Scoring Points!

by: mikeshapiro

Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:54:32 PM EDT

Earlier this month, Senator Barbara Buono (D-Middlesex), Chair of the State Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee, scored points for fiscal responsibility and common sense by advocating the elimination of pension credit for part-time government employees. This past week, she scored a touchdown when she pledged to reject any attempts to insert "Christmas Tree items" into the budget for the new fiscal year beginning July 1. She also proposed the restoration of $62 million in proposed cuts in municipal aid, including $37 million in eliminated tax relief for towns with fewer than 10,000 residents.

mikeshapiro :: Scoring Points!

So-called "Christmas Tree items" are typically inserted by legislators during the final phase of the budget process to provide money for pet projects of that legislator. Usually, the projects will benefit the legislator politically and will benefit supporters of the legislator financially. "Christmas Tree items" inflate our State budget by tens of millions of dollars every year, costing our taxpayers unnecessarily. Senator Buono's pledge to reject all "Christmas Tree items" is not only welcome but should be adopted by every legislator.

Governor Corzine's proposed budget calls for reducing the Consolidate Municipal Property Tax Relief Act by $62 million. All towns with populations under 5,000 would lose all relief, estimated at $22 million. Fifteen million dollars would be lost by towns with populations of between 5,000 and 10,000 residents.

The Governor's proposal is meant to encourage shared services and the elimination of duplication on the part of small towns. However, the adoption of shared services takes time to implement and, in some cases, is not possible. In addition, what might be deemed duplication could be, in reality, necessary for the proper functioning of a municipality. The Governor's plan proposes a drastic elimination of aid to small towns, which will cause steep increases in property taxes. Rather than penalize all less-populated municipalities, it may be suggested that the Governor work to implement benchmarks for shared services that all small towns in New Jersey should attempt to meet over a certain period of time. These benchmarks could be tied to future State funding, thereby providing time for small towns to implement shared services and for adequate notice to prepare for budget shortfalls should they not meet the intended goals.

Senator Buono's pledge to refuse to allow so-called "Christmas Tree items" in this year's State budget should be adopted by all legislators. Her proposal to restore $62 million in funding to small municipalities is appropriate at this time. However, the adoption of shared services and the elimination of duplication in all New Jersey municipalities should also be implemented as soon as possible. To that end, the provision of benchmarks for small towns coupled with a period to implement such changes before State funding is reduced, would be a step in the right direction.

Tags: Barbara Buono, spending, budget, Fiscal Responsibility, small towns, property taxes, Christmas tree items, pork, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Scoring Points! | 2 comments

Where was Buono on this? (0.00 / 0)

This is from " INTHE LOBBY" yesterday. I don't know if Buono is a " doer' or a " talker" but until I actually see her take on some ofthis waste with tough questioning I will hold back on giving her, or any Legislator " points' . This is a lot of money to go unquestioned.

The New Jersey Department of Corrections', Division of Programs and Community Services is seeking $61.5 million in the State Budget for 2008-2009 (page D-72). The Division of Programs and Community Services states that it "...contracts with private and non-profit providers throughout the state to provide community-based residential treatment programs for offenders under community supervision."

The program supposedly supports an average daily population of 2,629 offenders. That averages out to roughly $23,000.00 per offender. The Department has numerous footnotes of explanation for other budget items. The $61.5 million is not one of them. So we thought we would look at an analysis of the Department's budget which was performed by the Office of Legislative Services (April, 2008) to see if they asked what this money is actually for and who are the "community-based providers". Sadly, we found no reference to this line item. We would have thought that someone, like a member of one of the appropriations committees would have asked what the criteria for selection of theses provider groups are and what has been there efficacy rate. The Department has many contracts for outside services. The community-based program may be a great success, but how would we know without any supporting documentation or questions being asked by the Legislature? One important question should be what groups are getting these contracts?

by: firstamend07 @ Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:26:38 AM UTC

Doesn't it make sense... (0.00 / 0)

For the governor to recognize the most efficent towns before forcing consolidation?
It seems to me that there are economies of scale for sure, but diminishing returns kick in at some point.
If the governor can identify the benchmark spending per resident and then steer towns toward that goal it seems far fairer than eliminating aid for those places with less than 10,000 residents.
I"m not sure what size town that is, but the governor sure has the resources to find out.
Maybe larger cities might even be encouraged to divide into wards or something to get to the benchmark.
But penalizing small towns regardless of their spending habits doens't quite make sense to me.

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 15:39:16 PM UTC