Changes in Equalized Valuation for FY2019 and Implications for State Aid

The NJ Department of Treasury has just released the Equalized Valuation of every town in New Jersey for FY2019 and thus given us an insight into  shifts in state aid for 2018-19 and New Jersey economic trends.

What is Equalized Valuation?
Equalized Valuation is the market value of all the (taxable) property in a town.  It is updated every year by the county tax assessor and is used to apportion county taxes and, theoretically, school aid.

(see note at bottom for how Equalized Valuation is calculated)

Implications for State Aid

Equalized Valuation is used, along with Aggregate Income, to determine a district's Local Fair Share, which is one of the two components of Equalization Aid

The formula for Equalization Aid is:

Adequacy Budget - Local Fair Share = Equalization Aid

So, if a district had an Adequacy Budget of $80 million and a Local Fair Share of $60 million, it would receive $20 million in Equalization Aid, since $80 million - $60 million = $20 million.

If a district's Local Fair Share exceeds its Adequacy Budget, it does not receive Equalization Aid.  45% of NJ districts are not supposed to receive Equalization Aid in 2018-19.

The formula for Local Fair Share for 2018-19 is:

(Equalized Valuation x 0.013828828) / 2 + (Aggregate Income x 0.046200477) / 2

Or in simpler terms:

0.7% of Equalized Valuation + 2.3% of Aggregate Income 

So, if a district gains $100 million in Equalized Valuation, that alone would increase its Local Fair Share by $690,000.  If a district gains $500 million in Equalized Valuation, that alone would increase its Local Fair Share by $3.45 million.  (assuming no change in Aggregate Income)

Jersey City has the largest Equalized Valuation in New Jersey, so I will use it as a concrete example.

Between Tax Year 2018 and Tax Year 2019, Jersey City gained $5.6 billion in Equalized Valuation.  That $5.6 billion gain will cause its Local Fair Share to increase by $38.7 million to about $430 million.  Since Jersey City is overaided by $170.6 million for 2018-19, that means its excess aid for 2019-20 will be $209 million.  (not counting the growth in Aggregate Income which will further increase the Local Fair Share)

Jersey City's massive $5.6 billion growth in Equalized Valuation is growth of 20%. It means that Jersey City's school tax rate will FALL to 0.36% ($124,367,357 out of $34,014,551,210.)

For underaided districts, the increase in Equalized Valuation does not have an impact, since it only changes the money they are theoretically due.  Newark's $1.2 billion gain in Equalized Valuation will translate into an $8.5 million loss in Equalization Aid.  Since Newark is underaided by $130 million anyway, the loss in Equalization Aid is theoretical.

Theoretical Equalization Aid Changes for Twelve Largest Districts in NJ Based on Changes in Equalized Valuation.

	FY2018 Equalized Valuation	FY2019 Equalized Valuation	Change	Estimated Change in Local Fair Share from Change in EV	2018-19 State Aid Excess or Deficit
NEWARK	$16,078,534,983	$17,311,594,311	$1,233,059,328	$8,525,883	-$130,042,863
JERSEY CITY	$28,418,886,079	$34,014,551,210	$5,595,665,131	$38,690,745	$170,778,034
PATERSON	$6,539,377,143	$7,437,865,364	$898,488,221	$6,212,520	-$72,352,193
ELIZABETH	$7,451,469,452	$8,209,148,920	$757,679,468	$5,238,910	-$68,825,175
EDISON	$16,414,706,971	$17,369,327,293	$954,620,322	$6,600,640	-$26,154,921
CAMDEN CITY	$1,778,745,868	$1,718,104,905	-$60,640,963	-$419,297	-$5,823,773
TOMS RIVER	$15,418,546,251	$15,838,934,146	$420,387,895	$2,906,736	$17,581,822
TRENTON	$2,413,197,158	$2,441,950,609	$28,753,451	$198,813	-$43,315,482
PASSAIC CITY	$3,513,360,398	$3,847,350,626	$333,990,228	$2,309,347	-$9,814,810
WOODBRIDGE	$10,839,569,983	$12,096,056,828	$1,256,486,845	$8,687,870	-$47,416,063
UNION CITY	$3,852,537,098	$4,074,202,239	$221,665,141	$1,532,685	-$30,901,116
HAMILTON TWP	$8,768,832,490	$8,928,283,025	$159,450,535	$1,102,507	-$681,835
CLIFTON	$9,642,085,941	$9,959,099,377	$317,013,436	$2,191,962	-$39,036,502
CHERRY HILL	$8,340,254,303	$8,609,940,019	$269,685,716	$1,864,719	-$12,524,161

