Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
35 user(s) are online (12 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 35

more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




(1) 2 »


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#53
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/10/20 20:40
From One of the Oranges
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 133
Offline
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

JSleeze wrote:
The one thing that keeps coming up in the various threads about property taxes is the fact that JC's rate (1.62%) is below state average. That has nothing to do with anything.

In a city, the advantages of density and efficiencies of scale would dictate a lower rate. Provision of services should be easier (think police, fire, trash pickup, etc.) given closer proximity, fuel costs should be lower, purchasing should be more effective since you are doing it in larger volumes, etc. Not saying it always works out that way, given politics, corruption and the like - but from a basic economics standpoint the math is pretty simple.

The state rate that gets tossed around is an average. Not everyone is average, for good reason.


In theory, your post should be correct. In practice/reality, it is completely off. Today's budget is the same (when accounting for inflation and value of dollar) as it was decades ago. This is despite technology advancements that should have made for more efficient processes and government services. Also, in terms of the breakdown of our tax levy, ours is only low because we are paying 1/6 of our local school budget. If we were paying half of our school budget (instead of just 17%) then that levy would triple, bringing our taxes up to just shy of 2.5%.

We don't have a low tax rate because of economy of scales, or efficient local government; we have a low tax rate because we have gotten other people to foot our bill.


I agree that in practice larger towns don't have lower spending or lower taxes.

In an in-depth study of NJ municipal spending by Raphael J. Caprio and Marc H. Pfeiffer they found that there is no correlation at all between muni spending and population. The lowest spending municipalities, in fact, have between 3600 and 5150 residents.

http://blousteinlocal.rutgers.edu/wp- ... usteinlocal-sizestudy.pdf


Posted on: 5/2 14:39
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#52
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/2/20 13:20
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2420
Offline

Plan to switch health care providers angers Jersey City teachers

Jersey City teachers are irate after the school district revealed it is seeking to change health care providers less than two weeks after teachers agreed on their current provider as part of a new contract.

Teachers union officials lashed out at board members Tuesday night about the proposed change, which Board of Education President Sudhan Thomas said could save the district about $12 million next school year. Teachers did not know about the planned switch until late yesterday afternoon, union officials said.

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


Posted on: 5/2 13:06
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#51
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2017/9/20 21:56
From Chilltown
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 136
Offline
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

JSleeze wrote:
The one thing that keeps coming up in the various threads about property taxes is the fact that JC's rate (1.62%) is below state average. That has nothing to do with anything.

In a city, the advantages of density and efficiencies of scale would dictate a lower rate. Provision of services should be easier (think police, fire, trash pickup, etc.) given closer proximity, fuel costs should be lower, purchasing should be more effective since you are doing it in larger volumes, etc. Not saying it always works out that way, given politics, corruption and the like - but from a basic economics standpoint the math is pretty simple.

The state rate that gets tossed around is an average. Not everyone is average, for good reason.


In theory, your post should be correct. In practice/reality, it is completely off. Today's budget is the same (when accounting for inflation and value of dollar) as it was decades ago. This is despite technology advancements that should have made for more efficient processes and government services. Also, in terms of the breakdown of our tax levy, ours is only low because we are paying 1/6 of our local school budget. If we were paying half of our school budget (instead of just 17%) then that levy would triple, bringing our taxes up to just shy of 2.5%.

We don't have a low tax rate because of economy of scales, or efficient local government; we have a low tax rate because we have gotten other people to foot our bill.


Spot on yet again. I don't blame the city for doing anything other than what they're doing; they're getting a sweet deal! Why would they want to change anything? They have to do what's best for Jersey City, not the rest of NJ. That's how this game works, I guess - everyone to their corners. The rest of the state, however, should raise hell, and rally JC and others to start picking up the tab. 30 year tax abatements in the face all of this make it hurt even more for the rest of the state's tax payers; a HUGE slap in the face.

Posted on: 4/27 12:39
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#50
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 14:31
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3481
Offline
Quote:

JSleeze wrote:
The one thing that keeps coming up in the various threads about property taxes is the fact that JC's rate (1.62%) is below state average. That has nothing to do with anything.

In a city, the advantages of density and efficiencies of scale would dictate a lower rate. Provision of services should be easier (think police, fire, trash pickup, etc.) given closer proximity, fuel costs should be lower, purchasing should be more effective since you are doing it in larger volumes, etc. Not saying it always works out that way, given politics, corruption and the like - but from a basic economics standpoint the math is pretty simple.

