Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Post reval, the total city tax BILL will remain the same. However, the total amount of tax revenue COLLECTED will decrease. Why?

Because when your taxes go up 4xs, many will not be able to afford to pay and will not pay their tax bill.

Guess who will make up for that revenue shortfall - those whose tax bill initially decreased after the reval as well as everybody else.

Likewise, when real estate prices plummet due to sky rocketed property taxes, those other 400% increase property owners taxes will successfully appeal their assessed valuation. Lower assessed valuation means a lower tax bill for them.

However, the amount of money the city needs to collect in tax revenue to provide essential government services still remains the same.

Again, guess who will make up for that revenue shortfall - all other property owners, including those whose tax bill initially decreased after the reval.

Your assessed value may have decreased, but with property tax defaults/liens and subsequent tax appeals (many), your tax RATE will increase.

That's something to thing about, you know, one step ahead, when the all-at-once reval occurs.

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Why has NJ stated forcing cities to reval it's properties if it does not effect money sent to the state?

In theory, the reval itself should result in a net zero impact to city, county and state revenues.

This thread goes off in many tangents - particularly on abatements and school funding. The truth is - the state's budget is a huge mess, particularly in the areas of pensions and education funding. And there's a clear agenda (rightly or wrongly) to push the state's growing budget deficit on to municipalities.

The NJ push to force revals is mostly politically motivated - but for me - it only spotlights the serious structural issues that can only be fixed at the state level.

You have it backwards; the avoidance by the towns, in some cases for decades and decades, has been political. The state is merely enforcing the existing statutes, starting with the most egregious offenders.

And who ultimately is responsible for setting and enforcing the rules on revals? The state created the mess in the first place. They also made property tax and revals incomprehensible to the average homeowner - and that's the only reason there isn't an angry JC mob burning down city hall.

Yes, ultimately-but I think (and stateaidguy can correct me) the Hudson County Board of Taxation also has a role in forcing (or not) its towns to comply. In any case, yes, Trenton should've been more pro-active in forcing towns to reval within state statutes. But they are doing it now.

135jc wrote:
Thanks for the replies. I had thought that the delay of the reval which resulted in now higher property values would cost the city. It was pointed out to me in earlier posts that cities does not fund the state. Is it true that no portion of our tax dollars go to support the state?

JPhurst wrote:
Many of the examples you give of "underaided" areas are usually tiny rump municipalities that often don't even have a high school. When you whine about East Newark getting more funding it shows the absurdity of the argument. East Newark is a 10th of a square mile with little reason for existence, let alone a school district of its own, let alone increases in state aid.

Abbott was not just about tax base. Although the strains on those tax bases were part of the decision.

You want to redistribute state aid? Fine. Allow Jersey City to keep 1/2 of the sales tax for purchases in the city (the little amount we had under the UEZ program was taken by Christie to "balance" the budget). Give it 25% of every toll the PANY/NJ collects.

And while you're at, ensure full compliance with Mt. Laurel obligations that does not involve buying out, require merger of school districts that do not have a full K-12. Better yet, combine school districts as was done in Delaware so that municipal and county boundaries are not used to segregate the schools. Then maybe we can talk about "overaided" districts.

JPhurst wrote:
None of the property tax goes to the state. On the other hand, the income and sales taxes generated by all the economic activity in Jersey City goes to the state. Jersey City and its residents, in the meantime, need to raise a budget that supports a public safety force and maintains an infrastructure to sustain not only residents but the many people who work and/or travel through the city. This includes many people who earn income here, travel through the city or otherwise take advantage of its amenities, go back to more insular bedroom communities, and then complain that they are subsidizing Jersey City's schools.

One thing lost in all of the discussion of the Abbott decisions was that the Court was not just talking about an abstract formula per student based on income. The plaintiffs in Abbott had shown that their urban districts had specific needs as urban districts. Aged infrastructure and more constraints in improving it, the obligations such cities have for public safety, social services, and transportation infrastructure, etc.

Urban hubs in Jersey are in a particular bind in this context because of the state being bookended by New York City and Philadelphia. These two cities, NYC in particular, are large enough that they are able to collect their own income taxes, sales taxes and other sources of revenue. Jersey municipalities are more constrained in what they can do, partly by law, partly by market forces, and must rely more on property tax. Jersey City does have a few more sources through permits, fines, and franchise fees but it is still limited.

135jc wrote:
Thanks for the response regarding school funding but what about the tax we pay the state?

brewster wrote:
Quote:

stateaidguy wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:

I could be oversimplifying this, but what I do know is the charters manage do more for far less, even the ones with union teachers, like LCCS. That's not advocating that the system be replaced by charters, but that they learn from them.

