| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1/17/05 from the Daily Record Newsroom
On Wednesday, local educators will take their case to the public, explaining why they believe new spending restrictions on public school budgets will not provide a long-term curb on school taxes.
01/17/05 - Posted from the Daily Record newsroom
|
Educators to argue for repeal of cap law
On Wednesday, local educators will take their case to the public, explaining why they believe new spending restrictions on public school budgets will not provide a long-term curb on school taxes.
A public forum, organized by superintendents, the state teachers' union and school boards association, will be held at Morristown High School at 7 p.m. All three groups are actively working for a repeal of the law known as S1701, which places limits on public school spending.
The forum will consist of a presentation on what school officials consider the harmful consequences of the law, followed by a question and answer period.
The panel answering questions will consist of a local superintendent, business administrator, principal, school board member and teacher.
All of Morris County's area representatives in the New Jersey Senate voted in favor of the law, except for Sen. Robert Martin, R-Morris Plains, who did not cast a vote. All of the county's Assembly representatives voted against the bill.
The law, signed by then-Gov. James E. McGreevey in July, places tighter restrictions on school budgets, beginning with an overall cap on spending of 2.5 percent or the rate of inflation, whichever is greater. Districts recently were notified by the state that the cap for next year's budget, the 2005-06 school year, will be based on the rate of inflation, at 3.01 percent.
School officials have said the law will make it impossible to plan for basic school maintenance projects, resulting in higher taxes in the future.
So far, at least nine bills have been introduced to change the law, ranging from repeals to tinkering with certain measures. A compromise bill was approved by the Assembly Education Committee last week that exempts certain costs from the spending limitations, such as utilities, workers' compensation insurance and domestic security.
Sen. Anthony Bucco, R-Boonton, has introduced a bill to repeal the law, saying previously that he supported the law because he did not hear any opposition. He has since heard complaints from local educators, prompting him to propose a repeal so the Legislature could take a better look at it, he said.
One former Morris County school board member has asked legislators to stand by the original law. Jerry Cantrell, president of the Silver Brigade, a local property tax reform group, and a former Randolph school board member, said legislators were right the first time.
"Politicians have been tripping over themselves trying to undo this, when what they did was a good thing," Cantrell said.
Cantrell said districts still have plenty of leeway to exceed the cap, with adjustments for enrollment, special education costs, new school start-up costs and an increase in sending-receiving tuition. Many districts regularly exceed the cap from year to year, he said.
For example, in the 2003-04 school year, the latest data available, only one local school district managed to stay under the 3 percent budget cap. The rest all exceeded the cap that year.
Cantrell said he plans to attend the forum to see the information presented and to see the reaction of any local legislators who attend.
Martin, who was absent for the vote on the original bill, said he did not support the legislation. Although he supports caps on school spending, he said several measures within the law were one-shot deals that lowered taxes in one year only.
"I thought it was largely a gimmick developed to give the appearance of property tax reform," Martin said.
Martin pointed to the measure that retroactively required school districts to reduce surplus to no more than 3 percent last school year. It also set the cap on surplus to 2 percent for the 2005-06 school year. Previously, school districts could keep as much as 6 percent, but no less than 3 percent surplus.
"If a district had more than 3 percent in surplus, there would be a one year effect of lowering school taxes in an election year," Martin said.
Martin has supported a new bill that would effectively repeal S1701, but said he would support a measure that sorts through the "good from the bad." He said districts can't control the rising cost of utilities, insurance and mandate programs. Yet, he added, some costs and responsibilities are within the district's control, pointing to salaries.
"I don't think schools should get a free ride," Martin said.