Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
53 user(s) are online (33 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 2
Guests: 51

jcreservoir, deborah, more...


Forum Index


Board index » All Posts (stateaidguy)




Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#1
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

stateaidguy wrote:

Those in Jersey City who are honestly so concerned about the JCPS being below Adequacy need to start demanding that the JCBOE use its existing banked cap and then put a referendum to the voters asking approval for a higher tax levy.

Despite having an enormous gain in ratables, the JCBOE is only in 4th place among Hudson County districts in increasing its tax levy since 2010, despite the fact that its initial tax levy was so low and the JCPS was always below Adequacy.

If Bayonne and East Newark can raise their tax levies by 23%, when can't the Jersey City BOE do this (except for the fact that it doesn't want to?)

2010 2017
Bayonne City 60,670,934.00 74,877,844 23%
East Newark 1,178,641.00 1,447,486 23%
Weehawken 16,674,798.50 20,424,896 22%
North Bergen 40,489,434.00 49,217,112 22%
Hoboken 36,386,944.50 43,857,211 21%
Guttenberg 9,272,354.00 11,158,596 20%
West New York 14,040,891.00 16,724,432 19%
Kearny 45,449,873.00 52,218,164 15%
Jersey City 105,961,498.00 119,464,435 13%
Secaucus 31,978,788.50 35,945,958 12%
Harrison 9,882,896.17 10,944,941 11%
Union City 16,338,576.00 15,418,637 -6%


Good luck with that. I agree with your point, but i doubt you will get many takers willing to pay more in taxes. Many DTJC homeowners who got slapped with huge tax raises are actively looking for ways to stop the reval, or delay its implementation. Some are outright crying poverty and unfair taxation. If the school tax levy was to be raised enough to actually approach adequacy, plus the projected deficit, it would likely equal a 100% increase. That means local taxes would go up to 2% (or, higher) and the very vocal DTJC homeowner contingent will simply revolt against the idea.


I agree with your assessment of the politics, especially regarding downtown, but isn't there anyone in Jersey City who understands school finance well enough to realize that the 2% tax levy increases that the JCBOE have been passing are next to nothing for a district with a budget that is 5x larger than the tax levy?

For Jersey City, a 2% tax levy increase only equals 0.4% of the budget.

Doesn't anyone realize that the Jersey City BOE isn't constrained by the tax cap anyway? The existing tax cap has exemptions for medical cost growth and the JCBOE already has the legal authority to raise taxes well in excess of 2.0%.

Doesn't anyone realize that the Jersey City BOE needs to pass a 10% tax increase to equal 2% of the budget, or really a 15% increase to keep up with the more rapid rate of inflation in education.

----

I agree with your assessment of the politics, but that anti-tax attitude is motivated by selfishness and a desire to have the state pay for what Jersey City is capable of paying for itself.

Jersey City's school tax rate is going to be 0.42. The state average is 1.3. You can find many towns where the school tax rate is >2.0.

I realize that property values are increasing faster than some residents' incomes, so that there are many people in Jersey City who are living in houses that they could never afford to buy today.

As sad as I would be to see someone taxed out of their property due to its appreciation, those people are asset millionaires, and I'm not going to have a lot of sympathy for them compared to people whose property taxes and underfunded school system are eroding the value of their properties and therefore is seeing their most important asset depreciate in value.

As painful as it is to pay higher taxes on a house with an appreciating value, it's even worse to see someone pay higher taxes on a house that is losing value.

Posted on: 4/5 10:35
Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#2
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away



Those in Jersey City who are honestly so concerned about the JCPS being below Adequacy need to start demanding that the JCBOE use its existing banked cap and then put a referendum to the voters asking approval for a higher tax levy.

Despite having an enormous gain in ratables, the JCBOE is only in 4th place among Hudson County districts in increasing its tax levy since 2010, despite the fact that its initial tax levy was so low and the JCPS was always below Adequacy.

If Bayonne and East Newark can raise their tax levies by 23%, when can't the Jersey City BOE do this (except for the fact that it doesn't want to?)

2010 2017
Bayonne City 60,670,934.00 74,877,844 23%
East Newark 1,178,641.00 1,447,486 23%
Weehawken 16,674,798.50 20,424,896 22%
North Bergen 40,489,434.00 49,217,112 22%
Hoboken 36,386,944.50 43,857,211 21%
Guttenberg 9,272,354.00 11,158,596 20%
West New York 14,040,891.00 16,724,432 19%
Kearny 45,449,873.00 52,218,164 15%
Jersey City 105,961,498.00 119,464,435 13%
Secaucus 31,978,788.50 35,945,958 12%
Harrison 9,882,896.17 10,944,941 11%
Union City 16,338,576.00 15,418,637 -6%

Posted on: 4/4 15:01
Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#3
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

La_Verdad wrote:
Quote:

HeightsNative wrote:
Quote:

ecinjc wrote:
Ok so it’s clear you have some objections to the study. And I was misinformed in thinking some of edlaw researchers were related to Rutgers. Also if they are funded by JCEA I agree there is probably some bias there. But I looked on your blog and see no disclosure of your name/identity. I think that it would be powerful to disclose this information so we can see what your potential agenda/bias may be. Especially if you are accusing others...