I'm glad you mentioned charters because Jersey City charters, ironically, are disadvantaged by the fact that Jersey City receives so much Adjustment Aid.

Charter school funding is more complex than state aid, but charter schools founded after 2008 (when SFRA was passed), do not receive Adjustment Aid.

I'm not 100% why this is. I don't know if it was legislative oversight, NJEA influence, a sincere belief that since Adjustment Aid was "hold harmless aid" that new schools didn't need to be held harmless since they had not existed pre-SFRA in the first place.

Anyway, as a consequence of Jersey City's non-transference of Adjustment Aid to charter schools, some of Jersey City's charters are among the lowest funded in NJ.

The following are NJ's 15 lowest spending charter schools.

School Per Pupil Spending 2015-16
BRIDGETON PUBLIC CHARTER $9,276
JC GREAT FUTURES CHARTER SCH $9,197
COLLEGE ACHIEVE CENTRAL C $9,177
JC THE ETHICAL COMMUNITY CHA $8,947
JC JERSEY CITY COMMUNITY CHA $8,894
INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF $8,845
RIVERBANK CHARTER SCHOOL $8,682
HOBOKEN DUAL LANGUAGE CHA $8,677
THOMAS EDISON ENERGYSMART $8,395
MILLVILLE PUBLIC CHARTER $7,943
JC JERSEY CITY GLOBAL CS $7,838
JC EMPOWERMENT ACADEMY CHART $7,744
COMPASS ACADEMY CHARTER S $7,653
JC LEARNING COMMUNITY CHARTE $7,541
VINELAND PUBLIC CHARTER S $7,435

Some of the other lowest spending charters are also in big Adjustment Aid districts, like Vineland. (who gets $34 mil in Adjustment Aid), Millville (who gets $12.5 mil in Adjustment Aid), Hoboken ($5.6 mil in Adjustment Aid)

Some of the other lowest spending charters are in very low spending poor non-Abbotts and thus the host districts have very little to transfer to charters in the first place.

Anti-charter people always point out that charters have fewer poor kids than district schools, and that's true on average, but JC's low-spending charters can have pretty high FRL rates too. Several are above the JC district schools' average.

Beloved Community is 83% FRL (for 2013-14). Ethical Community is 32%. JC Community Charter is 85% FRL. Learning Community is 35% FRL. (I couldn't find Great Futures.)

If Jersey City's Adjustment Aid were gradually replaced by local taxes, JC's charter schools would come closer to matching the spending of JC's district schools. (my guess is that JC's leadership would rather change the charter funding law than the state aid distribution, which is also reasonable from their perspective.)

Again, charter school funding is very complex, but since post-2008 charters don't get Adjustment Aid, JC's charters are disadvantaged by the status quo.

More fascinating info. I might point out that Learning Community, where my kids attended, is near the bottom of the funding list, but was founded in the 90's. It's one of the highest performing k-8's in the city on a fraction of the funds while it is also paying it's own mortgage on it's building.

brewster wrote:

I could be oversimplifying this, but what I do know is the charters manage do more for far less, even the ones with union teachers, like LCCS. That's not advocating that the system be replaced by charters, but that they learn from them.

brewster wrote:
What about costs outside of Hudson County? Are they as variable?

What if we assumed from your data the utterly absurd notion that $1000 of every JC student's allotment is being sucked away by overstaffing, overpaying, padded OT, sweetheart contracting, etc. It's obviously absurd because things like that NEVER happen in JC. But if they did, how could we know without forensic accounting? It seems like these things are always set up so you can never compare apples to apples.

Suntime wrote:
Jcguys - i already have done the research and will be happy to share Specific information by pm, for anyone that is interested in helping with rectifying this problem. I was merely telling stateaidguy that before he claims there is no problem with lead in the jc school system, he should do better research. He obviously does not have any children in the jcps.

brewster wrote:
So, if I understand this all correctly, SFRA takes the aggregate personal income of the city, and determines the fair local contribution from that. And we don't collect that because of too low a rate and a large chunk of our wealthiest population live in PILOT buildings and don't effectively contribute even though their income skews the data?

Where does the levy on commercial operations fit in? I recall hearing Secaucus had low residential taxes due to the preponderance of commercial property, but theirs is only a hair lower than ours.

brewster wrote:
SAG, is there a source of line item comparisons of how districts spend their money? I once tried to dig into the "simplified" version of JC's school budget to find out how much is spent on special ed, and it was absolutely impenetrable. They used terms that google returned no definitions for!

