brewster wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
The top biggest spenders includes votechs, charter schools, and K-8 districts. A direct K-12 comparison would yield different results.

What in the world are you talking about? Charters get a fraction of district schools and have to pay the mortgage or rent for their property out of that!

Monroe wrote:
The top biggest spenders includes votechs, charter schools, and K-8 districts. A direct K-12 comparison would yield different results.

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
JC schools spend 25% more per student than the state average so calling them ?starved for cash? is misleading g, especially since JC funds such a tiny amount of the cost.

Bingo! The problem is an administrative one. I kinda wish the State would take back full control of JC schools until costs are under control.

25% more per student than state average is ridiculous, especially when you consider the level of service being provided... It's not as if our schools are 25% better than the state average.

The one way to force the issue is for the state to stop sending a ridiculous amount of money to JCBOE at the expenses of other school needs in the rest of the state. That would force JC schools to get their budget in order.

Monroe wrote:
JC schools spend 25% more per student than the state average so calling them ?starved for cash? is misleading g, especially since JC funds such a tiny amount of the cost.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

HeightsNative wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
If property is tax abated, it does not help, that is a contract and the city spends that money as fast as it receives. If it is not tax abatement then it is a ratable, which stabilizes the tax base and the county, schools will get their fair share.

You have NO IDEA what you are talking about, but that has already been established! Ratable or abatement, it is still money to the city. Whatever money the city gets from an abatement, it represents actual "income" which means the city needs to raise less money via regular taxation.

And, of course, there is that little pesky fact you choose to ignore: the abatement payments actually add more money to the city coffers than if the property in question was paying regular taxes. Why don't we talk about that??

Bodhi, you know I am a fan, and it pains me to say this, but Yvonne's point is very valid. Yes, abatements add to the city's coffers, but at the expense of the schools. It works as long as the state never realizes they're overfunding the district and the state aid continues unchanged, or increases.

Right before our very eyes, we're seeing the house of cards situation unfold. The state now recognizes it sends way too much money to Jersey (those paying property taxes post reval will have one of the lowest property tax rates in the state), and are pulling the funding. If you had less abatements, the city would be better prepared to absorb the tax increase that will result from the state pulling the aid. Instead, they're going to levy a corporate tax. And when that option runs out, guess who pays? The rateable portion of the city. Fulop will stop at nothing to keep from raising municipal taxes to fund the schools, because he has a streak to protect, but that day WILL come. And it's going to be ugly.

Abataments definitely have their place. I'm not anti abatement. But, abatements in JC help any sitting mayor fund pet projects that win votes. When abused, you create a massive fiscal issue, just like the 30 year delayed tax reval.

Yes, abatements don't get shared with the county (except for a paltry 5%) but the city still contributes to the school budget! The school does not rely on just direct taxation and contributions by the state and federal governments. The city government also sends a chunk of money to the BOE.

The part that drives me nuts about Yvonne's selective presentation of information is that she conveniently leaves out that the city collects MORE money through the abatements than it would under regular taxation. That larger amount translates to lower taxes. Ultimately, the budget is essentially a fixed amount (call it X) and it is made up of several sources of revenue, mostly taxes, PILOTs (abatement payments) and things like fines and fees. If the PILOTs were to go down, then the revenue has to be made up elsewhere, and since you can't force fees and fines high enough, fast enough, the only viable solution is to increase revenue from taxation. That means taxes would have to go up to make up the decrease from revenue generated through abatements, and go up by a larger overall amount than the one paid through the PILOT to make up the effective difference.

135jc wrote:
Brewster,
I am aware of the so called equalization rate. I almost included in my postbut figured it was common knowledge.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
The tax rate was was too high for new construction. The rest of the city had been paying on an assessment that was a fraction of actual value. Now that the reval has been done those differences do not exist. Going foward the abatments should be very limited.

You show a common misunderstanding about how this system works. Not that it's critical to this discussion, but I've made eliminating ignorance of this system a mission, to counter Yvonne's lies, smoke, and mirrors.

Older properties had a low assessment relative to FMV, but this was compensated for by the Equalization Rate, in 2017 23.66. What this meant was the assessments of the city as a whole were 23.66% of the FMV. When new (or gutted) ratable properties are assessed, they take 23.66% of FMV and make that it's new assessment, to keep it in line with the rest of the city as it would be taxed at the official rate (in 2017 7.8%).

Where the unfairness came from was some areas of the city appreciated faster or slower than others over 30 years, meaning they were outliers of that average represented by the Equalization Rate. This is how Downtown brownstones were paying 0.8% and Greenville hovels 4%. So a new JC ratable property would have been at 1.826% last year, higher than the older DT properties, but lower than most of the rest of the city, which were subsidizing the low taxed Downtowners. Got it?

https://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxat ... lized/2017/2017Hudson.pdf

https://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/pdf/lpt/gtr/Hudson17.pdf

Gotta love how Yvonne can't answer numbers with numbers, she just says she bothers tax officials, and then doesn't understand what they tell her.

