Council President Gibson - Courier - Letter: CBAC failed in its task

Published in the Courier News, Saturday, December 13, 2008

[Letters to the Editor]
Citizens panel failed in its budget task

The editorial comment in the Courier News printed on Friday, Nov. 28, without a rational interpretation, requires what I consider a reasonable response. The report presented by the Citizens Budget Advisory Committee contains comments and recommendations that are inaccurate and lack any substantial documentation to support the conclusions.

The Courier News editorial stated I, as City Council president, complained the committee overstepped its bounds. Your inquiry of "What did he expect? Only positive opinions? No opinions at all?" [sic] What I expected were conclusions and recommendations based on facts. The truth is all any of us on the governing body should expect. I do not consider a request for accuracy "whining." For the record, I want your readers and the citizens of Plainfield to know I am not mad.

Under the CBAC Observations section the comment, "How can we expect parking tickets and potholes to be "high quality," if we're not," and the comment "Several city employees forget who pays them," without identifying either the employees or the work area of such employees (even if this were done in confidence) leaves one to conclude this comment is generally applicable.

The CBAC also indicates "more substantive cuts and efficiencies are possible." If that is true, the locations where such cuts could be made should have been identified.

In the report there is a general statement that the CBAC was "disappointed in City Council attendance and somewhat passive responses." The councilperson(s) should have been identified. As one who is serving in what is commonly referred to as a "lame-duck" status, I am proud of my continued attendance record during the time the CBAC has functioned.

The area of the report which should be carefully re-examined is entitled "CBAC Approach." There is no credibility in the 100 percent point totals. First, the "30" assigned to Public Safety together with the so-called grades fails to take into consideration the fact that the crime rate in our city has consistently been lowered. The subjective grading process with no statistics to back it up is, and should be cause for concern. This section goes on to include a "25" for performance/reputation of the school system with a consistent "F" grade for the public schools performance. This area should not have been a part of the budget process as the city administration nor the municipal council has any control over the budget of the Plainfield Board of Education.

The section of the report entitled "Overall Budget Recommendations - 1," states "No Budget Increase." Presuming all the members of the committee have a degree of concern for what was presented on their behalf, they should know there is no way, considering contractual agreements, the Council can arrive at a zero percent increase. The CBAC states there has been "Significant progress made in the last three years to reduce operating expenses, and further, 2008-2009 budget faces extraordinary conditions." This is probably the most accurate comment in the report.

The "Overall Recommendations 2 and 3" have credible suggestions although there may be areas where the council cannot do more than suggest the changes to the administration.

We clearly recognize it is our responsibility to strike a budget but we also must recognize their [sic] are services which must be made available. There is no quarrel on my part with the CBAC effort to do a good job. The resulting report is a document with errors of fact and judgment.

Finally, the area of recommendations in the Appendix is full of first person, "I" and "My" preceding recommendations. It makes the final determinations appear to be one person's judgment as opposed to a committee.

I respect the Courier News' right and obligation to express, as the editorial states, "Our Position." I ask for nothing less.

Harold Gibson
President
City Council
Plainfield

NOTE: This letter appeared in the print edition cited above, but not online. I have transcribed it exactly as it appeared in the printed newspaper, without editing or 'tidying up'. -- Dan Damon


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

Street cams - McClatchy - Catch speeders and raise cash

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/v-print/story/47592.html

McClatchy Washington Bureau

Posted on Mon, Aug. 11, 2008

Cop cameras don't just catch speeders, they raise cash

Frank Greve | McClatchy Newspaper

last updated: August 12, 2008 08:32:34 AM

WASHINGTON — The leafy capital suburb of Chevy Chase Village is a great place to live but you wouldn't want to visit there.

At least not by car. Easy-to-miss automated speed cameras on its half-mile main drag, where the speed limit is 30 mph, caught 3,500 speeders on their first day of operation last fall. Before that, the norm was six tickets a day.

Many speeders first learn they've been caught when citations, along with photographic evidence, show up at the addresses that match the violators' license plates.

Be forewarned: More than 300 U.S. communities use automated "cop cam" systems like Chevy Chase's. They're after not just speeders but also red-light violators and railroad-crossing jumpers.

In the works are bus-mounted cop cams that ticket bus lane intruders, cop cams to punish speeders in highway construction zones, even cop cam systems that ticket motorists based on a car's average speed over a mile. They catch drivers who brake for known camera sites, then resume speeding.

