The Misguidedness of the Bacon Lawsuit

The Bacon lawsuit is a case by sixteen poor, mostly South Jersey school against the State of New Jersey who seek the same privileges that the Abbott districts have.

The Education Law Center represents the Bacon districts.  It gives this overview of the Bacon case:

Bacon v. NJ Department of Education is a long-running case involving 16 poor, rural districts, many of them located in the southern portion of the state. Since 1997, these districts have demanded adequate resources to meet the needs of student populations characterized by intense poverty, high mobility rates and other challenges associated with high needs schools.

In 2008, the Appellate Court affirmed a State Board of Education determination that the Bacon districts were unable to provide a thorough and efficient education for their students under the current school funding formula. After introduction of the School Funding Reform Act (SFRA), also in 2008, the NJ Department of Education determined that the new school aid formula would provide the Bacon districts with the resources they required. The SFRA would also entitle these districts to the high quality Abbott preschool program for all three- and four-year-olds.\ 

Initially, the Bacon districts received increased funding under the SFRA, but massive underfunding of the formula eliminated these increases. In addition, preschool expansion under the SFRA was never implemented. As a result, the districts determined that further action was necessary and sent a letter to the NJ Attorney General in July 2014, demanding full SFRA funding and implementation of high quality preschool.
In 2008, ELC filed an amicus brief in support of the 16 poor rural districts. ELC currently represents parent and student plaintiffs in this case.

The problem with the Bacon case is that these districts are not even remotely the most underaided in New Jersey, not by any measure of underaiding.  The Bacon districts are NOT rural versions of the Abbotts at all.

First , the Bacons are not nearly as poor demographically:

Second, the Bacons are not as poor in terms of tax base.

The Education Law Center's own tabulations of aid deficits per student show that the Bacon districts are underaided by an average of $1,396 per student.  That's a large amount, but the Bacon districts are not among New Jersey's most underaided and three of them (Ocean Township, Lakehurst, and Woodbine) are actually overaided.

Bacon Districts
HAMMONTON TOWN	-$5,200
CLAYTON BORO	-$5,027
WALLINGTON BORO	-$4,326
LITTLE EGG HARBOR TWP	-$3,941
LAWRENCE TWP	-$2,618
LAKEWOOD TWP	-$2,558
UPPER DEERFIELD TWP	-$2,454
EGG HARBOR CITY	-$2,453
FAIRFIELD TWP	-$1,785
MAURICE RIVER TWP	-$1,120
QUINTON TWP	-$702
COMMERCIAL TWP	-$637
BUENA REGIONAL	-$606
LAKEHURST BORO	$215
OCEAN TOWNSHIP	$1,212
WOODBINE	$4680

The point isn't that the Bacons shouldn't get more aid in an ideal world, but there are at least NINETEEN districts that are more underaided than the most underaided Bacon (Hammonton)

District	Aid Deficit
MANCHESTER REGIONAL	-$10,737
BOUND BROOK	-$9,780
EAST NEWARK	-$8,906
FAIRVIEW BORO	-$8,746
FREEHOLD BORO	-$8,113
GUTTENBERG TOWN	-$6,341
MANVILLE BORO	-$6,211
LODI	-$6,179
NORTH PLAINFIELD	-$6,021
ELMWOOD PARK	-$5,985
WOODLYNNE	-$5,982
PROSPECT PARK	-$5,896
LINDENWALD	-$5,885
RIDGEFIELD PARK (Bergen)	-$5,706
DOVER TOWN	-$5,484
DUNELLEN	-$5,429
WHARTON	-$5,385
KEARNY TOWN	-$5,282
NI NELLA	-$5,263

The Bacons themselves are a diverse group.  Yes, a few of them like Lakewood (for which SFRA doesn't work), Hammonton, and Clayton should get more aid, but the rest of them do not have the most acute needs in New Jersey.

Nor do the Bacons have the highest FRL-eligible rates.  The average Bacon districts is 55% FRL-eligible.  That's higher than average, but not high enough to justify extra money for them when where are numerous non-Bacons have even higher FRL-eligible percentages.

Bacon District	FRL-Eligible
Lakewood	86%
Commercial	63%
Egg Harbor City	79%
Fairfield	77%
Woodbine	70%
Lawrence	63%
Clayton	53%
Lakehurst	55%
Upper Deerfield	53%
Quinton	42%
Ocean Township	34%
Little Egg Harbor	49%
Maurice River	41%
Hammonton Township	41%
Buena Regional	44%
Wallington	32%

If the New Jersey Court system gives the Bacons extra aid it would be rewarding litigiousness over justice.

