Board of Ed. of City of Elizabeth in Union County v. Board of School Estimate of Elizabeth School Dist.
Decision Date | 08 June 1967 |
Docket Number | No. A--587,A--587 |
Parties | The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF ELIZABETH IN the COUNTY OF UNION, a body corporate of the State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross-Respondent, v. The BOARD OF SCHOOL ESTIMATE OF the ELIZABETH SCHOOL DISTRICT, The City of Elizabeth, a municipal corporation of the State of New Jersey, and City Council of the City of Elizabeth, Union County, New Jersey, Defendants-Respondents and Cross-Appellants. |
Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Joseph G. Barbieri, Elizabeth, for plaintiff, Board of education.
William J. McCloud, Kearney, for defendants City of Elizabeth and Board of School Estimate (Edward W. McGrath, City Atty., attorney).
Before Judges GAULKIN, LEWIS and LABRECQUE.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
GAULKIN, S.J.A.D.
Elizabeth is a chapter 6 school district, governed by R.S. 18:6--1 et seq., N.J.S.A. Plaintiff board of education (hereafter Education) asked defendant board of school estimate (hereafter Estimate for a budget of $8,652,304.13 for the school year 1966--1967. Estimate reduced it by $400,000 and asked the city council (hereafter Council) for $8,252,304.13. Council approved only $7,952,304.13.
R.S. 18:6--53, N.J.S.A., provides that in a chapter 6 school district, upon receipt of the request from Estimate:
One and one-half percent of the valuation of the assessable ratables of Elizabeth amounted to $4,460,654.10, so the amount approved by Council was nearly 3 1/2 million beyond the mandatory minimum.
Education filed a complaint in lieu of prerogative writs against Estimate and Council in the Law Division, in which it challenged the action of Council and demanded judgment '(a) directing the defendant City to appropriate the * * * $8,252,304.13 * * * certified to it by the Board of School Estimate * * *, or, (b) directing further consideration by the defendants herein in order to properly arrive at a proper * * * appropriation.'
We understand plaintiff's argument to be as follows: Council must appropriate all that is requested by Estimate over and above the mandatory 1 1/2%, or reject it In toto; if Council rejects it In toto, Estimate may reconsider its request and reduce the figure, which then must be approved or disapproved by Council In toto; if Estimate stands by its figure and Council by its rejection, the Commissioner of Education must decide how much Council must approve; in any event, Council must confer with Estimate and attempt to arrive at a mutually satisfactory figure before Council may refuse to concur and consent. Plaintiff contends that here there was no effort at all by Council to come to an agreement with Estimate.
Judge Feller rejected plaintiff's arguments, and plaintiff appeals from so much of the resulting judgment as reflects such...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Board of Ed. of City of Elizabeth in Union County v. City Council of City of Elizabeth, Union County
...governing body. We cannot find any such intended distinction. See Board of Education of City of Elizabeth, etc. v. Board of School Estimate of Elizabeth School District, 95 N.J.Super. 284, 288, 230 A.2d 895 (App.Div.1967). The New Jersey constitutional and legislative plan to provide and ad......
- Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co. v. Gillian