Want to fight a cop cam ticket?

The same software that processes violations lets drivers view the five seconds before and after their alleged offenses on their home computers.

"It's very compelling evidence," said Cristina Weekes, the executive vice president for sales and marketing at Redflex Traffic Systems Inc., of Scottsdale, Ariz., a leading cop-cam maker.

"It's almost a no-win," admitted Horace Bradshaw, Washington's best-known traffic court defense lawyer.

When polled, substantial majorities approve of cop cams. When ticketed, however, lots are outraged.

"It's like Nazi Germany!" sputtered Dan Bradley, 41, a federal personnel investigator who routinely runs the six-lane Chevy Chase gantlet. "They ticket you for speeds that aren't dangerous."

In the peaceable United Kingdom, where cop cams are 10 times more widely used, saboteurs have shot out cameras lenses, disabled them with bolt cutters, set fire to them and pulled them down with a tractor's help, according to news reports.

What bugs people is clear from an industry pioneer's explanation of the effectiveness of cop cams:

"It's like the prospect of an IRS audit: The perception of risk promotes voluntary compliance," said Jim Tuton, founder of American Traffic Solutions of Scottsdale, Weekes' rival.

Three more tangible advantages excite municipal officials:

• Cop cams suppress violations effectively by all accounts, at least around known camera sites. In one widely cited study, six speed cameras posted on an eight-mile stretch of the Loop 101 freeway in Scottsdale cut speeders by 88 percent over a nine-month period.
• Cop cams reduce accidents, by most accounts. The frequent exception is more rear-enders, due to sudden stops on yellow at intersections where drivers know that the light is camera-monitored. Reductions in more hazardous right-angle crashes more than offset the added rear-enders, police say.
• The third reason, which municipal officials downplay, is that cop cams can be cash cows.

In Chevy Chase, for example, where speeding tickets brought in about $8,000 monthly before cop cams, "We are routinely bringing in approximately a quarter-million dollars per month," Geoffrey Biddle, Chevy Chase's village manager, told his Board of Managers in February.

For a community of 2,000 with an annual budget of $4.6 million, that's a bonanza. What's more, because locals know enough to evade the cop cams, the village's new revenue mostly comes from outsiders, rather like a commuter tax.

Nor are Chevy Chase's big gains unique. Washington's dozen cop cams have taken in more than $200 million since 2001. Scottsdale's six freeway cameras took in $17 million in 2006.

Chevy Chase Police Chief Roy Gordon said in an interview, however: "It's not about how much revenue we're taking in with these cameras; it's about changing driver behavior."

There are four ways to avoid cop cam tickets: Most communities warn motorists that traffic laws are photo-enforced. New York City is one exception. Most municipalities also list cop-cam locations on their Web sites. Some new navigation systems warn drivers of known cop cam locations. And there's a site that tries to keep track of them, www.photoenforced.com.

Municipalities and contractors both do well by doing good, but contractors do more of the work.

The contractor studies a community's violation patterns, recommends camera locations, and calibrates and maintains the cameras. Using the police department's definition of speeding — typically 10 or 11 miles above the posted speed except in school zones — the cop cam system saves only the images of likely violators. Police review these along with the proposed citations.

Reviewers toss those with flaws, such as blurred license-plate numbers, more than one car in a single radar photo image or, in many jurisdictions, rental cars, whose drivers are too hard to track down. Contractors ticket the remainder and track collections.

Revenue splits vary, depending on the amounts of fines and traffic.

In Kingsport, Tenn., for example, Redflex receives 80 percent of the ticket price ($40) for the first 95 tickets issued at each intersection approach each month. Kingsport gets the remaining $10, according to Deputy Police Chief David Quillin.

After 95 tickets, Redflex and Kingsport split the fines evenly. In addition, Kingsport gets court costs, which the city council hiked from $13.50 to $50 last year. (The increase "would have happened regardless of the cameras," Quillin said. )

For the city, the gain is from $160,000 a year pre-cameras to an estimated $1.4 million. Redflex will make about half that.

Currently, 27 states — including California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Mississippi, North Carolina, Texas and Washington — permit some kind of cop cam system. Arizona bought 100 speed and HOV-lane cameras this year for state highways. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg wants hundreds more.