The state rate that gets tossed around is an average. Not everyone is average, for good reason.


In theory, your post should be correct. In practice/reality, it is completely off. Today's budget is the same (when accounting for inflation and value of dollar) as it was decades ago. This is despite technology advancements that should have made for more efficient processes and government services. Also, in terms of the breakdown of our tax levy, ours is only low because we are paying 1/6 of our local school budget. If we were paying half of our school budget (instead of just 17%) then that levy would triple, bringing our taxes up to just shy of 2.5%.

We don't have a low tax rate because of economy of scales, or efficient local government; we have a low tax rate because we have gotten other people to foot our bill.

Posted on: 4/27 12:32
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#49
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/5/26 16:32
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 203
Offline
Quote:

JSleeze wrote:
The one thing that keeps coming up in the various threads about property taxes is the fact that JC's rate (1.62%) is below state average. That has nothing to do with anything.

In a city, the advantages of density and efficiencies of scale would dictate a lower rate. Provision of services should be easier (think police, fire, trash pickup, etc.) given closer proximity, fuel costs should be lower, purchasing should be more effective since you are doing it in larger volumes, etc. Not saying it always works out that way, given politics, corruption and the like - but from a basic economics standpoint the math is pretty simple.

The state rate that gets tossed around is an average. Not everyone is average, for good reason.


The thing is that the tax rate isn't low when you consider that JC pays less then 20% of it's schools costs.

Posted on: 4/27 9:14
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#48
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 10:11
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4273
Offline
That's no solution.

Posted on: 4/26 12:49
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#47
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/6/7 23:24
From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1322
Offline
People don't like SFRA?

Fine. Go back to offering relief only to the Abbott districts, as required by court order.

Posted on: 4/26 11:13
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#46
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/8/27 18:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 323
Offline
The one thing that keeps coming up in the various threads about property taxes is the fact that JC's rate (1.62%) is below state average. That has nothing to do with anything.

In a city, the advantages of density and efficiencies of scale would dictate a lower rate. Provision of services should be easier (think police, fire, trash pickup, etc.) given closer proximity, fuel costs should be lower, purchasing should be more effective since you are doing it in larger volumes, etc. Not saying it always works out that way, given politics, corruption and the like - but from a basic economics standpoint the math is pretty simple.

The state rate that gets tossed around is an average. Not everyone is average, for good reason.

Posted on: 4/26 10:43
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#45
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2017/9/20 21:56
From Chilltown
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 136
Offline
Bodhi: your perspective is so spot on, and so perfectly stated, it hurts. However that will not stop the mouth breathers from refuting you (or attempting to). They won't use logic or facts, mind you, but it will be entertaining to watch.

::grabs popcorn::

Posted on: 4/26 10:20
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#44
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 14:31
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3481
Offline
It was only a matter of time before the fiscal house of cards built by the JC BOE would start to (predictably) collapse.

So, let's recap:
- BOE is facing a $71 MM budget shortfall
- BOE approves new contracts that will increase compensation by about 8.25% over two years.
- other towns wake up and realize that JC is getting extra funding to the tune of $174 MM and will undoubtedly start to clamor for this to be corrected.

Given that currently salaries amount to just shy of 300 MM, the new contracts will increase spending by about $25 MM. Add that to the projected shortfall and you are at 96 MM, and if we lose the overage in state funding we could be staring at a $270 MM hole. That's about 45% of the current BOE budget. If the BOE is allowed to pass that along to local taxpayers, the increase in local taxes would be just below 0.2%. Bringing total levy to about 1.82%. Not Earth shattering, but certainly another blow to local residents, particularly those who are still reeling from the results of the reval. Given that 1.82% is still well below state average, I can certainly see lots of municipalities pushing for JC to lose the additional state funding.

Posted on: 4/26 8:00
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#43
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/2/20 13:20
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2420
Offline

Start dealing with school funding, pension shortfall

Posted: Apr. 26, 2018 12:01 am

The Newton Board of Education earlier this year took the lead in filing a petition demanding school funding distribution as set forth by the state's own School Funding Reform Act.

For years the Newton School District indeed has been woefully underfunded according to the SFRA formula. Newton received just 60 percent of its state aid in the current fiscal year while the town's taxpayers paid 48 percent more than what New Jersey deems its local fair share.

They are not alone. And the tab to address the inequity is hefty.