The Broad View 

The State's total Equalized Valuation grew from $1,242,801,663,665 to $1,288,305,163,962, a one year net increase of $45 billion, or 3.7%, which actually exceeds inflation. However, the median town's gain was only 2.2%, since large portions of the state's total gain are concentrated in a few cities, with Jersey City gaining $5.6 billion and Newark gaining $1.2 billion.

Here is the change, county by county:

The $10 Billion Club

The towns with Equalized Valuations above $10 billion are, with their change in ranking from last year:

1. Jersey City, $34,014,551,210 (unchanged)

2. Edison, $17,369,327,293 (unchanged)

3. Hoboken, $17,341,543,272 (unchanged)

4. Newark, $17,311,594,311 (unchanged)

5. Toms River, $15,838,934,146 (unchanged)

6. Jersey City's PILOTed property, estimate at $12-$13 billion.

7. Ocean City, $12,499,744,267 (unchanged)

8. Woodbridge, $12,096,056,828 (plus 1)

9. Brick, $11,187,561,088 (plus 1)

10. Middletown, $11,110,150,917 (minus 2)

13. Lakewood, $10,738,156,516 (plus 2)

11. Millburn, $10,591,406,653 (minus 1)

12. Franklin Township, $10,556,664,931 (minus 1)

13.  Wayne Township, $10,291,011,176  (newcomer to $10 billion club)

Changes for NJ's Big Cities

The most important story of changes in Equalized Valuation is Jersey City's growth.  Jersey City has grown from having barely 1% of NJ's total Equalized Valuation in the 1990s to having 2.81% of NJ's total Equalized Valuation in tax year 2019.

I maintain my projection that Jersey City will no longer qualify for Equalization Aid in 6-7 years.

-------

See Also

• The Divergent Fates of NJ's Big Cities
• 2016 Equalized Valuations Out (for tax year 2017)
• Biggest Real Estate Gains, Losses in NJ
• Two Cheers for County Taxes!  
• New Jersey and Its Neighbors Job Growth, County by County
• 2017 Changes in Equalized Valuation: the Urban Core Grows

-------

How is Equalized Valuation determined?
Equalized Valuation is determined by calculating the ratio of sales prices to a town's official assessment for its own local taxes.  If sale prices are, on average, 110% of properties's official assessments, then Equalized Valuation would equal 110% of a town's total official assessment.  If sale prices are 93% of official assessment, then Equalized Valuation would equal 93% of a town's total official assessment.

Because Equalized Valuation based on a ratio of sale prices to official assessment, a town's refusal to do a reval does not affect Equalized Valuation.  

Contrary to assertions from Sen. Mike Doherty and the Toms River Board of Education, Jersey City's decades-long refusal to do a reval did not distort its state aid since JC's Equalized Valuation constantly grew along with its real estate market.  Jersey City's state aid was distorted by Adjustment Aid and PILOTing, not the lack of a reval.  

If a town's Local Fair Share exceeds its Adequacy Budget, a change in Equalized Valuation has no theoretical impact on state aid at all, since it doesn't matter if a Local Fair Share exceeds Adequacy Budget by 5% or 150%.  Equalization Aid is $0 in either case.

Note: Equalized Valuation is not the same thing as the aggregate assessed value, which is the sum of all the individual assessments on properties and will not reflect real market value if the reval was not done recently.  Assessed values are only used for a town's internal tax apportionment.

-------

2018-19 State Aid Disparities Narrow, But Remain Stark

Thanks to the determination of Senate President Steve Sweeney, his legislative allies, and grassroots

support from parents in underfunded districts, Gov. Phil Murphy agreed to allow a limited redistribution of K-12 state aid to take place and to focus new state aid on NJ's most underaided districts.

The redistribution of $32.1 million of Adjustment Aid combined with the input of $351.4 million in new aid brings NJ $381 million closer to state aid justice, but as we are about to see in this blog post, 100% funding for every district in seven years is likely unachievable.