Stateaids identity doesn't matter; the data does. If I were stateaid I'd stay anonymous, especially in NJ. Stop focusing on the wrong thing.


Stateaidguy's identity is entirely appropriate to focus on, especially when he (?) claims to be from "one of the Oranges". Why is he on this board? Who's interest is he serving with his posts? There could be very legitimate reasons for him to be here, but the conversation would be much better served by knowing the answer to those questions.


I don't think my identity matters either on a forum like this. After all, most of the posters here are completely anonymous.

But to dispel any suspicion of me because I live outside of JC, I'll tell you that I live in South Orange and was a BOE member there.

Before you accuse me of having a personal, financial interest in seeing state aid reform, I would like to point out to you that the South Orange-Maplewood is only underaided by $3.6 million, or $496 per student, which isn't a large amount. If the SOMA school district got its full aid it would help the budget a little bit, but it would not be a game changer.

The reason I invest so much time in state aid reform is to help districts who are much more underaided than mine, like Bloomfield, Belleville, Dover, Freehold Boro, Atlantic City etc. To me the state's distribution of state aid, where there is a range of underaiding/overaiding that ranges from a $8,999 per student deficit (Bound Brook) to a $11,827 excess (Asbury Park) it a blatant violation of the principle of equality and has to be fought on principle.

But even if I were from, say, West Orange, a district that is underaided by $17.3 million and badly needs more state aid to mitigate its school tax burden, why would that call into question the sincerity and correctness of my opinions?

West Orange's taxes are $36 million above Local Fair Share. Its school tax rate is 2.4477, which is 90% above the state average and almost 5x higher than Jersey City's.

Although West Orange's taxes are partly its own decision to have sky-high spending, are West Orange people supposed to not be angry that the state isn't fulfilling its moral and economic obligation to them while it over-fulfills its obligations to other towns?

Not everyone who is acting out of self-interest is morally in the wrong. Acting out of self-interest and acting in the common good are not mutually exclusive.

Also, please remember that I am not being paid one cent for this work. There is no one paying me what to think or paying me what to write or research.

Most of the Abbotts are, in fact, underaided. Newark's deficit is the largest in absolute terms in NJ. Fighting for state aid reform isn't a suburb vs Abbott issue either.

Posted on: 4/4 10:16
Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#4
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


This pretty much sums up what the Education Law Center sees of needy, even desperate, districts in the rest of New Jersey.

Resized Image

Posted on: 4/2 10:35
Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#5
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

ecinjc wrote:
Here’s a good overview of funding issues from Rutgers Edlaw. It’s a complex issue and will need more than just a portion of abatements to fix. But it’s good to understand that we are not overfunded based on the number of disadvantaged, eel,and special needs kids we serve. http://www.edlawcenter.org/assets/fil ... _School_Funding_Case_.pdf


This is b******t.

First of all, that's not from "Rutgers." It's from the Education Law Center, which has no formal connection to Rutgers.

The Education Law Center is an entity that gets a third of its budget from the NJEA and does whatever the NJEA wants it to do. It isn't an independent group at all.

Even if the ELC were an independent group and even if it were from Rutgers, so what? People from a university can be biased and/or wrong.


Second, you do not understand SFRA based on your description of what that report even says.

All that report points out is that Jersey City is below SFRA's (inflated) definition of Adequacy, a fact that no one disputes, but that normal people point out is due to Jersey City's refusal to raise its school taxes in any way proportional to its increase in wealth.

The report blames this all on the tax cap, but the JCBOE hasn't even consistently raised taxes at 2.0%, has never used banked cap, and has never considered a referendum on a higher levy.

The SFRA formula already accounts for the number of economically disadvantaged students a district has. There is no accounting for "eels," but students who are English Language Learners have an extra weight as well. Special ed classification actually doesn't have a weight in the SFRA formula (for any district.)

Because the Jersey City Public Schools have a high FRL-eligible rate and a high rate of students who are ELLs, it has a much higher Adequacy Budget per student than the average budget.

HOWEVER, SFRA isn't so simple as to solely give a district money based on its demographics because tax base is a factor in appropriate state aid too.

NJ's aid formula, like the formulas of all states, intends to give state aid in inverse proportion to a district's wealth.

Jersey City is not a "rich" district in terms of tax base, but it is an average district. Yet, despite being average in tax base, Jersey City's state aid per student is actually in the top 20 in New Jersey.

Although SFRA doesn't differentiate between residential and non-residential property, Jersey City also has about double the proportion of non-residential property of the average NJ town.

SFRA calculates a Local Fair Share for Jersey City (like it does all districts) of $370 million for 2017-18. SFRA calculates an Adequacy Budget for Jersey City of $630 million.

The difference between that $370 million that Jersey City is economically capable of paying is Equalization Aid, Special Ed aid, and Security Aid.

Jersey City, however, pays nowhere near its full Local Fair Share and it relies on Adjustment Aid to keep a low tax rate that will hit 0.42 in 2018-19, or one-third of the state average.

Although Jersey City's tax base is by far the state's largest (for 2018-19 it will be $180 million larger than the next largest district's (Hoboken's) Jersey City's tax levy is only the 16th largest in NJ, and is higher than poorer and smaller towns like Newark, Cherry Hill, West Orange, and Clifton.

