Ianmac47:

I'm not sure I follow your argument, earlier you said we need a re-val but stressed that it would not affect an individual's tax bill (I guess by adjusting the assessed value and the tax rate inorder to net out everything), but more recently you're suggesting that someone who owns a brownstone that is assessed at $100-200K is paying a fraction of their fair share. So what, a re-val will raise their tax bill?

The way I see it, while a re-val is due, if it's accompanied by an appropriate change in the tax rate, those brownstone owners will end up paying the same taxes they did before, no?

The problem is that because of the PILOTS, the city has fewer taxpayers that it can turn to in order to raise revenue for its programs. As far as the amount of $/student between here and Ridgewood, I'd assume a lot of that is due to the size and inefficiency of our school system. Ridgewood's a pretty small town.

Quote:

I really like and respect your posts here, and I'm sorry if I'm coming off as negative.

I agree that the state should consolidate small districts and force districts like the Jersey City district to be more transparent and more honest.

But I think the argument that the state is throwing good money after bad in Jersey City is, at least, incomplete and based on apples-to-oranges comparisons.

If you go on the New Jersey school report card site, you see that, for example, P.S. 5 and P.S. 37, the two downtown Jersey City grade schools I looked up, have third grade and fourth grade language arts and math scores that are comparable to the scores in the Ridgewood schools, even though none of the kids in the Ridgewood schools is classified as economically disadvantaged, and there are two few black or Hispanic kids in the Ridgewood schools for the schools to report subscores for those kids.

At P.S. 5, for example, in which 100% of the 2005-06 test takers were classified as economically disadvantaged and none of the kids has access to a nice, modern, usable playground, the percentage of third grade kids scoring at the proficient level or higher (96.1%) was actually HIGHER than the 95.7% rate at Hawes, a rich Ridgewood school that probably has every school amenity.

The third grade math passing rate at P.S. 37 was just a little lower, at 93.2%.

Even for fourth graders, the 94.2 percent passing rate for P.S. 37 is the same as the passing rate for Orchard, a rich Ridgewood school.

The language arts score gap is wider -- understandably, because a very high percentage of Jersey City kids speak English as a second language -- and the percentage of Ridgewood kids who score at the advanced level is higher, but I think it's possible to make the argument that the downtown Jersey City schools, at least, are getting a lot more out of their students than the Ridgewood schools are.

Sometimes people zing the Jersey City schools because of the drop off in scores for middle school kids, but that's not really a valid thing to do, because a lot of the bright Jersey City schools end up in honors schools, and that throws off the percentages for the regular schools.

Quote:


sigh. of course you're aware that's not the argument; the argument is that the development would've happened anyway given the proximity to Manhattan and the strength of that market over the last 15 years.

Why can't the city just lower it's budget growth from 4 1/2% to 2%, which is the amount of increase the city is still getting from the state?

I love how people, who are in essence using other people's money, cry that they are being treated shabbily when the increase does not meet their expectation.

It's time to cut costs, across the board, and get the financial house in order.

There are really two issues here: 1. School Funding, 2. PILOT / Abatement programs.

1. School Funding
Public schools are mandated by the state constitution; the legislature determined in 1975 that property taxes alone would be sufficient to fund schools; Abbott v. Burke determined this failed the constitution because cities with a marginal tax base could not provide thorough and efficient public schools. The current solution provides state funding for urban schools. An alternative would be for the legislature to fund all schools through income or sales taxes rather than through municipal level property taxes.

However, the unfortunate result of the state\'s solution of simply throwing more money into urban districts rather than actually addressing the issue of improving education maintained the status quo of neglect, misuse, corruption and patronage. Consider that the cost per student in Jersey City was $14,187 in 2005 . By comparison, Ridgewood\'s cost per student was $12,133 in 2006. Ridgewood has historically been one of the better public school districts in the state, yet they are spending less money than Jersey City. So is it any surprise the state wants Jersey City to spend less money?

Soures:
Jersey Journal
The Ridgewood Blog

2. PILOTs, Abatements and Public Policy
PILOTS and tax abatements are not created to exempt certain people from taxes, but rather to exempt investments from taxes. From a policy standpoint, tax abatements encourage investment in a community that in turn generates more money than otherwise would be generated without the abatement. Abatements are strictly a cost / benefit game. The cost to the city has so far been very small because the abated properties tend to use fewer city resources, generate new revenue and improve the city.

Certainly some people could argue that Jersey City would have been better off without investment, without new housing, without more, wealthier residents. But I for one don\'t see how this argument holds water. Crime is down. The murder rate is down. New stores are opening. New jobs are being created. While many other large New Jersey cities are still struggling, Jersey City is clearly enjoying the fruits of a new resurgence. Perhaps there are philosophical arguments that could be made that the city is not better off than it was 10 or 20 years ago, but I don\'t buy it.

Meanwhile, if you want to talk about paying a fair share of property taxes, then the issue of a revaluation must come up. Anyone owning a downtown brownstone that could sell tomorrow for a million dollars, but is paying taxes on an assessed value of $100k or $200k is paying a fraction of their fair share. In addition, downtown property values have almost certainly increased faster than most of the rest of Jersey City. Therefor residents in the rest of the city are currently paying a disproportionate share of the property tax burden.

Maybe the downtown no longer needs new abatements or PILOTS, but it certainly did a decade or two ago, and its not as though the rest of the downtown is paying their fair share of taxes anyway.