That the Education Law Center is fighting this lawsuit when it knows that the Bacons are not the most underaided in New Jersey shows how far the Education Law Center has fallen from its progressive ideals.  It should change its name to "Sciarra & Tractenberg, LLP."

A follow up.

New Jersey Public Sector Unions Take Fight for Full Pension Contributions to US Supreme Court

Public sector unions are taking their legal battle against Christie for full pension contributions to the US Supreme Court:

Another 16 New Jersey public worker unions are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider whether the state's highest court erred by declaring a pension funding agreement between the state and employees unenforceable.

In a petition filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, lawyers for 16 labor groups — including the New Jersey Education Association, Communications Workers of America and the Policemen's Benevolent Association — argued that the New Jersey Supreme Court should have applied the protections of the federal Contract Clause to the deal.

Hetty Rosenstein, state director for the CWA, said Tuesday that the organizations will "leave no stone unturned."

"One way or another we will protect these pensions. We will never allow the state of New Jersey to destroy the pensions that 800,000 people depend on," she said.

Legal experts do not expect the US Supreme Court to hear the case, but if the US Supreme Court heard the case and took any side in pension funding battles the consequences would be immense for state and municipal finance nationwide.  

Hudson Reporter article contrasts North Bergen with neighboring Abbott districts

The North Bergen school district would like to have one-to-one computing but can't because it doesn't have the money. North Bergen's Superintendent, George Solter, reminds everyone that North Bergen is poor but not an Abbott.

All teachers have been given Chrome Book computers. The district purchased hundreds more Chrome Books for student use as well. “My goal is to go one-to-one with students in the future,” he said of the Chrome Books. “But we’re underfunded by the state so much. We’re basically $39 million in the hole just to start out the school year.”

That is in comparison to neighboring school districts in Union City and West New York, both of which are SDA (Schools Development Authority) or Abbott Districts, receiving extensive funding and support from the state.

“We have the same clientele, the same type of students as West New York and Union City, but not the same funding,” said Solter. “So we don’t have the opportunity to purchase the materials or programs that they do.” 

Nonetheless, the school system did upgrade the technology to install WiFi in all the classrooms last year, which required adding access points throughout the buildings because the WWII-era walls were so thick that signals could not pass through.

North Bergen's per pupil spending is only $12,946.

Union City and West New York spend $17,370 and $14,853, respectively.

North Bergen elected officials are well aware of how badly their district is treated by the state.

“North Bergen schools have been shortchanged by the state for far too long and it is incredible to see how much our students have achieved despite this lack of support from the state,” said North Bergen Interim Superintendent of Schools Dr. George Solter. “We have been forced to constantly do more with less while we watch surrounding towns receive lavish amounts of state aid to build new facilities and hire new teachers.” 

"Because of the state’s bizarre interpretation of the funding formulas, districts like North Bergen, that are not wealthy and don’t receive Abbott funding, are hurt the worst,” said North Bergen Mayor and State Sen. Nicholas Sacco. “This is an injustice that should be reversed immediately, and the state should adhere to the funding formula passed by the legislature and upheld by the courts.”

North Bergen only gets 69% of its uncapped aid.

Steve Fulop Launches 2017 Campaign Website: Could be for the 2017 Mayoral Race or Gubernatorial Race

Steve Fulop has launched a campaign website.

http://www.stevenfulop.com/

It could be for the Jersey City mayoral race or the gubernatorial race. The website is paid for by Steve Fulop's mayoral election campaign and does not talk about any issues that do not affect Jersey City, so technically this could be for the 2017 Jersey City mayoral race.  Then again, Fulop is identified as a "New Jerseyan" not a "Jersey Cityan."  Anyway, despite the coyness I think everyone knows this is for the gubernatorial election.

Fulop is silent on state aid and education.  Fulop contrasts how Jersey City has done a better job of paying for its pension fund (Jersey City is the only city in NJ with its own pension system) than the state has.

IMO, Steve Fulop is advantaged over Steve Sweeney in the gubernatorial race because Fulop has presided over a booming city and has not been forced into a series of unpopular compromises with Chris Christie.  The unions were always opposed to Chapter 78 (the 2011 pension reform bill) but are now even more furious about Chapter 78 than when it was originally passed since the state is not even following through on its commitment to make the full actuarial pension contributions.