We hear you say we are overfunded, yet see no evidence of it. I do hear anecdotes of "we don't have enough money for that" when talking of common suburban school curriculum or infrastructure.

I have no problem believing it's sucked up by the vast bureaucracy, but I'd like to see evidence of it. I do understand there's so many variables, I don't expect clear answers. But even things like if the average buildings are 50 years older can make a huge difference in spending, can't they?

SAG, is there a source of line item comparisons of how districts spend their money? I once tried to dig into the "simplified" version of JC's school budget to find out how much is spent on special ed, and it was absolutely impenetrable. They used terms that google returned no definitions for!

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

T-Bird wrote:
SAG - you clearly are well versed in the topic and I don't disagree that school $$ are inequitably distributed (as with most $$ in NJ), but there is a path of self help that could (and should) be pursued at the same time: consolidation of small towns, boroughs, municipalities, townships and school districts. The towns you point to (Swedesboro, Chesterfield, Newton, Delran, Freehold and Red Bank) all share one thing in common: populations under 20,000. In fact, three of them are under 8,000. Swedesboro's population is 2,584! That's probably the population of three towers in Newport.

I agree that the suburbs shouldn't be overly burdened in funding poorer districts (although we would probably have a vigorous debate around "overly burdened") but at the same time, why should a stubborn (and unnecessarily expensive) desire for "home rule" on such a ridiculously small level play such a big role in the discussion?

Suntime wrote:
Meanwhile, these jersey city children have suffered with highly contaminated lead in their school water systems for over a decade, with nothing being done. Kids in many schools don't have any greenspace to play/exercise in. During rainstorms, massive amounts of water floods through the roof and is collected in garbage cans. Nothing in done - it continues for years. Somehow, i don't see these basic health and safety problems happening in the "underfunded" suburbs.

Monroe wrote:
What you're seeing is the realization, on a bi-partisan level, of the unfairness of education funding. That's driving it, finally it's not only the wealthy suburbs but the under aided towns run by Democrats taking action. When the People's Republic of Maplewood/South Orange starts to jaw about it you know it's not a Christie move.

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
JC is over aided. A correction is proper, and fair to other NJ taxpayers. A reval is decades overdue, and has recently been delayed because of political gamesmanship by Fulop.

Neither one of the actions to correct those two issues are anything but proper, not a Machiavellian plot by the Democrat in charge of the Senate, or the Republican Governor.

Mayor Fulop complains about Democrats, and now Mayor DeBlasio is doing the same in NY. When you're whining about members of your own party plotting against you it gets amusing!

I claim no plot or conspiracy. I've stated the same about Sweeney for years on this board.

Whether or not JC is over-aided or not isn't the point. The question is, why is Christie making the big push. If you don't see the naked politics involved with Christie helping his buddy out, your only excuse would be a recent move to New Jersey!

Yvonne wrote:
I personally believe Christie will reduce school aid just to get back at Fulop. Fulop is taking shots at Christie and this will be Christie's revenge.

135jc wrote:
Thank-you for the responses to my questions. It is my understanding however that our property values will have a direct impact on what we pay to the state and what we get for school funding. It still seems that having completed this when values were 20-30% less would have benefited Jersey city homeowners.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

stateaidguy wrote:
Quote:

jdm2008 wrote:
@stateaidguy(and anyone else of course)
Based on these figures how much money per property does that equate to in jc?

We don't know yet if the redistribution will affect Jersey City or how much it would lost, but JC's school tax levy was $112 million for 2015-16, so $100 million would be nearly a doubling of that.

We also don't know how many years this would take place over. Jersey City's tax base is growing so rapidly that even if it raised taxes by $10 million a year the tax rate would still be falling. In Steve Fulop's press release about JC's S&P upgrade he talked about how JC's Equalized Valuation increased by 10% in the last year.

Mind you, if Jersey City lost all its Adjustment Aid and were funded at 100% of its uncapped aid, it would still be better funded than most NJ districts. Right now the median district only gets 80% of its uncapped aid.

Sorry SAG - got to call you out on this. This is simply "lies, lies and damned statistics" (Mark Twain).

How about this one: is every kid in NJ getting a fair education?

