| |
See for details of hearing presentations and legislators' Q & A's.
Princeton Public Affairs Group, Inc.
(courtesy to Garden State Coalition of Schools)
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS • PUBLIC AFFAIRS • GRASSROOTS ADVOCACY
Special Session on Property Tax Reform
Update XXIV
Thursday, September 28, 2006
The Joint Legislative Committee on Constitutional Reform and Citizens' Property Tax Constitutional Convention (JCCR) met today down in
The hearing was down in South Jersey at the Ballroom and Theater in
Assemblyman John Burzichelli, co-chair began the committee hearing with the announcement that this hearing was the final scheduled hearing of the JCCR. Senator Bernie Kenny, co-chair was not present at the committee, however all of the other committee members such as: Senator Leonard Lance, Senator Fred Madden, Assemblyman Lou Manzo and Assemblyman Richard Merkt were in attendance.
Several local
A few speakers at the hearing, however, were in favor of the property tax convention. In addition, the members of the committee indicated that they were in favor of creating a property tax convention as well. Senator Lance said that he and Assemblyman Merkt were currently working to allow the public to make the decision about the states debt and require the public to vote on whether the state should borrow any additional money. Manzo and Madden agreed that a change was needed so that the public would be able to make decision to borrow additional money for the state. Madden also added that he believes that there are problems with the uniformity clause, however people that have testified have unanimously been in opposition to changes to the uniformity clause therefore it is highly unlikely that any changes will be made.
Burzichelli concluded the hearing stating that the
If you have any questions please contact Amy Dempster at dempster@ppag.com or call (609) 396-8838.
Special Session on Property Tax Reform
Update XXIII
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
The Joint Legislative Committee on Government Consolidation & Shared Services met today. The committee heard invited testimony from individuals involved in regionalizing or consolidating various police and fire operations. In addition, the committee heard from municipal officials who have personal experience with municipal consolidation efforts. Witnesses were asked to discuss the institutional barriers, and whether any provisions of Assembly, No. 51, sponsored by Speaker Roberts, would address problems confronted during the consolidation attempt.
The committee, Co-Chaired by Senator Bob Smith and Assemblyman John Wisniewski, heard testimony from Fire Chiefs from Cherry Hill and North Hudson, and a panel of municipal officials including, Mayor David Fried, Washington Township Mercer County, former Princeton Borough Mayor, and Marianne Smith, Hardyston Township Manager.
While demographically the communities the Fire Chiefs protect were different as indicated in their testimony they faced the same arduous process during consolidation. The barriers they faced included labor issues, no support from senior staff, demonstrating actual cost savings, and managing public expectations. The representative form
The benefits they outlined that came out of their experiences were that consolidation balanced out the inequalities of different districts, provided for regional communication, rearrangement/coordination of dispatch routes, improved deployment numbers and response time.
While advocating for shared services, the Cherry Hill Fire Chief concluded his testimony with the following sentiment, “even a Fire Chief with the best intentions won’t accept a change that puts his personnel at risk.”
Before the municipal officials began their testimony Assemblyman Bob Gordon shared a report he created in 2002 when he served as an emergency preparedness consultant. The report was prepared for the City of
Mayor Fried shared some observation he made during his attempts to dissolve the fire district. Even though he felt the process should be straight forward it rarely occurs. Many suburban communities are losing volunteers and rapidly switching over to all-paid forces. The impact on taxpayers is significant. The collective bargaining process overwhelmingly favors the union.
Fried’s recommended the following:
- Place fire districts under the state’s cap law.
- Municipal officials would be helped if we could more easily obtain data about how many paid firefighter, both full-time and part-time, are appropriate, given a community’s size and its volunteer presence.
- Taxpayers would benefit if the growth of a fire district’s paid force –in and of itself- triggered a review by the governing body to see whether absorption into the municipal government makes sense.
- Significant incentives be offered to encourage regional fire protection, perhaps at the county level.
Former Mayor of Princeton Borough provided a brief analysis of the defeat of consolidation efforts between Princeton Borough and
Based on her experience with Hardyston and Franklin townships, Marianne Smith said shared services should be a personal approach rather than a legislative “strong arm” approach. She cautioned the committee on A-51 saying state intervention might be counterproductive as people might be intimidated by the process outlined in the legislation.
Smith’s recommended the following:
- If benefits are forthcoming they should be retroactive
- Expenses should be reviewed and some should be eliminated
- Education of municipalities would be very helpful. It might be helpful to
have an Ombudsman who can offer guidance.
In closing, Assemblyman Joseph Malone thanked the participants for their testimony and pragmatic approach and positive attitude. He thought this was the best meeting of the committee. Senator Bob Smith adjourned the meeting.
The next committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, October 4 at 10am.
If you have any questions please contact Lorna O’Hara at ohara@ppag.com or (609) 396-8838.
Special Session on Property Tax Reform
Update XXII
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
The Joint Legislative Committee on Public School Funding Reform (JCSF) met today September 26, 2006, to take testimony from invited guest representatives from the Department of Education (DOE) on School District Accountability, Transparency, and Monitoring. Co-chair of the committee, Senator John Adler (D-Camden) began the hearing along with fellow committee members, co-chair Assemblyman Herb Conaway (D-Burlington), Senator Joe Doria (D-Hudson), Senator Gerald Cardinale (R-Bergen), Assemblyman Davis Wolfe (R-Monmouth), and Assemblyman Brian Stack (D-Hudson).