Because of of the state's chronic budget problems, the state has nowhere near enough money to fairly or fully fund its many towns that have growing enrollments and shrinking tax bases.

Some districts are underaided (by the state) by $9000 per student.

Because the state cannot make the pie large enough to fully fund every district, it has to divide that pie more evenly.

http://njeducationaid.blogspot.com/20 ... enter-jersey-city-is.html

Posted on: 4/2 10:30
Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#6
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

newbie100 wrote:
BTW how many students does JC have and what is our per student spending?


New Jersey has three different ways to account for per student spending.

As another poster said, the Taxpayer Guide to Education Spending lists JC as spending $22,751 per student for
"Total Spending Per Pupil."

That amount includes pensions, construction spending, Social Security, and Post-Retirement Healthcare, plus spending from federal aid. It is the most inclusive, and most accurate, number for what any NJ school district's spending is. It is also 90% more per student than the national average.

If you are doing interstate comparisons, you should use Total Spending Per Pupil.

There is also "Budgetary Cost Per Pupil," which includes things that are directly under the BOE's control, essentially opex spending.

A district's Budgetary Cost Per Pupil is about $4000-$4500 per student less than its "Total Spending Per Pupil." JC's Budgetary Cost Per Pupil is $18,154 per student.

The state average for Budgetary Cost Per Pupil is about $15,000 per student.

HOWEVER, is is a third, most exclusive, number for spending that is used in the School Funding Reform Act. It only includes Equalization Aid, Sped Aid, Security Aid, the local tax levy, and Adjustment Aid. It excludes federal aid and all of the state's numerous indirect streams of aid. This third and lowest calculation of spending is called "Spending as Defined."

By this number Jersey City only spends $527,389,023 for 30,753 students, or $17,149 per student.

Since "Spending as Defined" excludes so much of Jersey City's spending, and because the School Funding Reform Act has a sky-high Adequacy budget for Jersey City, Jersey City is legally about $3100 per student below Adequacy even though its spending is well above NJ's average and dramatically above the national average.


Posted on: 4/1 14:51
Top


Re: How much state aid will HCschool districts get in proposed budget?
#7
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


The budget that came out last week is only the proposed budget.

The legislature has the power to amend the budget. It even has the theoretical power to write its own budget (it did this once during Florio's term).

I expact the state aid distribution to undergo some changes to focus more state aid on the most severely underaided districts and to not give overaided districts any additional money.


Posted on: 3/19 15:50
Top


Re: New Equalized Valuations Out, JC at $28.4 billion
#8
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
I've been fascinated by the 99 Hudson development. It's being built with NO TAX ABATEMENT and will contain 781 luxury condos. Average sales price may be well excess of $750,000.

That's $585,750,000 in new ratables. It will lead to a big drop in the property tax rate.


Big drop? 586 MM is ~2% of the total new valuation. A drop of 2% in a 30K tax bill is only $600, which is $50 / month. I am not sure I would call that a "big drop".


Since for most NJ towns a drop in property taxes is unimaginable and a 2% increase is the floor, I think -2% is a "big drop" too.


Posted on: 2017/10/6 14:19
Top


Re: New Equalized Valuations Out, JC at $28.4 billion
#9
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Quote:

stateaidguy wrote:

I am posting this here because I've seen so much speculation on what the new tax rate will be after the reval. (which doesn't actually change the tax rate).



Tax Bill = Assessed Value * Tax Rate

Since the Total Assessed Value of the City increased according to your report, then the Tax Rate willdecrease.

That is assuming total appropriations/spending, average tax bill, etc. remains the same or if you prefer fancy words, ceteris paribus.


This is correct.

My statement that JC's tax rate will drop assumes that the tax levy will stay the same or increase slightly. Since JC's tax levy won't increase by the 10% growth in EV, it's a very safe assumption to make.

Jersey City's official, aggregate assessed value also increased, from $6,075,860,248 to $6,214,706,588.

I assume that increase is from new unPILOTed development, the expiration of old PILOTs, and some additions & improvements here and there.

Knowing that the official, assessed value increased by $128 million and knowing that JC's "equalization ratio" is .2188 allows one to estimate that the new ratables increased by $634 million in Equalized Valuation and that the rest of JC's $2.7 increase in EV came from appreciation.

Yes, 99 Hudson will have a big impact. All of Hudson County is going to feel that.

I don't like Steve Fulop for other reasons, but he should get credit for not PILOTing 99 Hudson.

Posted on: 2017/10/6 11:23
Top


Re: New Equalized Valuations Out, JC at $28.4 billion
#10
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:
Thank you as always, SAG. Any insight on valuation post reval?


The aggregate assessed valuation and the Equalized Valuation are actually independent, but the new aggregate assessed valuation ought to be close to the Equalized Valuation since the assessed valuations are supposed to equal market values too.

If the new aggregate assessed valuation isn't that close to the Equalized Valuation it doesn't really matter though, since assessed valuation is the internal apportionment of a town's tax levy whereas Equalized Valuation is for the "intertown" apportionment of county taxes (and, theoretically, state aid) .

As long as the assessments are internally consistent and they align to up-to-date market values, then they are fair.