Their only natural enemies are proving to be state legislatures. Many are so keen for a big share of cop cam revenue that local governments lose the incentive to introduce the cameras.

Nonetheless, cop cam maker Tuton predicts that the cameras someday will be part of the "standard national infrastructure."

The big reason is that their spread is viral: When they work, violations and revenue both fall. To that, the likeliest answer is more cameras.

On the Web:

More on speed camera systems

An assessment of safety improvements attributable to red light cop-cams

Cop-cam makers:

http://www.atsol.com

http://www.redflex.com

The best anti-cop-cam site:

www.thenewspaper.com

Plainfield - Courier - FY2008 Budget - Tax increase

Published in the Courier News, Sunday, December 23, 2007

Plainfield seeks ways to trim tax increase

By BRANDON LAUSCH
STAFF WRITER

PLAINFIELD -- As the holidays draw near, many shoppers are spending their season of giving in a frantic search for that elusive gaming system or coveted pair of Hannah Montana tickets.

In Plainfield, city officials are in the height of budget season, combing their proposed 2008 spending plan for excesses and devising more ways to shrink a tax increase that once stood at 8.7 percent.

In a scene that is repeating itself across New Jersey this winter, cash-strapped government leaders -- while working to slash the local tax burden -- are attempting to avoid a Grinch-who-stole-funding persona at a time residents generally expect good cheer.

"The underlying thing here is that we have to scrutinize everything in the budget because taxes are hurting people," said Democratic Councilman Rashid Burney, chairman of the City Council's Finance Committee and a self-described fiscal conservative. "So everything is being looked at. There are no sacred cows. There are no sacred departments."

A controversial proposal

A suggestion to move what officials described as unused money from the city's recreation department prompted dozens of residents to jam City Hall for a special hearing Monday on the nearly $70 million budget.

In an effort to protest a perceived cut of $75,000 that a parade of residents said would impact athletic programs, locals involved with the department relayed their success stories.

The first, and arguably most dramatic, speaker was 10-year-old Brandon Steele, who quickly chastised city leaders for even thinking about shifting money away from recreation programs.

"In the schools, they say No Child Left Behind, but when you're taking it (funding) from us, we are being left behind," said Steele, who at one point gripped the bridge of his nose and squeezed his eyelids shut in a struggle to maintain his composure.

Following Steele were a line of parents and other residents who coaxed one another to deliver passionate testimonials as they lobbied for funding, some telling officials that athletics gives many children the opportunity they need to avoid the pitfalls of gangs and drugs.

Officials have maintained that any supposed recreation cuts will not impact programs. According to current budget documents, the department stands to get a substantial increase in 2008 -- to more than $725,000 -- from this fiscal year's allotment of nearly $678,733, of which $657,409 was spent. Burney said council members are merely discussing whether recreation programs can efficiently operate with a steady funding level.

But Councilman Cory Storch said the massive turnout could sway official opinion.

"I believe that the council is thinking very seriously about the input, and I wouldn't be surprised if we saw money restored from the council's supposed cut," Storch said a few days after Monday's meeting.

"People coming out, or even calling and e-mailing, it definitely has an impact," he added. "Especially when it's a lot of people at the same time. I think the council members have to assess who's advocating for something that may be a different kind of agenda because it's not unheard of that staff who are impacted by the cuts will rally the troops."

So it goes in this volatile time of year, when the city's proposed budget still is very much a living document. Already, with the recent announcement of $800,000 in extraordinary state aid -- though $100,000 less than the amount in this year's budget -- city administrators have pegged the current tax increase at 6.3 percent, well on its way to the 4 percent hike some officials say they would be happy to approve because it generally mirrors the rate of inflation and abides by state guidelines capping property tax increases.

As it stands, the 3.46 percent tax rate proposed by officials would equate to an annual tax bill of $3,909.80 for a homeowner living in an average house valued at $113,000. If the budget was passed today, residents would see a property tax increase of $167.30, officials said.

But there still is painful work ahead. Next month, city Administrator Marc Dashield is expected to discuss the results of another budget review, which will pinpoint promising line items officials can tweak without unduly impacting services.

Dashield, who practically is a budgeting Army of One thanks to the recent departures of the city's chief financial officer and finance director, said officials are hoping to locate up to $650,000 in additional cuts. The City Council finalizes changes through the formal passage of budget amendments.

