Spec. Education
Moderate

40

Spec. Education
Severe

6
1.0

10 days @ $100
4.0
2.0

2.0
10 days @ $100

1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
0.1

0.2

0.2
0.1
0.1

$1,250 / personnel
$25 / pupil

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil

$1,250 / personnel
$150 / pupil

$2,300

$850

1.0
1.0
4.0
$1,250 / personnel
$400 / pupil
$75 / pupil
$150 / pupil
$10,000
$35 / tested pupil
$600 / pupil
1.0
$10,000

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil
$50 / pupil

Appendix 9 - 11

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 115 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 3.E
Small K 12 School District
High School Model
At-Risk Education
Enrollment
Instructional Staff
Classroom Teacher
Substitute Teachers
Other Costs
Professional Development
Supplies & Materials

Low At-Risk Concentration
32

Moderate At-Risk Concentration
64

1.0
10 days @ $100

1.0
10 days @ $100

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil

Appendix 9 - 12

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 116 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 3.F
Small K 12 School District
High School Model
Other Education Programs
Enrollment
Instructional Staff
Classroom Teachers
Instructional Aides
Substitute Teachers
Support Staff
Nurses
Speech Therapist
Occupational Therapist
Physical Therapist
Other Costs
Other

Extended School Year

11

After School Programs
At-Risk Students Low
At-Risk Students
Concentration
Moderate Concentration

Summer School Programs
½ At-Risk, LEP & 20
Special Ed

2.0
2.0
10 days @ $100
18 hours @ $75/hour
18 hours @ $150/hour
18 hours @ $150/hour
$9,000

$18,000

$360 / pupil

Appendix 9 - 13

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 117 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 4.A
Moderate, Large and Very Large K 12 School District
Elementary School Model
General, LEP and Special Education
Regular Education
Enrollment
Instructional Staff
Classroom Teachers
Other Teachers
Instructional Aides
Substitute Teachers
Resource Teacher
Self-Contained Teacher
Support Staff
Librarians / Media Specialists
Media Aides
Technology Specialists
Counselors
Nurses
Psychologists
Social Workers
Parent Liaison
Lunchroom Aides
Speech Therapist
Occupational Therapist
Physical Therapist
Administrative Staff
Principal
Assistant Principal
Clerical / Data Entry
Other Costs
Professional Development
Supplies & Materials
Equipment
Technology
Assessment
State Assessment
Student Activities
Safety & Security

LEP

Spec. Education Mild

400

28

22.0
5.0

1.1

10 days @ $100

10 days @ $100

8

Spec. Education
Moderate

45

Spec. Education
Severe

7
2.0

2.0
10 days @ $100
4.0
2.0

2.0
10 days @ $100

0.1

0.4
0.1
0.1

0.5
0.3
0.3

$1,250 / personnel
$25 / pupil

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil

$1,250 / personnel
$150 / pupil

$1,350

$9,000

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

0.6

1.0
2.0
$1,250 / personnel
$300 / pupil
$50 / pupil
$150 / pupil
$8,888
$35 / tested pupil
$50 / pupil
$7,500

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil
$50 / pupil

Appendix 9 - 14

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 118 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 4.B
Moderate, Large and Very Large K 12 School District
Elementary School Model
At-Risk Education
Low At-Risk Concentration
Enrollment
Instructional Staff
Instructional Aides
Reading Specialists / Basic
Skills
Substitute Teachers
Support Staff
Social Workers
Parent Liaison
Other Costs
Professional Development
Supplies & Materials

40

Moderate At-Risk
Concentration

High At-Risk Concentration
80

160

Very High At-Risk
Concentration

240

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

4.0

8.0

8.0

10 days @ $100

10 days @ $100

10 days @ $100

10 days @ $100

1.0
1.0

1.0
1.0

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil

Appendix 9 - 15

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 119 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 4.C
Moderate, Large and Very Large K 12 School District
Elementary School Model
Other Education Programs
Gifted & Talented
Enrollment
Instructional Staff
Classroom Teachers
Other Teachers
Instructional Aides
Substitute Teachers
Support Staff
Nurses
Psychologists
Social Workers
LDTC
Speech Therapist
Occupational Therapist
Physical Therapist
Other Costs
Professional
Development
Supplies & Materials
Equipment
Assessment

28

0.2
10 days @ $100

Special Education
Preschool

Extended School Year
13

12

2.0

1.5

2.0
10 days @ $100

3.0
10 days @ $100

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3

After School Programs
½ At-Risk, LEP &
Special Ed

Summer School
Programs
½ At-Risk, LEP &
23 Special Ed

$480 / pupil

$400 / pupil

1.0

0.3
0.3
0.3

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil

$200 / pupil
$50 / pupil
$25 / pupil

Appendix 9 - 16

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 120 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 4.D
Moderate, Large and Very Large K 12 School District
Middle School Model
General, LEP and Special Education
Regular Education
Enrollment
Instructional Staff
Classroom Teachers
Other Teachers
Instructional Aides
Substitute Teachers
Resource Teacher
Self-Contained Teacher
Support Staff
Librarians / Media Specialists
Media Aides
Technology Specialists
Counselors
Nurses
Lunchroom Aides
Speech Therapist
Occupational Therapist
Physical Therapist
Administrative Staff
Principal
Assistant Principal
Clerical / Data Entry
Other Costs
Professional Development
Supplies & Materials
Equipment
Technology
Assessment
State Assessment
Student Activities
Security Guard
Safety & Security

LEP

Spec. Education Mild

600

43

43.0

2.0

10 days @ $100

10 days @ $100

1.0
1.0
1.0
2.5
1.0
0.5

13

Spec. Education
Moderate

68

Spec. Education
Severe

10
2.0

2.0
10 days @ $100
6.0
3.0

2.0
10 days @ $100

0.2

0.3
0.2
0.2

0.3
0.3
0.3

$1,250 / personnel
$25 / pupil

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil

$1,250 / personnel
$150 / pupil

$1,350

$9,000

1.0
1.0
3.0
$1,250 / personnel
$320 / pupil
$50 / pupil
$150 / pupil
$13,332
$35 / tested student
$150 / pupil
1.0
$7,500

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil
$50 / pupil

Appendix 9 - 17

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 121 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 4.E
Moderate, Large and Very Large K 12 School District
Middle School Model
At-Risk Education
Low At-Risk Concentration
Enrollment
Instructional Staff
Instructional Aides
Reading Specialists / Basic
Skills
Support Staff
Social Workers
Parent Liaison
Other Costs
Professional Development
Supplies & Materials

60

1.0

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil

Moderate At-Risk
Concentration

High At-Risk Concentration

Very High At-Risk
Concentration

120

240

3.0

6.0

6.0

1.0

1.0

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil

360

Appendix 9 - 18

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 122 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 4.F
Moderate, Large and Very Large K 12 School District
Middle School Model
Other Education Programs
Enrollment
Instructional Staff
Classroom Teachers
Other Teachers
Instructional Aides
Substitute Teachers
Support Staff
Nurses
Psychologists
Social Workers
LDTC
Speech Therapist
Occupational Therapist
Physical Therapist
Other Costs
Supplies & Materials
Other

Extended School Year

22

After School Programs
½ At-Risk, LEP &
Special Education

Summer School Programs
½ At-Risk, LEP &
23 Special Education

$480 / pupil

$400 / pupil

3.0
3.0
10 days @ $100
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3

Appendix 9 - 19

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 123 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 5.A
Moderate K 12 School District
High School Model
General, LEP and Special Education
Regular Education
Enrollment
Instructional Staff
Classroom Teachers
Other Teachers
Instructional Aides
Substitute Teachers
Resource Teacher
Self-Contained Teacher
Support Staff
Librarians / Media Specialists
Media Aides
Technology Specialists
Counselors
Nurses
Lunchroom Aides
Speech Therapist
Occupational Therapist
Physical Therapist
Administrative Staff
Principal
Assistant Principal
Department Chairs
Clerical / Data Entry
Other Costs
Professional Development
Supplies & Materials
Equipment
Technology
Assessment
State Assessment
Student Activities
Security Guard
Safety & Security

LEP

Spec. Education Mild

760

24

60.0

1.0

10 days @ $100

10 days @ $100

18

Spec. Education
Moderate

85

Spec. Education
Severe

13
3.0

2.0
10 days @ $100
6.0
2.0

6.5
10 days @ $100

0.1

0.4
0.1
0.6

1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
0.1

0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
4.0
$1,250 / personnel
$400 / pupil
$75 / pupil
$150 / pupil
$16,887
$35 / tested pupil
$575 / pupil
1.0
$7,500

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil
$50 / pupil

$1,250 / personnel
$25 / pupil

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil
$4,600

$1,250 / personnel
$150 / pupil
$300 / pupil
$1,000

Appendix 9 - 20

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 124 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 5.B
Moderate K 12 School District
High School Model
At-Risk Education
Enrollment
Instructional Staff
Instructional Aides
Reading Specialists / Basic Skills
Support Staff
Social Workers
Parent Liaison
Other Costs
Professional Development
Supplies & Materials

Low At-Risk Concentration
76

Moderate At-Risk Concentration
152

1.0

2.0

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil

Appendix 9 - 21

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 125 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 5.C
Moderate K 12 School District
High School Model
Other Education Programs
Enrollment
Instructional Staff
Classroom Teachers
Other Teachers
Instructional Aides
Substitute Teachers
Support Staff
Nurses
Psychologists
Social Workers
LDTC
Speech Therapist
Occupational Therapist
Physical Therapist
Other Costs
Supplies & Materials
Other

Extended School Year

After School Programs
27

At-Risk Students

Summer School Programs
½ At-Risk, LEP &
20 Special Education

5.0
7.5
10 days @ $100 / day
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.3
$36,000

$400 / pupil

Appendix 9 - 22

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 126 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 6.A
Large K 12 School District
High School Model
General, LEP and Special Education
Regular Education
Enrollment
Instructional Staff
Classroom Teachers
Other Teachers
Instructional Aides
Substitute Teachers
Resource Teacher
Self-Contained Teacher
Support Staff
Librarians / Media Specialists
Media Aides
Technology Specialists
Counselors
Nurses
Lunchroom Aides
Speech Therapist
Occupational Therapist
Physical Therapist
In-School Suspension
Administrative Staff
Principal
Assistant Principal
Department Chairs
Athletic Director
Clerical / Data Entry
Other Costs
Professional Development
Supplies & Materials
Equipment
Technology
Assessment
State Assessment
Student Activities
Security Guard
Safety & Security

LEP

Spec. Education Mild

1,640

72

128.0

3.0

10 days @ $100

10 days @ $100

33

Spec. Education
Moderate

194

Spec. Education
Severe

26
5.0

3.0
10 days @ $100
8.0
4.0

8.0
10 days @ $100

0.3

0.3
0.5
0.5

0.6
0.4
0.4

$1,250 / personnel
$25 / pupil

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil

$1,250 / personnel
$150 / pupil

$2,700

$2,000

2.0
1.0
2.0
9.0
2.0

1.0
1.0
3.0
4.0
1.0
9.0
$1,250 / personnel
$400 / pupil
$75 / pupil
$150 / pupil
$36,441
$35 / tested pupil
$400 / pupil
3.0
$15,000

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil
$50 / pupil

Appendix 9 - 23

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 127 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 6.B
Large K 12 School District
High School Model
At-Risk Education
Enrollment
Instructional Staff
Instructional Aides
Reading Specialists / Basic Skills
Substitute Teachers
Support Staff
Social Workers
Parent Liaison
Other Costs
Professional Development
Supplies & Materials
Security Guard

Low At-Risk Concentration
164

Moderate At-Risk Concentration
328

High At-Risk Concentration
656

2.0

4.0

8.0
1.0

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil
1.0

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil
4.0

Appendix 9 - 24

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 128 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 6.C
Large K 12 School District
High School Model
Other Education Programs
Enrollment
Instructional Staff
Classroom Teachers
Other Teachers
Instructional Aides
Substitute Teachers
Support Staff
Nurses
Psychologists
Social Workers
LDTC
Speech Therapist
Occupational Therapist
Physical Therapist
Other Costs
Supplies & Materials
Other

Extended School Year

47

After School Programs
At-Risk Students

Summer School Programs
½ At-Risk, LEP &
87 Special Education

$24,000

$400 / pupil

6.0
8.0
10 days @ $100
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.3

Appendix 9 - 25

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 129 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 7.A
Very Large K 12 School District
High School Model
General, LEP and Special Education
Regular Education
Enrollment
Instructional Staff
Classroom Teachers
Other Teachers
Instructional Aides
Substitute Teachers
Resource Teacher
Self-Contained Teacher
Support Staff
Librarians / Media Specialists
Media Aides
Technology Specialists
Counselors
Nurses
Lunchroom Aides
Speech Therapist
Occupational Therapist
Physical Therapist
Administrative Staff
Principal
Assistant Principal
Department Chairs
Athletic Director
Clerical / Data Entry
Other Costs
Professional Development
Supplies & Materials
Equipment
Technology
Assessment
State Assessment
Student Activities
Security Guard
Safety & Security