Since Jersey City's real estate market is so dynamic and it might be hard for the reval firm to keep up, I wouldn't be surprised if the aggregate valuation and EV don't match as closely as they would in a less hot real estate market.

What really matters for fair tax assessment is the Coefficient of Deviation, not how far the assessment is from the Equalized Valuation.

Quote:

This is likely good news for homeowners in general, but let's not forget that even if this resulted in a net decrease of the equivalent increased valuation (~10%) the city homeowners are still looking at an effective tax rate of 1.9% (given the 2.1% effective ta rate of 2016) which is still a substantial one for those properties that have appreciated so much over the past decade or two.

I do wonder if the effective rate would actually drop that much, considering that municipal ad valorem property taxes are only a portion of the total tax bill (isn't it around 60%?) with the remaining being taken up by school taxes (~26%) and county taxes. If the other rates do not adjust down, the net decrease would be closer to 6%, leaving the effective rate at a smidgen below 2%.


I agree that there are going to be Jersey City homeowners with extremely high tax bills post-reval, but their tax rates at ~1.9 are significantly lower than New Jersey's average of 2.4.

The definitely consequence of JC's growth in EV is a slightly higher proportion of the county tax levy.

For tax year 2017 Jersey City had 36% of Hudson County's total valuation. For tax year 2018 Jersey City will have 36.6%.

The second consequence is harder to predict, but Jersey City ought to lose school aid given New Jersey's severe fiscal crisis and JC's ability to sustain a higher tax levy. However, we have no idea if Phil Murphy actually will cut JC's state what mechanism he would use if he decided to do so.

Also, Jersey City did have ~$636 million new properties come onto the tax rolls. The average property owner's tax bill might drop because of this.

Posted on: 2017/10/6 10:01
Top


New Equalized Valuations Out, JC at $28.4 billion
#11
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


The Dept of Treasury just came out with new Equalized Valuations and JC grew by $2.7 billion to $28.4 billion. Of that increase, over $2 billion comes from appreciation of the existing housing stock and only $600+ million from new construction and the expiration of PILOTs.

JC's valuation is now 2.35% of the state's total.

I am posting this here because I've seen so much speculation on what the new tax rate will be after the reval. (which doesn't actually change the tax rate).

Anyway, JC's effective tax rate will surely decline as a result of the big increase in real estate wealth.

http://njeducationaid.blogspot.com/20 ... -equalized-valuation.html

Posted on: 2017/10/5 22:31
Top


Re: Funding reduction for JC schools.
#12
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away



I'd like to hear more in-depth news about the JCBOE's meetings on the state aid reduction.

Is the BOE resigned to losing more Adjustment Aid?

Is the BOE talking about the need to increase its local tax levy above 2.0% a year?


Posted on: 2017/7/28 12:31
Top


Re: Jersey City school officials fret over plan to cut $8.5M in state aid
#13
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


For 2016, Jersey City’s all-in (muni, county, school) tax levy
was $469,206,295. (not counting PILOT revenue).

The Equalized Valuation is $25.7 billion, so you have an all-in
Equalized tax rate of 1.8.

If Jersey City made up for the loss of $150 million of
Adjustment Aid and the Equalized Valuation didn’t increase,
the all-in tax rate would still only be 2.4, which is New Jersey’s
average.

However, in real life the Equalized Valuation is growing and
will significantly higher in five years than it is now, so Jersey
City is still likely to retain taxes below the state average.
Also, the Jersey City BOE does not have to make up for all the
losses of state aid with local taxes anyway.

If Jersey City’s state aid losses are limited to 1.5% of its
budget, then it would take decades for all of Jersey City’s
excess aid to be eliminated and Jersey City’s taxes will stay
below the state’s average for years to come.

Please remember (before you publicly worry about Jersey City)
that a complete redistribution of Adjustment Aid and $500
increase in total K-12 spending is not nearly enough to bring
up the underaided districts to 100% funding.

I respect Steve Sweeney a lot, but he has oversold his plan.
The deficit for 2015-16 is $2 billion and it grows annually, so
$700 million in redistributed aid plus $500 million in new aid is
not enough to bring every district to 100%.

Posted on: 2017/6/23 13:01
Top


Re: Jersey City school officials fret over plan to cut $8.5M in state aid
#14
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


My big observation about Jersey City and state aid is why the school administration and BOE have been so quiet about redistribution whereas Fulop and the City Council (including Michael Yun) have opposed it. If you read the article, JCBOE members do not have the fury about losing state aid that Toms River and Brick do.

It's possible that the administrators and JCBOE members actually are progressives who understand that other towns have greater needs than Jersey City. If so, I commend them.

Fulop, on the other hand, is a lying _______.

Posted on: 2017/6/22 14:34
Top


Re: Jersey City school officials fret over plan to cut $8.5M in state aid
#15
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


The abated properties do pay school taxes on the land they own, so there is a small contribution to education.

However, the way the PILOT law is written, the total payment (land taxes + PILOT fees) is a fixed amount, so if land taxes increase, PILOT fees decrease.

It wouldn't be a large loss, but higher school taxes on the land would mean lower PILOT fees to the Jersey City municipality.


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
If the city taxpayers are required to make up this $8.5 million, one one cent will come from tax abated buildings.