Jersey City has its own pension system (it is the only municipality in NJ to have one).  Steve Fulop, however, has supported reforms for Jersey City's pension system which are identical to the reforms made on the state level, such as suspending COLA payments, raising the retirement age, and requiring workers to work 30 years before they can retire.

(It is not Steve Fulop's fault, but Jersey City's pension is only 42% funded.)

Steve Fulop is pro-charter school and even sat on the board of a charter.  This angers a large segment of the Democratic coalition.

I'll keep watching Steve Fulop's site for any discussion of state aid.

Should Atlantic City become an Abbott? Short Answer: No.

This post was accurate at the time it was written. Since then Atlantic City's property tax base has fallen farther than anyone imagined and I think Abbottization is more than merited.

See http://njeducationaid.blogspot.com/2017/10/atlantic-city-should-be-abbott.html


Long Answer: Below

The collapse of the gambling industry in Atlantic City has caused an absolutely massive loss of property wealth and taxing capacity.

Eight or nine years ago, casinos owned 85 percent of Atlantic City's real estate, based on assessed values, Mayor Don Guardian said last week. Now, they account for about 55 percent of the assessed values and are expected to keep falling, he said....
A 2007 revaluation boosted the assessed value of all Atlantic City real estate to $20.5 billion from $8.2 billion, with casinos accounting for the bulk of the increase. But since 2010, appeals by casinos hurt by sagging revenue have gutted the tax rolls, which totaled just $11.3 billion in 2014, according to Atlantic County Board of Taxation records
"We're going to continue to spiral down with assessed values, probably more than $3 billion this year. We're eventually going to get down to $7 billion before we level off," Guardian said of the city's overall assessments.
Casinos' assessments have plummeted since 2010 from about $15 billion to less than $6 billion, based on values won on appeals. For example, New Jersey Tax Court in October 2013 slashed Borgata's 2010 assessment to $870 million from $2.3 billion....
The collapsing value of casinos has forced a massive shift in taxes to residents, who for years benefited from the flow of out-of-staters' gambling losses into the city's coffers.
But they're now feeling the pinch as those tax dollars stay in neighboring states that now have gambling, and they've seen their property taxes increase by more than 50 percent in the last two years.
Guardian said he would bring expenses in check so the rise in rates ends.
"The people that are left, the property owners that are left, cannot pick up any more of this cost," Guardian said.

The loss of valuation has been dramatic. In 2007 Atlantic City had the second highest equalized property evaluation in New Jersey (after Jersey City) Now Atlantic City's valuation has fallen to about the seventh highest, behind towns like Toms River and Edison.

Although Atlantic City's schools have always been in DFG A and the students have have an 89% FRL-eligible rate, Atlantic City has never been an Abbott because its local resources were so exceptionally high.  Back at the peak of the casino industry in 2007 Atlantic City had more than $3 million in valuation per student, a figure much higher than what Millburn and Princeton have.

Now, in the wake of multiple casino closings in Atlantic City and the destruction of Hurricane Katrina, the been some talk about making Atlantic City the 32nd Abbott district:

The idea hasn't gone far, but it is supported by Senate President Steven Sweeney:

After hearing complaints from residents facing a huge hike in their property taxes, state Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester) today said that the state should consider sending more aid to Atlantic City schools. 

Sweeney, on a South Jersey radio call-in show, suggested making Atlantic City an “Abbott district,” which is named for a series of court cases in which the state Supreme Court said residents of New Jersey's poorest cities have a right to well-funded schools. 

“One of the other things that has to be looked at now is, with all these tax decisions does Atlantic City now qualify or deserve to be an Abbott district?” Sweeney said on the show, Pinky’s Corner. “When the casino revenues were high, no they didn’t qualify. But now the numbers have to look at, the picture has to be reevaluated. That would help the tax base in Atlantic City.”

Sweeney made the same proposal again in December of 2014.

Sweeney, however, said he thought Atlantic City schools were entitled to more aid. The district has long met every social criterion for funding under the state’s former Abbott program. The revenue from the casinos, however, disqualified the district from the program.

Sweeney has a complex proposal for Atlantic City where the casinos would pay a special PILOT instead of property taxes, Under Sweeney's proposal the Atlantic City schools would receive a special category of aid called "commercial valuation stabilization Aid."


I have a lot of sympathy for Atlantic City, but it still should not be an Abbott district.

