Bill Text: NJ A3217 | 2024-2025 | Regular Session | Introduced
Bill Title: Requires State agencies, when developing and proposing rules, to utilize approaches that will accomplish objectives of statutory law while minimizing adverse economic impact on municipalities.
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Republican 1-0)
Status: (Introduced) 2024-01-09 - Introduced, Referred to Assembly Oversight, Reform and Federal Relations Committee [A3217 Detail]
Download: New_Jersey-2024-A3217-Introduced.html
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
221st LEGISLATURE
PRE-FILED FOR INTRODUCTION IN THE 2024 SESSION
Sponsored by:
Assemblywoman AURA K. DUNN
District 25 (Morris and Passaic)
SYNOPSIS
Requires State agencies, when developing and proposing rules, to utilize approaches that will accomplish objectives of statutory law while minimizing adverse economic impact on municipalities.
CURRENT VERSION OF TEXT
Introduced Pending Technical Review by Legislative Counsel.
An Act concerning State mandates on municipalities and amending P.L.2001, c.342.
Be It Enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:
1. Section 13 of P.L.2001, c.342 (C.52:14B-25) is amended to read as follows:
13. a. For the purposes of this section:
"State mandate" means a program, service or activity that is to be performed or implemented by a local unit for or on behalf of its residents, which results in an added net cost to the local unit, and which is mandated in any statute enacted by the Legislature either prior to or after the effective date of [this act] P.L.2001, c.342. A "state mandated program" shall not include the following: any activity pertaining to a statute carrying criminal penalties; any mandate required by or arising from a court order or judgment; any program or service which is provided at local option under permissive State laws, rules, regulations or orders; any program which is required by private, special or local laws pursuant to Article IV, Section VII, paragraphs 8 and 10 of the State Constitution; any program required by or arising from an executive order of the Governor in exercising emergency powers granted by law; or any program mandated by federal law, rule, regulation or order.
["Small municipality" shall mean a municipality that has a limited population or geographic area according to criteria promulgated by the Director of the Division of Local Government Services in the Department of Community Affairs.]
b. In developing and proposing a rule for adoption, the agency involved shall utilize approaches which will accomplish the objectives of applicable statutes while minimizing any adverse economic impact of the proposed rule on [small] municipalities. Consistent with the objectives of applicable statutes, the agency shall utilize such approaches as:
(1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to [small] municipalities;
(2) The use of performance rather than design standards; and
(3) An exemption from coverage by the rule, or by any part thereof, for [small] municipalities so long as the public health, safety, or general welfare is not endangered, or if an exemption is not a possibility, the use of alternative methods of implementing the requirements of the rule.
c. In proposing a rule for adoption, the agency involved shall issue a State mandate flexibility analysis regarding the rule, which shall be included in the notice of a proposed rule as required by subsection (a) of section 4 of P.L.1968, c.410 (C.52:14B-4). Each State mandate flexibility analysis shall contain:
(1) An estimate of the number of [small] municipalities to which the proposed rule will apply;
(2) A description of the reporting, record-keeping and other compliance requirements being proposed for adoption, and the kinds of professional services that a [small] municipality is likely to need in order to comply with the requirements;
(3) An estimate of the annual cost to a [small] municipality of complying with the rule; and
(4) An indication of how the rule, as proposed for adoption, is designed to minimize any adverse economic impact of the proposed rule on [small] municipalities.
d. This section shall not apply to any proposed rule which the agency finds would not impose reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements on [small] municipalities. The agency's finding and an indication of the basis for its finding shall be included in the notice of a proposed rule as required by subsection (a) of section 4 of P.L.1968, c.410 (C.52:14B-4).
e. In order to avoid duplicative action, an agency may consider a series of closely related rules as one rule for the purposes of complying with the requirements of this section.
f. In complying with the provisions of this section, an agency may provide either a quantifiable or numerical description of the effects of a proposed rule or more general descriptive statements, if quantification is not practicable or reliable.
(cf: P.L.2001, c.342, s.13)
2. This act shall take effect immediately.
STATEMENT
This bill would require State agencies, when developing and proposing a rule for adoption, to utilize approaches that will accomplish the objectives of statutory law while minimizing any adverse economic impact of the proposed rule on municipalities.
Current law, enacted as part of P.L.2001, c.342 (the last of a series of "mandate relief" bills enacted during the 1990's and the early 2000's that provided relief from State mandates on municipalities, counties, and boards of education) requires State agencies, when developing and proposing a rule for adoption, to utilize approaches that will accomplish the objectives of statutory law while minimizing any adverse economic impact of the proposed rule on small municipalities.
This bill would amend P.L.2001, c.342 to remove the adjective "small" from the law so that the requirements of the statute would apply to the development and adoption of rules that would affect all municipalities.
The sponsor believes that, given the recent enactment of statutory law restricting the school district, county, and municipal property tax levy cap from 4% to 2.0%, municipal budgets will be hard-pressed to fund the implementation of any State mandate that requires the expenditure of local funds, and the provisions of this bill will require State government to more carefully consider the effect of a proposed rule on local budgets, and to utilize approaches or methods that will accomplish the objectives of statutory law and at the same time, minimize any adverse economic impact of the proposed rule on municipalities.