Posted on: 2017/6/20 12:02
Top


Re: Jersey City abatement vote met with mock party
#16
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away



The protesters are right, the abatements do harm other Jersey City taxpayers.

Even disregarding the costs of services for new residents/workers/students, unless the PILOT fee exceeds 86% of normal taxation, Jersey City taxpayers get less of a tax offset than they would from new development brought in under normal taxation.

The only time a PILOT deal would be net-positive fiscally if if the abatement truly is a but-for factor in construction.

http://njeducationaid.blogspot.com/20 ... atements-hurt-jersey.html

The only area I disagree with the protesters with is in who the victim is. PILOTs are tax fairness problem, not a school budget problem. If Jersey City PILOTed nothing what would happen is that other Jersey City taxpayers would pay less in taxes. Unless the BOE passed a larger tax levy, the schools wouldn't have a cent more.


Posted on: 2017/3/10 12:16
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#17
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


What else should one call Steve Fulop's statements other than "bullshit"?

From the point of view of taxes and state aid, it is irrelevant if only one section of Jersey City is thriving because Jersey City IS A SINGLE ENTITY FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF TAXES.

Even if only 15% of Jersey City's residences are worth more than $1 million, they would comprise approximately half of the residential valuation, with other high-value properties filling in the great large majority.

On top of that, Jersey City has above average amounts of commercial and industrial property. Whereas the average town in New Jersey is 84% residential in valuation, Jersey City is only 62% residential. Although officially Jersey City's property is "only" 25.3% commercial, it has billions of dollars in off-the-books PILOTed property that is disproportionally commercial. (see "Property Type Extremes")

So the fact that parts of Jersey City are still poor is not relevant from the point of view of taxation and state aid. The SFRA formula takes into account a comprehensive picture of a district's tax base (except PILOTed property, which is invisible) and any heightened level of disadvantage in students.

Posted on: 2017/2/23 13:54
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#18
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Steve Fulop is a liar, bullshit artist, and hypocrite.

http://njeducationaid.blogspot.com/20 ... hypocrisy-from-steve.html

Fulop claims state aid redistribution is about helping rich suburbs, but he's wrong. The biggest beneficiaries would be towns like Clifton, Bayonne, and Bloomfield.

Even when middle-class suburbs would gain aid, they desperately need it.

Read about Delran whose per pupil spending is barely $12k.

http://www.burlingtoncountytimes.com/ ... e6-b49d-4b0009fa55d6.html

Read about Egg Harbor Township.

http://www.shorenewstoday.com/egg_har ... 53-9e5e-065b6d0d43b2.html

Posted on: 2017/2/23 10:37
Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#19
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
She also says again and again that "taxes are high" without justifying it even when called out on it repeatedly. Not to mention always injecting the abatement issue into the reval discussion, when they actually have absolutely nothing to do with each other. We'd need a reval even if the Yvonne the Witch of the West (bank) waved her wand and made the abatements disappear, since the reval is about fairness between the taxpayers.

It truly appears she lacks the wits to understand these issues, and when called out always doubles down like her man tRump.


brewster, my information comes from the county administrator, we pay his salary to come up with his facts that I quote. It is not my facts at all.


I think it's fair to say that abatements lower your municipal taxes and raise your school taxes and county taxes, although the increase in school and county taxes is a missed offset opportunity, and not a true, net increase.

JC structures PILOT agreements so that the municipality gets more money than it would from regular taxation. For instance, instead of getting 50% of a $1 million all-in tax bill, it gets 95% of $750k PILOT payment.

PILOTed buildings don't give the schools any money at all and pay county fees at a significantly reduced rate.

If JC's PILOTed buildings paid normal taxes, they would offset the overall school levy and by a small but palpable amount for county taxes.

Since a third of JC is PILOTed (by far the state's highest total), the effect on school taxes is very significant.

My estimate is that JC's PILOTed buildings would have an Equalized Valuation of about $10-11 billion 2017. Hudson County's total Equalized Valuation is $71 billion.

Jersey City's PILOTed buildings are thus 15% of Hudson County's total. They do pay some money to the county, but 15% is a palpable impact even on the county's tax levy for the owners of non-PILOTed buildings.

It's hard to compute the net change in taxes due to PILOTing, but assuming that these buildings would be built anyway even if they had to pay normal taxes, my guess is that on the net, JC's PILOTed properties increase taxes for everyone else in Jersey City and certainly increase taxes for people living in other towns in Hudson County.

Steve Sweeney is actually trying to reform the PILOT law. It's part of his state aid reform package, although he's not spoken in public (AFAIK) about what changes he wants to happen with PILOTs.

Posted on: 2017/1/14 10:24
Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#20
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

stateaidguy wrote:
Jersey City's taxes will definitely be below 2% post-reval, but this has nothing to do with the reval so much as it does the increase in Jersey City's Equalized Valuation.

JC's EV is now $24 billion and will be even higher after the reval is completed.

JC's all-in tax levy is now $448.7 million. That rate will increase too, but not in proportion to the increase in the Equalized Valuation.

$448.7 million / $24 billion = 1.87%.

The tax rate will fall farther once the new EV is computed.