I think the point here that is being missed is that "urban" schools in New Jersey have just lost money while proportionally wealthier (by comparison) small "suburban" schools have just been given extra money.

The problem is that rather than consolidating all the little school districts in NJ, and there are way too many small suburban school districts in NJ without enough students to justify their existence - ( same as there are too many other small services like fire and police in NJ )

Corzine chose the easy way out and took money from poor kids in "urban" areas like Jersey City, Newark, and Trenton to fund other poor children in these smaller wealthier "suburban" areas. The change that was needed was consolidation but Corzine chose the easy political route and urban property owners and kids will be the losers.

Quote:

You seem to miss the point that, since in a reval some get lowered but an equal number get raised so the reval is revenue neutral, raising the rate after a reval has dropped it results in the half of property owners whose values were raised getting raised twice. You can't just single out those whose taxes were lowered in the reval to have their new rate raised.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't pay their fair share, just that the politics of a double wammy would be nuclear. People are pretty ignorant of the financial options available to someone with low income but owning a $1m property outright, and you will hear much cries in the reval of "forcing people from their homes".

Comparing the "rate" to other communities is pointless since every town is at a different point in the disastrous reval cycle of the cumulative value of all property getting farther and farther away from reality causing the rate to climb to compensate.

I disagree with the reasoning that since there are likely to be fewer school-age children in the new developments it's not a problem that they pay less towards the school system. We're all in this town together and it's fair that we all pull our equal share.
Our Mayor, and councelpersons who passed through PILOTS with the assumption that we didn't need a budget that could support itself fairly have gotten us into this unpleasent situation. I'm also going to say some of this is on us for letting it go on this long as well. It's one thing to complain on a message board about how much this sucks (which I am doing right now), it's another thing to make your feelings heard through attending board meetings, and writing the people in charge (which I haven't).

The other problem I'm expecting, is that even after we get hit up for a tax increase, we're probably still going to have a bloated, crappy school system.

Assuming the proposed formula gets adopted as is, this is terrible news for JC.

Property taxes will increase and they will be forced to cut spending/services because the formula will basically "freeze" the city at the current state aid amount and I dont think a 4% annual increase would cover "built-in" cost increases.

Let's not forget that there is also a 4% cap on the amount that the local tax level can increase to cover school spending. There are some things that fall outside the cap, but all in all, the cap provides some protection against the school portion of property taxes increasing astronomically from year to year. I think that if the city wants to increase by more than that they have to go the voters and we know what the result of that would be.

The city should really do a reval to spread the tax burden more equitable. STOP piling tax increases on residents whose tax bills are already inflated. No more PILOTs and rescind all previous PILOT agreements, if possible.

Pay close attention to this issue and register to vote if you have not already done so. How this plays out in this city is going to be interesting.

Quote:

Do you have any interim census figures or other figures to support this?

My impression, from going to birthday parties, playdates and the Newport playground, is that there are tons of children at Newport. On any given summer afternoon, there are probably 30 to 50 kids who show up at the playground by the drug store.

I think there are quite a few Newport kids at P.S. 37 (Cordero), Hamilton Park Montessori and Waterfront Montessori as well as at the Newport branch of Stevens.

For me, this is a big issue, because I am, literally, three houses away from a family with a child at P.S. 37. I'm starting to think that my daughter's school may be better than P.S. 37, but most of the families we know from the park have their kids at P.S. 37, and we originally were desperate to get our daughter into P.S. 37. It's a pain to think that people who live in a property that pays little or no school tax crowded our daughter out of P.S. 37.

Although as Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it", I'll respond to ianmac47's two points....


1. The percentage of children living at any single given address within a municipality (to my knowledge) is not and has never been a valid criterion (either legally or morally) for determining property tax paid. I don't happen to have kids either, can I get a locked-in PILOT too?


2. To suggest that it's the pre-existing local small business landlords who should pony up because they can charge more rent now that the corporate developments are here spreading more money around on the street, I guess that's some kind of perverse trickle-down theory in reverse or something. But it's worth noting it'll also be the non-PILOTED *residents* who are on the hook for the next 20 years to make up for any shortfalls the PILOTs are exempt from (and also, now that I think of it, it also goes against your first argument, because I would imagine the percentage of children living in a storefront retail rental on Newark Ave. might be below even that of a waterfront residential tower - just a guess .



And lastly, no - there's nothing fun about this. The PILOTS were handed out assuming the state school bailout money would never go away, and now that it looks like at least some of it will, we're (ahem) screwed. Healy either got snookered by the developers or he was in league with them, not sure which is worse. And now that's the precedent - every single major new development gets a PILOT, because the one before got one.

I think it amounts to a complete corporate-backed dismantling of the way Jersey City municipal government is and will be funded for many years to come.

I know that sounds a bit strident, but that's how I see it.

Quote:

I think one important point here, especially for people like me who don't really know the rebate/PILOT/property tax numbers, is that the rebate/PILOT problem is an absolutely critical concern even if it is responsible for a fairly small percentage of Jersey City schools problems.

Whether making the waterfront condos pay their fair share of the school taxes would increase school funding by 20%, 5% or 1%, just the mere fact that fat cats are slinking away from their responsibility to help pay for the schools sets a terrible example and makes the entire system seem unfair.

Also: sometimes, even on the Yahoo! Jersey City schools group, waterfront residents will say they should have no responsibility for helping to support the local schools because the schools are so terrible.

My daughter is now in the public pre-K program at a downtown grade school, and it's wonderful. The teachers are great, the kids are smart and well-prepared, and the approach to discipline is both humane and effective.