LEP

Spec. Education Mild

1,387

99

109.0

4.0

10 days @ $100

10 days @ $100

25

Spec. Education
Moderate

153

Spec. Education
Severe

24
5.0

3.0
10 days @ $100
7.0
3.0

7.0
10 days @ $100

0.2

0.2
0.2
0.2

0.6
0.4
0.4

$1,250 / personnel
$25 / pupil

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil

$1,250 / personnel
$150 / pupil

$4,000

$2,000

2.0
1.0
2.0
8.5
2.0

1.0
2.0
4.0
1.0
8.0
$1,250 / personnel
$400 / pupil
$75 / pupil
$150 / pupil
$30,819
$35 / tested pupil
$400 / pupil
3.0
$7,500

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil
$50 / pupil

Appendix 9 - 26

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 130 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 7.B
Very Large K 12 School District
High School Model
At-Risk Education

Enrollment
Instructional Staff
Instructional Aides
Reading Specialists / Basic
Skills
Support Staff
Counselor
Social Workers
Parent Liaison
Other Costs
Professional Development
Supplies & Materials
Security Guards
School-Based Youth Services /
Health Clinic

Low At-Risk
Concentration

139

2.0

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil

Moderate At-Risk
Concentration

High At-Risk Concentration

Very High At-Risk
Concentration

277

555

3.5

7.0

7.0

1.0
1.0

1.0
1.0

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil
2.0
$500,000

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil
5.0
$500,000

$1,250 / personnel
$50 / pupil

832

Appendix 9 - 27

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 131 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 7.C
Very Large K 12 School District
High School Model
Other Education Programs
Enrollment
Instructional Staff
Classroom Teachers
Other Teachers
Instructional Aides
Substitute Teachers
Support Staff
Nurses
Psychologists
Social Workers
LDTC
Speech Therapist
Occupational Therapist
Physical Therapist
Other Costs
Supplies & Materials
Other

Extended School Year

41

After School Programs
At-Risk Students

Summer School Programs
½ At-Risk, LEP &
78 Special Education

$24,000

$600 / pupil

6.0
7.0
10 days @ $100 / day
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.2

Appendix 9 - 28

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 132 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 8.A
Very Small K 8 School District
Districtwide Resources - Personnel
Superintendent
Directors
Business Administrator
Clerical / Data Entry
Custodians
Maintenance Workers

General Education

1.0
0.5
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0

Appendix 9 - 29

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 133 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 8.B
Very Small K 8 School District
Districtwide Resources Other Resources
Home Instruction
Out-of-District Placement
Technology
Telecommunications
Textbooks
Treasurer of School Moneys
Professional Development
- Custodial Staff
- Clerical Staff
- Professional Staff
Insurance
Legal
Activities
Supplies
Maintenance Supplies
Utilities
Elections
Association Fees

General

$2,700

$20,000
$40 / pupil
$100 / pupil
$2,500

Special Education
$50,000

$200 / personnel
$750 / personnel
$1,500 / personnel
$25,000
$12,500
$2,500
$8 / pupil
$58 / pupil
$1.34 / sq ft
$4,000
$12,500

Appendix 9 - 30

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 134 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 9.A
Small K 8 School District
Districtwide Resources - Personnel
Superintendent
Supervisors
Coordinators
Business Administrator
Clerical / Data Entry
Custodians
Maintenance Workers

General Education

1.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
3.5

Appendix 9 - 31

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 135 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 9.B
Small K 8 School District
Districtwide Resources Other Resources
Home Instruction
Out-of-District Placement
Technology
Telecommunications
Textbooks
Treasurer of School Moneys
Professional Development
- Custodial Staff
- Clerical Staff
- Professional Staff
Insurance
Legal
Activities
School Board
Supplies
Maintenance Supplies
Utilities
Elections
Association Fees

General

$5,490

$20,000
$40 / pupil
$100 / pupil
$2,500

Special Education
$120,000

$200 / personnel
$750 / personnel
$1,500 / personnel
$35,000
$15,000
$5,000
$10,000
$8 / pupil
$58 / pupil
$1.34 / sq ft
$8,000
$3,500

Appendix 9 - 32

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 136 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 10.A
Small K 12 School District
Districtwide Resources - Personnel
Superintendent
Assistant Superintendent
Directors
Supervisor
Business Administrator
Clerical / Data Entry
Psychologist
Social Worker
LDTC
Buildings & Grounds Super.
Custodians
Maintenance Workers

General Education

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0

1.0
8.0
2.0

Special Education
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

Appendix 9 - 33

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 137 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 10.B
Small K 12 School District
Districtwide Resources Other Resources
Home Instruction
Out-of-District Placement
Technology
Telecommunications
Textbooks
Professional Development
- Custodial Staff
- Clerical Staff
- Professional Staff
Insurance
Legal
Activities
School Board
Supplies
Maintenance Supplies
Utilities
Elections
School Physician
Association Fees

General
$12,480
$25,000
$40 / pupil
$100 / pupil
$200 / personnel
$750 / personnel
$1,500 / personnel
$50,000
$40,000
$10,000
$10,000
$8 / pupil
$58 / pupil
$1.34 / sq ft
$15,000
$5,000
$8,000

Special Education
$240,000

$750 / personnel
$1,500 / personnel

$15,000

Appendix 9 - 34

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 138 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 11.A
Moderate K 12 School District
Districtwide Resources - Personnel
Superintendent
Assistant Superintendent
Directors
Supervisors
Coordinators
Business Administrator
Facilities Manager
Clerical / Data Entry
Psychologist
Social Worker
LDTC
Custodians
Maintenance Workers
Groundskeepers

General Education

1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
7.0

18.0
3.0
3.0

LEP

Special Education

0.5

0.5

1.0
0.5

1.5
3.0
3.0
3.0

Appendix 9 - 35

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 139 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 11.B
Moderate K 12 School District
Districtwide Resources Other Resources
Home Instruction
Out-of-District Placement
Security
Technology
Telecommunications
Textbooks
Professional Development
- Custodial Staff
- Clerical Staff
- Professional Staff
Insurance
Legal
Activities
School Board
Supplies
Maintenance Supplies
Utilities
Elections
School Physician
Association Fees
Miscellaneous

General
$15,000

LEP

$1,000
$50,000
$40 / pupil
$100 / pupil
$200 / personnel
$750 / personnel
$1,500 / personnel
$250,000
$50,000
$10,000
$15,000
$8 / pupil
$58 / pupil
$1.34 / sq ft
$25,000
$5,000
$15,000

$750 / personnel
$1,500 / personnel

Special Education
$15,000
$1,000,000

$750 / personnel
$1,500 / personnel
$10,000

$30,000

Appendix 9 - 36

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 140 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 11.C
Moderate K 12 School District
Districtwide Resources At Risk Education
Contingency

Low At-Risk Concentration

$10,000

Moderate At-Risk Concentration

$20,000

Appendix 9 - 37

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 141 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 12.A
Large K 12 School District
Districtwide Resources - Personnel
Superintendent
Assistant Superintendent
Directors
Supervisor
Coordinators
Business Administrator
Asst. Bus. Admin.
Facilities Manager
Business Clerks
Clerical / Data Entry
Technician
Teachers
Counselor
Psychologist
Social Worker
LDTC
Interpreter / Liaison
Custodians
Maintenance Workers

General Education

1.0
2.0
4.0
1.0
4.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
4.0
10.0
1.0

40.0
4.0

LEP

Special Education

0.5

1.0
1.0

0.5

2.0

2.0

0.5

5.0
5.0
5.0

Appendix 9 - 38

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 142 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 12.B
Large K 12 School District
Districtwide Resources Other Resources
Home Instruction
Out-of-District Placement
Security
Technology
Consultant / Technical Services
Telecommunications
Textbooks
Professional Development
- Custodial Staff
- Clerical Staff
- Professional Staff
Insurance
Legal
Activities
Supplies
Maintenance Supplies
Utilities
Elections
School Physician
Association Fees

General
$63,960

LEP

$2,075,000

$15,000
$80,000

$50,000

$40 / pupil
$100 / pupil
$200 / personnel
$750 / personnel
$1500 / personnel
$800,000
$125,000
$20,000
$8 / pupil
$58 / pupil
$1.34 / sq ft
$35,000
$25,000
$25,000

Special Education

$750 / personnel
$1500 / personnel

$750 / personnel
$1500 / personnel

$20 / pupil

Appendix 9 - 39

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 143 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 12.C
Large K 12 School District
Districtwide Resources At Risk Education
In-School Suspension
Guidance Counselor
Professional Development

Low At-Risk Concentration

2.0

$1,500 / personnel

Moderate At-Risk Concentration
4.0
1.0
$1,500 / personnel

High At-Risk Concentration

8.0
1.0
$1,500 / personnel

Appendix 9 - 40

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 144 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 13.A
Very Large K 12 School District
Districtwide Resources - Personnel
Superintendent
Assistant Superintendent
Assistants to Superintendent
Directors
Supervisor
Coordinators
Business Administrator
Asst. Bus. Admin.
Purchasing Agent
Purchasing Clerk
Accountant
Facilities Manager
Business Clerks
Clerical / Data Entry
Technician
Programmer
Teachers
Interpreter
In-School Suspension
Psychologist
Social Worker
LDTC
Head Custodians
Custodians
Maintenance Workers
Groundskeepers
Security Guard

General Education

1.0
3.0
2.0
5.0
3.0
7.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
7.0
14.0
3.0
1.0

8.0
75.0
9.0
15.0

LEP

Special Education

1.0
1.0

1.0

1.0
5.0

6.0

5.0
1.0
14.0
14.0
14.0

Appendix 9 - 41

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 145 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 13.B
Very Large K 12 School District
Districtwide Resources Other Resources
Home Instruction
Out-of-District Placement
Security
Technology
Consultant Services
Computer IEP
Telecommunications
Textbooks
Professional Development
- Custodial Staff
- Clerical Staff
- Professional Staff
Insurance
Legal
Activities
School Board
Supplies
Maintenance Supplies
Utilities
Elections
Audit
School Physician
Association Fees

General

$162,000

LEP

Special Education
$4,700,000

$25,000
$125,000

$50,000
$150,000
$6,000

$40 / pupil
$100 / pupil
$200 / personnel
$750 / personnel
$1,500 / personnel
$1,750,000
$275,000
$25,000
$15,000
$8 / pupil
$58 / pupil
$1.34 / sq ft
$50,000
$60,000
$30,000
$50,000

$750 / personnel
$1,500 / personnel

$750 / personnel
$1,500 / personnel

$5 / pupil

$20 / pupil

Appendix 9 - 42

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 146 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 9: Table 13.C
Very Large K 12 School District
Districtwide Resources At Risk Education
Low At-Risk Concentration
Director
Clerical / Data Entry
Teachers
In-School Suspension
Professional Development
- Clerical Staff
- Professional Staff

1.0
1.0
7.0
4.5
$750 / personnel
$1,500 / personnel

Moderate At-Risk
Concentration

High At-Risk Concentration
1.0
1.0
7.0
4.5

2.0
1.0
7.0
4.5

$750 / personnel
$1,500 / personnel

$750 / personnel
$1,500 / personnel

Very High At-Risk
Concentration

2.0
1.0
7.0
4.5

$750 / personnel
$1,500 / personnel

Appendix 9 - 43

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 147 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 10
Personnel Costs Used in PJP Analysis
School-Level Staff
Instruction
Classroom Teacher
Other Teacher
Instructional Aides

Salary

Benefits

Total Cost

Data Source21,22,23

$51,066
$51,066
$18,173

$10,213
$10,213
$3,635

$70,411
$51,066

$14,082
$10,213

$61,279 Median Salary: Certificated Staff Data 2004 - 2005
$61,279 Median Salary: Certificated Staff Data 2004 - 2005
$21,808 Median Salary: NJEA Salary Data 2002 2003 (Inflated by 4.8057
percent)
$84,493 Median Salary: Certificated Staff Data 2004 - 2005
$61,279 Median Salary: Certificated Staff Data 2004 - 2005

$51,066

$10,213

$61,279 Median Salary: Certificated Staff Data 2004 - 2005

$100 / day

N/A

Student Support
Librarian
Media Aide

$70,705
$16,685

$14,141
$3,337

Technology Specialist

$44,120

$8,824

Guidance Counselor
Nurse
Psychologist
Social Worker
Occupational Therapist
Physical Therapist
Learning Disabled
Teacher Consultant

$72,902
$53,440
$66,410
$56,975
$56,277
$64,139
$75,689

$14,580
$10,688
$13,282
$11,395
$11,255
$12,828
$15,138

Reading Specialist
Resource Teacher/InClass
Self-Contained/Pull Out
Teacher
Substitute Teacher