SAG, Thank you! I'm so tried of the complete and utter BS from the fearmongers and the ignorant. I saw a news report the other day saying it's a double edged sword because the reval will hurt people, but will also generate more money for the city.


Well, an ignorant reporter is just that... ignorant.

BUT, the values provided by the state are very different from what you present in your post.

The State of NJ puts the total JC EV at $21,643,490,206 (21.6 B) for 2015, and 25,679,882,705 (25.7 B) for 2016. The effective tax rate (as calculated by the state) is 2.216% for 2015.

Source for the above:
EV 2016: http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxat ... df/lptval/2016/Hudson.pdf
EV 2015: http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxat ... df/lptval/2015/hudson.pdf
Effective Tax Rate 2015: http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/pdf/lpt/gtrhud15.pdf

How did you arrive at the total tax levy of $448.7 million? Do you have a source for that figure? Also, are you sure you are not using the valuation from valuation from 2016 and applying the effective tax rate for 2015? I ask because the figures are wildly different than what is on the State of NJ website. Thanks!


I admit I misremembered JC's Equalized Valuation, but that mistake doesn't change my argument that JC's all-in tax rate will be below 2%.

The FY2017 EV is $25,697,067,795. (it's a $4 billion increase from the year before, so I guess I got confused and wrote "$24 billion")

The FY2016 tax levy was $448,717,388. (source is the Property Tax Tables)

If you do the division, the estimated all-in tax rate 1.7%.

Oops. Sorry for the distraction with the wrong EV.

Posted on: 2017/1/12 14:21
Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#21
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Jersey City's taxes will definitely be below 2% post-reval, but this has nothing to do with the reval so much as it does the increase in Jersey City's Equalized Valuation.

JC's EV is now $24 billion and will be even higher after the reval is completed.

JC's all-in tax levy is now $448.7 million. That rate will increase too, but not in proportion to the increase in the Equalized Valuation.

$448.7 million / $24 billion = 1.87%.

The tax rate will fall farther once the new EV is computed.




Posted on: 2017/1/11 15:17
Top


Re: Fulop won't run for governor, will back Murphy, sources say
#22
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


I'm very dismayed by Sweeney's quitting because I don't think highly of Phil Murphy.

Murphy ran a campaign of going everywhere, spending a fortune, but only talking about issues that every single Democrat agrees on, like gun control and pay equity, and avoiding anything that divided the Democratic party.

To me, avoiding the tough decisions on what taxes to raise, what spending to cut, how to educate urban kids, and how to redistribute state aid isn't leadership.

As Bury Pensions says, on complex problems like the NJ economy, the pension crisis, Murphy's strategy is:

Present an idea that sounds good to anyone who won’t think about it in any depth to people who are not going to think about it in any depth.


Murphy is incoherent.

He wants to save the pension funds, but he also wants the funds to invest in a state-owned bank whose mission is to make low-interest, NJ-exclusive loans.

He wants to revive our cities and sees cities as central to our economic revival, but he opposes the tax incentives which encourage businesses to relocate in cities (and sometimes keep the businesses in NJ)

He wants the "rating agencies off our back," but he proposes billions in new (non-pension) spending.

He wants to drop the PARCC exam and replace it with ..... another computerized exam that kids will take more frequently throughout the year.

He says GE's relocation from CT to Massachusetts proves that taxes don't determine business location decisions, when Massachusetts is actually an AVERAGE TAX state to begin with with taxes that are much lower than CT's (or NJ's) and Massachusetts offered $180 million in tax incentives.

Posted on: 2016/10/6 15:44
Top


Re: Fulop won't run for governor, will back Murphy, sources say
#23
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Stateaidguy, do we know Murphy's stance on equitable, fair state education funding?


Phil Murphy cares as much about state aid as he cares about Uruguayan airport construction bidding.

Phil Murphy says, writes, and does nothing on state aid. Murphy never misses a chance to link NJ's problems and misgovernance with Chris Christie, but when Christie proposed his awful "Fairness Formula" and when the state auditor came out with a damning report on the unfairness of the aid distribution Murphy says nothing.

Murphy's website has nothing on state aid. His stump speech has nothing in it about state aid. His ads have nothing about state aid.

Murphy's indifference to state aid is in parallel to his indifference to property taxes.

When Murphy has been asked about state aid he shows how uninformed he is.

I saw Murphy get a question about state aid at a town hall and then just hand the mic off to Dick Codey.

I saw Murphy get a question about state aid in an online forum and then put 100% of the blame on Christie for cutting aid in 2010, even though NJ's revenues had fallen by billions and our federal stimulus money had been exhausted.

When host Larry Mendte of Jersey Matters asked Phil Murphy, if he would shift state aid around Murphy evaded the question and gave an error-riddled description of how our state aid law was _supposed_ to work, without recognizing any of hte problems in it. He also didn't use the name of the law, "SFRA," which indicates a lack of familiarity to me.

When Larry Mendte then asked Murphy point blank if he'd reallocate state aid Murphy paused and then said "I'd like to implement that formula."

(watch at 3:30)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgoyRJp0qy4

"Implementing that formula" depends on pouring billions more into state aid and Murphy has never said where he would get that money.

The closest Murphy has come to saying there is a problem is "maybe the formula needs to be tweaked."

