New Jersey Assembly Bill A5253

New Jersey 2022-2023 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/28/23
• Refer: 2/28/23

Caption

"Fully Funding Schools and Cutting Property Taxes Act"; repeals certain sections of law; requires additional aid to lower property taxes commensurate with residents' ability to support schools; appropriates $2.9 billion.

Impact

One of the critical implications of A5253 is its commitment to preventing future cuts to State school aid, thereby fostering a stable financial environment for school districts. Additionally, if a district experiences an increase in State aid, it must correspondingly reduce its tax levy, which is a new stipulation aimed at aligning school funding with the local community's income capabilities. This equity-focused approach seeks to alleviate the tax burdens on residents while ensuring schools are adequately funded.

Summary

Assembly Bill A5253, known as the 'Fully Funding Schools and Cutting Property Taxes Act', proposes significant changes to the funding framework for public schools in New Jersey. The bill mandates that, starting from the 2023-2024 school year, each school district will receive State aid that aligns with the state's adequacy budget levels as outlined in the School Funding Reform Act of 2008 (SFRA). This reform aims to ensure that all students across the state receive an equitable educational experience and also seeks to lower property taxes reflective of residents' ability to support their schools.

Contention

Discussions surrounding A5253 indicate a divide among stakeholders. Supporters argue that the bill rectifies inequities stemming from the previous funding laws, particularly after the implementation of P.L.2018, c.67, which had led to diminished aid and elevated property taxes for some districts. Critics, however, express concern about the potential implications for those school districts that may not see an immediate increase in aid or flexibility in managing their budgets under the new parameters. The bill repeals certain sections of prior law that were deemed detrimental, thereby illustrating the contentious nature of educational funding reform within the state.