135jc wrote:
The tax rate was was too high for new construction. The rest of the city had been paying on an assessment that was a fraction of actual value. Now that the reval has been done those differences do not exist. Going foward the abatments should be very limited.

bodhipooh wrote:
For anyone who wishes to see actual data, and not the lies pushed by Yvonne, refer to the actual JC budget documents, or take a look here: https://public.tableau.com/profile/jer ... 11-2016/2016TotalRevenues.

You will see that PILOTs account for a full 35% (a little higher, actually) of the taxation revenue (~128MM out of 350MM).

In order to replace that much revenue, you would need to have 16 BILLION worth of real estate property, paying the new rate of 1.62%. Remember that the city only gets to keep about half of that rate (with 25% going to the county and 25% going to the schools) which is why 16 BLLION would only generate 128 MM in taxes. Explain to me how we are going to replace 128 MM worth of revenue by adding a paltry 3 Billion dollars worth of real estate??

135jc wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
If property is tax abated, it does not help, that is a contract and the city spends that money as fast as it receives. If it is not tax abatement then it is a ratable, which stabilizes the tax base and the county, schools will get their fair share.

No abatement for 99 Hudson. And I agree with you that there really should only be 5 year abatement going forward for downtown. Other areas of the city still need a little help, but not 30 years.

This argument against abatements is forgetting one major point. The tax rate was was too high for new construction. The rest of the city had been paying on an assessment that was a fraction of actual value. Now that the reval has been done those differences do not exist. Going foward the abatments should be very limited.

Can you provide more detail on the Mocco situation.

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
If property is tax abated, it does not help, that is a contract and the city spends that money as fast as it receives. If it is not tax abatement then it is a ratable, which stabilizes the tax base and the county, schools will get their fair share.

No abatement for 99 Hudson. And I agree with you that there really should only be 5 year abatement going forward for downtown. Other areas of the city still need a little help, but not 30 years.

K-Lo2 wrote:
This item has been moved to the July 24 Planning Board. Tonight's big item is the Mocco projects, built way beyond permitted plans using materials strictly forbidden. Should be fun.

Yvonne wrote:
bodhipooh, bodhipooh, bodhipooh, Collecting more money still put JC in the hole compared to towns that do not give out tax abatements. Before reval, the ratable base was 6 billion, about $2.4 to $2.8 billion is missing know as tax abatements. If they were added the ratable base would be nearly $9 billion and the tax rate would probably drop down to $55.00 per thousand instead of the $78.00 per thousand.

Yvonne wrote:
Before reval, the ratable base was 6 billion, about $2.4 to $2.8 billion is missing know as tax abatements. If they were added the ratable base would be nearly $9 billion and the tax rate would probably drop down to $55.00 per thousand instead of the $78.00 per thousand.

HeightsNative wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
If property is tax abated, it does not help, that is a contract and the city spends that money as fast as it receives. If it is not tax abatement then it is a ratable, which stabilizes the tax base and the county, schools will get their fair share.

You have NO IDEA what you are talking about, but that has already been established! Ratable or abatement, it is still money to the city. Whatever money the city gets from an abatement, it represents actual "income" which means the city needs to raise less money via regular taxation.

And, of course, there is that little pesky fact you choose to ignore: the abatement payments actually add more money to the city coffers than if the property in question was paying regular taxes. Why don't we talk about that??

Bodhi, you know I am a fan, and it pains me to say this, but Yvonne's point is very valid. Yes, abatements add to the city's coffers, but at the expense of the schools. It works as long as the state never realizes they're overfunding the district and the state aid continues unchanged, or increases.

Right before our very eyes, we're seeing the house of cards situation unfold. The state now recognizes it sends way too much money to Jersey (those paying property taxes post reval will have one of the lowest property tax rates in the state), and are pulling the funding. If you had less abatements, the city would be better prepared to absorb the tax increase that will result from the state pulling the aid. Instead, they're going to levy a corporate tax. And when that option runs out, guess who pays? The rateable portion of the city. Fulop will stop at nothing to keep from raising municipal taxes to fund the schools, because he has a streak to protect, but that day WILL come. And it's going to be ugly.

Abataments definitely have their place. I'm not anti abatement. But, abatements in JC help any sitting mayor fund pet projects that win votes. When abused, you create a massive fiscal issue, just like the 30 year delayed tax reval.

K-Lo2 wrote:
This item has been moved to the July 24 Planning Board. Tonight's big item is the Mocco projects, built way beyond permitted plans using materials strictly forbidden. Should be fun.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
If property is tax abated, it does not help, that is a contract and the city spends that money as fast as it receives. If it is not tax abatement then it is a ratable, which stabilizes the tax base and the county, schools will get their fair share.

You have NO IDEA what you are talking about, but that has already been established! Ratable or abatement, it is still money to the city. Whatever money the city gets from an abatement, it represents actual "income" which means the city needs to raise less money via regular taxation.

And, of course, there is that little pesky fact you choose to ignore: the abatement payments actually add more money to the city coffers than if the property in question was paying regular taxes. Why don't we talk about that??

JPhurst wrote:
Does every crevice of the city have to be built up as soon as possible as much as possible?