As usual, I've put all the state aid data referred to here online.

The Outline:

The median district is underaided by $417 per student and receives only 85% of its Uncapped Aid.

The Overaided:
Yet, there are 190 districts receiving over 100% of what the School Funding Reform Act says they actually need.

Their total excess state aid is $651,944,818, which is larger than the $637,776,892 surplus for 2017-18.

The reason that excess grew for 2018-19 despite the legislature's $32.1 million cut to Adjustment Aid is because the overaided districts tend to have further enrollment loss and/or tax base growth.  Jersey City alone will be overaided by $20 million more in 2018-19 than in 2017-18, despite its loss of $3.5 million in Adjustment Aid.

There are 76 districts who are overaided by $2,000 per student or more and 19 districts who are overaided by $4,000 per student more. Asbury Park, as in years past, has the largest excess in NJ, at $10,869 per student. Asbury Park's excess is an outlier, since the second most overaided district, Weymouth Township, only has an excess of $8,690 per student.

In terms of percentages, there are 54 districts getting 200% or more of their recommended aid.  Washington Township in Burlington County is the most overaided in percentage terms, getting 521% of its real aid target. 

In terms of percentages, there are 54 districts getting 200% or more of their recommended aid.

The 100%ers:

There are 17 districts getting exactly 100% of what is recommended, the largest of which are Lakewood and Freehold Township.

The Underaided:

There are 370 districts getting less than 100% of what SFRA says they need.

Their total deficit is -$1,747,896,430.  There are 109 districts who are underaided by $2,000 per student or more and 35 who are underaided by $4,000 per student or more.  There were 118 districts with the $2,000 per student deficit for 2017-18.

Atlantic City is the most underaided district in NJ, with a deficit of -$7,378 per student, even including its $32 million in Commercial Valuation Stabilization Aid. Atlantic City's deficit remains enormous, but it is significantly less than the most underaided district for 2017-18, which was Bound Brook with a -$9,546 per student deficit.

The $1.748 billion deficit for 2018-19 is only $217 million less than the $1,965,333,325 deficit for 2017-18, despite the infusion of $381 million in new and redistributed state aid.

The reason that the deficit shrank by substantially less than the input of new+redistributed aid is because the true deficit increases every year due to weighted enrollment growth, tax base erosion, and inflation.  (see below)

Sweeney's state aid proposed was designed to give the biggest increases to districts with the worst percentage underfunding with the goal of a 58% threshold, so there are only eight districts getting less than 50% of their Uncapped Aid.  Woodbridge is now the most underaided in percentage terms, getting only 42% of what it is supposed to get. 

Chesterfield, which only got 10% of its recommended aid in 2016-17 and 20% of its recommended aid in 2017-18 will now receive 58% of its Uncapped Aid. From 2016-17 to 2018-19 Chesterfield's state aid has grown from $419,983 to $2,403,780, a 473% increase (with more to come).

Steve Sweeney often said that he was bringing every district up to 58% of its Uncapped Aid, but this is not accurate, since Sweeney and his allies were forced to cap aid limits for large underaided districts such as Woodbridge and even some small districts who were exceptionally underaided, such as Fairview.  As you can see inm the table below, there are 16 districts who remain below 58%, with Woodbridge being the state's most underaided in percentage terms.  

KEARNY	57.73%
ROBBINSVILLE TWP	56.09%
BLOOMFIELD TWP	55.44%
ATLANTIC CITY (see note)	55.07%
LINDEN	55.00%
PASSAIC COUNTY VOCATIONAL	54.08%
BOUND BROOK	51.75%
FAIRVIEW BORO	51.47%
CLIFTON CITY	47.31%
HACKENSACK CITY	47.24%
WEST ORANGE	47.06%
ELMWOOD PARK	44.46%
ATLANTIC CO VOCATIONAL	43.93%
EDISON TWP	43.04%
NORTH BRUNSWICK TWP	42.08%
WOODBRIDGE TWP	41.72%

Overall, 117 districts are now exactly at the 58% threshold.

Although the need to cap aid increases for 2018-19 is disappointing, in 2019-20 and beyond, these districts will have the largest increases proportionally, since (if Murphy signs S2), new aid will be based on each district's deficit, not its existing aid.

