BILL NUMBER: S4984

SPONSOR: MURRAY
 
TITLE OF BILL:

An act to amend the education law, in relation to the effect of failed
propositions on voter approval for remaining propositions not collec-
tively exceeding the tax levy limit

 
PURPOSE:

Relates to the effect of failed propositions on voter approval for
remaining propositions not collectively exceeding the tax levy limit.

 
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:

Amends the Education Law to provide that when a school budget proposi-
tion is below the tax levy limit, and the ballot includes one or more
separate propositions which, if enacted with the budget proposition,
would collectively require a tax levy exceeding the limit, only those
separate propositions which would cause the limit to be exceeded would
be subject to the 60% super majority requirement for approval.
              

 
JUSTIFICATION:

School district budget election ballots often include separate spending
propositions in addition to the school district budget proposal. These
additional, separate propositions can be added by the school district or
even by the voters themselves. The budget proposal and the additional
propositions are listed separately on the ballot and voted on independ-
ently.

If any of these separate propositions would require additional spending
that exceeds the tax cap, then the Education Department currently
requires that all propositions on the ballot must obtain a 60% superma-
jority for approval, even if the other propositions would not exceed the
cap.

For example, in 2015 the Patchogue-Medford School District in Suffolk
County presented a 2015-16 school budget proposal below the tax cap.
However, a group of residents successfully added a separate proposition
to the ballot to increase bus service. Approval of the proposition would
have required an increase in the tax levy that would have exceeded the
tax cap. Therefore, the Education Department required through guidance
to the school that both the budget proposal and the expanded transporta-
tion proposition required a supermajority for approval. The voters
approved the budget proposal, but by less than a supermajority, while
the transportation proposition was defeated outright. The school
district was forced to hold a revote in that case. Similar revotes on
the main budget have been required at other schools when separate propo-
sitions have failed ever since the tax cap law was passed. Unfortunate-
ly, that means that taxpayers must spend more money to fund the cost of
the school budget revote on the main budget proposal again, that already
had gotten majority voter approval of over fifty percent, but because
the separate proposition failed, they now have to revote on the budget
that already had a majority vote, to achieve a higher vote threshold of
supermajority.


This is clearly a misinterpretation of the Legislature's intent. This
bill clarifies that if the school budget proposal is below the cap, the
supermajority requirement only applies to those additional propositions
which would cause the cap to be exceeded.

 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

2019: A.8275

2017-18: S .903/A.2082

2015-16: S.5877-A/A.8136-A

 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None.

 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
Immediate.