A legislator in New Jersey's 12th District, covering parts of Monmouth and Mercer Counties

Friday, March 31, 2006

It's Here: Q&A Friday Version 1.0

Charles R. Baker of Morganville asked this question:
"Thanks for the update. While this is all well & good, the real issue is our local property taxes (and i am not talking about senior citizens only). What are you doing to keep me in Monmouth County? I am very concerned that the next wave of school budgets will push me over the brink- to move out of state."

Mr. Baker, I can't even tell you how many of your neighbors share that concern. Polls show that property taxes are number one on the list of concerns of 12th District residents, and as such the issue is my top priority.

In my first two years, there was a great deal of talk about a constitutional convention to address property taxes (I sponsored a bill to convene one) , and of a special session of the Legislature to basically force Assembly members and state senators to come together and find a solution. I supported, and continue to support these ideas, but unfortunately neither has gotten off the ground just yet.

In the meantime, I have been advocating for the regionalization and consolidation of services to cut costs (and of course, taxes).

New Jersey has 616 school districts, each with its own superintendent and business administrator. In 2004, the average salary of a superintendent in New Jersey was $137,813, up from $121,416 in 2001. The total cost to pay all school superintendents in New Jersey in 2004 was $77 million, up from $69 million in 2001.

New Jersey spends more money per student than any state in the nation. However, we rank forty-first in terms of how much of that money actually reaches the classroom. Much of the funding for school districts from property taxes goes to fund administrative services, which could be done from a County Superintendent of Schools’ office.

Fairfax County, Virginia has only one school superintendent, earning $251,457 a year, for more than 200 schools and 166,000 students. Fairfax County also has the highest standardized test scores of any school district in the nation. One reason for this is because education funding is being spent in the classrooms and not on multiple administrative salaries.

New Jersey school district administrative costs are 75% higher than the national average and 31% higher than Michigan, which is the next closest state. The 2002 Goldwater Institute Policy Report noted that regional school districts spend 8% of their budget on administrative costs while non-regional districts spend 28% on administrative costs.

If New Jersey were to utilize the Fairfax County model of having one superintendent of schools for each county who made an annual salary of $251,457, the total cost would be $5.2 million. This would result in an annual cost savings of $71.7 million on superintendent’s salaries alone. More importantly, there would be no negative effect on education in New Jersey while property taxes would decrease.

At the very least, a superintendent and business administrator should be responsible for a K-12 school district. This would let communities retain control of their schools while decreasing the burden on taxpayers. Furthermore, the 1999 Assembly Task Force on School District Regionalization referenced “A Plan for School District Consolidation in New Jersey” from 1995 which stated that all regional high school districts merging with their respective K-8 districts in the towns they serve could save an estimated $32 million in annual administrative costs and more than $200 million a year overall.

One of the pieces of legislation I have sponsored that could also be considered in a special session is A-1984, which requires the Commissioner of Education to develop a plan to eliminate local school districts and establish a county-based educational system.



Bruce Brickman of Manalapan posed the following question, which is very relevant considering what is going on across the country and in Washington, D.C.:
"Legislation has been proposed to change driver license requirements to allow illegal aliens to be even more exploited by landscapers and developers. How do you stand on that change? Why is the State not enforcing minimum wage laws in auditing landscappers, developers, etc. to prevent such victimization and to make it less attractive for illegals to be in N. J."

In my opinion, New Jersey should not be doing anything to reward illegal immigrants. The best argument against this idea is the fact that if the state were to provide driving privilege cards to individuals who are in the country illegally, the federal government would no longer recognize our drivers' licenses for purposes of identification. This would make travelling and other activities for which New Jersey's legal residents might use their licenses as identification much more difficult.

I'm not sure about your question regarding minimum wage, but that is certainly something my staff can investigate, and we'll get back to you on what exactly is happening there (and update the blog too).

I am glad to see that Congress is hashing out the immigration issue, and I sincerely hope that a fair solution is found. Immigration laws are not being enforced across the country, and as a result there are currently millions of illegal immigrants living and raising their families in the United States. The questions Congress is facing are practical, political, and moral, but the debate is long overdue. I'm looking forward to following the progress in Washington. I can say with certainty, however, that I will not support the state-level driving privilege card proposal.