Per Pupil Gains and Losses from 2017-18

The legislature's increase for 2018-19 was structured onto Phil Murphy's SFRA-literalist proposal, in which state aid was determined by inflating a district's existing aid by (usually) 5%, so districts already getting 80-90% of their Uncapped Aid got the largest gains.  Hence Trenton gained +$793 per pupil and Newark gained +$729 per pupil, even though those districts were only underaided by about $2800 per student, which not even close to NJ's largest deficits.

Under Murphy SFRA-literalist approach, 13 districts (all Abbotts) gained 48% of all new state aid.

Aid increases in dollars per student are available here.

Sweeney and his allies kept Phil Murphy's original distribution for all underaided districts, but then

Bound Brook had been NJ's most underaided district in

dollars per student (-$9,546 pp for 2017-18). 

Although Sweney used percentage underaidin,
it gained the most in dollars per student (+$2289).

strove to bring every district up to 58% of its Uncapped Aid.  Under this plan, Newark and Trenton didn't gain additional aid, but they didn't lose any state aid either.  Because of the focus on the 58% threshold, severely underaided districts who were at or above that level did not gain any additional state aid under the Sweeney plan.  EG, Belleville is underaided by $4252 pp, but it gained nothing over it had originally been supposed to get under Murphy's plan because Belleville was already at 60% of its Uncapped Aid and the Sweeney team used percentage underaiding. 

  

In any case, these districts are the ones who are gaining the most in dollars-per-student.

District	Gain in $/PP	District	Gain in $/PP
BOUND BROOK	$2,289	UNION COUNTY VOCATIONAL	$1,606
ATLANTIC CO VOCATIONAL	$2,213	ABSECON CITY	$1,515
MANVILLE	$2,163	DUNELLEN	$1,446
CUMBERLAND CO VOCATIONAL	$2,100	RED BANK BORO	$1,399
CHESTERFIELD	$2,055	ELMWOOD PARK	$1,398
FAIRVIEW BORO	$1,951	GUTTENBERG	$1,337
FREEHOLD BORO	$1,890	PASSAIC COUNTY VOCATIONAL	$1,302
MANCHESTER REG	$1,830	MERCHANTVILLE	$1,274
LITTLE FERRY	$1,787	ROCKAWAY BORO	$1,246
RIDGEFIELD PARK	$1,764	KENILWORTH	$1,225

What is also important to note is that the majority of NJ's severely underaided districts gained more state aid in the Sweeney model than the Murphy-Repollet SFRA-literalist model, although not always.

The reduction of Adjustment Aid was done through a more complex method that sometimes depended on spending relative to Adequacy and municipal overburden. Vo-techs were also exempted from any cuts.

The following districts lost the most:

District	Loss in $/PP	District	Loss in $/PP
OGDENSBURG	($212)	PEMBERTON TWP	($317)
LOWER CAPE MAY REGIONAL	($218)	ALLENHURST	($321)
LAKEWOOD	($221)	OCEAN TWP	($325)
CORBIN CITY	($223)	HAMPTON BORO	($330)
DELAWARE VALLEY REGIONAL	($223)	ALEXANDRIA TWP	($361)
KNOWLTON TWP	($243)	DENNIS TWP	($373)
CLINTON TWP	($261)	WEYMOUTH TWP	($470)
SPRINGFIELD TWP	($268)	ASBURY PARK	($591)
MONTAGUE TWP	($277)	WASHINGTON TWP	($801)
HOPATCONG	($288)	GLASSBORO	($948)

Although the media focused on Jersey City being the "biggest loser" for losing $3.5 million and that being the most in total dollars, that loss is only $114 per student.

By contrast, Glassboro lost $1,816,764, which, divided by Glassboro's 1916 students, is $948 per student.

Sweeney's Plan is Good Policy, But It Won't Bring Every District to 100% of State Aid

Toms River, Brick, Freehold Regional, Manalapan-Englishtown, Jersey City, and Ocean City have been at the forefront of opposition to state aid reform, saying that it would "decimate" their districts if they receive only 100% of their state aid.

However, these districts should be aware of their continuing advantage, since even in seven years, today's underaided districts will still not be at 100% funding, so the overaided districts who are losing state aid now will still be advantaged.