The older children at my daughter's school seem to be polite and well-behaved, even when they're playing on their own in the park after school, and, whenever I survey them, they say they like school and believe they are learning a lot. And the downtown schools all have good or great test scores, so I now believe the kids are giving me a reasonably accurate assessment of school quality.

So, OK, if there are college-educated people living in the zones of some of the south Jersey City grade schools with terrible test scores and miserable kids, maybe they have some right to try to divorce themselves from the public schools. Maybe parents of middle school students and high school students who aren't in McNair have a right to try to wash their hands of the situation.

But waterfront parents of grade school students have no such right. The downtown grade schools may not be perfect, but they are fine, despite facing many difficult challenges, and clearly the downtown grade schools would be even better if more parents with money would put their kids in the schools and get involved with the parent councils.

Because the tax rate is actually absurdly low because the money being collected on the non-abated properties is many times less than it should be, especially in comparison to other communities in North Jersey.

I'm sure its fun to point fingers at the developers who receive abatements for new development, but that's not bankrupting the city. First off, children are a much smaller percentage of the population in the redeveloped towers than in the rest of the city. Second, the influx of people creates a customer base for retail establishments, like the restaurants on Newark Ave or Grove Street where rents are 10,000 a month. An increase in rent on a commercial property is an increase in value of the property, and thus should be increasing the revenue generated from the property through taxes. However, since all these properties are being taxed like its 1993, they generate little revenue.

Quote:


This is nothing more than an accurate description of the process by which taxes will be raised for the non-piloted taxpayer.

The issue is not how the "property valuation times the tax rate equals tax owed" equation is re-jiggered, the issue is the PILOTS.

Still waiting on that explanation of how any municipality with this much development underway can be broke.

The biggest problem for Jersey City's tax revenue comes from avoiding property revaluations. There has been a tremendous increase in the value of properties over the last 14 years since the last revaluation, and a disproportional increase in values in the downtown. Because the value of property has increased, a revaluation would lower the rate at which property is taxed at.
For instance, a property valued at $100,000 during the last revaluation 14 years ago might now be worth $1,000,000. A revaluation does not change the total collected revenue, only the rate at which revenue is generated. By taxing property on a lower value than it is, the tax rate is artificially high, to offset the difference. After a reval, the rate would be lower, and the council could than raise the needed revenue from an increase in property taxes, which would probably still keep the rate lower than many surrounding communities.

...more props for JPhurst - he gets it, the real issue is the handing out of the PILOTS.

Healy/Cunningham got nice and comfy with the state's school bailout money over the years, and forgot that property taxes (especially from the new waterfront development) were supposed to support schools.

Now Healy's squealing like a stuck pig at the prospect of that state money going away, because through incompetence and/or corruption, he's handed out (and continues to hand out) these sweetheart-deal PILOTS to the downtown/waterfront developers.

And JPhurst is also correct in pointing out that the real tragedy s that these PILOTS are locked in for decades, leaving only the small non-connected, non-PILOTed taxpayer to make up any future shortfalls.

This will be their legacy.

HOW HOW HOW can a city with this many huge construction sites and cranes on the downtown and waterfront skyline be hurting for money, how is that possible.

Can somebody explain that to me?

Healy: New formula means new taxes or education cuts

Friday, January 04, 2008
By KEN THORBOURNE
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy, Newark Mayor Cory Booker, black state legislators, the NAACP and other groups decried Gov. Jon Corzine's proposed school funding formula yesterday as two legislative committees paved the way for the measure's final adoption on Monday.

"This is not something that's palatable to the City Council of Jersey City, this administration, or the students of Jersey City," Healy said on his way back from Trenton, where he participated in press conferences with Booker and black legislators rallying against the Corzine plan.

"We will have to seek tax increases or make cuts," Healy said. "But it's difficult to make cuts since the state, which has run the Jersey City (school) district, has increased costs 150 percent over 18 years."

The Corzine plan calls for boosting Jersey City's state school aid by 2 percent, from $410.3 million to $418.5 million.

According to the legislation - approved and released yesterday by the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee and the Assembly Budget Committee in bipartisan votes - Jersey City would be assured of receiving at least this much money for the next three years.

But according to Healy, and Jersey City Superintendent of Schools Charles T. Epps Jr., whose term as a assemblyman representing Jersey City ends Monday, the Jersey City school district is locked into various contracts with teachers, administrators and other employees that call for 4.5 percent increases.

And the situation could grow worse beyond the three-year lock-in period because nearly a quarter of the $418.5 million in proposed funding is classified as "adjustment aid," meaning the district could lose this money after three years, a school official said.

State Sen. Bernard Kenny, D-Hoboken, chair of the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee, voted for Corzine's plan. Kenny, the victim of an apparent hit-and-run accident last year, retires Tuesday, the last day of this legislative session. He didn't return phone calls to comment on his vote.

Jersey City taxpayers currently pick up $82.8 million of the city's more than $600 million public school budget tab.

"This formula has too much uncertainty," Epps said. "It means big holes for us if we can only get this 2 percent." Epps declined to say how he planned to vote Monday.

Lilo Stainton, Corzine's press secretary, said Wednesday: "Gov. Corzine is committed to maintaining the progress we've seen in the Abbott and other districts, and he believes this policy is the best way to balance the need of taxpayers with the needs of school children throughout the state."

State Attorney General Anne Milgram yesterday declared the governor's $7.8 billion spending proposal - an increase of $532 million over this year - consistent with New Jersey's Constitution, which calls for a "thorough and efficient" education for every student.