$100 / day PJP Panelists Recommendation
$84,846 Median Salary: Certificated Staff Data 2004 - 2005
$20,022 Median Salary: NJEA Salary Data 2002 2003 (Inflated by 4.8057
percent)
$52,944 Median Salary: Bureau of Labor Statistics (Occupational Code 151041: Computer Support Specialist) Nov. 2004
$87,482 Median Salary: Certificated Staff Data 2004 - 2005
$64,128 Median Salary: Certificated Staff Data 2004 - 2005
$79,692 Median Salary: Certificated Staff Data 2004 - 2005
$68,370 Median Salary: Certificated Staff Data 2004 - 2005
$67,532 Median Salary: Certificated Staff Data 2004 - 2005
$76,967 Median Salary: Certificated Staff Data 2004 - 2005
$90,827 Median Salary: Certificated Staff Data 2004 - 2005

21

All salaries taken from the Certificated Staff Data include a 1.5 percent increase recommended by Dr. Augenblick.
The 4.8057 percent inflation adjustment is based on the CPI for the interim years (2.11 percent and 2.64 percent).
Bureau of Labor Statistics salary data are taken from the State Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates available at
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oessrcst.htm.
22
23

Appendix 10 - 1

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 148 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Speech Therapist
Parent Liaison
Lunchroom Aide
Security Guard
Administration
Principal Elem.
Asst. Principal Elem.
Principal Middle
Asst. Principal Middle
Principal High
Asst. Principal High
Director
Clerical / Data Entry
District-Level Staff
Superintendent (Has no
Asst. Superintendent)
Superintendent (Has
Asst. Superintendent)
Asst. Superintendent
Asst. to the
Superintendent
Director
Supervisor
Coordinator
Business Administrator
Asst. Business
Administrator
Purchasing Agent

Salary
Benefits
Total Cost
Data Source21,22,23
$65,200
$13,040
$78,240 Median Salary: Certificated Staff Data 2004 - 2005
$23,216
$4,643
$27,859 Median Salary: NJEA Salary Data 2002 2003 (Inflated by 4.8057
percent)
$10,444
$2,089
$12,533 Median Salary: NJEA Salary Data 2002 2003 (Inflated by 4.8057
percent)
$21,610
$4,322
$25,932 Median Salary: Bureau of Labor Statistics (Occupational Code 339032: Security Guards) Nov. 2004
$109,217
$92,520
$111,619
$91,991
$120,906
$100,897
$96,425
$33,680

$21,843
$18,504
$22,324
$18,398
$24,181
$20,179
$19,285
$6,736

$131,060
$111,024
$133,943
$110,389
$145,087
$121,076
$115,710
$40,416

Median Salary: Certificated Staff Data 2004 - 2005
Median Salary: Certificated Staff Data 2004 - 2005
Median Salary: Certificated Staff Data 2004 - 2005
Median Salary: Certificated Staff Data 2004 - 2005
Median Salary: Certificated Staff Data 2004 - 2005
Median Salary: Certificated Staff Data 2004 - 2005
Median Salary: Certificated Staff Data 2004 - 2005
Median Salary: Bureau of Labor Statistics (Occupational Code 436014: Secretaries) Nov. 2004

$130,200

$26,040

$156,240 Median Salary: Certificated Staff Data 2004 - 2005

$159,282

$31,856

$191,138 Median Salary: Certificated Staff Data 2004 - 2005

$133,473
$44,370

$26,695
$8,874

$109,772
$99,220
$85,656
$99,470
$59,682

$21,954
$19,844
$17,131
$19,894
$11,936

$160,168 Median Salary: Certificated Staff Data 2004 - 2005
$53,244 Median Salary: Bureau of Labor Statistics (Occupational Code 436011: Executive Secretaries) Nov. 2004
$131,726 Median Salary: Certificated Staff Data 2004 - 2005
$119,064 Median Salary: Certificated Staff Data 2004 - 2005
$102,787 Median Salary: Certificated Staff Data 2004 - 2005
$119,364 Median Salary: Certificated Staff Data 2004 - 2005
$71,618 60% of Business Administrator

$54,580

$10,916

$65,496 Median Salary: Bureau of Labor Statistics (Occupational Code 131023: Purchasing Agents) Nov. 2004

Appendix 10 - 2

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 149 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Purchasing Clerk

Total Cost
Data Source21,22,23
$40,920 Median Salary: Bureau of Labor Statistics (Occupational Code 433061: Procurement Clerk) Nov. 2004
$11,788
$70,728 Median Salary: Bureau of Labor Statistics (Occupational Code 132011: Accountants & Auditors) Nov. 2004
$19,844
$119,064
$6,766
$40,416 Median Salary: Bureau of Labor Statistics (Occupational Code 433031: Bookkeeping, Accounting and Auditor Clerks) Nov. 2004
$8,824
$52,944 Median Salary: Bureau of Labor Statistics (Occupational Code 151041: Computer Support Specialist) Nov. 2004
$14,402
$86,412 Median Salary: Bureau of Labor Statistics (Occupational Code 151021: Computer Programmers) Nov. 2004

Salary
Benefits
$34,100
$6,820

Accountant

$58,940

Facilities Manager
Business Clerk

$99,220
$33,830

Technician

$44,120

Programmer

$72,010

Other District-wide
Costs
Head Custodian

$36,450

$7,290

Custodian

$20,690

$4,138

Maintenance Worker

$35,530

$7,106

Groundskeeper

$22,560

$4,512

$43,740 Median Salary: Bureau of Labor Statistics (Occupational Code 371011: Supervisors, Janitorial Workers) Nov. 2004
$24,828 Median Salary: Bureau of Labor Statistics (Occupational Code 372011: Janitors & Cleaners) Nov. 2004
$42,636 Median Salary: Bureau of Labor Statistics (Occupational Code 499042: Maintenance & Repair, general) Nov. 2004
$27,072 Median Salary: Bureau of Labor Statistics (Occupational Code 373011: Landscaping and Groundskeeping) Nov. 2004

Appendix 10 - 3

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 150 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Appendix 11
Expenditure Line Items Included in Program Cost Comparison Analysis
Line
Number
2710
4800
4890
4980
5070
5350
5630
6080
6140
6200
6260
6360
6420
6480
6485
6705
6570
6680
6840
6900
7610
7000
7090
7625
7636
7500
7150
7185
20210
20320
20430
20540
20710
20820
20930
21320
21430
21540
21710
21820
21930
22040

Description
Total Regular Programs Instruction
Total Special Education Instruction
Total Basic Skills/Remedial Instruction
Total Bilingual Education Instruction
Total Vocational Programs Local Instruction
Total Regular Vocational Programs Instruction
Total Special Vocational Programs Instruction
Total School Sponsored Co-curricular Activities Instruction
Total School Sponsored Athletics Instruction
Total Other Instructional Programs Instruction
Total Community Services Programs/Operations
Total Undistributed Expenditures Instruction (Tuition)
Total Undistributed Expenditures Attendance & Social Work
Total Undistributed Expenditures Health Services
Total Undistributed Expenditures Oth. Support Services Related Services
Total Undistributed Expenditures Oth. Support Services Extraordinary Services
Total Undistributed Expenditures Support Services Regular
Total Undistributed Expenditures Support Services Special
Total Undistributed Expenditures Improvement of Instruction Services
Total Undistributed Expenditures Educ. Media Services/School Library
Total Undistributed Expenditures Instructional Staff Training Services
Total Undistributed Expenditures General Administration
Total Undistributed Expenditures School Administration
Required Maintenance for School Facilities
Other Operations and Maintenance of Plant Services
Business and Other Support Services
Central Services
Admin. Information Technology
Allocated Benefits: Total Regular Programs - Instruction
Allocated Benefits: Total Special Programs - Instruction
Allocated Benefits: Total Vocational Programs - Instruction
Allocated Benefits: Total Other Instructional Programs - Instruction
Allocated Benefits: Total Community Services Programs/Operations
Allocated Benefits: Total Attendance and Social Work Services
Allocated Benefits: Total Health Services
Allocated Benefits: Total Other Support Services Students Regular
Allocated Benefits: Total Other Support Services Students Special
Allocated Benefits: Total Improvement of Instruction Services
Allocated Benefits: Total Educational Media Services/School Library
Allocated Benefits: Total Instructional Staff Training Services
Allocated Benefits: General Administration
Allocated Benefits: School Administration

Appendix 11 - 1

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 151 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Line
Number
22210
22430
22710
22850
22950
8230
13480
13640
13850
14080
14240
MINUS
Multiple
Lines
Multiple
Lines
2505
2506
2511
2705
6980
7620
7629
7355
7120
7130
7135
7140
8180
8190
8220
13580
13590
13800
14180
14190
195
196
197
198

Description
Allocated Benefits: Operations and Maintenance of Plant
Allocated Benefits: Business and Other Support Services
Unallocated Benefits
Allocated Benefits: Central Services
Allocated Benefits: Admin. Information Technology
Total Equipment
Demonstrably Effective Program Aid Total Instruction
Demonstrably Effective Program Aid Total Support Services
Distance Learning Network Aid Total Support Services
Instructional Supplement Aid Total Instruction
Instructional Aid Total Support Services
T.P.A.F. Contributions

ERIP

Other Retirement Contributions - ERIP
Preschool Salaries of Teachers
Local Contribution Transfer to Special Revenue
Local Contribution Transfer to Special Revenue
Abbott Parity Set Aside
Judgments Against the School District
Increase in Maintenance Reserve
Rental of Land & Buildings other than Lease-Purchase Agreement
Increase in Sale/Lease-back Reserve
Sale/Lease-back Payment
Interest on Current Loans
Interest on Lease Purchase Agreements
Interest on Bond Anticipation Notes
Equipment: School Buses Regular
Equipment: School Buses Special
Equipment: Special Schools (All Programs)
Demonstrably Effective Program Aid: Rentals
Demonstrably Effective Program Aid: Transportation
Distance Learning Network Aid: Rentals
Instructional Supplement Aid: Rentals
Instructional Supplement Aid: Transportation
Tuition from Individuals
Tuition from Other LEAs Within the State
Tuition from Other LEAs Outside the State
Tuition from Other Sources

Appendix 11 - 2

 HUD-L-OO1710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 152 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

EXHIBIT 

HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 153 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827
40:48C-15. Authorization; rate; approval of reduction in rate, NJ ST 40:48C-15

KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment
Proposed Legislation

 

New Jersey Statutes Annotated
Title 40. Municipalities and Counties
Subtitle 3. Municipalities Generally (Refs & Annos)
Chapter 48C. Local Tax Authorization Law (Refs & Annos)
Article 5. Employer Payroll Tax
N.J.S.A. 40:48C-15
40:48C-15. Authorization; rate; approval of reduction in rate
Effective: July 24, 2018
Currentness
a. Any municipality may by ordinance impose and collect an employer payroll tax for general municipal purposes of the
municipality, or for the purposes set forth in subsection d. of this section, at a rate of up to one percent of the employer's
payroll.

b. A municipality may by ordinance adjust the rate of an employer payroll tax imposed and collected pursuant to
subsection a. of this section, provided that the rate does not exceed one percent. Any reduction in an employer payroll
tax while the municipality is in receipt of aid provided through the Transitional Aid to Localities program, or any
other discretionary aid program for municipalities in fiscal distress, shall be subject to approval by the Department of
Community Affairs.

c. An ordinance adopted pursuant to subsection a. of this section may provide that the employer payroll tax shall not
apply to the remuneration paid by employers to employees who are residents of the municipality.

d. (1) If a municipality adopts an ordinance pursuant to subsection a. of this section and the municipality has a median
household income of $55,000 or greater according to the most recent American Community Survey five-year estimate
by the United States Census Bureau, all employer payroll tax revenues collected by the municipality pursuant to the
ordinance shall be deposited into a trust fund to be used exclusively for school purposes, inclusive of charter schools.

(2) The governing body of the municipality shall monthly pay employer payroll tax revenues deposited in the trust
fund over to the board secretary or treasurer of school moneys, as appropriate, of the school district coextensive with
the municipality or of which the municipality comprises a part, in an amount equal to one-twelfth of the difference in
State school aid provided to that school district, pursuant to P.L.2007, c. 260 (C.18A:7F-43 et al.) and P.L.2018, c. 67
(C.18A:7F-67 et al.), between the current State fiscal year and State fiscal year 2018, for use in lieu of adjustment aid
and all other categories of State school aid.

(3) Any balance remaining in the trust fund shall be reserved for use toward making payments pursuant to paragraph
(2) of this subsection in the event the employer payroll tax revenues collected in a year are insufficient to pay the full
amount provided for under that paragraph.

© 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

1

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 154 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827
40:48C-15. Authorization; rate; approval of reduction in rate, NJ ST 40:48C-15

Credits
L.1970, c. 326, § 15, eff. Dec. 23, 1970. Amended by L.2017, c. 35, § 1, eff. March 22, 2017; L.2018, c. 68, § 1, eff. July
24, 2018.

