Corzine's take on property tax reforms
What does Gov. Corzine think about the property tax reforms proposed by the four legislative committees Wednesday? Below are excerpts from his prepared remarks for his address today at the state League of Municipalities convention in Atlantic City.
(Here's what we had to say about the recommended reforms on today's editorial page. http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061116/OPINION/611160440/1029. We will be offering our own set of recommendations on how the proposed reforms can be improved upon on Sunday's editorial page.)
EXCERPTS FROM GOV. CORZINE'S REMARKS:
Generally, I support the vast majority of the reports of the special committees. There are many excellent ideas that we need to bring to reality. But there are some key reforms that need to be included and recommendations that should be strengthened.
First, we need to think more aggressively in terms of consolidations and shared services.
Any process we create to look at government or school consolidations, whether it is a BRAC-like commission or something else, must have real power with real deadlines and real accountability for producing results. Practically speaking, funding must be put aside to create powerful incentives and disincentives to support the consolidation recommendations. We also have to recognize that consolidations or sharing of services often have up-front costs that can discourage constructive progress among local communities. These costs need to be partially underwritten with state funds so towns and school can make changes that capture the long term cash flow benefits.
Similarly, civil services rules must also be revised to facilitate voluntary local consolidations as proposed in Speaker Roberts' CORE plan.
Second, I continue to believe that a cap on annual increases in the property tax levy is essential to ensuring that our actions on relief and reform are sustainable. Last summer I proposed a 4% cap on the annual increase in the property tax bill itself that would sunset after five years. This cap would apply to all property taxing entities. I am open to ideas about phasing in the cap to provide an adjustment period. Five years should give us sufficient time to evaluate the cap's impact in encouraging structural changes that will reduce costs over time. Realistically, a cap will also help protect the immediate relief we are providing from being eaten up by extra spending.
Third, we absolutely need an independent and properly staffed statewide comptroller to provide consistent auditing, oversight and accountability. The state will spend $31 billion plus in Fiscal year 07. Local, county and school governments spend another $35-$40 billion, with independent authorities, colleges and universities spending billions of dollars more. Yet nowhere in all this spending is there a consistent, transparent and independent auditing function. No business in the world could or should operate like this; neither can we.
Finally, I believe our initiative should provide local government additional ways to raise revenue. I think we can all agree that there is too much reliance on the regressive property tax to fund local government. I am not proposing generalized taxes; we have enough of those.
But items like impact fees can only help local officials meet budget needs in ways other than the property tax. This is an area we can all work on together to bring additional tools to local officials.
(Here's what we had to say about the recommended reforms on today's editorial page. http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061116/OPINION/611160440/1029. We will be offering our own set of recommendations on how the proposed reforms can be improved upon on Sunday's editorial page.)
EXCERPTS FROM GOV. CORZINE'S REMARKS:
Generally, I support the vast majority of the reports of the special committees. There are many excellent ideas that we need to bring to reality. But there are some key reforms that need to be included and recommendations that should be strengthened.
First, we need to think more aggressively in terms of consolidations and shared services.
Any process we create to look at government or school consolidations, whether it is a BRAC-like commission or something else, must have real power with real deadlines and real accountability for producing results. Practically speaking, funding must be put aside to create powerful incentives and disincentives to support the consolidation recommendations. We also have to recognize that consolidations or sharing of services often have up-front costs that can discourage constructive progress among local communities. These costs need to be partially underwritten with state funds so towns and school can make changes that capture the long term cash flow benefits.
Similarly, civil services rules must also be revised to facilitate voluntary local consolidations as proposed in Speaker Roberts' CORE plan.
Second, I continue to believe that a cap on annual increases in the property tax levy is essential to ensuring that our actions on relief and reform are sustainable. Last summer I proposed a 4% cap on the annual increase in the property tax bill itself that would sunset after five years. This cap would apply to all property taxing entities. I am open to ideas about phasing in the cap to provide an adjustment period. Five years should give us sufficient time to evaluate the cap's impact in encouraging structural changes that will reduce costs over time. Realistically, a cap will also help protect the immediate relief we are providing from being eaten up by extra spending.
Third, we absolutely need an independent and properly staffed statewide comptroller to provide consistent auditing, oversight and accountability. The state will spend $31 billion plus in Fiscal year 07. Local, county and school governments spend another $35-$40 billion, with independent authorities, colleges and universities spending billions of dollars more. Yet nowhere in all this spending is there a consistent, transparent and independent auditing function. No business in the world could or should operate like this; neither can we.
Finally, I believe our initiative should provide local government additional ways to raise revenue. I think we can all agree that there is too much reliance on the regressive property tax to fund local government. I am not proposing generalized taxes; we have enough of those.
But items like impact fees can only help local officials meet budget needs in ways other than the property tax. This is an area we can all work on together to bring additional tools to local officials.
posted by Randy Bergmann at 2:49 PM
1 Comments:
And the chances that "any" tax will
go down, ZERO.
Post a Comment
<< Home