==============================================

School funding clears hurdles

The Record
Friday, January 4, 2008
By ADRIENNE LU
STAFF WRITER

A proposal to overhaul New Jersey's school funding formula is headed to the full Senate and Assembly for floor votes Monday, after the plan was approved Thursday by legislative committees.

Also on Thursday, Governor Corzine's office released a letter from state Attorney General Anne Milgram that said she believes the proposed funding formula is constitutional. If ratified by the Legislature and signed by Governor Corzine, the plan still would need the approval of the state Supreme Court under the Abbott rulings that called on the state to provide extra resources to the state's poorest districts.

Supporters of the bill characterized the proposal as a fair and equitable way to distribute $7.8 billion in state aid to schools.

"What we've done here is ensure that wherever the child lives, there are adequate resources for the child through a combination of state aid and local fair share," state Education Commissioner Lucille Davy told the Senate budget committee, which held its hearing Thursday morning. "We're not looking at geographic boundaries, but treating each community in a similar, equitable way."

Some critics objected to specific provisions. Republican senators proposed several amendments, including one that would not take into account a district's wealth in distributing special-education funding.

Other critics of the bill argued it was too important to be rushed through during the lame-duck session. Corzine unveiled specific numbers for each district on Dec. 12. Thursday was the first time any Senate committee had discussed the issue with specifics of the 106-page bill to consider.

Corzine has been pushing its adoption by the end of the legislative session, at noon on Jan. 8. Otherwise, the bill would have to be introduced during the next legislative session.

Sen. Shirley Turner, D-Mercer, a member of the budget committee, who also serves as chairwoman of the Senate's education committee, abstained from voting, saying too many questions remained unanswered.

"My concern is this formula is going to continue to drive property taxes through the roof and it is not going to help the students in this state in terms of receiving a world-class education," Turner said.

Even some of the lawmakers who voted in favor of moving the bill along seemed conflicted.

"I think we're doing the right thing," said Sen. Paul Sarlo, D-Hackensack, "I just wish we had a little bit more time to make sure all the details are fleshed out." Sarlo added that he had felt frustrated at times trying to get answers to the questions he and his constituents still have about how the formula would work.

The proposed funding establishes a dollar figure that represents how much the state believes districts should spend on each student to meet the state's educational standards. The figure is adjusted for students who are poor, are learning English as a second language or require special education, and for districts with a high concentration of needy students. State aid would be based on those figures and the community's wealth and demographics.

The plan would also require about 120 districts -- yet to be named -- to offer tax relief to taxpayers. Those are communities the state says are spending more than necessary on education but are entitled to additional state aid because of demographic changes.

Each district would receive increases of 2 percent to 20 percent in state aid for the first year the formula is in effect. After the first three years, districts could lose state funding if enrollments decreased by more than 5 percent.

Sen. Sandra Bolden Cunningham, D-Hudson, was among those who feared their districts would suffer under the proposal.

"I applaud Governor Corzine for his efforts to ensure that all children are given a quality education whether they live in urban or suburban communities," Cunningham said. "However, after careful review of the governor's 106-page plan, I am extremely concerned with the impact the proposed funding formula will have on taxpayers in Abbott communities. While the plan provides a minimum 2 percent increase in state aid to all school districts, Jersey City schools could lose as much as $110 million within the first three years. These proposed cuts will cause substantial layoffs and will force an increase in property taxes."

Several lawmakers on the two committees crossed party lines, with some Republicans voting in favor of releasing the bill for a full vote and some Democrats voting against or abstaining.

E-mail: lu@northjersey.com

--------
PLAN HIGHLIGHTS

Establishes a figure that represents how much the state believes districts should spend on each student. The figure is adjusted for students who are poor, are learning English as a second language or require special education, and for districts with a high concentration of needy students.

Requires about 120 districts -- yet to be named -- to offer relief to taxpayers. Those are communities the state says is spending more than necessary on education but are entitled to additional state aid because of demographic changes.

Each district would receive increases of 2 percent to 20 percent in state aid for the first year the formula is in effect. After the first three years, districts could lose state funding if enrollments decreased by more than 5 percent.

=====================================================

Urban lawmakers attack school funding plan

Friday, January 4, 2008
By JONATHAN TAMARI
Gannett State Bureau
TRENTON

Gov. Jon S. Corzine's school funding formula took its first steps toward approval Thursday but faces an uncertain future, as Democrats from Newark and Jersey City lined up against the proposal, which they said could hurt urban schools and force property tax hikes in those communities.

With some urban lawmakers taking aim at the proposal, Democratic leaders hope suburban Republicans will support the bill to give it the necessary votes to win final legislative approval Monday. Some areas with GOP representation can expect significant infusions of state aid. Democrats doubt they will turn that money away.

The proposal was approved by the Senate and Assembly budget committees Thursday, putting it on the brink of legislative approval. Asked if getting the necessary votes would require a significant lobbying effort, Senate President Richard J. Codey said yes.

Corzine's plan includes $532 million in aid increases, largely for middle-class school districts that have gone years with stagnant state aid, despite growing enrollments and increasing numbers of needy students.

But the leaders of New Jersey's two largest cities and lawmakers representing those areas said the new formula doesn't deliver enough money to urban areas that depend on state aid to support their schools. Cities, many of which would receive 2 percent aid increases at first and flat funding in later years, could have to cut back on education spending or increase local taxes to meet rising costs, Newark Mayor Cory Booker and Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy warned.

