Relief for 89 will benefit 566

William G. Dressel Jr. of League of Municipalities
    Oct. 22, the state’s Council on Local Mandates nullified provisions of the state budget that would have forced 89 municipalities to enter into “cost-sharing” agreements with the state treasurer in order to fund a part of the state police budget.
   Failure to accept the treasurer’s terms would cause a municipality to forfeit all or a part of its property tax relief funding.
   Though the decision provides immediate direct relief to taxpayers in 89 towns, it will indirectly and, we hope, permanently benefit all.
   Here’s the background on this issue.
   When the New Jersey State Police was established in 1921, the statutes stated the force “shall primarily be employed in furnishing adequate police protection to the inhabitants of rural sections.”
   For over 85 years, while assuming other important duties, the State Police has honored that commitment to rural New Jersey.
   In 1995, the people of New Jersey voted to strictly limit the ability of state officials to impose unfunded mandates on local governments. They did so because they knew it was easy for state-level officials to take credit for new programs and services while forcing local officials to shoulder the blame for raising the taxes to fund those new programs and services.
   In order to enforce the ban on unfunded state mandates, the voters directed the Legislature to create, as their watchdog, the Council on Local Mandates.
   In 2002, the McGreevy administration floated the idea of imposing a “user fee” on the residents of rural sections served by the State Police. We objected, and the attorney general was ordered to defer the imposition of user fees, pending a study of the direct and indirect fiscal, personnel and public safety impacts of the law directing the State Police to protect rural New Jersey.
   If that study was ever done, the results have not been shared with us.
   In lieu of that study, early this year, the Corzine administration floated the idea of imposing a “user fee” on the residents of rural sections served by the State Police.
   Again, we asked to meet with the treasurer, the attorney general and the superintendent of the State Police. We were sensitive to the state’s self-imposed fiscal problems. And we honestly sought to find an alternative revenue source to fund State Police services.
   Toward that end, we asked for an accounting of the specific services the State Police actually provide to these municipalities. We asked for an accounting of the fine proceeds that accrue to Treasury as a result of State Police enforcement actions in these municipalities.
   We asked for an assessment of any federal grant monies received by the state for these services. And we asked for an explanation of the formula the treasurer planned to use to determine each municipality’s share of the new “user fee” mandate’s total cost.
   We have yet to receive a response to those inquiries.
   Instead, a budget was passed that required these municipalities to either establish their own police departments or contract with a neighbor for police services or enter into a “cost-sharing” agreement with the treasurer or be treated as if they had entered into such an agreement.
   Then we learned there would be no discussions concerning the terms of a cost-sharing “agreement.” Instead, the terms would be dictated and imposed by the state.
   Further, if the bills were not paid in full, municipal property tax relief funding would be withheld.
   In overturning this imposition, the council rejected the state’s two main arguments regarding this unfunded mandate. The state, first, contended the constitutional prohibition on unfunded mandates did not apply to new costs imposed by the state’s Annual Appropriations Act.
   If the council had accepted this radical doctrine, the state would be free to begin to impose new charges on property taxpayers in any or all of our 566 member municipalities in order to fund other agencies of state government, such as the Division of Local Government Services.
   The state, further, argued by setting aside any funding — in this case, $5 million in SHARE Grants was earmarked to assist the taxpayers saddled with the $12.6 million bill — the state could exempt itself from the constitutional ban.
   If the council had accepted that argument, state legislatures and regulators would have been able to easily circumvent the will of the over-burdened property taxpaying people of the state, who amended their constitution to curtail that practice.
   The council only exists to prevent the state from shifting increasing burdens on to the backs of our beleaguered property taxpayers. We commend the council members for their conscientious stewardship of their constitutional responsibilities and for their expeditious action on this crucial matter.
   In overturning this unfunded mandate, they have now done all they can do to prevent this state mandated property tax increase.
   The question now becomes, “Will the administration and the Legislature respect the spirit of the constitutional amendment and of the council’s decision?”
William G. Dressel Jr.
executive director
New Jersey
League of Municipalities