Yvonne wrote:
I personally believe Christie will reduce school aid just to get back at Fulop. Fulop is taking shots at Christie and this will be Christie's revenge.

jdm2008 wrote:
@stateaidguy(and anyone else of course)
Based on these figures how much money per property does that equate to in jc?

jerseymom wrote:
(NOTE: BELOW IS THE FULL EMAIL DISTRIBUTED BY MAYOR FULOP TODAY COVERING ATLANTIC CITY ISSUE. Paid for by Steven Fulop for Mayor 2017, P.O. Box 13025, Jersey City, NJ, 07303, Nancy Warlikowski, Treasurer)

(NJ.com covers reactions from Fulop, Norcross & Christie)

EMAIL:
Mayor Fulop Responds to Norcross/Sweeney/Christie
Atlantic City Bill and Accusations On Involvement

JERSEY CITY ? Steven M. Fulop, a Marine Corps Veteran and Mayor of Jersey City, responded the conduct of Norcross, Christie, and Sweeney during the past two weeks, which should expose serious concerns for residents of Atlantic City and New Jersey.

?I know people will say that what I am about to express will hurt me in a potential gubernatorial race -- I don?t care. Also, I know that people will say that Christie and Norcross will use, as they have done in the past, government entities and law enforcement in Trenton to intimidate me ? however, the truth is the truth.? Fulop said.

?Residents throughout the State should ask themselves some simple questions -- why is an insurance broker, a non-elected official, who has made tens of millions of dollars on the backs of public taxpayers actively involved in drafting Atlantic City?s takeover bill and then lobbying for it all over New Jersey? Why is a non-registered lobbyist who is an insurance broker actively calling Assembly members throughout New Jersey? Does anyone in New Jersey actually believe that what is happening is in the best interest of Atlantic City or New Jersey? I think it is really in the best interest of certain individuals. Just look at the track record here.? Fulop continued.

?Furthermore, why is a Republican Governor actively being dictated to on state legislation by a non-elected insurance broker? Does this make sense to anyone? Why are they so adamant about not compromising with the Assembly? The answer is simply that certain aspects of the state?s politics in Trenton are rotten to the core and that is the truth.? Fulop said

Fulop concluded ?I fully expect Governor Christie and George Norcross to use their tools to come after me but the truth needs to be said. As Mayor of Jersey City, my only involvement in Atlantic City?s takeover bill has been with regards to visiting Atlantic City because residents reached out to indicate to me that we should be wary of inviting casinos to Jersey City. Period. ?

Yvonne wrote:
The city is giving another 25 year tax abatement at the next council meeting. From the state's point of view, JC does not need school funding due to these tax abatements.

Stringer wrote:

Is the $100 million proposed school aid cut designed to help Sweeney?

HUDSON REPORTER May 01, 2016

Gov. Christopher Christie is talking about cutting $100 million in extra state education aid to Jersey City just at a time when Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop is gearing up to run for the Democratic nomination for governor.

This funding is above and beyond the usual state aid for an Abbott district, designed to help offset the loss of funding that comes as a result of tax abatements.

School board members in Jersey City believe the loss of funding would create havoc in the district.

So this leads some to ponder the relationship between Christie and Democratic state Senate President Stephen Sweeney, who is expected to be Fulop’s main opponent in the Democratic primary in June 2017.

Read more: Hudson Reporter - Is the

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Suntime wrote:
The irony being that the only real "winners"
Are the wealthy developers that are the beneficiaries of this tax abatement welfare from the city. Children lose out, the average homeowner is then expected to pay more, and the developers line their pockets at jc's expense and retreat to their mansions in the burbs, taking all of their $$ with then. My point being that the residents of the suburbs are the ones that abuse the system to their advantage and our detriment.

I don't agree, I think the system is set up to be cage match getting us at each other's throats. Imagine the suburban hysteria if we got rid of the local schools tax and the entire local+state funding system and just had the state collect enough to distribute the funds equitably to each town according to their population, perhaps using the SFRA formula.

While we're fantasizing, lets consolidate the ridiculous number of districts. A commenter on Ciatterelli's letter posted this observant comparison:

There's nothing complex about it.

NJ 8,722.58 sq mi
FL 65,755 sq mi
NJ pop. 8,958,013
FL pop. 20,271,272
NJ has 591 school districts
FL has 57 school districts
NJ has 565 incorporated municipalities
FL has 410 incorporated municipalities
NJ has 466 local police departments
FL has less than 300 local police departments
NJ 21 counties
Fl 67 counties

We in NJ waste a STUPENDOUS amount of money on local control of all these services.

brewster wrote:
So if this SFRA system is perfectly balanced to determine aid and accounts for socioeconomic differences and special needs students, why then was Abbott created?