Black lawmakers warned the plan could begin dismantling the Abbott v. Burke state Supreme Court rulings that have mandated enhanced state support for 31 historically poor, urban areas, including Camden, Newark and Jersey City.

===========================================
A quick, crazy way of passing legislation
Friday, January 04, 2008

Sen. Shirley Turner sat in her chair for two long hours, waiting for her moment to spoil the party.

Her fellow Democrats on the budget committee were in a frenzy to approve the governor's school funding formula, barely pausing to read 14 amendments added at the last minute.

Turner, as chairman of the education committee, seemed to think this was just plain crazy. Finally, the red light on her microphone snapped on.

"I am dismayed," she said. "We seem to be rushing this through, even with so many unanswered questions."

If you wanted to see your state Legislature at its very worst, yesterday was perfect. Democrats were entirely uninterested in thoughtful discussion. The governor wanted this done quickly, and that was that.

So Turner's questions were never really answered. And that's a shame. Because she's undoubtedly right when she says that this plan could do real harm to the state's poorest districts, leading to layoffs in schools that are showing remarkable progress.

"All our initiatives to improve student achievement are going to be lost," says Nathan Parker, the superintendent in Orange, one of the best performing poor districts. "We'd lose math coaches, reading coaches, guidance counselors -- as well as our reasonable class sizes."

The pity is that this plan has a great idea at its core. It says that poor kids should get extra help, even when they live in middle-class suburbs. Everyone agrees that change is long overdue.

The problem is poor kids in the suburbs would get more help at the expensive of poor kids in the cities. And the Legislature is apparently too busy to explore the impact of that.

"This takes from the poor to give to the poor," says Jersey City Mayor Jeremiah Healy. "That doesn't make sense."

Yesterday, attorney David Sciarra looked like a man watching his beloved son climb the steps of the gallows. He is head of the Education Law Center, the group that filed the Abbott lawsuits that won huge infusions of aid to the poor urban districts.

"All that goes away now," Sciarra said.

Sciarra was working the hallways in the capitol yesterday, in a hopeless attempt to swat down the myth that the Abbott system is an expensive failure.

In fact, reading and math scores in the poor cities are rising faster than scores in the suburbs. National test scores released this fall showed that New Jersey is closing the racial achievement gap among fourth-graders faster than any other state. That is a gigantic achievement.

Yes, some of the money is wasted. Asbury Park is spending more than $21,000 per student, and its kids still can't read.

"Cut some of that money on a steady glide path, and I have no problem," Sciarra said.

And that is why the Legislature's rush to approve this plan is so crazy. If they took some time to drill into the details, they could probably find reasonable ways to cut spending in the Abbotts, starting in the central offices. If they called witnesses like Parker, they might gain some insight on how to manage it carefully.

Amazingly, though, neither the Assembly nor the Senate education committees held their own hearings on this bill. No time.

So we have a plan that slowly squeezes most Abbott districts, endangering the hard-fought gains we've made. It caps increases in most Abbott districts at 2 percent next year, then freezes it for the foreseeable future. Given inflation, that will force layoffs.

After winning committee approvals yesterday, the bill is headed for a final vote on Monday. For the governor, this could be a big political win.

The question, still not answered, is what damage will be left in its wake.

Tom Moran may be reached at tmoran@starledger.com or (973) 392-1823.

===================================

Panels Approve New Jersey School Financing Plan

New York Times
By DAVID W. CHEN
Published: January 4, 2008

TRENTON ? Despite mounting criticism from the mayors of the state?s largest cities, Gov. Jon S. Corzine?s proposal to revamp New Jersey?s formula for financing schools cleared two important legislative hurdles on Thursday.

By comfortable margins, the budget committees in both the State Senate and Assembly approved Mr. Corzine?s plan directing more money to children who live outside the poorest districts, which now receive more than half of all state aid, in accordance with a court mandate. The plan would also apportion funds to schools based on demographics including family income, population growth, language ability and special academic needs.

Over all, the formula would increase education spending by $532.8 million the first year, with all districts receiving at least a 2 percent increase for the next three years, and some receiving as much as 20 percent more.

The plan will go to the floor of both chambers on Monday, the last full day of the legislative session. But its passage was hardly assured, since several of Mr. Corzine?s fellow Democrats, particularly from urban areas, have promised to reject the new formula for financing unless substantial changes are made.

Over the last two days, Mr. Corzine has met with two Democratic mayors ? Jerramiah T. Healy of Jersey City and Cory A. Booker of Newark ? who have been among his strongest allies, yet have been sharply critical of the school plan.

Although Mr. Booker said Thursday that Mr. Corzine had given him some reassurances on such issues as improving student performance, he expressed qualms about what he said was the haste with which the formula was being pushed through the Legislature.

?My preference is more deliberation,? he said. ?The more deliberation, the better.?

These sentiments were echoed by nearly all members of the Senate budget committee, during the testimony of the education commissioner, Lucille E. Davy.

State Senator Shirley K. Turner, a Democrat from Mercer County who is chairwoman of the Education Committee, was especially curt, noting that all but one of the towns she represents would receive the minimum 2 percent increase.

?They feel that they are being given the shaft,? Ms. Turner said. ?I?m in no position to support this school funding formula today.?

But in the end, she was one of four senators to abstain, and the committee approved the measure 7-1, with some changes, including more money for charter schools.