Even after it's huge loss of property valuation Atlantic City still has $1.58 million in property valuation per student. (11,535,956,503 / 7300 = $1.58 million) It has a 1.1691 tax rate, which translates into a still extremely high $20,826 in per pupil spending, higher than most of the Abbotts.

Compare Atlantic City's valuation per student to the valuation per students of other high-poverty non-Abbotts:

• Prospect Park: $200,000 per student (Adjusted for it being a K-8)
• Freehold Boro: $400,000 per student (Adjusted for it being a K-8)
• Dover: $430,000 per student
• Guttenberg: $570,000 per student (Adjusted for it being a K-8)
• Belleville: $595,022 per student
• East Newark: $325 per student (Adjusted for it being a K-8)

Even if Atlantic City's valuation fell to $7 billion, as Mayor Tom Guardian predicts, it would still have almost $1 million in valuation per student -- a relatively strong tax base. Although the drop to $7 billion is possible, the government is not supposed to distribute money now based on need that may exist in the future.

If Atlantic City became an Abbott it doesn't automatically mean that Atlantic City would get the $15,000 per student amounts that Jersey City, Elizabeth, Newark, Camden etc get, but it would give Atlantic City other special privileges, like guaranteed full SFRA funding, 100% facilities funding from the state, and state-funded Pre-K. Although poor Atlantic City children need Pre-K, so do poor children in numerous other high-poverty districts, such as Lakewood, Dover, Red Bank Boro, Freehold Boro etc and I do not comprehend why Atlantic City's poor children should be ahead in line of poor children elsewhere. As it is, Atlantic City already has more free Pre-K than most non-Abbotts and is getting more.

Atlantic City may need help, but even in a worst-case scenario it would still have more property wealth that most other high-poverty districts. There is no rationale reason to allow Jersey City to cut in line many districts that are still lower-resource than it.  This isn't to say that Atlantic City doesn't need help, but the solution should be through respecting SFRA and directing more money through it to needy districts.

Then, there is the issue that New Jersey shouldn't have a class of districts given special privileges by the New Jersey Supreme Court in the first place. There is a continuum of need in New Jersey and the Abbott decision, by giving several major special privileges to the Abbott plaintiffs and not to many districts that are in fact as poor or poorer than they are, has been a mistake and cause of gross unfairness.

Freehold Boro: Where Population Growth and Stagnant Aid Collide in the Worst Way

One of the most underaided districts in New Jersey is Freehold Boro.

Whereas over 200 New Jersey school districts receive more than what SFRA indicates they are supposed to receive, Freehold Boro's school district receives only $9.6 million instead of the $23 million SFRA says it should have.  That translates into a deficit of $8,113 per student, the third largest deficit in New Jersey.   Freehold does get $6,000 per student, but due to the lack of property wealth, Freehold's per student spending is only $11,462 per student.

How did Freehold get here?

Freehold Boro has long been left behind by the state's aid distribution.   In 1990 Freehold was considered a DFG CD district, ie, lower-middle class, which was above the threshold for Abbbut in 2000 it fell to being a DFG B. If there were some rationality to inclusion in the Abbott list or the Abbott list were updated, Freehold would become an Abbott, but since the Abbott II decision came out in 1990, there has not been any change to the Abbott list other than the inclusion of exceptionally-poor Salem City in 2004.

Now, Freehold has become even poorer. Freehold Boro's budgetary problem is compounded by the fact that its student population has grown and yet state aid has been stagnant.

From 1998-1999 to 2014-2015, Freehold's population grew from 1,100 to the 1,623 figure, a 50% increase. Within that overall increase was a doubling of the number of poor children.  76% of students in Freehold Boro are now Free or Reduced Lunch eligible. This is much higher than several Abbotts, like Neptune Township (52% FRL) Pemberton (44% FRL), Phillipsburg (53% FRL), Hoboken (49% FRL).

14% of Freehold Boro students have Limited English proficiency compared to New Jersey's 5% average.  Even DFG A only has a 13% Limited English proficiency average.  That fact combined with its high poverty rate means that if  the DFGs were ever recalculated Freehold Boro would probably be in DFG A.

Freehold's aid deficit translates into terrible problems with crowding. Freehold's three schools were built to accommodate 1,148 students but today the student population is 1,623. (with another 50 expected next year). 72% of the K-3 classes and 85% of the 4-5 classes exceed these state standards.

When Nicole Tate's daughter was in kindergarten, she shared her classroom with 29 other students. "How do you think it goes with 30 kindergartners crowded into a classroom?" Tate asked. "We preach the value of early education, but we can't do it with 30 kids in a classroom."