One less job in planning

Another budgeting sore point for some vocal residents and officials is the proposed elimination of a $30,000 job in the Planning Division. Opponents of the cut say the position will play an increasingly vital role as the city wades through what some have called a historic amount of redevelopment plans.

Those same critics, who have questioned whether the duties will be outsourced to hired hands with little knowledge of the city's character, also say the overworked planning staff can't absorb the additional work.

"I totally do not buy the claim on the part of the administration that this position can be absorbed," said Storch, the council liaison to the Planning Board. "I think it's just wishful thinking. I have a very, very strong bias toward strong planning with a lot of local input, and I think the way to do it is to have the internal resources to get the input, to reach out into the community and understand the community."

But as residents and officials wrangle over some points in the budget, other proposals have advanced with less attention.

According to a Courier News review of city documents, the fiscal year 2008 budget promotes a mantra of "fiscal realism," with "making the hard decisions for the future of Plainfield" working as a tagline of sorts. Its core services are police, fire and code enforcement, as well as the expansion of the city's tax base.

Infrastructure, such as information technology and road maintenance, also ranks high on the priority list, with technology netting a new $125,000 line item to fund and manage upgrades to outdated city computer systems. Meanwhile, fixed costs -- think health insurance and pensions -- continue to soar, further limiting the city's financial wiggle room.

State aid is expected to account for about 42 percent of projected revenues, with receipts from delinquent taxes adding another 19 percent. Other money generators include municipal court fines, parking meters, interest on investments and revenue sharing with the Plainfield Municipal Utilities Authority, among others.

In all, projected revenues will net about $25 million, leaving the city to raise more than $44 million of its budget through taxes.

To lighten the tax load, officials appear to be targeting just about every department in the city. When comparing appropriations from fiscal year 2007 to the next, reductions are shown in the public information office, community relations/social services, public works/urban development, corporation counsel and community development, among others.

The city's auxiliary police force, described by some as dysfunctional and championed by others, requested $14,000 for the 2008 budget, the same amount it received in fiscal year 2007. The administration is requesting its elimination.

"It's tough," Assemblyman Jerry Green, D-Plainfield, said of the city's budgeting process in times as tight as these. "That's why 98 percent of the people in this city know Jerry Green, 75 percent of them support Jerry Green. Those other 25 are because I can't give them what they want. I have to make business decisions, and the business decisions I make outweigh people's personal agendas."

AT A GLANCE
What a difference state aid makes. Though the $800,000 in extraordinary aid Plainfield is receiving for its proposed spending plan is $100,000 less than what's included in the 2007 budget -- and far less than $2.9 million officials asked for -- it sure doesn't hurt. A comparison of Plainfield's budget with and without help from the state:

Proposed budget 2008
Introduced budget With Extraordinary Aid
Projected revenues $25 million $25 million
Extraordinary aid $0 $800,000
Base budget $65.4 million $65.4 million
Cost drivers $4.4 million $4.4 million
Core service investments $125,000 $125,000
Total projected expenditures $69.9 million $69.9 million
Gap to be raised by taxation $44.9 million $44.3 million
Percentage increase in taxation 8.7 percent 6.3 percent

Brandon Lausch can be reached at (908) 707-3175 or blausch@c-n.com.

Online story here. Archived here.

(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

Taxes - Ledger - Editorial: Enable local options

Published in the Star-Ledger, Friday, Jul 20, 2007

EDITORIALS
Open up local tax options

New Jersey legislators have always been paternalistic in their dealings with mayors and town council members. To do just about anything, local leaders need the say-so of lawmakers, who often adopt a we-know- best attitude. When talk turns to curbing property taxes by raising revenue through some other local tax, the response from Trenton is almost always: Don't even think about it.

It's time for legislators to reconsider.

Only once have lawmakers offered a limited number of municipalities an option to impose a broad-based tax. The results justify doing it again.

Four years ago, legislators imposed a 5 percent tax on hotel-motel rooms and gave towns and cities the opportunity to tack on 3 percent and keep the money. So far, 146 towns have taken advantage of this opportunity, easing the property tax burden in those communities.

On average, towns collecting the new tax saw the municipal portion of the property tax rise 7.4 percent compared with 9 percent in places without the room tax. There's nothing good about a 7.4 percent tax increase -- except that it is not 9 percent.