N. J. S. A. 40:48C-15, NJ ST 40:48C-15
Current with laws through L.2019, c. 60 and J.R. No. 4
End of Document

© 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

© 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

2

 HUD-L-OO1710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 155 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

EXHIBIT 

HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 156 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827
City Clerk File No..
Agenda No.^
Agenda No. .

Ord. 18-133
4.F

1st Reading
_2nd Reading & Final Passage

COUNCIL AS A WHOLE
offered and moved adoption of the following ordinance:

CtTY ORDINANCE 18-133
TITLE:

ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REPLACING ARTICLE IV OF CHAPTER 304 (TAXATION)
OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE (IMPOSING A TAX ON EMPLOYERS' PAYROLL OF NON-JERSEY
CITY RESIDENTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF (ERSEY CITY SCHOOLS)
THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF (ERSEY CITY HEREBY ORDAINS:
WHEREAS, the City of Jersey City ["the City") will experience a significant decrease in State
funding for its public schools over the next five years; and
WHEREAS the City is committed to maintaining the quality of education in its schools and
ensuring that every child receives a comprehensive education; and

WHEREAS, the State legislature has authorized municipalities to impose and collect an
employer payroll tax pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:48C"14 et seq; and

WHEREAS the Supreme Court of New Jersey declared the current contents of Article IV of
Chapter 304 of the Municipal Code (the "1995 Payroll Tax") void and unenforceable in
Hudson County v. Jersey City, 153 N.J. 254 [1998),
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Municipal Council of the City of Jersey City that
the 1995 Payroll Tax is hereby revoked and the following shall replace it in its entirety:

ARTICLE IV - 2018 PAYROLL TAX
§304-18. DEFINITIONS,
As used in this article, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated:
Audit Notice shall mean a letter issued by the Director to an Employer or supposed
Employer requesting information regarding its potential payroll tax liability.
Certificate of Indebtedness shall mean a certificate issued by the Director reflecting an
unpaid assessment of payroll taxes by an Employer. A certificate of indebtedness shall reflect
the name and address of the Taxpayer, the amount of the debt so certified as being owed and
the periods for which such amounts are owed.

Charitable Organization shall mean a nonprofit organization that qualifies for tax
exemption under Section 501(c)[3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
City shall mean the City of Jersey City, in the County of Hudson, State of New Jersey.
Director shall mean the Chief Financial Officer of the City, including his or her designee
and/or agent.

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 157 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827
18-133

Continuation of City Ordinance. ;_ipage

Employee shall mean any individual in the service of an Employer, under an appointment
or contract of hire or apprenticeship, express or implied, oral or written, pursuant to which
such Employer controls or has the right to control the manner and performance of the
Employee's work. In addition, for purposes of this tax, and irrespective of the common law
tests for determining the existence of an independent contractor relationship, an individual
performing work or service for compensation shall be deemed to be an Employee of the
person for whom the work or service is performed unless: (1) such individual has been and
will continue to be free from control or direction over the performance of such work or

service under his/her appointment of contract of hire or apprenticeship; (2) such work or
service is outside the usual course of the business of the person for which such service is

performed; or, (3) such individual is customarily engaged in an independently established
trade/ occupation, business or profession. A licensed real estate salesperson is deemed
an Employee of the broker under whom he or she is licensed.
Employer shall mean any individual, entity, corporation, company, association, society, firm,
partnership, limited liability company or partnership, joint stock company, trust, estate, or
foundation, whether or not such entity is for profit or nonprofit entity, and regardless of
where such entity is formed or operated, standing in the position of Employer in an

Employer-Employee relationship, having one [1] or more Employees, and having a Payroll
in excess of two thousand five hundred [$2,500,00) dollars in any calendar quarter; other
than
a. The government of the United States;
b. The State of New Jersey, or a County, municipality, school district or special district of

the State;
c. An interstate agency;
d. An agency or instrumentality of any entity enumerated in subsection a, b, or c. above;
e. Any insurance company formed by authority of another State or foreign country,
subject to the provisions ofN,J.S.A. 17:32-15.
An entity which contracts with any of the entities identified in subsections a.-e, shall not be

exempt from the definition of Employer.
Final Notice shall mean a notice of deficiency, which shall be issued by the Director prior to
the commencement of legal proceedings to seek collection.
Internal Revenue Code shall mean the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
Interim Notice shall mean a notice of proposed assessment, which offers the Taxpayer a
hearing with the Director, The Director may combine an audit notice with an interim notice.
Leased Employee shall mean any person who'is not an Employee of the recipient Employer
and who provides services to the recipient Employer in the City if (0 such services are
provided pursuant to an agreement between the recipient Employer and any other person,

and [iy services are performed under primary direction or control of the recipient.

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 158 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Continuation of City Ordinance_ ^", -I-*J^ _ipage.

A leased Employee shall be considered an Employee of the recipient Employer for purposes
of this chapter unless the recipient Employer demonstrates to the Director that the leasing,

organization is including the Payroll relating to such leased Employee within its payroll tax
return. The entire amount paid to the leasing company shall be treated as part of such
Employer s Payroll, unless the recipient Employer demonstrates to the Director that a lesser
amount should be used.
Payroll shall mean an amount equal to the total renumeration paid by an Employer to

Employers which is subject to Federal income tax withholding by the Employer for Federal
income tax purposes for services rendered, other than domestic services in a private
residence, if:

a. The services are performed within the City of Jersey City; or
b. The services are performed outside of the City of Jersey City, but the place from which
the services are supervised is in the City of Jersey City.
Such amount shall generally be based on the amount reportable by the Employer on its
Federal Form 941 and shall include, but not be limited to, all wages, bonuses, commissions,

tips, property, the right to
Schools shall mean all Jersey City public schools.
Services. For the purposes of this chapter, an individual shall be considered in the service of

an Employer if [i] he is subject to the authority of the Employer to supervise and direct the
manner of rendition of his service/ or he is rendering professional or technical services and

is integrated into the staff of the Employer, or he is rendering, on the property used in the
Employer's operations, other personal services the rendition of which is integrated into the
Employer s operations, and (ii) he renders such services for compensation.

Supervision. Services shall be considered to be supervised from the City if an individual who
either works in or is based in the City has the right to control and direct the manner of
rendition of the Employee's service, has hiring and firing responsibility, and oversees the
work of such Employee.
Taxpayer shall mean a person, partnership, association, corporation, or other entity

required hereunder to file a payroll tax return, and to pay the payroll tax imposed by this
chapter,

Trust Fund shall mean the trust fund established pursuant to paragraph [a) of Section 19.1
of this article.

§304-19. TAX IMPOSED.
Except as provided in subsection [a) below, there is hereby imposed on every Employer a
tax equal to 1% of the Employers' Payroll, on all Payrolls related to services performed on or

after the first day of the first month of the calendar quarter in which this article takes effect;
provided, however, that no tax shall be imposed with respect to services performed in any
calendar quarter prior to that in which this article was adopted.

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 159 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Continuation of City Ordinance_''"" -1""_.page

a. An Employer shall incur no payroll tax relative to its Jersey City-resident Employees. In

order for an Employer to claim and pay a reduced payroll tax obligation, the Employer
must provide the Director, with written evidence and documentation, to the Director's
satisfaction, of the relevant Employees' Jersey City residency statuses.
b. A charitable organization, as defined above, shall calculate the tax that would otherwise

be attributable to the City and file a return, but shall only pay the tax on that portion of
its Payroll expense attributable to business activity for which a tax may be imposed
pursuant to Section 511 of the Internal Revenue Code. If the charity has purchased or is

operating branches, affiliates, subsidiaries or other business entities that do not
independently meet the standards of a charity, the tax shall be paid on the Payroll
attributable to such for profit branches, affiliates or subsidiaries, whether or not the
Employees are leased or placed under the auspices of the charity's umbrella or parent
organization.

§ 304-19.1. TRUST FUND AND DISTRIBUTION OF PAYROLL TAX PROCEEDS.
a. The Director shall create a trust fund to be used exclusively for School purposes.

b. All revenue collected by the City pursuant to Section 19 of this article shall be deposited
into the Trust Fund.
c. The City Business Administrator , including his or her designee and/or agent, shall

monthly pay Employer payroll tax revenues deposited in the Trust Fund over to the
treasurer of school moneys of the school district coextensive with the municipality or of

which the municipality comprises a part in an amount equal to one-twelfth Ct-/^2) of the
difference in State school aid provided to that school district, pursuant to NJ.S.A. l8A:7F43 et al. and N.J.S.A, 18A:7F-67 et al., between the current State fiscal year and State fiscal
year 2018.

d. All tax revenue distributed under this section shall be used in lieu of State adjustment
aid and all other categories of State School aid,
e. Any monthly balance remaining in the Trust Fund shall be reserved for use toward

making future payments pursuant to paragraph [c) of this section.
f. In the event that, when a monthly Trust Fund payment becomes due, the balance of the
Trust Fund is insufficient to make a payment pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section,

the City Business Administrator shall pay the remaining balance of the Trust Fund over
to the treasurer of school moneys of the school district coextensive with the municipality

or of which the municipality comprises a part for that month only,
§ 304-19.2. ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT.
a. Powers and Duties of Director.
1. The Director is charged with the-administration and enforcement of the provisions of
this chapter, and is empowered to prescribe, adopt, promulgate and enforce rules and
regulations relating to any matter pertaining to the administration and enforcement
of this chapter, including provisions for the reexamination and corrections of

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 160 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827
18-133
^^ 5
Continuation of City Ordinance_
10-1J'3 _ ipage
declarations and returns, and of payment alleged or found to be incorrect, or as to
which an overpayment is claimed or found to have occurred, and to prescribe forms
necessary for the administration of this chapter. Should an Employer fail or refuse to
provide adequate information to the Director to determine the amount of payroll tax

due, the Director may use prior year information of the Employer and/or information
provided to the Director from other sources (i.e., the New Jersey Departments of
Labor and/or Revenue) to determine the amount of payroll tax liability.
2. It shall be the duty of the Director to collect and receive the taxes, fines, and penalties

Imposed by this chapter. It shall also be the duty of the Director to keep a record
showing the date of such receipt,
3. The Director is authorized to enter into agreements with the State of New Jersey

Department of Labor and/or Department of Revenue to obtain information regarding
Employers, their Employees and their Payroll to facilitate administration of the
payroll tax.
4. The Director is authorized to issue a ruling upon written request of a Taxpayer or
upon its own volition.
b. Examination of Books and Records of Taxpayers and Employers.
1. The Director is hereby authorized to examine the books, papers and records of any
Employer or supposed Employer, or of any Taxpayer or supposed Taxpayer, in order
to verify the accuracy of any declaration or return, or if no declaration or return was
filed, to ascertain thg tax due. Every Employer or supposed Employer, and every
Taxpayer or supposed Taxpayer, is hereby directed and required to give to the
Director, or to any agent designated by him/her, the means, facilities and opportunity
for such examinations and investigations, as are hereby authorized.
2. If records are not available in the City to support the returns which were filed or

which should have been filed, the Taxpayer will be required to make them available
to the Director either by producing them in a City location or by paying for -the
expenses incurred by the Director or his agent in traveling to the place where the
records are regularly kept,

c. Records to Be Kept for the Employer. Taxpayers and Employers liable for the payroll tax
are required to keep such records as will enable the filing of true and accurate returns or
the tax and such records shall be preserved for a period of not less than seven [7) years
from the filing date or due date, whichever is later, in order to enable the Director or any
agent designated by him to verify the correctness of the declarations or returns filed.
d. Audits.
1. The Director shall initiate an audit by means of an audit notice. If, as a result of an
examination conducted by the Director,'a return has not been filed by an Employer or
a return is found to be incorrect and payroll taxes are owed, the Director is authorized
to assess and collect any payroll tax due. If no return has been filed and tax is found

to be due, the tax actually due may be assessed and collected with or without the
formality of obtaining a return from the Taxpayer. Deficiency assessments (i.e., where

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 161 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Continuation of City Ordinance__ •L" •L 'J'J _ipage.

a Taxpayer has filed a return but is found to owe additional tax] shall include taxes
for up to three (3) years to the date when the deficiency is assessed. Where no return
was filed, there shall be no limit to the period of assessment.
2. Upon proposing an assessment, the Director shall send the Employer an interim
notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, which advises the Taxpayer of

additional payroll taxes that are due, along with penalties and interests. Should the
Taxpayer wish to dispute the assessment administratively by requesting a hearing
with the Director, it must do so within thirty [30] days of the date of such interim
notice.

3. If, after the Director sends an interim notice, a Taxpayer fails to timely request a
hearing with the Director or requests a hearing and after conducting a hearing, the
Director determines that payroll taxes are due/ the Director shall send the Employer
by certified mail, return receipt requested, a final notice. Should the Taxpayer wish to
dispute the assessment, he or she must do so in the manner described in Section 19.5
of this chapter.