Adler started with the announcement that the DOE acting Commissioner, Lucille Davy was asked to testify before the committee today, but was unable to make it due to a previous commitment. Davey was at the annual meetings with superintends throughout
Adler stated that the theme of this hearing were the issues of public school funding accountability. Adler said that he wanted to make sure the money for school funding was spent on educating children on a high level, not used for fraud or crime.
The first speaker was Jessica G. DeKoninck, Director, Legislative Services at the DOE. She provided the committee with testimony on other accountability measures for school districts. Spoke about the nexus of fiscal crisis and accountability. She began with the background of accountability and public school funding. DeKoninck points out that with the exception of State intervention in
Next, Donna Arons, Special Assistant to the Acting Commissioner provided the committee with testimony on the New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum (NJ QSAC). Arons explained the NJ QSAC program and how the proposed amendments would affect the program. She explained how the amendments were designed to enhance monitoring and increase accountability. One of the main goals of NJ QSAC is to initiate collaboration between the Department of Education and districts in order to improve student achievement and increase local capacity. The five key components that are used to monitor the effectiveness of school districts are operations, governance, personnel, fiscal management and instructional program. A Performance Review (DPR) is the self-evaluation completed by the districts that will be reviewed by the DOE.
After the previous two speakers provided testimony about NJ QSAC, Katherine Attwood, Director of the Office of Fiscal Policy and Planning, provided the committee with testimony on the "School District Fiscal Accountability Act,"
P.L. 2006, c.15. She provided information on the fiscal aspect of QSAC and described the school fiscal accountability act.
DeKoninck, concluded the panels testimony by reviewing the ambitions of QSAC and the school ethics act. She then offered a series of recommendations from the DOE.
The most immediate concern of the joint committee are the problems that exist in
Adler asked the three invited guests why NJ QSAC is not currently working on
Senator Cardinale asked the invited guests about the funding for the highly paid professionals that will be doing the monitoring on state districts. Arons responded by saying that pay is divided between the State and the corresponding district.
Senator Adler concluded the hearing stating that several members of the legislature have sent ideas about cost saving methods pertaining to school funding. Adler requested that is any other people have ideas, they should send them to the Joint Committee. He also said that he sees the value in reading about everything from specific isolated problems in a school or district to the broad systemic problems that exist.
The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, October, 3 2006 at 1pm. This committee hearing will be the seventh fact finding meeting for the JCSF in order to reform the states public school funding formula.
Special Session on Property Tax Reform
Update IXX
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Today, September 19, 2006 the Joint Legislative Committee on Public School Funding Reform (JCSF), met to take testimony from invited guests Jay G. Chambers, Ph.D. and Professor John Yinger on methods to determine the cost of education.
The committee began with an announcement from Assemblyman Herb Conaway, co-chair of the (JCSF). Conaway stated that the two speakers at the hearing today are speaking remotely and that the speakers are experts in the field of public school funding, however, they do not have experience in
The first speaker was Professor John Yinger, Trustee Professor of Public Administration and Economics Director of the Education Finance and Accountability Program in the Center for Policy Research at the
He began with an overview of the method of “costing out,” which included what the recent research on the subject includes. He then gave a broad framework on the notion of costing out. As an example he described the way
Costing out is used to calculate the amount of money that is needed to meet the state standards of education. Before the method of costing out is used, the state must decide what the state standards are.
According to Yinger, costing out should be used for calculating the cost in three different areas of public school funding. First, the state should find out the cost of meeting the needs in a typical first year of using the state standards. Second, to calculate the amount of money that is needed in a district to attract high quality teachers for special districts. Finally the amount of money that is required for use in districts for schools that provide programs for children with special needs.
Yinger than described the three approaches that could be used with the costing out method. The first approach is called the successful school approach; second is referred to as the initial judgment approach; the final approach is called the cost function approach.
The other speaker that testified before the joint committee was Jay G. Chambers, Ph.D., Senior Research Fellow / Managing Director of the Education Finance Business Development Group in the Education Program at the American Institutes for Research. He began his testimony by stating that he was in disagreement with the previous speaker over the use of costing out.
Chambers first defined costing out, as slightly different that Yingers but included the economic definition used by all fields, not just the education field. Next he listed the three factors that affect the cost of education. Included as factors are price, which is how much more or less is needed to employ comparable resources; need, which includes students that are at risk, English language learners and special needs; and scale, which refers to schools that can not operate if they were required to have the same number of students as larger, more urbanized schools.
Next Chambers explained that funding needs to address adequacy. He stated that adequacy was achieved through setting goals and determining the cost of achieving such goals. The methods widely used in the education field to calculate a funding formula are the cost function method, the success schools approach, the professional judgment approach and the evidence based method.
Most of the questions asked by the committee were requesting the speakers to provide some suggestions or ideas for legislation the committee could introduce that would cut the costs of public school funding. The speakers both answered that their research was general and not specific to
The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, September, 26 2006 at 1pm. This committee hearing will be the sixth fact finding meeting for the JCSF in order to reform the states public school funding formula.
