| Property Taxes, School Funding issues | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
A4 (S19)The CORE Plan, as amended on floor by the Senate
(A4 includes the ‘super’ county superintendent bill language.)
STATEMENT TO
ASSEMBLY, No. 4
with Senate Floor Amendments
(Proposed By Senator SMITH)
ADOPTED:
These floor amendments to Assembly, No. 4 remove the Articles on fire district and school district elections from the bill, clarify language concerning collective bargaining agreements in joint meetings, and clarify that a school district may appeal a budgetary action taken by an executive county superintendent directly to the Commissioner of Education.
STATEMENT on the bill: A4
This bill groups together certain individual components of the CORE proposal that was considered by the Joint Legislative Committee on Consolidation and Shared Services. Article 1 contains the “Uniform Shared Services and Consolidation Act,” which is subdivided into provisions designed to encourage savings among local units of government through the use of shared services, joint meetings, and municipal consolidation. The article codifies the SHARE program that provides financial incentives for local units to investigate shared services opportunities and also empowers residents to promote shared service and consolidation opportunities. The article provides methods for resolving Civil Service barriers to shared services and consolidation in situations where some participating local units have adopted Civil Service and some have not.
Article 2 of the bill would greatly increase the fiscal accountability of local officials by requiring “user-friendly” budgets and increasing public notice and awareness, including the use of Internet posting, when salaries are established or modified. Part of the “user-friendly” concept is the requirement that all compensation, benefits, separation benefits, and contract terms for school superintendents, assistant superintendents, and school business administrators be clearly disclosed to the Commissioner of Education.
Article 3 deals with the problems of inefficiency and bureaucracy in the 616 school districts by giving the county superintendent of school much more responsibility to oversee local school districts. The article changes the title of the county superintendent of schools to the executive county superintendent of schools, revises the terms of employment and the duties of the superintendent, and provides for the appointment of the superintendent by the Governor, upon the recommendation of the Commissioner of Education and with the advice and consent of the Senate. An executive county superintendent of schools would serve for a term of three years and could be re-appointed for a subsequent term if the individual received a satisfactory performance assessment. The performance assessment, conducted by the Commissioner of Education, would be based on the ability of the superintendent to effectuate administrative and operational efficiencies and cost savings within the school districts located in the county, while enhancing the effectiveness of the districts in providing a thorough and efficient system of education, and on the capacity of the school districts in the five key components of school district effectiveness under the New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum. In establishing the standards for assessing the performance of the superintendent in facilitating administrative efficiencies, the commissioner is directed to include such factors as administrator-to-teacher ratios, administrator-to-students ratios, and per-pupil administrative expenditures. The article also includes post-employment restrictions, prohibiting the executive county superintendent from being employed by one of the districts he supervised for two years after his term as superintendent terminates.
In addition to the current duties, an executive county superintendent of schools is charged with the duty to: promote administrative and operational efficiencies and cost savings within school districts while ensuring the provision of a thorough and efficient system of education; recommend to the commissioner the consolidation of certain districts’ administrative services; recommend to the commissioner the elimination of laws determined to be unnecessary State education mandates, except mandates that fall under certain categories of laws; have the authority to eliminate non-operating districts located in the county; no later than three years following the effective date of the bill, develop a plan to consolidate school districts in the county and require the affected districts to hold a referendum on the plan; promote the coordination and regionalization of public and nonpublic pupil transportation services in the county; request the commissioner to order forensic audits of school districts upon a determination by the superintendent that such an audit is warranted; promote cooperative purchasing of textbooks and other instructional materials; coordinate with the Department of Education to maintain a real time Statewide and district-wide database that tracks the types and capacity of special education programs being implemented by each district and the number of students enrolled in each program to identify program availability and needs; coordinate with the Department of Education to maintain a Statewide and district-wide list of all special education students served in out-of-district programs and a list of all public and private entities approved to receive special education students that includes pertinent information such as audit results and tuition charges; serve as a referral source for districts that do not have appropriate in-district programs for special education students and provide those districts with information on placement options in other school districts; conduct regional planning and identification of program needs for the development of in-district special education programs; serve as a liaison to facilitate shared special education services within the county; work with districts to develop in-district special education programs and services and provide assistance to districts in budgetary planning for resource realignment and reallocation to direct special education resources into the classroom; and, report to the commissioner on a regular basis on progress in achieving the goals of increasing the number of special education students educated in appropriate programs with non-disabled students.
The article also provides that the executive county superintendent is required to review all school district budgets and may disapprove a portion of the school district’s proposed budget if he determines that the district has not implemented all potential efficiencies in the administrative operations of the district or if he determines that the budget includes excessive non-instructional expenses. The executive county superintendent must also require a school district, before it submits for voter approval a separate proposal for additional funds in order to spend above its cap, to provide him with certain written documentation concerning shared services with other units of local government.