To fully fund every district according to the decade-old SFRA, the state would need to pump in another $1.5 billion.

That net figure, calculated by the nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services and released this week by the Senate majority office, takes into account a $2.2 billion shortfall owed to 70 percent of the state's districts, reduced by $660 million in aid that exceeds the state formula in other districts.

Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy has promised to fully fund the formula starting with a proposed $284 million in the next fiscal year, though where that additional money will come from is not clear.

State Sen. Steve Oroho, R-24th Dist., who calls the current formula "absolutely flawed" and has been on a committee to examine the state's school funding, said, "Promises are easy to make, payments are hard."

Back to that $660 million that is "overfunding" school districts.

According to a chart compiled by NJ Spotlight, a news and politics and public policy analysis website, a half-dozen school districts are each receiving at least $20 million more than they should.

The granddaddy of them is Jersey City, which, according to the figures, receives $174 million more state aid than the law, if fairly applied, would allow.

Further irritating the issue, the Jersey City Board of Education recently approved a teacher contract that amounts to an 8.25 percent average raise over two years at a time when the district is facing a $71 million budget deficit and more than 300 layoffs, as reported by news website Insider NJ.

The teacher contract includes a retroactive 3.5 percent pay raise for the current school year, a 2.75 percent hike for next school year, along with stipends to cover health insurance costs -- 1.75 percent of salary for individuals, 2 percent for couples and 2.25 percent for families, according to The Jersey Journal.

That news report cited Senate President Steve Sweeney, D-3rd Dist., as calling the Jersey City Board of Education's action irresponsible, and rightly echoing comments by the only board member who voted against the contract, who said the contract was "not grounded in fiscal reality."

Most in the private sector would likely agree with that assessment.

Fiscal reality is also needed on the state level. Besides finding the $1.5 billion that would be needed to fully fund the SFRA formula -- which in itself is in need of a total do-over -- the state has a much bigger problem as it faces a worst-in-the-country pension funding deficit, by one recent tally at $124 billion.

Oroho acknowledges the challenge and said to get the state on an even keel will take time and discipline.

Agreed. But time is running out, and the state has a very poor track record of fiscal discipline.

Yes, it took us a while to get into this hole, and it's going to take us a while to get out of it.

But it's time to get started.

http://www.njherald.com/20180426/star ... unding-pension-shortfall#


Posted on: 4/26 0:25
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#42
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/5/27 20:34
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 794
Offline
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
What does this $70m shortfall say about JC being capable of running it's school system? Didn't they just recently get out from under NJ state control?


Exactly. Fire the trustees and return to state control. Screw home rule.

Posted on: 4/24 21:51
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#41
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/8/16 21:45
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3019
Offline
What does this $70m shortfall say about JC being capable of running it's school system? Didn't they just recently get out from under NJ state control?

Posted on: 4/24 21:49
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#40
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/5/27 20:34
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 794
Offline
Quote:

stateaidguy wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Great. So how much will taxes go up on downtown rate payers?


Resized Image


This contract doesn't directly increase anyone's taxes. Only the JCBOE's decision to raise the tax levy can do that, and even if the JCBOE raised the tax levy it wouldn't automatically raise your own taxes because the the constant growth of the JC tax base will have a countervailing pressure. JC's school taxes per household have actually been falling relative to inflation for a few years and even in absolute terms in some years.

If you expect this to lead to tax increases, then downtown's tax increase will be the same as everyone else's.



I was being a little facetious with my post. My real question is how will JCBOE close the $71 million shortfall and pay for the salary raise if not by raising the property tax rate, which of course would effect all JC landowners. If they can do it through "efficiencies" that suggests there may have been a lot of waste before.

I hear you on the growth of the ratable base, so I guess it is possible.

Posted on: 4/24 18:03
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#39
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/10/20 20:40
From One of the Oranges
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 133
Offline
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Great. So how much will taxes go up on downtown rate payers?


Resized Image


This contract doesn't directly increase anyone's taxes. Only the JCBOE's decision to raise the tax levy can do that, and even if the JCBOE raised the tax levy it wouldn't automatically raise your own taxes because the the constant growth of the JC tax base will have a countervailing pressure. JC's school taxes per household have actually been falling relative to inflation for a few years and even in absolute terms in some years.

If you expect this to lead to tax increases, then downtown's tax increase will be the same as everyone else's.


Posted on: 4/24 15:21
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#38
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/5/27 20:34
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 794
Offline
Great. So how much will taxes go up on downtown rate payers?


