Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
42 user(s) are online (26 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 1
Guests: 41

richieveal, more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




(1) 2 3 »


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#66
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 14:31
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3556
Offline
Quote:

SRhia wrote:
Sounds like property taxes will go up again?


This is 100% a certainty. Even if the city council adopts the state-approved 1% payroll tax for local businesses, that move will only generate enough revenue to cover half of the shortfall. The JC BOE is staring at a fiscal deficit: they will either start to address corruption or glaring inefficiencies, or they can continue to try and "address" the deficit by cutting more programs.

But, there is only so much fat you can trim before you have to get serious about the problem.

My guess is that we will soon see a school tax increase that brings the total property tax levy to about 1.85%. Local pols will blame the state (Lavarro already did that!) and will try to shift all blame to others. In the end, the local BOE has grown accustomed to having someone else pay for our local schools and is ill equipped to actually fund itself.

Posted on: 9/11 18:01
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#65
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/4/14 23:58
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 808
Offline
Sounds like property taxes will go up again?

Posted on: 9/11 16:09
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#64
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 10:11
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4326
Offline
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
I’d love to overlay teacher salaries (and expenditure per student) with graduation rates. That would be eye opening.


You beat this drum in every school discussion, but there's zero chance that you'd shut up about our school costs even if we had stellar outcomes. You have no answers, you don't care about JC students, you just want to stop paying for it. If you actually cared and wanted to be constructive, you'd post examples of districts of similar demographics with better outcomes for less money.


You’re spot on. All we hear is how booming JC is, yet it has siphoned BILLIONS of dollars from suburban taxpayers, forcing them to pay much higher tax rates than JC’s meager 1.48 rate.

Posted on: 9/11 13:35
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#63
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 16:13
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5324
Offline
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
I’d love to overlay teacher salaries (and expenditure per student) with graduation rates. That would be eye opening.


You beat this drum in every school discussion, but there's zero chance that you'd shut up about our school costs even if we had stellar outcomes. You have no answers, you don't care about JC students, you just want to stop paying for it. If you actually cared and wanted to be constructive, you'd post examples of districts of similar demographics with better outcomes for less money.

Posted on: 9/11 12:44
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#62
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 10:11
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4326
Offline
I’d love to overlay teacher salaries (and expenditure per student) with graduation rates. That would be eye opening.

Posted on: 9/11 12:13
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#61
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 14:31
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3556
Offline
Quote:

DanL wrote:
Jersey City is only 80th on this list - Here's the median salary in every N.J. district


To be accurate, the median teacher salary for JC ranked 79th. Now, to be even more accurate, how about providing a full picture explaining that value and its relation to the rest of the data?

The JC PS teachers median salary is in the top 12% of the state (79th, out of 657 districts.) Or, put another way, JC public school teachers earn more than 88% of the teachers in NJ.

Your use of "only" implies that our teachers are not well paid. The data disagrees with your contention.

Posted on: 9/11 11:37
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#60
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4674
Offline
I am sure the towns that do not get Abbot funding are tired of supporting JC school district while this city squanders its tax dollars on rewards to developers. I am tired of JC giving out tax abatements while robbing the school system of its funding.

Posted on: 9/11 9:24
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#59
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/2/6 18:13
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1196
Offline
Jersey City is only 80th on this list - Here's the median salary in every N.J. district

Posted on: 9/11 8:32
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#58
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 14:31
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3556
Offline

"I'm mad as hell that Trenton has balanced the budget on the backs of Jersey City's teachers and students," he [Rolando Lavarro] said...

https://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... _city_councils_hands.html

That must be the very definition of chutzpah.

Posted on: 7/25 9:45
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#57
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/9/17 23:58
From Between Thought and Expression
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 828
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Today was the final vote on the budget, it is now $1.488 as the rate.


Thanks for that information.

Posted on: 7/19 10:34
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#56
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4674
Offline
Today was the final vote on the budget, it is now $1.488 as the rate.

Posted on: 7/18 22:01
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#55
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/5/27 20:34
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 825
Offline
Quote:

Sweet times for JC is officially over.

1.42% tax rate and rapidly growing ratable base to support schools.

Posted on: 7/15 13:11
Print Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#54
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/7/9 15:50
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1991
Offline

Posted on: 7/15 12:25
Print Top


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: 2449
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
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2017/9/20 21:56
From Chilltown
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 159
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: 3556
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: 204
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: 4326
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: 1332
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: 336
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
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2017/9/20 21:56
From Chilltown
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 159
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: 3556
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: 2449
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: 825
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: 3020
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: 825
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: 825
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: 2449
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




(1) 2 3 »




[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