Although the 2018-19 state aid distribution takes New Jersey $217 million closer to having every district at 100% funding, 100% funding will remain out of reach in 2024-25.

The major reason for the improbability of bringing every district to 100% is that the deficit for 2018-19 will be $1,747,896,430, so even the full redistribution of $651,944,818 will still leave New Jersey with a $1.1 billion net deficit.

The major reason NJ is unlikely to be able to fully fund the underaided districts is that the true deficit increases by $100-$200 million per year, so, even conservatively estimated, in 2024-25, the underaided districts could require another $1 billion on top of the $1.747 billion they would need to be fully funded in 2018-19.

Although Adjustment Aid will probably grow over the next seven years, not all of that $651,944,818 in 2018-19's Adjustment Aid will be available to be redistributed because several tens of millions of it goes to districts who are being protected from aid cuts by the carve-outs for being below Adequacy, having "municipal overburden," or being vo-techs.

I do not have the exact amount of "protected Adjustment Aid," but East Orange alone has $24.4 in excess aid, Keansburg has $7.6 million, Vineland has $5.4 million, Gloucester City has $1.2 million. Monmouth County Vo-Tech has $6 million in excess aid, Ocean County Vo-Tech has $4.3 million. Between those districts and other protected districts, there is probably $50 million in "protected Adjustment Aid."

On the other hand, unless there is a recession, the State of New Jersey will experience annual revenue growth, but the amount of money left over for K-12 aid after expenses for TPAF (+$392.5 mil for FY19) and post-retirement medical (+$51.8 mil) will not equal the $284 million it was for 2018-19 since the 2018-19 budget was powered by increasing income tax rates, the transfer of the state lottery, fiscal gimmicks, flat-funding Extraordinary Aid, flat-funding municipal aid, plus stronger income tax revenue growth.

So, future new money for K-12 aid will be much less than the $284 million it was for 2018-19.

There are two factors in NJ's budgetary favor.  

• In 2022-23 NJ is projected to reach 100% of its pension funding, so starting in 2023-24 NJ should have much more new money available for K-12 aid (or other Property Tax Relief Fund spending).  
• The Debt Servicing costs for construction debt should start to fall, (unless there is another round of Abbott construction bonding).

Reaching 100% of state aid for all districts will also depend on what decisions the governor and legislature make regarding other expenses that are paid out of the Property Tax Relief Fund, ie, municipal aid, direct property tax rebates, community college, and PreK.

Given the state's extreme budget pressures for debt streams like TPAF and post-retirement medical, plus the appropriateness of funding municipal aid and direct tax rebates, and the likelihood of increases for PreK, the need to redistribute Adjustment Aid will become no less acute in the future.

----

See Also:

• "Updated State Aid Disparities for 2017-18"
• "Looking at 2018-19 Disparities"  (based on the original Murphy proposal)

Most of 2018's Severely Underaided Districts Were Underaided in 2008

One persistent myth about New Jersey state aid is that SFRA was "fully funded" in 2008-09.

This myth contains the kernel of truth that SFRA was funded at Capped Aid that year, but it is essentially untrue because Capped Aid is not real full funding, and the deficit for 2008-09 against Uncapped Aid was $1.05 billion. 



The idea that SFRA was fully funded in 2008-09 (implicitly) denies the existence of the State Aid Growth Limits that reduce a district's aid growth to 10% or 20% of what it got previously.  The "SFRA was fully funded its first year" concept does not take into account that "statutory full funding" and "real full funding" are not the same amount.

The notion that SFRA was fully funded in 2008-09 is dangerous because it undermines the case for redistributing Adjustment Aid, since if someone believes that SFRA was fully funded its first year under Jon Corzine, then that person is liable to believe that SFRA can be fully funded once again, if only we have a governor who is committed to it.

Although there are some severely underaided districts of 2017-18 who truly fully funded back in 2008-09, the large majority of today's most underaided districts were also underaided in 2008-09.

Here is the evidence:
The following are New Jersey's most underaided districtsfor 2017-18, with their deficits per student in 2008-09, and then the inflationary adjustment to September 2017 dollars.