Resized Image

Posted on: 4/24 2:59
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#37
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/2/20 13:20
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2420
Offline

Jersey City teachers ratify contract with raise

JERSEY CITY -- Teachers with the Jersey City Public Schools have approved a contract that comes with a pay raise and stipend for those who pay into their health benefits. 

Members of the board of education finalized the agreement during Thursday night's meeting at Snyder High School, just under two hours after 81 percent of teachers voted in favor of the agreement, according to the teachers' union.

The new contract was initially agreed upon last month following a one-day strike, with teachers demanding relief from Chapter 78 – New Jersey's 2011 law that revamped how public employees pay for their health benefits – saying they were bringing home less money despite salary increases.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... ntract_with_6_percen.html


Posted on: 4/23 23:04
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#36
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/2/20 13:20
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2420
Offline

Teachers to vote on contract with 6 percent raise

Jersey City teachers will receive a 6 percent raise over the next two years if they ratify a contract that has already been agreed upon by the union and school district.

Teachers in the 29,000-student district walked off the job last month saying they need relief from Chapter 78, New Jersey's 2011 law that revamped how public employees pay for their health benefits, has decreased their take-home pay despite salary increases.

A copy of the contract obtained by The Jersey Journal indicates teachers would receive a retroactive 3.5 percent raise dated back to September, when the last contract expired. They would receive another 2.75 percent raise at the beginning of next school year.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... with_6_percent_raise.html


Posted on: 4/17 22:05
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#35
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/10/20 20:40
From One of the Oranges
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 133
Offline
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
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#34
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 14:31
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3481
Offline
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.

Posted on: 4/4 17:18
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#33
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/10/20 20:40
From One of the Oranges
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 133
Offline

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
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#32
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/10/20 20:40
From One of the Oranges
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 133
Offline
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
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#31
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 16:13
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5214
Offline
Quote:

La_Verdad wrote:
[quote]

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 personally have no problem with someone who's an out of town advocate for an issue as long as he's polite. SAG is extremely well-informed and has been very educational in his participation on JC List. It's not hard to think of local blowhards who are nothing but combative and disingenuous.

Posted on: 4/3 19:00
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#30
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/9/23 21:55
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 225
Offline
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.

Posted on: 4/3 11:53
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#29
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/2/6 18:13
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1183
Offline
I do not think anyone disagrees with your excellent analyses and assessment and yes, their first recommendation, "no further cuts to adjustment aid in districts spending below adequacy" supports the JCEA.

But the remaining 4 recommendations all ask for Jersey City to pay more ourselves; raise 2% cap (and increase levy), increase local levy, fair share of future local PILOTS and require local contribution to make up for or adjust for existing PILOTS.

Personally, I am by no means happy about additional taxes after our property taxes will increase increase 50% post reval and health insurance went up 30%, but the alternative, starving our schools is worse.



Quote:

stateaidguy wrote:
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: 4/3 9:48
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#28
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/2/6 18:13
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1183
Offline
Jersey City is nowhere near the top of this list, last I looked about 10-15% above average. Iin Hudson County, less than Hoboken, Harrison and Union City -

The 50 school districts that spend the most per student in N.J.

The most — and least — expensive school districts in New Jersey

Quote:

stateaidguy wrote:
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: 4/3 9:14
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#27
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/3/30 2:01
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 58
Offline
But Data can be manipulated and he states the edlaw study is bias, where upon first reading I thought it was a good analysis. Obviously some suburban school districts are still very upset about the Abbott ruling. Also Jersey City budget ballooned under state control, which suburbs never contended with. State control is part of the reason why we needed adjustment aid to begin with. The study says we need to force pilots to contribute and increase local fair share OVER TIME. In the meantime our district still dilapidated buildings and other problems because of state control. I just want to make sure Suburban malcontents aren’t trying to hijak a nuanced debate about how to fund our schools going forward. Full disclosure my kids attend JCPS!

Posted on: 4/2 19:04
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#26
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2017/9/20 21:56
From Chilltown
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 136
Offline
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.

Posted on: 4/2 18:38
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#25
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 10:11
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4273
Offline
17% is the important number here, which is how much JC funds its own schools.

Posted on: 4/2 18:36
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#24
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/3/30 2:01
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 58
Offline
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...

Posted on: 4/2 16:49
Print Top




(1) 2 »




[Advanced Search]





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