A01166 Summary:

BILL NOA01166A
 
SAME ASNo Same As
 
SPONSORJaffee
 
COSPNSRSchimel, Cahill, Davila, Robinson, Crouch, Goodell, Steck, Linares, Gottfried, Duprey, Blake, Kearns, Jean-Pierre, Abinanti, Rivera, Lifton, Russell
 
MLTSPNSRBlankenbush, Brennan, Magee, Simon, Solages
 
Amd 2023-a, Ed L
 
Relates to school district tax levies.
Go to top    

A01166 Actions:

BILL NOA01166A
 
01/08/2015referred to education
01/06/2016referred to education
04/20/2016amend and recommit to education
04/20/2016print number 1166a
05/25/2016held for consideration in education
Go to top

A01166 Memo:

NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION
submitted in accordance with Assembly Rule III, Sec 1(f)
 
BILL NUMBER: A1166A
 
SPONSOR: Jaffee (MS)
  TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the education law, in relation to school district tax levies   PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL: To require a simple majority vote for approval of a school budget that exceeds the property tax cap.   SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS: This bill would amend the property tax cap statute by requiring a simple majority vote instead of a sixty percent supermajority vote to approve a school budget that exceeds the property tax cap.   JUSTIFICATION: In 2011, the Governor signed into law a two percent real property tax cap for local taxing entities, including school districts, to control the amount of property tax increases. In order for a school district to pass a budget that is at or below the tax cap, only a 50 percent or simple majority vote is needed. However, the vote required to pass a school budget that exceeds the tax cap is a 60 percent supermajority. The threshold of a 60 percent supermajority to override the tax cap is problematic and unfair. According to the New York State School Boards Association (NYSSBA), in 2012, among the 48 school districts that sought a 60 percent supermajority vote to approve a budget that exceeds the tax cap, 19 school budgets (40 percent) saw defeat and sometimes by a tiny margin. For example, in the New Paltz school district in Ulster County, where more than. 59 percent of voters supported the spending plan, the budget was defeated by a mere 18 votes. Among the 19 defeated budgets, there were eight that would have been approved if only the traditional simple majority had been required. These results underline a fundamental unfairness in the 60 percent supermajority requirement which makes the votes of those who support an override much less powerful than the votes of those who oppose an override. In effect, 41 percent of local voters have more power than 59 percent of local voters. Even Massachusetts, which has been looked at by New York and other states as a model for property tax reform, only requires a simple majority vote for approving an override of its tax cap. Furthermore, evidence suggests that wealthier communities both attempt more tax cap overrides and are more successful in passing them. NYSSBA research shows that school districts where budgets passed with superma- jority approval had higher average income and property values than those that failed. Thus, the 60 percent supermajority requirement could lead to even more educational disparities across the State between lower income communities relative to their higher income counterparts. To address these inequities, I am proposing this legislation to only require a simple majority to override the property tax cap.   PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: 04/19/14 Referred to education 01/08/13 Referred to education   FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None to the State.
Go to top

A01166 Text:



 
                STATE OF NEW YORK
        ________________________________________________________________________
 
                                         1166--A
 
                               2015-2016 Regular Sessions
 
                   IN ASSEMBLY
 
                                     January 8, 2015
                                       ___________
 
        Introduced  by  M.  of  A.  JAFFEE,  SCHIMEL,  CAHILL, DAVILA, ROBINSON,
          CROUCH, GOODELL, STECK, LINARES,  GOTTFRIED,  DUPREY,  BLAKE,  KEARNS,
          JEAN-PIERRE,  ABINANTI,  RIVERA, LIFTON, RUSSELL -- Multi-Sponsored by
          -- M. of A. BLANKENBUSH, BRENNAN, MAGEE, SIMON, SOLAGES --  read  once
          and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Education -- recommitted to the
          Committee on Education in accordance with Assembly Rule 3, sec.  2  --
          committee  discharged,  bill amended, ordered reprinted as amended and
          recommitted to said committee
 
        AN ACT to amend the education law, in relation to  school  district  tax
          levies
 
          The  People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assem-
        bly, do enact as follows:
 
     1    Section 1. Subdivision 6 of section 2023-a of the  education  law,  as
     2  added  by  section  2  of  part  A of chapter 97 of the laws of 2011, is
     3  amended to read as follows:
     4    6. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary,  in
     5  the  event  the  trustee,  trustees  or  board  of education of a school
     6  district that is subject to the provisions of this  section  proposes  a
     7  budget  that will require a tax levy that exceeds the tax levy limit for
     8  the corresponding school year,  not  including  any  levy  necessary  to
     9  support  the  expenditures pursuant to subparagraphs (i) through (iv) of
    10  paragraph i of subdivision two of this section, then such  budget  shall
    11  be  approved if [sixty percent] a majority of the votes cast thereon are
    12  in the affirmative.
    13    (b) Where the trustee, trustees or board of education proposes a budg-
    14  et subject to the requirements of paragraph (a) of this subdivision, the
    15  ballot for such budget shall include the following statement in substan-
    16  tially the same form: "Adoption of  this  budget  requires  a  tax  levy
    17  increase  of         which exceeds the statutory tax levy increase limit
    18  of      for this school fiscal year and therefore exceeds the state  tax
 
         EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                              [ ] is old law to be omitted.
                                                                   LBD06130-02-6

        A. 1166--A                          2
 
     1  cap  and must be approved by [sixty percent] a majority of the qualified
     2  voters present and voting."
     3    § 2. Subdivision 9 of section 2023-a of the education law, as added by
     4  section  2  of  part  A of chapter 97 of the laws of 2011, is amended to
     5  read as follows:
     6    9. Nothing in this section shall preclude the  trustee,  trustees,  or
     7  board  of  education  of  a  school  district, in their discretion, from
     8  submitting additional items of expenditures to the voters  for  approval
     9  as  separate  propositions  or  the  voters from submitting propositions
    10  pursuant to sections two thousand eight and two thousand thirty-five  of
    11  this part; provided however, except in the case of a proposition submit-
    12  ted  for any expenditure contained within subparagraphs (i) through (iv)
    13  of paragraph i of subdivision two of this section, if  any  proposition,
    14  or  propositions  collectively  that  are  subject to a vote on the same
    15  date, would require an expenditure of money that  would  require  a  tax
    16  levy  and  would  result  in  the  tax levy limit being exceeded for the
    17  corresponding school year then such proposition  shall  be  approved  if
    18  [sixty percent] a majority of the votes cast thereon are in the affirma-
    19  tive.
    20    §  3.  This act shall take effect immediately; provided, however, that
    21  the amendments to section 2023-a of the education law made  by  sections
    22  one  and two of this act shall not affect the repeal of such section and
    23  shall expire and be deemed repealed therewith.
Go to top