Provides an annual tax levy limit allowing for expenditures directly or indirectly related to school safety, including improving district wide emergency response plans, training staff and/or students on school safety and/or conflict mediation, installing and maintaining safety technology and software in school buildings, hiring school resource officers, acquiring emergency medical equipment, installing fencing around the perimeter of school grounds, installing bulletproof doors and windows, acquiring and maintaining technology for expedited notification of local law enforcement during an emergency.
A06799 would amend New York’s Education Law to create a new exclusion from the annual school district tax levy limit for expenditures related to school safety. Under current law, certain costs such as court judgments, retirement contribution spikes, and capital levies are excluded from the tax cap calculation; this bill would add school safety spending to that list. The measure defines school safety expenditures broadly to include labor and program costs tied to emergency response planning, staff and student training, conflict mediation, safety technology and software, school resource officers, emergency medical equipment, perimeter fencing, bulletproof doors and windows, rapid law-enforcement notification systems, and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design measures.
If enacted, the bill would allow school districts to raise additional local revenue above the usual tax levy limit specifically for these safety-related purposes, beginning with taxes levied for school years on or after the effective date. The practical effect would be to reduce pressure on districts to choose between staying within the tax cap and funding security upgrades, emergency preparedness, and related personnel or infrastructure costs. It would not mandate any particular safety spending, but it would make such spending easier to finance without counting against the cap.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill’s text and caption is supportive of expanding school districts’ fiscal flexibility to address school security concerns. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented floor or committee debate to indicate broader legislative support or opposition. The bill’s framing suggests a policy response to concerns about school violence, emergency readiness, and the cost of security improvements.
The main point of contention likely centers on the scope of the tax cap exemption and the breadth of what qualifies as a school safety expenditure. Supporters would likely argue that districts need the ability to fund security infrastructure, training, and emergency systems without sacrificing other educational priorities. Potential critics may worry that the exemption could weaken tax levy limits, increase local property tax burdens, or allow districts to classify a wide range of spending as safety-related, including items such as school resource officers, fencing, and bulletproof doors and windows.
The bill would amend Education Law section 2023-a, which governs school district tax levy limits, by adding a new exclusion for school safety-related expenditures. This would permit school districts to levy additional taxes outside the cap for specified safety costs, affecting local school district budgeting, property tax calculations, and the financing of security and emergency preparedness measures. It would apply prospectively to school years beginning on or after the effective date.
No committee discussion or voting history is provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative sentiment beyond the bill’s introduction and caption. The bill appears to be framed positively as a school safety and district flexibility measure, suggesting likely support from advocates for school security funding. At the same time, the absence of recorded debate means there is no documented opposition or consensus to assess.
The likely areas of contention are the fiscal and policy implications of carving school safety spending out of the tax levy cap. Supporters would favor the exemption as a way to fund emergency planning, security technology, and physical hardening measures without crowding out other district needs. Opponents or skeptics may object that the exemption could increase local taxes, erode the discipline of the tax cap, or create ambiguity over what counts as a safety-related expense, especially given the bill’s broad list of eligible items and inclusion of labor costs and school resource officers.