Sandy Mack of Freehold asked the following question:
"I know the rail question is being reopened to a further study. Do you think this issue will ever reach a conclusion? Is the line through Freehold still the favored one or are all now equal in consideration?"

New Jersey Transit has indeed re-opened their study of the Monmouth-Ocean-Middlesex (MOM) line, and they expect the new study to take approximately 18 to 24 months to complete. The study was reopened for a number of reasons. In the original study, the three rail line alternatives were expected to terminate at Newark, where passengers would have to transfer for continuing northbound service. In the new study, trains will go directly to Manhattan. New Jersey Transit is also removing two stops on the Monmouth Junction alternative (Edison and Metuchen), which will speed that trip up by about seven minutes.

New Jersey Transit is not admitting to having a favorite among the lines, but the changes that were made for this study will likely make the Monmouth Junction line preferable to the Red Bank and Matawan lines.

Hopefully, the issue will reach a conclusion when this new study is concluded. The construction of a rail line is critical to the progress of Monmouth and Ocean Counties, but in my opinion the only responsible decision would be to reactivate the Monmouth Junction line.

3 Comments:

Blogger DBK said...

Assemblyman Panter:

With all due respect to your remarks and to the question of school budgets, it seems to me that the biggest problem with property taxes is tax assessments, not school budgets. I do not live in your district, but am in Assemblyman Chivukula's district in Franklin Township. We are assessed every single year. With the rise in property values as huge as it has been, the property taxes have, therefore, risen as well. The value of my property, through very little effort on my part except doing some modest improvements and maintenance, has been assessed at over $160,000 more than when I bought the place four years ago. The resulting rise in property taxes has me ready to flee the state. If school budgets have risen at that same rate, then they are certainly out of control and need to be reined in. But I don't think that has been the case. Rather, when the school budgets have simply taken advantage of the rise in property values and spent whatever they got their hands on. My brother lives in California. His home has not been re-assessed in the nearly fifteen years in which he has lived there. If New Jersey worked with a similar plan, assessing people when they bought their property at market value but not again, then we could do away with those expensive tax assessors and rein in property taxes as well as school budgets. I also happen to think that stability in our neighborhoods is a good thing, and this would contribute to stability.

As things stand, the state is making it impossible for me to live here any more. My wife and I are not rich people, but we have both lived in New Jersey our entire lives, love the state, pay our taxes, are good neighbors and good citizens. We deserve better than this.

3:59 PM

 
Blogger John H. said...

The problem with property taxes is not that they are over-relied upon nor that they just too high. The problem is they are fundamentally immoral and unfair.

I wish you had answered the question I submitted for Q&A Friday. It was, can you or anyone else justify or explain how the property tax is not the single most regressive tax we have. It has nothing to do with ability to pay. In fact, it does not care if you have any money at all.

Why should I be taxed for merely owning something? Especially for the single largest expenditure most people will ever make.

The confusion in addressing this problem comes from mixing up controlling spending (whether county, town or schools) with making the property tax fair. It will never be fair because it has nothing to do with one's ability to pay.

Likewise, the examples of proposed savings are never going to make any significant impact upon reducing property taxes. Saving $70 million statewide in administrative cost is nothing. Divide that by over 500 municipalities and that is a little over $100,000 each. In Middletown that is a quarter of a cent on the tax rate. Maybe I'll supersize my next MacDonald's order.

The point is that there is not enough possible savings to be made that could ever reduce propety taxes to a level that they no longer oppress low, middle and no income home owners. (and don't forget landlords do not swallow their property tax, renters pay for it too) Somebody with a measely $15,000 left after paying their property tax is not going to be living on easy street even if it is cut in half and they end up with another $2,000 in their pocket. Further, the reality is a 50% reduction is an impossibility. In fact, a 10% reduction it too. Therefore why confuse cost savings with addressing the gross inequity of the property tax?

Please do not misunderstand, these savings ought to be made. That is plain old good government. [Yes, an oxymoron in NJ] It is just that reducing unnecessary spending has nothing to do with answering the question of whether the property tax is even a moral and fair tax to begin with.

Assemblyman, I have asked many others, and I ask you again, please justify the Property Tax as a moral, equitable tax which ought to be used in any capacity at all. I believe I have never gotten an answer is because it cannot be done. Can you?

John Hendrickson

6:37 PM

 
Blogger John H. said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

6:38 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home