Yes, he used the words "maybe" and "tweaked."

Murphy talks about PreK aid quite a bit and has criticized Christie for not providing PreK for another 45,000 kids (which would cost at least $600 million.)

However, as for K-12? Murphy doesn't care.

Posted on: 2016/9/28 15:10
Top


Re: Fulop won't run for governor, will back Murphy, sources say
#24
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Senator Ray Lesniak has the best quote on the Fulop>Murphy endorsement:

"Murphy made a deal with the Devil."

Steve Fulop has done more shady dealing than any other elected Democrat in New Jersey.[img width=200]https://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/photo3-e14418546066951.jpg?quality=80&w=635&h=394[/img]

Steve Fulop defends grossly unfair tax systems, for Jersey City and the state as a whole.

I agree and hope that Ray Lesniak starts to get more attention now.

Murphy's claim to be against "insiders" is pathetic. Murphy takes all the suppport from insiders he can get.

http://observer.com/2016/09/lesniak-s ... with-fulop-off-the-field/

Posted on: 2016/9/28 14:48
Top


Re: Fulop won't run for governor, will back Murphy, sources say
#25
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


I hope Fulop's departure lets Ray Lesniak or John Wisniewski become a top tier candidate.

Both Lesniak and Wisniewski have a lot of integrity and deserve a fair look.

Lesniak is the state's #1 advocate for animal rights. That's not an issue a politician picks up who just wants to pander to donors or a big constituency. I respect him for taking up a cause for a voiceless, voteless group.

Wisniewski was a very early backer of Bernie Sanders. I was never a Sanders person, but I admire Wisniewski's independence for this. Wisniewski went for Sanders when nobody thought Sanders had a chance.

Posted on: 2016/9/28 12:14
Top


Re: Fulop won't run for governor, will back Murphy, sources say
#26
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


I could vote for a businessperson who had no prior experience for a high office if I agreed with him or her on the issues and the person had made his/her money in a way that hadn't hurt the common good, but not Phil Murphy.

Phil Murphy has shown almost no sympathy for New Jerseyans who are getting killed by property taxes. If you look at his website and listen to his statements, he says nothing about taxes at all except that they are a problem for seniors and some low-income people. The idea that middle-class or working-class, non-seniors could be overburdened by taxes doesn't occur to him. Murphy is the only candidate running who OPPOSES a tax cap.

When asked about property taxes Murphy says the solution is "economic growth," which is the equivalent of saying "I have no plan other than luck."

And yet, Murphy's spending promises are so expansive that even if we had strong economic growth (yeah right) Murphy would pour so much money new programs like a huge expansion of PreK that there would be little money left over for municipal and school aid that actually offset property taxes.

Murphy is, by far, the biggest shill for the NJEA too. He says he has "no opinion" of tenure reform, he says he is against new charter schools, and he wants to drop the PARCC with (get this) a different computerized test.

Murphy's playbook for the campaign is a generic "How to Run as Democrat" playbook he got from the DNC. Murphy is for all sorts of worthy Democratic goals, like funding for Planned Parenthood, a $15 / hour minimum wage, and gun control, but there is next to nothing in his campaign which deals with NJ-specific problems, such as our pension crisis and sky-high cost of living.

Quote:

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

neverleft wrote:
Fulop won't run for governor, will back Murphy, sources say

By Terrence T. McDonald | The Jersey Journal
on September 28, 2016 at 9:20 AM, updated September 28, 2016 at 9:29 AM

JERSEY CITY — Mayor Steve Fulop will announce this afternoon that he will not seek the Democratic nomination for governor next year, sources have told The Jersey Journal.

The sources also say Fulop will throw his support behind Phil Murphy, a former Goldman Sachs executive and former U.S. ambassador who announced his gubernatorial run in May.


http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... n.html#incart_2box_hudson
interesting, i don't see what makes a goldman sachs alum any more qualified to be governor than a career politician....i'm thinking corzine, christie and gay american. i'm thinking we need someone dedicated to public service in trenton

Posted on: 2016/9/28 11:37
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#27
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

brewster wrote:
Thanks SAG, but the discrepancies in the numbers is making my head explode.

JC 2015 Equalized Valuation= 21,661,162,459
therefore levy at 2.2291%= 496,257,231

So what is the $217m you said on you site was the "regular municipal tax levy"?

Does it make sense to you that the 146 abated properties represent 30% of the entire value of the city?


The 146 properties could easily be 30% of the entire value of the city.

Many of the PILOTed buildings are skyscrapers and skyscrapers have crazily high valuations. If one PILOTed office building is worth $300 million that alone would be 1.4% of Jersey City's total valuation.

The 2.2291% ETR has county, school, muni, and even library and county and open space taxes combined into it. If you combine all of the different taxes JC taxpayers pay and divide by the Equalized Valuation, you'd get a figure that was in the low 2% range.

If you see discrepancies it might be because JC's Equalized Valuation is growing so rapidly and people might be using recent figures from 2014 or 2015 that are now out of date.