?I really believe this formula is logical, and it?s fair,? said State Senator Barbara Buono, a Democrat from Middlesex County, who sponsored the bill.

The measure was approved on a 9-3 vote in the Assembly committee.

But even if the measure is approved by the full Legislature on Monday, it still requires the approval by the State Supreme Court.

The court has been guiding school financing issues since its ruling more than two decades ago, Abbott v. Burke, found that students in poor and urban districts were not receiving the same education as their counterparts in wealthier ones.

Earlier on Thursday, the proposal cleared another hurdle when Attorney General Anne Milgram released a letter saying that the new formula would not violate the law.

Yet that did not prevent Gary S. Stein, a former State Supreme Court justice who participated in numerous Abbott v. Burke decisions, from warning legislators in a letter that the bill could be ??one of the most costly and counter-productive votes ever cast by the State?s Legislature.?

Quote:



Finally someone understands!!!


The chickens are coming home to ?????


DTG

Its time for a property revaluation. While this doesn't increase revenue, it will lower the property tax rate for most homeowners, though not the tax bill.

Quote:

Well gee, maybe the Mayor and Council should have thought about that when they were (and continue to) hand out PILOTs to any and all waterfront developers.

Because now...

a) Jersey City is missing out on school funding, to which the PILOTs do not contribute.

b) All of those PILOTs are locked in for at least 20 years, so none of the property owners will contribute to any tax adjustment.

Does this suck for us? Yes it does. But the writing was on the wall for quite some time.

Healy told the governor that basic cost-of-living increases would force his city ? which has raised taxes by 20 percent in the last three years ? to raise taxes by up to $1,000 a household each year.

New York Times: New Jersey School Plan Hinges on Odd Alliances

New York Times
By DAVID W. CHEN
Published: January 3, 2008

TRENTON ? Ever since Gov. Jon S. Corzine unveiled his plan three weeks ago to overhaul the way New Jersey finances its schools, he has witnessed the formation of unexpected alliances that either favor the new way he wants the state to dispense billions of dollars or strenuously oppose it.

On Wednesday, Mr. Corzine met with officials from Hudson County who have been among his staunchest political supporters, including Mayor Jerramiah T. Healy of Jersey City, who vehemently opposes the governor?s plan on the grounds that it shortchanges poor and urban districts, and may result in sizable local tax increases.

At first, Mr. Corzine?s plan also upset another longtime ally, the New Jersey Education Association, which represents teachers and is considered the most powerful labor group in the state. But last week the group changed its mind after lobbying successfully for changes, and it is now aligned with a group that supports providing parents with vouchers to send their children to the public schools of their choice.

Under the governor?s original proposal, the state would funnel more money to children who live outside the poorer districts, which now receive more than half of all state aid, and apportion funds to schools based on demographics like family income, language ability and special academic needs. Overall spending would increase by $532.8 million the first year.

To win over the teachers? union, the Corzine administration agreed to loosen a provision requiring about 120 school districts that are already spending more than what the state deemed to be adequate to return any excess money to local taxpayers. Instead, the districts would be allowed to keep more of that money to help deal with inflation.

Neither Democrats nor Republicans are lining up in a predictably partisan fashion. Democrats like State Senator Sandra Bolden Cunningham, who represents Jersey City, and Newark?s mayor, Cory A. Booker, have expressed the strongest reservations to the plan put forward by Mr. Corzine, a Democrat. Yet some Republicans, including Assemblyman Bill Baroni of Mercer County, have been among the most supportive.

The scramble is a reminder of how the politics of education in a state with more than 600 school districts is often unpredictable, and colored by such factors as geography and race.

For now, it is uncertain whether the bill will survive intact when it is taken up by the Assembly and Senate budget committees on Thursday, or approved by the end of the legislative year on Tuesday.

?It?s a clich?, but politics makes strange bedfellows, and when you talk about this kind of financing, it really is a political issue,? said Joseph R. Marbach, a political scientist at Seton Hall University. ?Before, it was often a traditional split, urban versus suburban, but this formula really cuts across the lines in so many ways.?

For more than two decades, the task of financing public schools in New Jersey has been guided by a State Supreme Court case, Abbott v. Burke, which found that students in poor and urban districts were not receiving the same education as their counterparts in wealthier suburbs.

Some districts, called Abbott districts, have made great strides in narrowing the achievement gap between rich and poor students, whites and minorities. But some have not. And the term ?Abbott? has become such a polarizing code word that Mr. Corzine said last month at a news conference announcing his formula, ?I would hope that over a period of time we will earn our way out of that.?

In a sign of just how determined Mr. Corzine is to get the formula signed into law soon, the Assembly Budget and Education Committees convened a rare joint hearing during Christmas week to question Mr. Corzine?s education commissioner, Lucille E. Davy.

It was there, in an 11-hour hearing, that the president of the New Jersey Education Association, Joyce Powell, came out in favor of the plan.

And while some Republicans, whose support Mr. Corzine was said to be working hard to gain, have been receptive, others are demanding more changes.

On Wednesday, the departing Senate minority leader, Leonard Lance, and his successor, Thomas H. Kean Jr., proposed that any new formula should link additional school financing to spending cuts in the budget.

Getting enough Democrats on board could prove to be just as hard for Mr. Corzine. With Jersey City scheduled to receive the minimum increase in funds, 2 percent a year, Mr. Healy told the governor that basic cost-of-living increases would force his city ? which has raised taxes by 20 percent in the last three years ? to raise taxes by up to $1,000 a household each year.