Freehold's school library has already been taken over for classrooms, so Freehold Boro now rents six classrooms from Freehold Township.

Moreover, Freehold's student population has become poorer.

Freehold's own residents feel that they are overtaxed and know that their district is underaided. They have twice rejected referenda to increase taxes to expand school capacity.

One Freehold homeowner told the Asbury Park Press, “There’s just not the resources to adequately fund the schools the way we would like to, without causing a lot of extreme hardship.

The homeowner has a valid, respectable point about Freehold's taxes already being too high. Freehold Boro's wealth is just very low.  In property wealth, Freehold only has $400,000 per student, a much lower figure than even the Abbotts in its area.  (adjusted for FB being K-8).  Freehold's per capita income is only $23,000 a year as well.

Freehold Boro's total effective tax rate is 2.616, the fifth highest in Monmouth County and likely the highest in relation to income.  Freehold Boro is already above its Local Fair Share for its schools by over $400,000.

A large proportion of Freehold's public school children are the children of immigrants who cannot vote, so the usual constituency for public education is not there.  Although Freehold has about 9,000 adults, only 5,300 are registered voters. Of those 5,300 only 643 came out to the December 2014 referendum on the bond issue to vote. The defeat of the bond issue was only 374 to 272. 

After the defeat of the second school bond referendum Freehold Boro's Board of Education turned to Commissioner of Education David Hespe to permit them to allow Freehold to bond the money anyway, despite the vote against it. (a decision from the Commissioner is pending)

Knowing how high their taxes already are, many Freehold residents oppose this tactic:

"Our vote is being sidestepped by those who obviously have no appreciation for democracy,"

"This is a problem that we didn't create," said Sharon Shutzer, a longtime borough councilwoman who said she supports the expansion but wants state relief. "We are being told to fix it... but we are not capable of doing that financially on our own."

Freehold Boro's BOE says that their legislative delegation is fighting for Freehold Boro but without success. Why is the legislature so indifferent to Freehold Boro? It could be that Freehold Boro is represented by three Republicans (Jennifer Beck, Mary Pat Angelini, and Caroline Casagrande) and Republicans are disempowered, but it could be that Freehold Boro is in the same district as Asbury Park and the rest of the legislature does not want to reward Beck, Angelini, and Casagrande when Asbury Park is so absurdly overaided.

Freehold Boro is really a victim of Chris Christie's flat-aid policy of not letting any district lose aid; flat aid is seemingly benign but it hurts districts that have growing enrollments.  Christie's flat aid policy is inexcusable and callous, but the education establishment also supports flat aid, so the blame has to be spread more widely.  The NJSBA is blithely indifferent to the fact that some districts in NJ are more severely underaided than others.

The Education Law Center has a mixed record on Freehold Boro.

On one hand, the Education Law Center has tried to highlight Freehold as an underaided district.

... as a result of the State’s failure to fully fund the formula, Freehold Borough is currently receiving only 9% more in state aid than in 2008-09, despite a 16% increase in enrollment, a low-income population that increased by 35%, and an adequacy budget that grew by 55%. The projected state aid increase for the 2014-15 school year is nearly inconsequential – a total of $20 per pupil or about $32,000.  [ed note, the increase for 2015-16 is $0]

However, the ELC is budgetarily foolish. It opposes aid redistribtuion, so there is less new money available for districts like Freehold Boro. If the Education Law Center were to call for severely underaided districts like Freehold Boro to get more money with offsets from overaided districts such as Jersey City, Hoboken, and Asbury Park, there would be a politically and economically realistic way for Freehold Boro to receive more money despite the state's immense budget challenges.

Counterbalancing its rhetorical support for Freehold Boro, the Education Law Center also fights for more money for Hoboken.

The case of Freehold Boro also illustrates how misguided the Bacon lawsuit is. Freehold has one of New Jersey's largest aid deficits per student, but it is not a Bacon. The Education Law Center should fight for New Jersey's most underaided districts; in waging the Bacon lawsuit it is just fighting for the most legally aggressive.

Freehold Boro is yet another example of how broken, rigid, irrational, and immoral New Jersey's aid distribution is.  

NEW JERSEY NEEDS AID REDISTRIBUTION NOW!  