§ 304-19.3. RETURN REQUIREMENT; REGISTRATION,
a. Filing a Return; Payment of Tax. All Employers are required to file a payroll tax return
with the Director to report their Payroll during each calendar quarter and the amount of
payroll tax in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Returns shall be filed and
payments of payroll tax imposed for the preceding calendar quarter shall be made on or

before the last day of April, July, October, and January respectively. An Employer who
conducts business in the City on a temporary, seasonal or itinerant basis shall file a return
and pay the tax within ten [10} days of the completion of the temporary, seasonal, or
itinerant business, but not less frequently than quarterly. Should the amount reflected on

an Employer's Federal Form 941 be revised or amended at any time after the payroll tax
return for such period has been filed [by the Employer or by the Internal Revenue
Service), the Employer is required to amend its payroll tax return to be consistent

therewith within three (3) months of the date of such revision or amendment.
b. Registration. Every Employer must be registered with the City in accordance with any
Jersey City Business Registration Ordinance and any existing business registration law.

Should an Employer cease doing business in the City or having Payroll subject to the
payroll tax, it shall notify the Director within three [3] months of such date.
c. Prohibition Against Deduction or Withholding, No Employer shall deduct or withhold any
amount from the remuneration payable to an Employee because of the tax imposed by
this chapter.

§ 304-19.4, SUITS FOR TAX COLLECTIONS, VIOLATIONS, FINES, INTEREST AND
PENALTIES.
a. Remedies Not Mutually Exclusive. The remedies provided in this section are not mutually

exclusive. The utilization by the Director of one remedy does not preclude utilization of
the other. Moreover, any use of the remedies provided in these sections does not

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 162 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Continuation of City Ordinance,

..page.

preclude the use by the City of any other legal or administrative procedure which can
bring about compliance by the Taxpayer with the provisions of this chapter.
b. Suits for Recovery of Unpaid Taxes. The Director may sue in the name of the City in law or
in equity, for the recovery of those payroll taxes due and unpaid under the provisions of
the payroll tax, to compel the production of records or to enforce any other provisions of
the law.
c. Limitations.

1. The following periods of limitations shall apply to suits for collection of payroll taxes:
i. When a return has been filed but no tax paid, any suit brought to recover the

tax due and unpaid shall be filed within three [3] years after the return was
due or filed, whichever is later. Where no return was filed or a fraudulent
return was filed, there shall be no limits to file suit for the collection of taxes.

it, A return filed before the due date Is deemed to be filed on the due date.
iii. Extension by Agreement. Where, before the expiration of the time prescribed

in this section for the filing a lawsuit against the Taxpayer, both the Director
and the Taxpayer have consented in writing to its extension after such time/

the suit may be filed at any time prior to the expiration of the period agreed
upon. The period so agreed upon may be extended by subsequent agreements

in writing made before the expiration of the period previously agreed upon.
d. Penalty and Interest.
1. If for any reason the payroll tax is not paid when due, Interest at the rate of twelve

(12%) percent per annum on the amount of tax and a penalty of one-half (1/1%}
percent per month for each month or fraction of a whole month during the period in
which the tax remains unpaid shall be added to the tax.
2. On any additional tax determined to be due as a result of a deficiency assessment,
penalty and interest will be assessed from the date the tax should have been paid to
the date of payment. Penalty and interest is calculated as described above in -the
applicable portion of subsection 1.
3, Where suit is brought for the recovery of such tax, the person liable therefore shall,

in addition, be liable for the costs of collection and the interest and penalties herein
imposed. Once due and owing, penalty and interest become part of the tax and shall
be collected as such. A person's belief that no tax is due and owing, or the failure of
any person to receive or obtain the forms required for making the returns required

under this chapter is not a valid defense to the imposition of penalties herein for
violation. Good faith shall not be a defense to the imposition of penalty.
e. Fines and Penalties for Violations.
1- Violations. No person shall:
L Fail, neglect or refuse to make any return or provide any reports required by
this chapter.

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 163 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827
18-133 8

Continuation of City Ordinance__ ipage.

ti. Refuse to permit an officer or agent designated by the Director to examine the
books, records, papers or accounts of any business taxable or otherwise to

determine liability.
in. Knowingly make any Incomplete, false or fraudulent report or attempt to do
anything whatever to avoid full disclosure of the amount of payroll tax due to

avoid the payment in whole or in part of the payroll tax.
2. In addition to any other penalties or enforcement proceedings provided for the
collection and enforcement of payroll taxes by applicable law, any person who

commits a violation of this chapter shall, upon conviction, be subject to a fine of not
less than one hundred ($100.00) dollars and not exceeding two thousand ($2,000.00)
dollars, imprisonment for a term not exceeding ninety (90) days and/or a period of
community service not exceeding ninety (90) days. Any person who is convicted of

violating this chapter within one (1) year of the date of a previous violation of this
chapter and who was fined for such previous violation, shall be sentenced to an

additional fine as a repeat offender, which fine shall not be less than the minimum
and not more than the maximum fine fixed for a violation of this chapter.
3. The fines and terms of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be in addition
to any other relief granted to the City of a monetary nature under the provisions of
this chapter.

f. Certificate of Indebtedness. Upon making an assessment of payroll tax or additional
payroll tax, the Director rbiay issue a certificate of indebtedness, which shall be filed with
the Clerk of the Superior Court to record as a judgment against the Employer.

§ 304-19.S, TAXPAYER REMEDIES,
a. Director Hearings.
1. Any person who receives an interim notice from the Director may within thirty [30)
days after the date of an interim notice, request a hearing with the Director.
2. Any person who fails to request a Director's hearing within a timely manner waives
the right to administratively contest any element of the assessment.
b. Payment Under Protest. The Director will accept payments of disputed tax amounts under
protest pending appeals; however, any request for refund of such monies must be filed
in accordance with subsection d of this section,
c. Refunds.
1. A Taxpayer who has overpaid the payroll tax, or who believes he is not liable for the
payroll tax may file a written request on an amended tax return with the Director for
a refund or a credit of the tax. A request for refund or a credit shall be made within

three (3) years of the due date for filing the report or one (1~) year after actual
payment of the tax, whichever is later. If no report is required, the request shall be

made within three {3] years after due date for payment of the tax or within one (1)
year after actual payment of the tax, whichever is later.

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 164 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827
18-133 9

Continuation of City Ordinance__ ", ~~~ _ .page.

2. For amounts paid as a result of a notice asserting or informing a Taxpayer of an
underpayment, a written request for a refund shall be filed with the Director within

one (1) year of the date of the payment.
3. Erroneous Refund Recovery. The Director may sue for recovery of an erroneous
refund provided such suit is begun two (2) years after making such refund, except

that the suit may be brought at any time if any part of the refund was induced by fraud
or misrepresentation of material fact. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Director

may file a law suit within the limitations period under Section 19.4[c] of this chapter,
if such period ends after the two [2) year period specified in the preceding sentence.
d. Appeals. Any aggrieved Employer may, within ninety [90] days after the mailing of any
final notice regarding a decision, order, finding assessment or action of the Director,
appeal to the tax court in accordance with the provisions of the State Tax Uniform
Procedure Law,NJ,S.A. 54:48-1 etseq. by filing a petition of appeal and upon payment of

the amount stated by the Director to be due. The appeal provided by this section shall be
the exclusive remedy available to any Employer for review of a final decision of the

Director in respect to a determination of liability for the tax imposed by this chapter. If
no such appeal is filed on a timely basis, the aggrieved party waives his right to contest
any element of the Director's adjudlcation, and that party's failure to challenge the same
will be construed as an admission by that party as to the propriety of the Director's
decision. No hearing or appeal will operate to suspend the accrual of penalty and interest
from the date the tax was' due to the date it is actually paid.

§ 304.20. INFORMATION CONFIDENTIAL.
Any information contained in an Employer's report or received by the City of Jersey City or
any of its officers or Employees as a result of any investigation, hearing or verification of a

report shall not be disclosed except for official purposes, and shall not be disclosed except in
accordance with an order of a court pr as otherwise provided by law.

§ 304-21, PROHIBITION AGAINST DEDUCTION OR WITHHOLDING.
No Employer shall deduct or withhold any amount from the remuneration payable to an
Employee because of the tax imposed by this article.

§ 304-22. LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER TO ONLY ONE MUNICIPALITY.
No employer shall be obligated to report and pay an employer payroll tax, or any interest,
penalty or costs with respect thereto, to more than one municipality with respect to
remuneration paid to an employee for services performed. Where any dispute as to the

liability for an employer payroll tax to more than one municipality for services performed by
an employee is not resolved by agreement between the employer and the municipalities, all

of said municipalities shall be joined in a proceeding in the tax court to collect the tax alleged
to be due.

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 165 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827
18-133 10

- Continualion of City Ordinance_~ _ ,page.

§ 304-23. EFFECTIVE DATE AND SUNSET PROVISION.
a. This ordinance shall take effect on January 1, 2019.
b. This ordinance shall remain in effect only until December 31, 2020 unless an extension

or re-authorization is approved by the Municipal Council of the City of Jersey City
§ 304-24. DIVISION OF LOCAL FINANCE,
TheCity Clerk shall file a copy of this article with the Director of the Division of Local Finance
in the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs. He shall likewise file any amendments
to this article, including any regulations promulgated in accordance with Section 19.2 of this
article,
A. All ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed.

B. This ordinance shall be a part of the Jersey City Code as though codified and set forth
fully herein. The City Clerk shall have this ordinance codified and incorporated in the
official copies of the Jersey City Code.
C, The City Clerk and the Corporation Counsel be and are hereby authorized and
directed to change any chapter numbers, article numbers and section numbers in the
event that the codification of this ordinance reveals that there is a conflict between
those numbers and the existing code, in order to avoid confusion and possible
repeaters of existing provisions.

HB/mma

11/01/2018

APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM APPROVED^
APPROVED:_
Corporation Counsel Business Administrator

Certification Required d
Not Required D

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 166 of 166 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

ORDINANCE FACT SHEET
This summary sheet is to be attached to the front of any ordinance that is submitted for Council
consideration. Incomplete or vague fact sheets will be returned with the ordinance.

Full Title of Ordinance/Resolution

ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REPLACING ARTICLE IV OF CHAPTER 304
(TAXATION) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE (IMPOSING A TAX ON EMPLOYERS'
PAYROLL OF NON-JERSEY CITY RESIDENTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF JERSEY CITY

SCHOOLS)

Iuitiafor
Department/Division
Name/Title
Phone/email

Business Administration
Brian PIatt

Business Administrator

BPlatt(a),icm.org

201-547-5147

Note: Initiator must be available by phone during agenda meeting (Wednesday prior to council meeting @ 4:00
p.m.)

Ordinance Purpose

The purpose of this ordinance is to establish a payroll tax on the payrolls ofnon-Jersey
City residents for the benefit of the Jersey City schools.

I certify that all,the facts presented herein are accurate,

n?
Signature of Department Director Date

 HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 1 of 26 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

JERSEY CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
and E.H., a minor, by his guardian ad LAW DIVISION: HUDSON COUNTY
litem, SHANNA C. GIVENS,
DOCKET NO.: HUD-LPlaintiffs,
CIVIL ACTION
v.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, NEW
JERSEY
DEPARTMENT
OF
EDUCATION,
DR.
LAMONT
REPOLLET, in his official capacity as
Commissioner of Education, NEW
JERSEY OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
AND
BUDGET,
NEW
JERSEY
DEPARTMENT
OF
TREASURY,
ELIZABETH MAHER MUOIO, in her
official capacity as New Jersey State
Treasurer,
Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS' BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
SEEKING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

GENOVA BURNS LLC
494 Broad Street
Newark, New Jersey 07102
(973) 533-0777
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
Jersey City Board of Education and
E.H., a minor, by his guardian ad litem,
Shanna C. Givens
Of Counsel and on the Brief
Angelo J. Genova, Esq.
Jennifer Borek, Esq.
On the Brief
Matthew S. Oorbeek, Esq.
Paul L. Tractenberg, Esq. (Attorney at Law)

HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 2 of 26 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................... i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................ ii
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ........................................................................... 1
STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................. 4
LEGAL ARGUMENT ....................................................................................... 4
This Court Should Temporarily and Preliminarily Enjoin the Reductions in Adjustment Aid
to JCBOE as a Result of Recent Amendments to SFRA. ........................................... 4
A. Temporary and Preliminary Injunctive Relief is Appropriate in this Case to Prevent
Irreparable Harm to Plaintiffs and Maintain the Status Quo. .............................. 6
B. The Legal Rights Underlying Plaintiffs' Claims are Well-Settled and Plaintiffs can
make a Preliminary Showing of a Reasonable Probability of Success on the Merits. 10
C. Injunctive Relief is Appropriate in this Case Because the Balance of the Harm Favors
the Granting of Preliminary Relief. ........................................................... 20
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 22

i

HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 3 of 26 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES
Abbott v. Burke,
149 N.J. 145 (1997) (Abbott IV) ................................................................... 7, 11
Abbott v. Burke,
196 N.J. 544 (2008) (Abbott XIX)....................................................... 8, 11, 12, 18
Abbott v. Burke,
199 N.J. 140, 153 (2009) (Abbott XX) ......................................................... passim
Abbott v. Burke,
206 N.J., 332 (2011) (Abbott XXI).............................................................. passim
Crowe v. DeGoia,
90 N.J. 126 (1992).................................................................................. passim
Green v. Piper,
80 N.J. Eq. 288 (Ch. 1912) .............................................................................. 5
Industrial Electronics Corp. v. Cline,
330 F.2d 480 (3d Cir. 1964) ............................................................................. 5
Peters v. Pub. Serv. Corp. of N.J.,
132 N.J. Eq. 600 (Ch. 1942), aff'd o.b., 133 N.J. Eq. 283 (E &A. 1943) ..................... 3
Thompson v. City of Paterson,
9 N.J. Eq. 624 (E & A. 1854) ........................................................................ 3, 5
Waste Management of New Jersey, Inc. v. Union County Utilities Authority,
399 N.J. 508 (App. Div. 2008)..................................................................... 4, 10
Wyrough & Loser, Inc. v. Pelmor Laboratories, Inc.,
376 F.2d 543 (3d Cir.1967) .............................................................................. 5
STATUTES
N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-38(a) ..................................................................................... 14
N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-38(a)(1) .................................................................................. 14
N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-44(i) ...................................................................................... 12
N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-46(a) ..................................................................................... 17
ii

HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 4 of 26 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-46 (b) .................................................................................... 17
N.J.S.A. 18A:7F--51(a) .................................................................................... 17
N.J.S.A. 18A:7F--55(f) ..................................................................................... 17
N.J.S.A. 18A:7F--57(a) .................................................................................... 17
N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-59 ......................................................................................... 17
N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-68(b)(1) .............................................................................. 5, 21
N.J.S.A. 40:48C-15 .......................................................................................... 8
RULES
Rule 4:52-1(a) ................................................................................................. 3
OTHER AUTHORITIES
N.J. Const. Art. VIII, Section IV, Para. 1 .............................................................. 20

iii

HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 5 of 26 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
A growing body of evidence demonstrates that when states invest in their public schools
and create more equitable school financing systems, student achievement levels rise. Yet for
over forty years, the State of New Jersey - which is constitutionally mandated to provide a
"thorough and efficient education" to all of its students - has failed its public-school students in
poorer urban districts with the lack of any comprehensive school funding scheme that would
provide them with the necessary tools to succeed in school and beyond. These failures have
resulted in a series of decisions and orders, first in Robinson v. Cahill then in Abbott v. Burke,
which struck down school funding statutes that violated the State's constitutional duty to provide
a thorough and efficient education to all students. The Abbott rulings established standards for
the right to education for New Jersey public school children, and in 2009, the Abbott Court
facially approved a statewide weighted student funding formula, implemented by the State as the
School Funding Reform Act of 2008 ("SFRA").
Unfortunately, now ten years since SFRA was implemented, it remains clear that
Defendants have continuously failed to comply with their obligations to ensure that the Jersey
City Board of Education ("JCBOE") is funded under SFRA at a level necessary to provide its
students with the proper education to which they are entitled. JCBOE has been fully funded at a
constitutionally required level in only the first year SFRA was implemented - the 2008-09 school
year. Since that first year, JCBOE has steadily been slipping further and further below adequacy.
And this year, Defendants took steps to ensure that JCBOE falls further below adequacy,
implementing recent amendments to SFRA which will eliminate in excess of $795 million in
state aid to JCBOE over the next five years. In the upcoming 2019-20 school year alone,
JCBOE's state aid has been cut by over $27 million, leading to the impending termination of
1

HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 6 of 26 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

over 400 teachers and support staff, and the elimination of special education, extra-curricular
and after-school programs.
If the recent amendments to SFRA are permitted to be implemented, resulting in millions
of dollars in additional reductions in state aid, the calamity that would ensue would be
insurmountable. Drastic cuts would have to be made, eliminating teaching and support positions,
and vital programs that currently ensure that an entire generation of JCBOE students achieve the
educational standards necessitated by the New Jersey Constitution. These negative impacts would
follow tens of thousands of JCBOE students for the rest of their lives, severely reducing their
chances of being accepted into college or other secondary schooling and hindering their ability
to be constructive members of the work force. JCBOE students are a diverse group, with a large
percentage of children coming from low income households with unique socio-economic issues
- including crime, poverty, limited English proficiency and mental health demands - that require
additional services, including subsidized meals, special education and out of district placements
due to Individualized Education Plans. With cuts of these proportions, it is easy to see how these
recent amendments would wipe out all the progress that has been made as a result of school
funding reforms stemming from decades of litigation.
Thus, JCBOE and a Jersey City student, E.H., along with his mother Shanna Givens (all
plaintiffs collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs") now seek preliminary injunctive relief to
maintain the status quo that existed prior to the SFRA amendments, in order to ensure that the
multitude of Jersey City students who face these devastating cuts will not be harmed pending the
Court's determination of this action. Even one child without a proper education is too many-the threat faced here will affect tens of thousands. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs will be
able to establish the necessary Crowe factors for granting such relief and, therefore, are entitled
2

HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 7 of 26 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

to an order enjoining the SFRA amendments from taking affect pending the outcome of this
litigation.

3

HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 8 of 26 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Statement of Facts is set forth at length in the Verified Complaint filed with this
brief.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
THIS
COURT
SHOULD
TEMPORARILY
AND
PRELIMINARILY ENJOIN THE REDUCTIONS IN
ADJUSTMENT AID TO JCBOE AS A RESULT OF RECENT
AMENDMENTS TO SFRA.
By way of Order to Show Cause, Plaintiffs seek temporary and preliminary restraints to
maintain the status quo among the parties until such time as Plaintiffs' rights under the Thorough
and Efficient Clause of the Constitution are acknowledged and effectuated. A party may obtain
immediate and preliminary relief during the pendency of an action through the use of an Order
to Show Cause brought with a Verified Complaint. Rule 4:52-1(a). New Jersey has long
recognized, in a wide variety of contexts, the power of the judiciary to "prevent some
threatening, irreparable mischief, which should be averted until opportunity is afforded for a full
and deliberate investigation of the case." Crowe v. DeGoia, 90 N.J. 126, 132 (1992) (quoting
Thompson v. City of Paterson, 9 N.J. Eq. 624, 625 (E & A. 1854)). The "point of temporary
relief is to maintain the parties in substantially the same condition 'when the final decree is
entered as they were when the litigation began.'" Crowe, 90 N.J. at 134 (quoting Peters v. Pub.
Serv. Corp. of N.J., 132 N.J. Eq. 600 (Ch. 1942), aff'd o.b., 133 N.J. Eq. 283 (E &A. 1943)).
The Supreme Court in Crowe firmly established equitable principles of law relating to
preliminary restraints by outlining the prerequisites to the issuance of injunctive relief. Crowe,
90 N.J. at 132-34. To obtain a temporary and/or preliminary injunction, the applicant must
establish the following: (1) that the applicant will suffer irreparable injury if the relief is denied;
(2) that the applicant's claim is based on a settled legal right; (3) that the applicant has made a
4

HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 9 of 26 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

preliminary showing of a reasonable probability of ultimate success on the merits; and (4) that
the balance of the equities weighs in favor of granting preliminary relief to maintain the status
quo pending the outcome of a final hearing. Id.
Courts will, however, more liberally view these prerequisites when the injunctive relief
is sought to preserve the status quo during the pendency of a legal proceeding. See Waste
Management of N.J., Inc. v. Union County Util. Auth., 399 N.J. Super. 508, 519, 20 (App.
Div. 2008). The Appellate Division has explained as follows:
...although it is generally understood that all the Crowe factors
must weigh in favor of injunctive relief, a court may take a less
rigid view than it would after a final hearing when the
interlocutory injunction is merely designed to preserve the
status quo. The issuance of an interlocutory injunction must be
squarely based on an appropriate exercise of sound judicial
discretion which - when limited to preserving the status quo during
the suit's pendency - may permit the court to place less emphasis
on a particular Crowe factor if another greatly requires the issuance
of the remedy.
Id. (emphasis added).
Here, although Plaintiffs seek nothing more than to preserve the status quo, they can
nonetheless establish each of the requirements set forth by Crowe. First, the reduction and
ultimate elimination of Adjustment Aid will cause irreparable damage to Plaintiffs, because the
reduction in state aid will prevent JCBOE from being able to provide a thorough and efficient
education to the students of JCBOE schools, including Plaintiff Given's child. Additionally,
Plaintiffs' cause of action is likely to succeed and is predicated on settled legal rights supported
by decades of school funding litigation, first in the Robinson v. Cahill line of cases and most
recently in the Abbott v. Burke litigation. Indeed, in Abbott the New Jersey Supreme Court
accorded students in poorer urban districts, including Jersey City, special constitutional status
and, accordingly, imposed upon the State the burden of justifying its actions. Abbott v. Burke,
5

HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 10 of 26 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

206 N.J., 332, 357 (2011) ("Abbott XXI") Finally, Plaintiffs' continued receipt of Adjustment
Aid will cause minimal harm to Defendants, but its phasing out would greatly prejudice
Plaintiffs. For these reasons, preliminary injunctive relief must be granted.
A. Temporary and Preliminary Injunctive Relief is Appropriate in this Case to
Prevent Irreparable Harm to Plaintiffs and Maintain the Status Quo.
To obtain preliminary injunctive relief, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that they will suffer
irreparable injury if the relief is denied. Crowe, 90 N.J. at 132. Injury is traditionally considered
irreparable if monetary damages are inadequate or unavailable as a remedy. Id. at 133. In
establishing the requisite element of "irreparable injury," Plaintiffs must only show a
"likelihood" of such harm. Thompson v. City of Paterson, 9 N.J. Eq. 624 (E & A. 1854); see
also Wyrough & Loser, Inc. v. Pelmor Laboratories, Inc., 376 F.2d 543 (3d Cir.1967);
Industrial Electronics Corp. v. Cline, 330 F.2d 480, 483 (3d Cir. 1964) (injunction should be
granted if irreparable injury "would possibly result" if relief were denied). In other words, a
movant must have no adequate remedy at law. Green v. Piper, 80 N.J. Eq. 288, 293 (Ch. 1912).
As set forth above, recent amendments to SFRA have been enacted which, if
implemented, would result in a loss of Adjustment Aid to JCBOE in the 2019-20 school year in
the amount of $27,192,633.00.1 N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-68(b)(1); see also Certification of Melvin
Wyns ("Wyns Cert."), ? 150. This cut in Adjustment Aid, if allowed to proceed, would have

While the recent amendments to SFRA provide that Adjustment Aid for the 2019-20 school
year would be reduced by thirteen percent, state aid notices providing the exact amount of, inter
alia, Adjustment Aid that JCBOE would receive in the 2019-20 school year were only made
available on March 8, 2019. See Complaint, ? 126. As such, it was not until that date that
Plaintiffs first learned of the full impact of the recent amendments to SFRA, that they would lose
over $27 million in Adjustment Aid. Id. ? 116. In fact, JCBOE had previously estimated that
the loss of Adjustment Aid for the 2019-20 school year would amount to approximately $14
million. Id.
1

6

HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 11 of 26 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

real and tangible negative effects on the education that JCBOE is able to provide its students, to
say nothing of the increased reductions in, and the ultimate elimination of, Adjustment Aid by
the 2024-25 school year.2
Notwithstanding JCBOE's local levy equaling $134,854,704 towards its Local Fair Share
("LFS"), representing an 8.43% increase over its 2018-19 contribution (see Wyns Cert., ? 155),
the loss of $27,192,633.00 stemming from the phase out of Adjustment Aid necessitates making
difficult cuts to JCBOE's instructional and support staff in order to balance its budget. The
reduction of Adjustment Aid in the 2019-20 school year, if permitted to be implemented, would
directly result in JCBOE cutting 410 jobs, of which 370 are instructional positions and 40 are
instructional support positions. See Complaint, ? 135. These instructional positions include, but
are not limited to, crisis intervention teachers, kindergarten teachers, elementary school teachers,
librarians, middle school teachers in a variety of subjects, high school teachers in a variety of
subjects, and special education teachers throughout JCBOE's schools. Id. at ?? 135(a)-(jj). The
forty instructional support staff positions that will be eliminated as a direct result of the phase
out of Adjustment Aid include guidance counselors, job placement coordinators, principals,
assistant principals, nurses, social workers, and supervisors. Id. at ?? 135(kk)-(ss). With the loss
of 410 instructional and support staff, JCBOE will be unable to maintain its current roster of
courses and programs, requiring cuts in these areas. Id. at ? 136. Class sizes will increase and
the constitutionally mandated compliance with Common Core Curriculum Standards ("CCCS")
will not be achieved. These reductions in resources necessary to provide a thorough and efficient
education will have a direct negative impact on graduation rates and test scores. Id. at ? 138-

Through 2024-25, it is estimated that JCBOE will cumulatively lose at least $795 million in
Adjustment Aid as a result of the recent amendments to SFRA. Wyns Cert., ? 149.
2