District	2017-18 Deficit	2008-09 Deficit	2008-09 Deficit in 2017 Dollars
BELLMAYR	-$4,745	-$2,655	-$2,995
CLAYTON BORO	-$4,752	-$1,441	-$1,625
UNION COUNTY VOCATIONAL	-$4,780	-$3,071	-$3,464
HAMMONTON TOWN	-$4,937	-$739	-$834
JAMESBURG BORO	-$4,961	-$2,452	-$2,767
LAWNSIDE BORO	-$5,006	-$3,621	-$4,085
DUNELLEN BORO	-$5,025	-$3,279	-$3,699
WHARTON BORO	-$5,049	-$2,584	-$2,915
BAYONNE CITY	-$5,150	-$3,409	-$3,845
WOODLYNNE BORO	-$5,239	-$6,887	-$7,769
NORTH PLAINFIELD BORO	-$5,338	-$1,917	-$2,162
LODI BOROUGH	-$5,411	-$4,803	-$5,418
RIDGEFIELD PARK TWP	-$5,431	-$3,470	-$3,915
DOVER TOWN	-$5,560	-$2,775	-$3,130
ELMWOOD PARK	-$5,578	-$3,800	-$4,287
KEARNY TOWN	-$5,634	-$3,089	-$3,484
HALEDON BORO	-$5,676	-$3,514	-$3,964
CUMBERLAND CO VOCATIONAL	-$5,894	>100%	NA
PROSPECT PARK BORO	-$5,902	-$3,344	-$3,773
MANVILLE BORO	-$6,110	-$3,117	-$3,516
GUTTENBERG TOWN	-$6,285	-$2,883	-$3,252
LINDENWOLD BORO	-$6,439	-$617	-$696
EAST NEWARK BORO	-$6,960	-$625	-$706
PASSAIC COUNTY VOCATIONAL	-$7,200	-$5,546	-$6,257
ATLANTIC CO VOCATIONAL	-$7,240	>100%	NA
FAIRVIEW BORO	-$7,361	-$3,509	-$3,959
FREEHOLD BORO	-$7,675	-$2,859	-$3,225
ATLANTIC CITY*	-$8,216	>100%	NA
PASSAIC CO MANCHESTER REG	-$8,586	-$5,299	-$5,978
BOUND BROOK BORO	-$9,546	-$4,288	-$4,838

Source, Department of Education & NJ Enrollment Files, calculations done by me.  Data is available here.

As you can see in the above table, deficits did get significantly worse under Christie and yes, a handful of today's most underaided districts were properly funded in 2008-09, but the majority of 2017-18's most underaided districts began the SFRA era significantly or severely underaided.

The same reality of pre-Christie underaiding is clear if you go by underaiding in percentage terms too.

	2017-18 Funding Ratio	2008-09 Funding Ratio
BOONTON TOWN	43%	93%
HADDONFIELD	42%	>100%
MILLBURN TWP	42%	91%
LIVINGSTON TWP	42%	>100%
SPRINGFIELD TWP	42%	>100%
UNION COUNTY VOCATIONAL	42%	60%
CALDWELL-WEST CALDWELL	41%	84%
SECAUCUS	41%	>100%
MOUNTAINSIDE	41%	92%
ROCKAWAY BORO	41%	26%
CLIFTON	41%	49%
GUTTENBERG	41%	62%
HANOVER PARK REG.	40%	>100%
SADDLE RIVER BORO	40%	84%
HARDING TOWNSHIP	40%	80%
MANVILLE	40%	56%
HAWTHORNE	39%	37%
HACKENSACK	39%	72%
NORTH CALDWELL	38%	64%
MONROE	38%	99%
FAIR LAWN BORO	38%	48%
WALLINGTON	38%	54%
RED BANK BORO	38%	>100%
FAIRVIEW BORO	38%	65%
NORTH ARLINGTON	35%	46%
RIDGEFIELD PARK TWP	35%	42%
BOUND BROOK BORO	35%	53%
WEST ORANGE	34%	44%
WOODBRIDGE	34%	38%
WOODLAND PARK (West Paterson)	33%	42%
NORTH BRUNSWICK	33%	42%
HASBROUCK HEIGHTS	32%	43%
ROBBINSVILLE (Washington Twp)	32%	23%
ROCKLEIGH	31%	85%
ATLANTIC CITY*	30%	>100%
ATLANTIC CO VOCATIONAL	29%	>100%
LITTLE FERRY	26%	31%
RIVER EDGE	24%	19%
ELMWOOD PARK	24%	27%
CHESTERFIELD	19%	23%

Implicit to the myth that SFRA was fully funded under Jon Corzine is the myth Chris Christie was the first governor to underfund state aid.