Assemblyman Ciattarelli pension and state aid changes: a mixed review

Assemblyman Jack Ciattarelli proposes cutting teacher pensions and cutting state aid for the highest aid districts:

“It’s becoming more and more difficult to navigate our fiscal obstacle course and a lot of that has to do with us meeting these (pension payment) obligations,” said Assemblyman Jack Ciattarelli (R-Somerville). “In a state that already has one of the highest income tax rates, the highest property taxes, an estate tax, one of the highest sales taxes, we have all this tax revenue and we augment it with casino revenue taxes and lotteries, how is it that we can’t make these payments? The reason is because they’re becoming more and more expensive.”

Facets of Ciattarelli’s proposals include:

• No community is allowed to fund less than 25 percent of their school budget through the local tax levy (some communities fund less than 15 percent of their school budget, while others fund more than 90 percent)

• No community can abate school property taxes on new development (to encourage development, communities can abate municipal and county taxes if they so choose)

• For all current and future teacher retirees, no post-retirement Medicare Part B reimbursement if their pension plus social security equals or exceeds $30,000 per year

• For all teachers with less than 10 years in system, pension account is switched over to defined contribution pension plan (e.g., 401(k))

• All newly hired teachers go immediately into defined contribution pension plan (e.g., 401(k)) and their pension and Social Security are paid for by the local school district, not the state.


• "Cadillac" health insurance plans are discontinued for all newly hired teachers and all others at end of current contract

Even though they should support some change to the PILOT law, the NJEA, unsurprisingly, opposes these proposals wholesale.

“Assemblyman Ciattarelli’s proposal is deeply flawed for a number of reasons,” said NJEA President Wendell Steinhauer in an emailed response. “First, it specifically targets teachers. Given the scope of the state’s pension failures, that is utterly inappropriate. Second, none of his proposals do anything to reduce the unfunded liability that the state has created as a result of its many years of funding failures. The pension problem cannot be solved with more benefit cuts. It can only be solved with responsible funding. Finally, his plan would further degrade pensions of teachers, who are already paying far more for both their pensions and health benefits while the state fails to do its part.”

Wendell Steinhauer ignores that there is a funding component of Ciattarelli's plan. Ciattarelli proposes that every district pay at least 25% of its school budget from its local tax levy and then use the state aid savings for pensions. Since there are scores of large, usually urban, districts that pay less than 25% of their school budget locally, this potentially frees up large amounts of money.

While New Jersey will eventually have to cut education aid to pay its pension obligations and it will be necessary to cut the Abbotts, the 25% minimum share requirement for a school district budget needs refinement.

Just because a district pays for less than 25% of its school budget doesn't necessarily mean that the district is overaided nor that the town is undertaxed.

Paterson, for instance, has the state pay for about 80% of its budget ($405 million of $505 million), but Paterson has exceptionally low income ($15,543 per capita), low property resources ($242k per student in valuation), and a very high FRL-eligible percentage (90%). In fact, despite that $405 million in aid, Paterson only gets 85% of its uncapped aid.

Paterson's local tax levy is only $39 million on that $505 million budget, so Paterson would be due for immense tax increases/spending cuts under Ciattarelli's plan. For Paterson to pay 25% of its budget it would have to pay $126 million, or three times more than it pays now. Paterson's (equalized) tax levy is already 0.58 so sure, it could pay somewhat more, but if its school tax levy proportionally increased it would become 1.87.  A $126 Local Tax Levy for Paterson would be above its Local Fair Share of $97 million.

On top of the high school tax burden, Paterson residents would still have to pay county and municipal taxes. Paterson's tax levy is already 3.570, which is very high. If Paterson had to pay the higher school taxes that Ciattarelli is allowing, its very high tax burden would climb to nearly 5%.

A better solution would be to require any district receiving Equalization Aid to pay 100% of its Local Fair Share (or 80%, to use a more realistic figure).

Unfortunately, Ciattarelli's proposal would also leave untouched New Jersey's biggest aid hoarders.

For instance:

• Hoboken gets 184% of its recommended SFRA aid but would lose nothing since its Local Tax Levy is already 75% of its school budget.
•Ocean City, Cape May gets 562% of its recommended SFRA aid but would would lose nothing since its Local Tax Levy is 50% of its school budget.
•Jersey City gets 136% of its recommended SFRA aid (this translates to $111.7 million) but would lose only about $30 million (of its $566 million budget) because Jersey City already pays for 20% of its schools.

Of course Ciattarelli's proposal would face opposition from the legislature and the NJ Supreme Court. Ciattarelli gets credit for facing reality on pensions and I appreciate his boldness on PILOT problems, but this 25% minimum proposal needs some reform.