Article 3 also provides for the appointment of an executive county business official to serve in the office of the executive county superintendent of schools for a term of three years. The executive county business official would also be subject to re-appointment based upon receiving a satisfactory performance assessment using criteria developed by the commissioner.
Under the article, a local school district could apply to the executive county superintendent of schools to have services including, but not limited to, transportation, personnel, purchasing, payroll, and accounting assumed by the office of the superintendent. The executive county superintendent could assess a fee on the school district for any service he determines to provide. The executive county superintendent of schools could also utilize county special services school districts, jointure commissions, and educational services commissions to provide services to local school districts.
Article 3 also amends an existing statute to require that the report prepared by the executive county superintendent when a constituent municipality seeks to withdraw from a limited purpose regional school district or when the district seeks to dissolve must also include information on the effects on the administrative and operational efficiencies, and the resultant cost savings or cost increases, in the withdrawing and the regional districts, or by each constituent district in the event of a dissolution.
_________________________________________________
A1/S20 The Tax Caps Bill –
Establishes homestead credits to reduce property taxes; imposes 4% cap on local tax levies; permits Local Finance Board to define capital and non-bondable current expenses; makes an appropriation.
STATEMENT
This bill provides a homestead property tax credit for residents of
For seniors and residents who are blind or disabled, the bill either retains the current calculation of property tax rebates or applies the new credit formula, whichever provides a greater benefit. Under the current calculation the homestead benefit for the tax year equals the amount by which property taxes paid by the claimant in that tax year on the claimant’s homestead exceed 5% of the claimant’s gross income, with certain maximum and minimum benefits. Most of these taxpayers are eligible for a benefit of $1,200.
The new percentage-based benefit will be provided to taxpayers in the form of a credit rather than a rebate. However, the director retains the discretion to provide rebates when there is uncertainty that the benefit will be accurately provided to the correct taxpayer. In addition, seniors will receive the benefit as a rebate in the first year, and may individually choose to continue to do so in following years.
Credits will be reflected annually in the August and November property tax bills beginning in 2007. A taxpayer must reside in a homestead on October 1 of a tax year to be eligible for the credit.
The bill requires each property tax bill to show the taxpayer the amount of credit the taxpayer receives, and makes additional technical changes to statutes affecting the format and content of tax bills.
Sections 2 through 7 of this bill establishes a property tax levy cap for school districts, with very limited exceptions. During the first school budget year following enactment of this bill, the school district could go to its voters, as it does now, for approval to exceed the 4% levy cap. After the first year, the school district would need approval by at least 60% of the voters to exceed the levy cap. The bill ensures a great degree of transparency so that the ballot question and statement accurately explains the purpose for the additional funding request. After the first year, the school district also would be able to seek a waiver from the Commissioner of Education for limited categories of purposes, instead of or prior to seeking voter approval.
Sections 9 through 13 of the bill establish a property tax levy cap of four percent for local units, namely counties, municipalities, fire districts, and solid waste collection districts, with very limited exceptions. In the case of a county, this levy cap is intended to be tighter than the existing levy cap, but regardless, the smaller cap would apply. In the case of a municipality, this levy cap supplements the existing municipal expenditure cap and so would act as an additional constraint on municipal spending. Fire districts and solid waste collection districts currently are not subject to any expenditure or levy caps. The Local Finance Board would be authorized to grant waivers from the four percent cap in very limited circumstances.
Sections 42 through 45 of the bill provide local governments, including local boards of education, with the ability to modify, through collective negotiations agreements with their active employees, the payment obligations of the employer for active employee coverage under the State Health Benefits Program (SHBP). The ability to negotiate the amount of SHBP premium or periodic charges to be paid by the employer has been available to the State since 1997, and to local governments with regard to their future retirees since 1999.
The bill also permits all local units of government (including boards of education, county colleges, and local authorities) to establish cafeteria plans pursuant to section 125 of the federal Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.'125, to provide for a reduction in an employee’s salary, through payroll deductions or otherwise, in exchange for payment by the employer of medical or dental expenses not covered by a health benefits plan, of dependent care expenses as provided in section 129 of the code, 26 U.S.C.'129, and of such other benefits as are consistent with section 125 which are included under the plan. The amount of any reduction in an employee’s salary will continue to be treated as regular compensation for all other purposes, including the calculation of pension contributions and the amount of any retirement allowance, but, to the extent permitted by the federal Internal Revenue Code, will not be included in the computation of federal taxes withheld from the employee’s salary. The State was given the authority to establish such cafeteria plans in 1996 pursuant to N.J.S.A.52:14-15.1a.
These provisions will provide local governments that participate in the SHBP with flexibility to make negotiate changes required to control costs.
The bill appropriates funds necessary for the administrative costs of implementing the levy caps. The bill also appropriates funds necessary for the administrative costs of implementing the credit program, in an amount determined by the Director of the Division of Taxation in the Department of the Treasury, with the approval of the Director of the Division of Budget and Accounting.