7

HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 12 of 26 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

139. These harms will not be felt by JCBOE students in this single year that cuts are made, but
will follow them throughout their remaining time in school, ultimately impacting their ability to
participate in the workplace. Such harms are immediate, irreparable, and not remedied by
monetary damages.
These cuts, and the harms they will cause to JCBOE students, must not be viewed in a
vacuum. Instead, the impacts of these cuts to Adjustment Aid and JCBOE falling further below
the Adequacy Budget should be viewed through the historical lens of JCBOE being funded below
the Adequacy Budget every year since the 2009-10 school year. See Wyns Cert., ? 15. The sum
of JCBOE's Adequacy Budget deficit since 2009 exceeds half a billion dollars, all incurred while
JCBOE was under State control. Id. at ? 142. This deficit has caused JCBOE's staffing levels
for many positions to be well below those set forth in SFRA's models developed to provide the
number of particular instructional and support staff positions necessary to comply with CCCS
and provide a thorough and efficient education. See Complaint, ?? 140-192. Consequently, the
cuts which are necessary as the direct result of the reduction in Adjustment Aid in the 2019-20
school year will only exacerbate JCBOE's staffing problems and it being out of compliance with
the models setting forth the level of staff necessary to provide a thorough and efficient education
to students in New Jersey. Increased funding, not a reduction as Defendants are currently
imposing on JCBOE, is needed for JCBOE's students to receive a thorough and efficient
education and to avoid the lifelong irreparable harms which stem from not receiving same.
The Court in Abbott v. Burke, 149 N.J. 145 (1997) ("Abbott IV") recognized the
connection between class size and the quality of education received by students, citing Richard
J. Murnane, Interpreting the Evidence on 'Does Money Matter?', 28 Harv. J. on Legis. 457
(1991) (finding that money, if spent prudently on such things as teachers and class-size reduction,
8

HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 13 of 26 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

has a substantial effect on education). 149 N.J. at 193. Additionally, the State carried out
extensive research regarding SFRA's determination of the funding necessary to provide students
with a meaningful opportunity to achieve the CCCS, the level of education that defines and
satisfies the constitutional standard of "thorough and efficient" education. Abbott v. Burke, 196
N.J. 544, 552-553 (2008) (Abbott XIX). The Adequacy Budget, and the calculations leading to
the Adequacy Budget, were developed to ensure sufficient funding to educate students to the
CCCS standards and to fund extracurricular and co-curricular activities necessary to provide a
thorough and efficient education. Abbott v. Burke, 199 N.J. 140, 153 (2009) ("Abbott XX").
The elimination of 410 teaching staff, special education staff, instructional support staff,
and the elimination of supporting programs as a result of the loss of Adjustment Aid for the
2019-20 school year will cause irreparable damage to the students of JCBOE. While the direct
harm caused to JCBOE is monetary in nature, in the form of the $27,192,633 cut of Adjustment
Aid, this harm cannot be compensated by later payment of these lost funds.3 These cuts are

It is anticipated that Defendants might argue that the payroll tax statute, recently amended to
permit Jersey City to impose a maximum 1% payroll tax, the revenue from which would be
provided for school funding (N.J.S.A. 40:48C-15), and the payroll tax ordinance passed by
Jersey City imposing such a tax (see Complaint, Ex. C), mitigates against the loss of Adjustment
Aid. Such an argument, however, is not persuasive for several reasons. First, it does not appear
that any verifiable estimates have been provided regarding the amount of revenue the payroll tax
is anticipated to generate per year, leading one to wonder if it will be sufficient to even cover
this first step of the Adjustment Aid phase out. See Wyns Cert., ? 179. Secondly, JCBOE's
tentative budget for the 2019-20 school year was released on March 20, 2019. See Wyns Cert.,
Ex. X. As no money has been collected from the payroll tax to date, no revenue from the payroll
tax is included in the budget, notwithstanding that the loss of Adjustment Aid in excess of $27
million is assured and must be included in JCBOE's budget. Therefore, JCBOE is forced to
implement a balanced budget for the 2019-20 school year, along with the associated cuts to
teachers, staffing and programs, which reflects a $27 million loss of Adjustment Aid without the
inclusion of any revenue generated by the payroll tax. Finally, the payroll tax and its imposition
in Jersey City is currently the subject of on-going litigation in the matter captioned Mack-Cali
Realty Corp., et al. v. State of New Jersey, et al., Docket No. HUD-L-4903-18. While the trial
court in that matter recently granted Defendants' motions to dismiss, Plaintiffs have indicated
3

9

HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 14 of 26 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

imminent and palpable, and will result in JCBOE's students' education not comporting with
CCCS and therefore not being thorough and efficient.

These days/months/years of

unconstitutional educational services to JCBOE students cannot be remedied even if this Court
ultimately rules in favor of Plaintiffs at the conclusion of this litigation. A restoration of funds
would not permit these students to go back in time to receive the quality education they should
have received in the first instance. While these students may ultimately benefit from a restoration
of Adjustment Aid in future school years, the harms suffered in the 2019-20 school year cannot
be remedied if these cuts are permitted to go into effect. It is not hyperbole to say that the
unconstitutional level of education received in the 2019-20 school year would disadvantage the
JCBOE students for life. Students have but one chance to get an education, be it elementary,
middle or high school. Receiving a less than thorough and efficient education for even a single
year, due to the elimination of 410 instructional and support staff positions as set forth above,
could negatively impact a student life prospects in both the near and long term. That constitutes
irreparable harm.
B. The Legal Rights Underlying Plaintiffs' Claims are Well-Settled, and Plaintiffs
can make a Preliminary Showing of a Reasonable Probability of Success on the
Merits.
Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction because they can demonstrate a
likelihood of success on their claims, which are based on settled legal rights. See Crowe, 90
N.J. at 133. This is especially the case since in Abbott, JCBOE students, along with their fellow
students from other former Abbott/SDA districts, were characterized as effectively wards of the
State entitled to special constitutional solicitude. Abbott XXI, 206 N.J. at 340. The result was

their intention to file an appeal. As a result, it is not assured that JCBOE will receive any school
funding from payroll tax revenue in the foreseeable future.
10

HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 15 of 26 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

that, contrary to the usual approach, the defendants, rather than the plaintiffs, were expected to
bear the burden of proof. Id. at 357.
Additionally, Plaintiffs note that the requirement to demonstrate a reasonable probability
of success on the merits is tempered by the well-established principle that mere doubt as to the
validity of the claim is not an adequate basis to refuse to maintain the status quo. This is because
the "purpose of temporary relief is to maintain the parties in substantially the same condition
'when the final decree is entered as they were when the litigation began.'" See Crowe, 90 N.J.
at 133. Even though the Crowe factors must be established clearly and convincingly to justify
the court using its equitable power to enter a preliminary injunction, the "court may take a less
rigid view than it would after a final hearing when the interlocutory injunction is merely designed
to preserve the status quo." Waste Management of New Jersey, Inc. v. Union County Utilities
Authority, 399 N.J. 508, 520 (App. Div. 2008).
Plaintiffs' legal rights are well settled regarding their continued entitlement to Adjustment
Aid, a funding mechanism created by the State to assist it in providing a thorough and efficient
education to the students of New Jersey. By phasing out Adjustment Aid over a five-year period,
many former Abbott/SDA districts, including JCBOE, will fall further below adequacy. See
Wyns Cert., ? 158. As demonstrated below, in falling further below adequacy, these districts
move further from being able to provide the resources necessary for their students to achieve a
thorough and efficient education.
The New Jersey Constitution states in pertinent part that "[t]he Legislature shall provide
for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient [education]." N.J. Const. Article
VIII, Section IV, Para. 1 ("Thorough and Efficient Clause"). The Thorough and Efficient Clause
makes a thorough and efficient education a fundamental right for all New Jersey children and an
11

HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 16 of 26 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

obligation of the State. Notwithstanding this constitutional obligation, the State has struggled for
decades to enact and implement a school funding scheme that passes constitutional muster, first
in Robinson v. Cahill and then in Abbott v. Burke, which commenced in 1981. See Abbott XIX,
196 N.J. at 549. The plaintiffs in the Abbott cases brought numerous challenges designed to hold
the State accountable to its constitutional obligation of providing a thorough and efficient
education to New Jersey's students. In the Court's view, "their success has enabled children in
Abbott districts to show measurable educational improvement." Id.
At the heart of SFRA is the Adequacy Budget, which is the main constitutional metric
for assuring that school districts have the minimum level of resources necessary for their students
to obtain a thorough and efficient education. Abbott XX, 199 N.J. at 153, 172. To create the
SFRA formula, the DOE used a methodology known as a Professional Judgment Panel ("PJP")
to develop a new funding mechanism. Abbott XIX, 196 N.J. at 552. The PJP method was used
to identify "desired performance standards, then develop[] prototypical model districts, and
finally employ[] panels of experts to determine the resources needed to reach the selected
performance standards in those districts." Id. The State's "use of the PJP methodology began
with a determination that its performance standards would be the Core Curriculum Content
Standards (CCCS), which were deemed in Abbott IV, [], to be a reasonable definition of a
constitutionally sufficient, thorough and efficient education." Id. at 552-53. The PJP method,
expert reports, and comments received during public hearings culminated in what became SFRA.
Id. at 552-54.
The legislative findings contained within SFRA state that:
[The] formula established under this act is the product of a careful
and deliberative process that first involved determining the
educational inputs necessary to provide a high-quality education,
including specifically addressing the supplemental needs of at-risk
12

HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 17 of 26 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

students and those with limited English proficiency (LEP), and a
determination of the actual costs of providing these programs. The
formula provides adequate funding that is realistically geared to the
core curriculum content standards, thus linking those standards
to the actual funding needed to deliver that content.
N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-44(i) (emphasis added). Judge Doyne, acting as Special Master in the
proceeding which eventually resulted in the Abbott XXI opinion, recognized that SFRA was
created "to ensure all students are provided with a thorough and efficient education" and was
developed "to determine what was fiscally necessary to deliver a thorough and efficient
education to all of the school children of New Jersey." Abbott XXI, 206 N.J. at 463 (emphasis
added). In finding SFRA facially constitutional, the Court in Abbott XX made clear that SFRA
and its education funding formula were only constitutional to the extent that SFRA ensured that
the resources necessary for a thorough and efficient education, defined by CCCS, are provided.
Abbott XX, 199 N.J. at 170. These holdings lead to the inescapable conclusion that funding at
the Adequacy Budget level is what is necessary for the State to comply with its constitutional
mandate to provide a thorough and efficient education. Otherwise, the Adequacy Budget would
be meaningless.
Believing that it had finally formulated and enacted a statute providing the funding
necessary for a thorough and efficient education, the State filed "a motion seeking declarations
that the SFRA satisfies the requirements of the thorough and efficient education clause of the
New Jersey Constitution and, further, that the Court's prior remedial orders concerning the
provision of a thorough and efficient education in the Abbott districts 'are no longer necessary.'"
Abbott XIX, 196 N.J. at 549. The result of Defendants' motion was the Court's opinion in
Abbott XX, which held that SFRA was facially constitutional, subject to two conditions: 1) the
State will continue to provide aid at the levels required by SFRA's formula; and 2) the weights
13

HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 18 of 26 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

comprising the SFRA formula, as well as its other operative parts, will be reviewed as required
by SFRA three years after implementation. 199 N.J. at 146. The Supreme Court based its ruling
on evidence adduced during remand proceedings before the special master and placed the burden
of proof on the State to demonstrate that SFRA would provide the resources necessary for a
thorough and efficient education. Id. at 151. The Court summarized the issue on remand as
whether:
the State had devised a funding formula that provided sufficient
support for the delivery of a thorough and efficient education as
defined by the [CCCS], even when applied in the context of the
peculiar difficulties faced by districts with concentrated levels of
at-risk pupils []. Only by meeting those concerns could SFRA
replace the remedial orders governing the provision of
education funding to Abbott districts."
Id. (emphasis added).
In analyzing SFRA and its formula, the Supreme Court discussed the different categories
of aid that districts would be entitled to receive in order to reach their Adequacy Budget. One
such type of aid analyzed, central to Plaintiffs' Verified Complaint and the instant application,
was Adjustment Aid. Id. at 157. As described by the Supreme Court:
Adjustment Aid is provided as transition assistance to SFRA's
funding methodology. It is designed to enable districts that are
spending above their Adequacy Budget to maintain their existing
level of spending without significant tax levy increases. Adjustment
Aid is provided if the sum of a district's Equalization Aid,
Categorical Aid, Extraordinary Aid, and Transportation Aid is less
than the district's 2007-2008 spending, plus two percent. If a
district's current-year aid is less than that amount, the district
receives Adjustment Aid for the difference.
Id. The Supreme Court further described the purpose of Adjustment Aid as a protective measure
implemented to alleviate the stress placed on districts in funding their LFS through local tax
levies. Id. at 165.
14

HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 19 of 26 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

The State conceded at the time that it expected each district would eventually be able to
contribute their LFS but that they were not expected to do so immediately. Id. at 166. Instead,
Adjustment Aid would be provided while districts increased their local levy to equal their LFS.
Id. at 155-56. The Court did not define how long it envisioned this "transition period," the
period of time it took districts to raise their local tax levy to equal LFS, to last.4 The Supreme
Court, however, envisioned Adjustment Aid lasting for that period of time. Id. at 155. JCBOE
continues to operate in this transition period, as its local tax levy has not yet matched its LFS,
necessitating Adjustment Aid to ensure that JCBOE does not fall further below adequacy.5 Wyns
Cert., ? 145.
Several factors have led to JCBOE experiencing an extended transition period and they
relate to how SFRA has been implemented. The first, and most relevant factor leading to the
continued existence of this transition period, is the cap on annual tax increases for school
districts. From 2008, the first year that SFRA was implemented, through July 12, 2010, the cap
on tax increases was 4%. See former N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-38(a)(1). See Certification of Angelo J.
Genova ("Genova Cert."), Exs. A-B. From July 13, 2010 to July 23, 2018, the cap on tax
increases was reduced to 2%. Former N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-38(a). Genova Cert., Ex. C. Therefore,
notwithstanding the sizeable gaps that existed between JCBOE's local levy and its LFS between
2008 and 2018, Wyns Cert., ? 145, JCBOE was hampered by SFRA in its ability to close those

Interestingly, there is no requirement in SFRA for a district to raise its local levy to equal its
LFS at any point.
4

While the Supreme Court apparently believed that Adjustment Aid would ensure that districts
would be able to reach the Adequacy Budget even during the transition period, see Abbott XX,
199 N.J. at 165-66, application of SFRA has not yielded such results. In fact, other than the first
year of SFRA implementation, JCBOE has consistently been funded below the Adequacy Budget,
with the gap only deepening. Wyns Cert., ? 15.
5

15

HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 20 of 26 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

gaps. As a result, JCBOE had, and still has, a continuing need for Adjustment Aid. The pace
at which JCBOE's LFS has increased relative to its overall Adequacy Budget has also contributed
to JCBOE remaining in this "transition period" where Adjustment Aid is necessary. Between the
2008-09 school year, the school year SFRA was implemented, and the 2019-20 school year,
JCBOE's Adequacy Budget increased more than thirty one percent (31%). Wyns Cert., ? 20.
During that same time period, however, JCBOE's LFS growth has outstripped the growth of its
Adequacy Budget, rising one hundred and forty two percent (142%). Wyns Cert., ? 21. This
explosive growth in JCBOE's LFS, coupled with the historical cap on tax increases, has led to
JCBOE's inability to raise its local levy to equal its LFS, resulting in the continued need for
Adjustment Aid.
As JCBOE continues to operate in this transition period, the time is not yet ripe for the
elimination of Adjustment Aid. In arguing for relief from the prior Abbott remedial orders and
in support of the facial constitutionality of SFRA, the State argued that Adjustment Aid, along
with Educational Adequacy Aid, was meant to bridge the gap between a district's LFS and its
tax levy. Genova Cert., Ex. D, pg. 44-45. These aids, the State argued, "completely obviated
the concern" of the plaintiffs to dramatically raise local levies to fund districts LFS." Id. at pg.
45. The State even argued that "no Abbott district was required to raise its local fair share." Id.
at pg. 43. The State's own arguments in support of finding SFRA constitutional are directly
contradicted by its recent actions in phasing out Adjustment Aid over the next five years.
Adjustment Aid, the State argued to the Supreme Court, "is a permanent part of the SFRA
and is just as reliable and non-discretionary as the other aid categories. Unlike the transition aid
provided under the QEA, Adjustment Aid is not designed to phase-out over time, but rather to
remain as a permanent safety net for Abbott districts as well as other districts." Id. (emphasis
16

HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 21 of 26 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

added). The Supreme Court was apparently convinced by these arguments as it held that
Adjustment Aid was necessary to ensure that districts could raise taxes slowly to increase their
local levy. Abbott XX, 199 N.J. at 165.
Defendants' drastic cut in Adjustment Aid in the 2019-20 school year in the amount of
$27,192,633, along with the ultimate elimination of Adjustment Aid by 2024-25, is contrary to
its assertions before the Supreme Court that Adjustment Aid is a permanent part of SFRA and
dramatically changes the SFRA formula that the Supreme Court held to be facially constitutional.
The Supreme Court made clear that, when it granted the State's motion for relief from prior
Abbott remedial orders in Abbott XX, it was authorizing the implementation of SFRA put before
it, not some "underfunded version of the formula." Abbott XXI, 206 N.J. at 341. When it found
SFRA facially constitutional, the Supreme Court cautioned that:
Our approval of SFRA under the State Constitution relies, as it
must, on the information currently available. But a state funding
formula's constitutionality is not an occurrence at a moment in
time; it is a continuing obligation. Today's holding issues in the
good faith anticipation of a continued commitment by the
Legislature and Executive to address whatever adjustments are
necessary to keep SFRA operating at its optimal level...There
should be no doubt that we would require remediation of any
deficiencies of a constitutional dimension, if such problems do
emerge.
Abbott XX, 199 N.J. at 146. These recent amendments to SFRA, phasing out Adjustment Aid,
not only lead to an underfunded version of SFRA, they essentially create a new funding formula,
at least as applied to JCBOE, since the amendments eliminate a still greatly needed aid category,
not authorized by the Supreme Court and in direct violation of Abbott XX and Abbott XXI.
Eliminating $27,192,633 of state aid to JCBOE, through the first step in the phasing out of
Adjustment Aid, is completely inconsistent with the Supreme Court order in Abbott XX that the
State should make periodic adjustments to SFRA to ensure that it is operating at an optimal level
17

HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 22 of 26 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

so that New Jersey students actually receive a thorough and efficient education. Abbott XX, 199
N.J. at 146.
Plaintiffs' arguments should not be misconstrued to mean that the Legislature lacks
authority to amend SFRA. SFRA, and the Supreme Court, required a review of the SFRA
formula's weights and other provisions after three years of implementation and every three years
thereafter. Abbott XX, 199 N.J. at 146; see also N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-46(a), (b), -51(a), -55(f), 57(a), and -59. Additionally, the Supreme Court mandated that the Commissioner "study the
limitations on growth levels in the districts and their abilities to meet the LFS." Abbott XX, 199
N.J. at 165. The State has submitted two Educational Adequacy Reports as required by SFRA
and the Supreme Court, which were both well past the statutory deadline. Wyns Cert., ?? 1718. The third Educational Adequacy Report, due on September 1, 2018, has not been issued to
date. Id. at ? 19. Notwithstanding the State's failure to comply with its obligations set forth in
SFRA and by the Supreme Court regarding the issuance of the Educational Adequacy Reports,
neither of the reports issued to date contains any mention of reductions in or elimination of
Adjustment Aid. Id. at ? 18. Therefore, SFRA was not amended in a manner provided for by
SFRA or the Supreme Court. Instead of the State periodically reviewing, and if need be revising,
SFRA in a way that ensures districts have the resources necessary to provide a thorough and
efficient education to students, the State has acted quite to the contrary. See Abbott XX, 199
N.J. at 146. This court's role is to guarantee that that is not permitted to stand, even temporarily.
In addition to the amendments to SFRA not being done in a way sanctioned by SFRA
or the Supreme Court, the State bears the burden of demonstrating that, with a $27,192,633.00
cut in funding this year and cuts in Adjustment Aid totaling $795 million by the 2024-25 school
year (see Wyns Cert., ? 149), JCBOE has received, and will receive, the funding necessary to
18

HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 23 of 26 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

provide a thorough and efficient education to its students. See Abbott XIX, 196 N.J. at 550,
559. The cuts in funding, done through the amendments to SFRA, do not simply affect the
statutory rights of the students of JCBOE, but rather impact Defendants' constitutional obligation
to provide a thorough and efficient education, which has been the subject of well over twenty
opinions and orders of the Supreme Court. Abbott XXI, 206 N.J. at 342-43. The Supreme Court
has held repeatedly that a review of SFRA, and by extension any amendments to SFRA, "cannot
begin with the familiar presumption [of constitutionality]." Abbott XX, 199 N.J. at 148. Instead,
the Supreme Court has shifted the burden onto the State to demonstrate that changes in the school
funding formula comport with the State's constitutional obligation to provide districts, such as
JCBOE, with the resources necessary to provide a thorough and efficient education to its
students. Id. at 149. As the reduction, and ultimate elimination, of Adjustment Aid brings
JCBOE, along with most other former Abbott/SDA districts, even further below adequacy,
Defendants cannot satisfy their burden that these changes provide a thorough and efficient
education.
In the 2018-19 school year, JCBOE's funding was $103,749,652 below the adequacy
budget. See Wyns Cert., ? 140. For the 2019-20 school year, after the amendments to SFRA,
which result in the reduction of Adjustment Aid of $27,192,633.00 in that school year alone,
JCBOE will be $157,077,883 below adequacy resulting in it moving further from being able to
provide the resources necessary for a thorough and efficient education of its students. See Wyns
Cert., ? 158. As set forth in the preceding section, the cuts in Adjustment Aid in the 2019-20
school year alone will result in 410 positions being eliminated, including 370 instructional staff
and 40 support staff.

19

HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 24 of 26 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

The legal rights underlying Plaintiffs' claims are well settled in light of the holdings in
Abbott XX and XXI pertaining to the State's obligation to fully fund SFRA as to former
Abbott/SDA districts such as JCBOE, including the full funding of Adjustment Aid. Based on
the foregoing, Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they can make a preliminary showing of a
reasonable probability of success on the merits of their claims regarding the failure of the State
to comply with its constitutional obligation of providing a thorough and efficient education to the
students of JCBOE as a direct result of the reduction of Adjustment Aid in the 2019-20 school
year.
C. Injunctive Relief is Appropriate in this Case Because the Balance of the Harm
Favors the Granting of Preliminary Relief.
Finally, the Court must weigh the relative hardships to the parties in granting or denying
relief. Crowe, 90 N.J. at 133-34. In order to obtain preliminary injunctive relief, these equities,
on balance, must support the grant of preliminary relief to maintain the status quo pending the
outcome of a final hearing. Id. at 134. In assessing the propriety of injunctive relief, courts
generally weigh injury that the defendants would suffer, assuming the defendants are enjoined
and then prevail at a final hearing, against the injury plaintiffs would suffer if no injunction
issues and plaintiffs eventually prevail. Id.
In this case, the equities weigh heavily in favor of maintaining the status quo by granting
the preliminary relief Plaintiffs seek. JCBOE's students, including Plaintiff Given's child, have
only one chance to receive an education to prepare them for college, vocational school, and/or
their professional lives in society. While numerous studies can be cited correlating education
with an individual's potential future earnings, education is priceless. The harm that JCBOE's
students will suffer if 410 instructional and support staff are eliminated, notwithstanding the price
tag of these cuts equaling in excess of $27 million cuts in Adjustment Aid, is immeasurable. If
20

HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 25 of 26 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

Defendants fail to provide JCBOE's students, including Plaintiff Given's child, with Adjustment
Aid to ensure that these students do not fall further below adequacy, these students will likely
not develop the fundamental skills to be productive members of society, may fail to be admitted
into the college or vocational school of their choice, or may drop out of school.
When measured against this harm, enjoining Defendants from reducing Adjustment Aid
while this matter is litigated to the tune of $ 27,192,633 for the 2019-20 school year is not fairly
comparable. The State bears the unambiguous constitutional mandate to provide a thorough and
efficient education to the students of JCBOE. N.J. Const. art. VIII, ?. Adjustment Aid was to
be provided while districts had the opportunity to increase their local levy to equal their LFS.
Abbott XX, 199 N.J. at 165. It is not disputed that those conditions have not yet been met in the
case of JCBOE. Consequently, Defendants cannot now complain of harm in complying with
their constitutional duty and the rulings of the Supreme Court.
Defendants have known that education funding in JCBOE has been below adequacy for
a decade. Indeed, the State has been in direct charge of JCBOE for virtually all of those years.
Instead of remedying this problem to ensure that school funding was at the Adequacy Budget
level and that JCBOE students were receiving a thorough and efficient education, Defendants
instead have chosen to take a path moving school funding in JCBOE further below adequacy, to
the unfortunate detriment of the students of JCBOE.

21

HUD-L-001710-19 04/29/2019 9:58:20 AM Pg 26 of 26 Trans ID: LCV2019746827

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully submitted that a preliminary injunction be
imposed and that Defendants be enjoined from reducing the amount of Adjustment Aid JCBOE
is entitled to receive in the 2019-20 school year, specifically $27,192,633, stemming from the
implementation of SFRA's recently amended provisions at N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-68(b)(1).

s/ Angelo J. Genova
ANGELO J. GENOVA
Dated: April 29, 2019
14671531v2 (21651.036)

22