| ||||||||||||
Garden State Coalition of Schools July 2, 2010 submission to the Assembly Budget Committee Comments: New Jersey’s Current Discussion and Agenda for Property Tax Reform
Excerpts from 'GSCS initial concerns'
...Capping property taxes will decidedly impact budget growth, but are the downside effects – without state policy changes in fixed costs – what New Jersey really wants for its public schools?
Costs beyond local control must be reduced and can only be addressed by state policy. Examples of these costs are health care, energy, insurances; and enrollment growth. Enrollment growth is a fact of life and per pupil expenses must not be disregarded in proportion to enrollment growth – certain parameters for exemption can be determined that allow for enrollment increases in a cap structure.
State aid must not only be held steady, but must also increase as costs do annually and as policy, such as special education mandates, require.
Without policy in place that recognizes and deals with basic cost drivers, quality education will undoubtedly be leveled down..."
Garden State Coalition of Schools
July 2, 2010 submission to the Assembly Budget Committee
Comments: New Jersey’s Current Discussion and Agenda for Property Tax Reform
GSCS initial concerns:
This property tax discussion is clearly needed in New Jersey. As we engage in this hardscrabble conversation, a conversation we understand is probable to evoke real property tax reform, we do need to ensure that our pros and cons have a foundation based on facts and figures that will support sound policy direction.
GSCS member districts rely heavily on property taxes to support their budgets, up to approximately 95% via local funding. GSCS districts also provided some of the highest quality education in the nation.
State policy has effected this overwhelming reliance on local taxes over the years. In the mid 1980’s the average reliance of GSCS type of districts on local funds was approximately 85%. Capping property taxes will decidedly impact budget growth, but are the downside effects – without state policy changes in fixed costs – what New Jersey really wants for its public schools?
Costs beyond local control must be reduced and can only be addressed by state policy. Examples of these costs are health care, energy, insurances; and enrollment growth. Enrollment growth is a fact of life and per pupil expenses must not be disregarded in proportion to enrollment growth – certain parameters for exemption can be determined that allow for enrollment increases in a cap structure.
State aid must not only be held steady, but must also increase as costs do annually and as policy, such as special education mandates, require.
Without policy in place that recognizes and deals with basic cost drivers, quality education will undoubtedly be leveled down.
For starters, please consider:
Voter override with a simple majority; majority rule is the standard in the United States.
Exemptions from the cap that qualify as fixed costs beyond local control (see above for examples).
A cap that is reasonable and will not result in leveling down quality education.
A review of state aid and SFRA; consideration of the GSCS 2007 white paper proposal that asked for an 85-15 rule: no district should get less that 15% state aid and no district should receive more than 85% state aid.