As a result, he warned that the city would work with the Education Law Center, a nonprofit group that represents the Abbott plaintiffs, to sue the state if necessary.

?If this stays the way it is, and it passes in lame duck,? Mr. Healy said, ?I don?t know what other recourse we have.?

======================================

Attorney General deems school plan constitutional as mayors, lawmakers protest

TOM HESTER Jr. | Associated Press Writer
1:33 PM EST, January 3, 2008

TRENTON, N.J. - Attorney General Anne Milgram Thursday deemed Gov. Jon S. Corzine's proposed new school funding plan constitutional as the Jersey City and Newark mayors and black legislators rallied against it.

Milgram, in a letter to Corzine's chief counsel, said the plan meets constitutional requirements that all New Jersey school children receive a "thorough and efficient" education.

But Newark Mayor Cory Booker, Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy and black legislators _ all Democrats like Corzine _ worried the plan could lead to deep program cuts and increased property taxes in struggling city school districts.

"We're getting burned by this," Healy said.

The opposition called into question whether Corzine and Democratic leaders could get the plan approved before the legislative session ends on Tuesday.

The Senate budget panel barely approved the plan Thursday, with the Assembly budget committee scheduled to hold a hearing Thursday afternoon. Approvals by both panels would set the measure for Monday votes by the full houses.

Booker said he feared the plan was being rushed and that it could bring school cuts and increased property taxes.

"That could have shock waves throughout our city," Booker said.

The plan is designed to send more state aid to suburban and rural schools with growing enrollments and many low-income students.

"It's fair and equitable and predictable," said Sen. Barbara Buono, D-Middlesex, who sponsors the plan.

State Education Commissioner Lucille Davy said the plan "follows the basic principle that children with greater needs deserve greater resources."

But Healy described the plan as "taking from the poor to help the poor."

Under the plan, the 31 poverty-stricken districts that have received extra financial help under a state Supreme Court ruling wouldn't see the same hefty aid increases they've typically received, but other districts _ like North Brunswick and Pennsauken _ would get 20 percent more from the state next school year.

Every district would get a state aid increase of at least 2 percent next year, and no school would see its allocation decrease for three years.

The plan comes after most school districts saw scant state aid increases this decade, forcing them to rely more on property taxes that are America's highest at $6,330 per homeowner, twice the national average.

Corzine contends the plan "gives all of our children in all of our communities the opportunity to succeed."

"It is balanced, unified and equitable and it provides significant relief to local property taxpayers," Corzine said.

But Republicans also said Democrats were rushing the plan without proper review and questioned whether it would help the rural and suburban districts. Black Democrats did the same on Thursday.

Sen. Sandra Bolden Cunningham, D-Hudson, said the plan could cost Jersey City schools $110 million over three years, while Sen. Shirley Turner, questioned whether it would boost what are already the nation's highest property taxes.

"I'm just dismayed that we seem to be rushing this through with so many unanswered questions," Turner said.

But Sen. Bob Smith, D-Middlesex, said the plan would eliminate inequities between school districts.

"This is a defendable formula based on the needs of kids," Smith said.

======================================

Jersey City gets no promises from gov on school $$

by Ken Thorbourne
Jersey Journal
Wednesday January 02

Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy and other elected officials told Gov. Jon Corzine today his proposed school spending plan -- scheduled to be voted on today in the state Senate -- would either drive up taxes in Jersey City or force deep cuts in the schools.

"He (Corzine) has come out with his funding formula and that's all well and good, but it increases Jersey City's funding 2 percent, when our expenses are going up 4 1/2 percent every year," Healy said.

"This governor is trying to get this administration, this City Council, and this mayor to raise the balance of that 2 1/2 percent off taxpayers ... and this administration is not going to do that," Healy added.

Healy was joined in the meeting at the governor's office in Trenton by Assemblywoman Joan Quigley, state Sen. Sandra Bolden Cunningham, and outgoing Assemblyman Charles. T. Epps Jr., who is also Jersey City's superintendent of schools.

The state Assembly is scheduled to vote on the formula Monday.

Healy and Newark Mayor Cory Booker are scheduled to hold a news conference on the Statehouse steps in Trenton tomorrow blasting Corzine's proposal, details of which were released two weeks ago.

"This process involves give and take," said Lilo Stainton, the governor's press secretary. "Gov. Corzine is committed to maintaining the progress we've seen in the Abbott and other districts and he believes this policy is the best way to balance the need of taxpayers with the needs of school children throughout the state."

At present, more than 50 percent of the state's $7.8 million in school funding currently goes to 31 so-called "Abbott" school districts identified by the courts as needing special assistance due a preponderance of poor students. Corzine's formula seeks to have the extra money follow the poor students whether they live in Jersey City or Summit.

"He didn't budge and we didn't budge," is how Quigley summed up the meeting with Corzine.

Former Bayonne mayor and the state's commissioner of the Department of Community Affairs, Joseph V. Doria Jr., attended the meeting and offered to help the city find a way to avoid property tax hikes, Quigley said.

In a statement, Bolden Cunningham said she is "extremely concerned" by the governor's proposed formula. "Jersey City schools could lose as much as $110 million dollars within the first three years," she said.

Epps didn't return phone calls to comment.

See more in Education -- Jersey Journal's website

$chool formula is topic

Jersey Journal
Wednesday, January 02, 2008

Gov. Jon Corzine can expect an earful this morning when he meets with Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy, state Sen. Sandra Bolden Cunningham, and other elected officials officials representing Jersey City, about his proposed school funding formula.

