On behalf of our member companies that provide more than 1 million jobs in the state and make the New Jersey Business & Industry Association the largest statewide business association in the country, we are OPPOSED to S-1073 (Smith, Bateman) which creates stormwater utility fees.
NJBIA understands the goal of the sponsor to address non-point source pollution, flooding and infrastructure needs. However, we believe what is needed is a comprehensive plan for our infrastructure that also mitigates the impact on ratepayers verses a new tax on ratepayers.
New Jersey is the most taxed state in the nation and our companies and residents alike are challenged on issues of affordability and the overall cost of living in New Jersey. For many businesses the fees authorized in this bill would amount to double taxation. Many facilities already are required to obtain stormwater permits for their operations. Under those permits, companies are required to pay application fees and oversight fees that run in the thousands of dollars. Furthermore, these facilities are required to mitigate impacts to stormwater as a requirement under the permits. In short, they are already taking steps to accomplish the goal of the bill.
Under this bill, companies would be assessed a fee by a local stormwater authority, even if they already have a stormwater permit. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that these fees will be used for their intended purposes. In these tough budgetary times when state aid to municipalities is diminishing, a new revenue source such as this may simply go toward covering existing expenses instead of being dedicated to their intended purpose under the bill.
NJBIA looks forward to working with the Legislature on a comprehensive plan that takes into account our water infrastructure needs and ways to increase efficiencies, modernize systems, and mitigate impacts on ratepayers.
As a water resources engineering professional, I support the stormwater utility bill, if it is administered in a responsible manner, enhances water quality and reduces flooding impacts. I strongly suggest that the NJBIA review the watershed restoration program and MS4 efforts being progressed in MD. The stormwater fees have provided a job creating-industry boom that benefits engineers, contractors and local DPWs, at the same time improving the quality of the Chesapeake Bay, tourism, and the crabbing/fishing industry. NJ has the very same issues with our water resources including Barnegat Bay, Raritan Bay, Lake Hopatcong, and, of course our ocean beaches. So, opposition should not be simply a position against increased taxes. It needs to be looked at more holistically. This stormwater utility will create jobs, help reduce flood impacts, enhance water quality, improve our fisheries and preserve our water based tourism economy. Of course, the money needs to be used in an efficient and responsible manner. Our stormwater infrastructure is old and falling apart, and all stormwater utilities need continual maintenance to save money in the long run. I, respectfully, ask that this is taken into consideration in your position.
Thank you.
Geoffrey M. Goll, P.E.
President, Princeton Hydro and proud NJBIA member.
Why is the solution always increased taxes? Why can’t spending be cut somewhere else? This state and the small businesses in it are over taxed already. Where are all of your tax dollars going to come from when businesses are put out and people leave which is already happening? Just once, can you look for a solution besides digging deeper into everyone’s pocket?
I strongly agree with NJBIA. There are already numerous fees like this in the state of New Jersey and the money is ultimately squandered and does not improve the state of affairs. Of course stormwater issues need to be addressed and should be addressed but additional taxation is not the answer to an inefficient bureaucracy.
NJ continues to propose intriguing concepts in a vacuum. There is little discussion to find efficiency opportunities within current bureaucracy.
Industry is always seeking efficiencies to be better, more effective in producing value for their services. The state on the other hand expands its inefficiencies, reaching out to industry to ask for more funds; offsetting business efficiency gains. Companies can’t survive under this type of state business model.