It might also be due to there being certain relatively small, obscure taxes that sometimes are neglected in calculations (like library, open space, and even a $5,429,458 "school levy as required by municipal budget" (I have no idea what that is))

See "Property Tax Tables" > Tax Summary to see all of the property taxes you pay.

http://www.state.nj.us/dca/divisions/ ... urces/property_tax.html#1

Posted on: 2016/9/10 14:23
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#28
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

stateaidguy wrote:

1.
Hoboken is a ultra high-tax base rich district that gets K12 state aid like it's working class.

JC is a middle-tax base district that gets K12 state aid like it's a desperately poor, blightzone. (more below)


Can you define your terms like "ultra high-tax base"? Is this Equalized Valuation/student population or Equalized Valuation/total population, or what? It's hard to see how JC can be "middle" when "Jersey City's students are much poorer than average".


"Ultra high tax base" is just a term I use. There's no official definition to it.

But I like to call a district "ultra high tax base" if its tax base per student exceeds Millburn's since Millburn is the richest (large) suburb.

For 2015-16, Millburn had $37,000 in Local Fair Share per student or $1.9 million in Equalized Valuation per student. (Millburn shouldn't get state aid either)

Hoboken had $70,000 in Local Fair Share per student or about $4.6 million per student.

Local Fair Share is a hybrid measurement of tax base that the state is supposed to use to calculate Equalization Aid. It depends on Equalized Valuation and on Aggregate (not mean) Income.

It might seem strange that the state factors in income, but if state aid were based on property wealth alone it would actually be very bad for Hudson County where there is a relatively low ratio of income:property wealth. Conversely, it would be very good for South Jersey and rural areas, where the ratio of income:property wealth tends to be higher.

Anyway, tax base per resident would result in a very different ordering of relative wealth than tax base per student.

"It's hard to see how JC can be "middle" when "Jersey City's students are much poorer than average"."

There are many districts where there is a large difference between the strength of the tax base and the wealth of the students.

There are Jersey Shore districts with poor students but tens of thousands in LFS per student.

There are rural districts where the students are solidly middle class, but the tax base is very weak.

Divergences like these between tax base and student demographics result from different towns having different compositions of residential and non-residential property and different age structures where there might be proportionally a lot or proportionally very few kids in the public schools.

So Jersey City's students are 70% FRL eligible, which is about the 45th highest in NJ, but Jersey City has higher percentages of commercial and industrial property than the average NJ town and proportionally very few school-aged kids for its population.

Thus Jersey City's Local Fair Share per student is just somewhat below the state's average and if PILOTed properties were factored in, Jersey City would be above average.

Posted on: 2016/9/10 10:26
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#29
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Nearly $3 billion is missing from the ratable base due to tax abatements. This means, the average taxpayer is paying higher taxes due to these missing ratables. If these ratables were included, then our taxes would be around $50.00 per thousand instead of $77 per thousand.


Also, please reference your source for $9B of market value being in abated properties. Seems high considering the entire equalized value of the unabated is is $21.6B


The $9 billion in Equalized Valuation figure came from me.

I did the calculation in 2015 after it was released that if JC's PILOTed properties paid taxes, they would pay $198,589,915 (to the county, schools, muni)

Since JC's Equalized Tax Rate is 2.291%, I just divided 198,589,915 by .02291 and got $8.6 billion.

Since the $198,589,915 number came out in July 2015 I think it's a fair extrapolation to say that by now with more PILOTed properties being completed and appreciation in the existing ones, that by now the PILOTed properties would be worth at least $9 billion.


http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... sey_city_tax_abateme.html


Posted on: 2016/9/10 10:06
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#30
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

Monroe wrote:
'Christie/Abbott' regime??

Christie wants Abbott to go away, no?


I was being a little facetious, but I think "Christie/Abbott regime" is a legitimate exaggeration.

Christie doesn't like Abbott (neither did Jon Corzine), but the state aid distribution is still dominated by NJ Supreme Court orders made in the 1990s.

Under Abbott, the Abbott districts were entitled to state aid that would bring their spending above what DFG I and J districts spending, meaning whatever Mountain Lakes, Livington, and Princeton spent, the Abbotts had to spend more than that. The NJ Supreme Court, quite literally, also said that Abbott unwillingness to pay higher taxes and Abbott inability to pay higher taxes, were the same thing, so the Abbotts all took a long tax increase holiday in the Abbott era and let the state pick up the slack.

Later, the Abbotts even got the right to get "supplemental funding" for whatever plausible educational project they could think of.

SFRA's passage in 2008 technically erased Abbott privileges for K-12 aid, but all their aid up to that point was grandfathered in.

In 2011 the NJ Supreme Court disallowed cuts to the Abbotts, but allowed cuts to all other districts. Christie obeyed this dictate and thus let the Abbott spending advantaged actually increase.

Aside from K-12 aid, the Abbotts also continue to have a monopoly on Pre-K and get 100% state construction funding.

So even though Christie doesn't like Abbott, he hasn't succeeded in changing the distribution. (nor has he really tried.)

What Christie has done since 2012-13 is flat-fund all districts, including ones getting way more than they need, like Asbury Park. Under Christie, the only thing that determines a district's aid is what it got the year before.

So I think speaking of a "Christie/Abbott regime" is a fair rhetorical flourish.


Posted on: 2016/9/9 14:25
Top



TopTop
(1) 2 3 4 5 »






Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2017