The formula, which attempts to have the money follow poor students, whether they live in Jersey City or Summit, would shortchange Jersey City hundreds of thousands of dollars, according to the elected officials. Jersey City is slated to receive a 2 percent bump in aid next school year - the minimum increase given to any district in the state.

The formula - details of which were publicly released two weeks ago - is expected to be voted on by the state Senate tomorrow and the Assembly on Monday.

Today's meeting with Corzine and Education Commission Lucille E. Davy is scheduled for 11 a.m. at Corzine's office in Trenton, according to Tralonne Shorter, Bolden Cunningham's legislative aide.

KEN THORBOURNE

...the money *should* be there to make up the difference from all the downtown/waterfront development (name another city in the state of New Jersey that has that kind of activity going on).

Instead the current administration bends over and lets the developers take us for a ride, big-time (and PILOTS - Payments in Lieu of Taxes - last for decades).

Unfortunately, better local government is probably going to show up just a few years too late - we still have a Jersey-City-from-the-80's style administration, and while the nepotism/crooked judges/bad behavior make for amusing newspaper articles, the tragedy is that right now it's a historic moment for the city, and we're blowing it.

Abbott districts may lose aid
Schools plan favors middle class

Home News Tribune Online 12/16/07
By JONATHAN TAMARI
GANNETT STATE BUREAU
jtamari@gannett.com

TRENTON ? If Gov. Jon S. Corzine's new funding formula were applied today, Jersey City schools would be out $111 million in state aid.

Under the new criteria, other big cuts would be in store for city schools in places such as Newark ($88 million), Camden ($48 million) and Vineland ($42 million).

These districts are among the 31 historically poor, urban "Abbott" districts that in recent years have received more than half of state education aid, helping them keep their own property taxes down. The new formula, if strictly applied, would take some of that money away as it requires all communities to pay their local "fair share."

But a "hold-harmless" provision in Corzine's plan says no schools will lose money for at least the first three years of the new program, even if the formula says they are already spending more than necessary. In fact, every district will get at least a 2 percent increase this year, regardless of what the formula says.

The hold-harmless provision would cost $860 million next year and help roughly 40 percent of the state's school districts. That's more than the $532 million in aid increases being touted as help for the largely middle-class schools that have received limited increases in state support over the past six years.

And, among the districts now due for massive aid hikes, increases will be capped at 20 percent. For many of those communities, that means a continued reliance on local property taxes to pay for most school costs.

While Corzine hopes his plan will move beyond the two-tier system that has dominated education funding for a decade, the caps and hold-harmless provision represent nods to political, financial and legal realities. They also limit the help and harm the formula could bring in its first year.

If Corzine imposed large aid cuts, the new formula could force urban schools to slash spending and put more pressure on property taxpayers in those communities. A plan with such cuts would also have almost no chance of winning legislative approval and might face a tougher challenge in court, because many of the potential losers are among the districts covered by the Abbott v. Burke state Supreme Court rulings, which mandated enhanced aid for needy schools.

"We are in no way backing away from our commitment to adequacy funding for all of our children, including those in the Abbott districts," Corzine said. "We are trying to draw a different approach to that and we understand there's going to have to be a transition period."

Administration officials say the aid caps will prevent runaway spending that might result from floods of money heading to some districts. The caps also help control the price tag on the new formula, cutting its immediate cost by $1 billion. Education Commissioner Lucille Davy said the approach ensures an orderly transition into a new, more fair system.

"We didn't get here in one year," Davy said. "I don't think it's really practical to expect us to change the entire thing overnight."

Overall, many districts would do well under the new formula. Roughly half of the state's 616 school district would see aid increases of 10 percent or larger, far more than they have received in recent years.

But Sen. Robert Martin, R-Morris, said that doesn't make up for years of stagnant aid.

"Twenty percent after almost six years of flat funding doesn't begin, at least for some of us, to provide the kind of relief a middle-class community like Washington Township would deserve," Martin said.

Edison is one of the middle-class districts that would receive the maximum 20 percent boost, but the Central Jersey suburb would still have to rely on property taxes to pay at least 80 percent of its school costs. With the added aid, property taxes won't rise as much as in the past, but the township might have actually cut taxes if it received the full complement of aid from the new formula, said Mayor Jun Choi. With limits on annual increases, Edison will have to depend on the state continuing to ramp up funding.

"We're expecting a few years of gains, assuming the state has the money for it," Choi said.

Corzine said he hoped all schools could receive the amounts they are entitled to within four to five years.

Despite the limits, Choi said the caps are generally a good idea.

"You don't want to expand programs too quickly without quality controls on it," Choi said.

With the hold-harmless provision in place, Abbott districts will still receive 56 percent of all state support.

But David Sciarra, an attorney for the Education Law Center, said the hold-harmless funding conceals the impacts of a formula that could hurt schools in poor areas. He said that aid was "larded on top" to win lawmaker support and hide what would otherwise be an overall cut in state education support.

Davy said districts would only lose money after the first three years if they have decreasing enrollment or large demographic changes ? fewer special needs students, for example. They also may be required to chip in more money from local property taxes if they have significant wealth gains. The formula generally calls on more affluent communities to pay more of their own costs and sends more state support to poorer ones.

"There's an expectation that communities provide their local fair share, and that's going to be applied to the state as a whole," Davy said.

But asked if some districts will be spared the full ramifications of that requirement by having their state funding sustained at old levels, Davy responded, "I think you could say that."

link