The Education Law Center is the biggest culprit in spreading the myth that funding was fair and full before Christie, for instance, headlining a recent press release "Governor Murphy begins to fill the school funding hole left by his predecessor," (notice that 'predecessor' is in the singular) and then writing:

The [Murphy] proposed budget does not fully fund districts in the first year, a recognition of the extraordinary funding gaps created by former Governor Chris Christie’s combination of aid cuts and flat funding over the last eight years.

And

The bottom line: Governor Murphy’s budget begins to tackle the enormous deficits left by his predecessor [sic], putting New Jersey back on the road to fair funding for all schoolchildren.

Governor Murphy’s budget is a breath of fresh air after years of disinvestment in New Jersey students and schools."

The Education Law Center's faith in Phil Murphy is an opinion, but only the statement "Governor Murphy begins to fill the school funding hole left by his predecessorS" (plural!) would be factually accurate.

We Cannot Ignore the *Why* of Christie's Flat-Funding

It is true that Christie flat-funded K-12 operating aid, but K-12 operating aid is not the only money New Jersey spends on education, since the State of New Jersey pays teachers' FICA taxes, post-retirement health care, and (theoretically) the Teachers Pension and Annuity Fund.

If you factor in those three aid streams listed above, plus the TPAF portion of the Whitman-Era Pension Obligation Bonds, the School Construction debt service, plus other aid streams that are not debt-related, Christie actually increased education spending by $2.9 billion, which exceeds inflation and the growth of the rest of NJ's budget.  

Were Christie able to put just two thirds of that $2.9 billion increase for non-operating aid into operating aid, all districts would be at least fully funded at Uncapped Aid, without the need to redistribute Adjustment Aid.

Sources,
http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/omb/publications/19bib/BIB.pdf
http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/omb/publications//10bib/BIB.pdf

Spending on the four major debt streams --TPAF, post-retirement medical, POBs, and school construction debt service -- increased by $3.1 billion from Corzine's last budget (2009-10) to Christie's last budget (2017-18).  Granted, Corzine had to reduce the FY2010 TPAF payment because of the start of the Great Recession, but if you went back one year to FY2009, the TPAF payment was only $693.3 million, so no matter what year you start your evaluation from, it's the same basic story of large increases for education spending but not K-12 operating aid.

If in 2010 Christie had renewed the Corzine-era income taxes on high-earners he could have kept a few hundred million more in K-12 operating aid, but most districts would not have been anywhere near full-funding and fiscal conditions would have still tightened towards the end of the second term as increased debt payments devoured more and more of New Jersey's revenue.

If Christie had renewed Corzine's "Millionaire's Taxes," it's likely that not all of that money would have gone into K-12 operating aid either, since pensions and property-tax rebates would have had strong claims on that money.

Had Christie also not signed Chapter 78 and fought off Burgos v. New Jersey (over the pace of the pensions rampup) and Berg v. Christie (over the constitutionality of suspending COLAs), it's likely that K-12 operating aid would have been cut again.

So it seems like the "woulda coulda" hypothetical comparison between Christie and a hypothetical second-term for Corzine is a wash.  Personally I think Christie should have put even more into TPAF to forestall the depletion of the pension funds.

Anyway, Because spending on education-related debt streams must increase throughout the 2020s, it is not possible for Phil Murphy to fully fund education without redistribution, or, to be honest, even with redistribution.  Without redistributing Adjustment Aid, I do not think Murphy would even be able to reach Capped Aid in FY2022.

And back to my original point, SFRA was never fully funded.  CEIFA was increasingly underfunded.

New Jersey is never going to be able to appropriately fund every district without redistribution.

-----

• "SFRA Was Never Fully Funded"
• "The Skews of Capped Aid"
• "The Long Wait for Full Funding Under Capped Aid"
• "Christie Underfunded State Aid by Almost $15 Billion"

*  Atlantic City is the recipient of over $30 million in Commercial Valuation Stabilization Aid that is outside of SFRA and is not included in the data that the Department of Education lists publicly or sends to me.