In some towns, the relief was significant. Cape May, chockab lock with Victorian inns, saved homeowners an average $224 on their property tax bills. Morris Plains residents saved $139, Fairfield homeowners $92 and those in Clinton $87. The room tax offered a painless way -- at least as far as local residents were concerned -- for mayors and councils to keep a check on ever-rising property taxes.

But as of now, the Legislature isn't likely to expand on that successful formula. Senate President Richard Codey remains opposed to letting towns have options. His reasoning and that of other lawmakers is simple: Having enacted a "reform" that de creased property taxes by an average of 20 percent this year, they're not about to let the locals impose new taxes. To them, that simply doesn't make sense.

Their reasoning is flawed. There has been no property tax "reform," just larger re bate checks, and there is only enough money to cover those checks for this year.

What doesn't make sense is slamming the door on any discussion of other municipal tax options. No town would be forced to impose a tax. But towns should be allowed to do so as a means of reducing reli ance on the property tax as the sole way to pay for municipal and school costs.

A local wage tax or a little extra sales tax or even a tax on new developments are possibilities. Others would arise from a serious debate of the proposal.

And in each case, town residents would have to weigh the impact. Would a higher sales tax cause shoppers to go elsewhere, eventually hurting the local economy? Would a wage tax drive businesses to neighboring towns?

Of course, the Legislature could establish restrictions. One ought to be that none of the revenue could be treated as newfound money to be spent on new programs or services. Rather, it would have to be used to supplement property taxes and cover existing expenses.

The League of Municipalities likes the idea of taxing options, and Gov. Jon Corzine has talked up the plan at times but not done much to push the Legislature on it.

It's time for state legislators to treat their counterparts in town halls as equals, fully capable of making taxing decisions. And facing the consequences.

Online story here. Archived here.

(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

Taxes - Ledger - Realtors oppose local transfer tax

Published in the Star-Ledger, Friday, August 3, 2007

Realtors oppose plan for local tax on transfers

BY JOE DONOHUE
Star-Ledger Staff

The powerful New Jersey Association of Realtors announced a major lobbying push this fall to try to kill legislation that would let municipalities impose a separate local tax on realty transfers.

"What we're afraid of happening is that this is going to be one of those issues that's going to pop up in 'lame duck,' and they are going to rush it through," said Jarrod Grasso, the group's vice president of governmental affairs. "This isn't going to be an issue we're going to sit back on."

Grasso said the Realtors were concerned by recent comments by Gov. Jon Corzine in a Star-Ledger story in which he said he still thinks municipalities should be given more tax-raising options, possibly including local realty transfer taxes.

The New Jersey State League of Municipalities is pushing hard for such an expansion. Five bills have been introduced in the Legislature during the last year to allow cities and towns to charge a local tax of 50 cents per $500 of a home's sales price. Two of the bills would apply statewide, while three would apply only to Newark and Jersey City.

Assemblywoman Joan Quigley (D-Hudson), a co-sponsor of both versions, said she believes the local fees "make sense." She said she was hoping one of the bills would win approval during the lame duck session after the election, but acknowledged many of her colleagues already have been swayed by the Realtors, which typically ranks among the top 10 special interest donors each election.

"If we're going to get it through, the mayors are going to have to talk to their legislators," she said.

William Dressel, executive direc tor of the League of Municipalities, said one reason property taxes are so high in New Jersey is municipalities have few alternatives to balance their revenues. Mayors at least should be given the option of raising other taxes to offset property taxes, he said.

"I think it's a decision that has to be made locally," Dressel said.

A Star-Ledger analysis recently found one of the few local tax op tions that does exist -- the hotel- motel tax -- generated about $37 million for towns last year. Homeowners in a dozen towns would have paid at least $100 more each year in property taxes without the tax.

Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy said he believes the new local fee could be a boon to real estate by curbing property taxes. He esti mates it would raise $30 million an nually in Jersey City alone.

"This is a perfect way to provide property tax relief," adding the local fees would be small compared to real estate brokers' sales commissions, which usually run around 6 percent of home sales.

A calculator available on www.njhometax.com, a special Web site created by the Realtors to stir up opposition to the tax, lets people compute the potential im pact on their wallets. It shows, for instance, the owner of a $356,700 house, the statewide median price, would pay $357 if the new local tax becomes law. That payment would be made on top of the $2,799 realty transfer tax already imposed by the state.

Grasso said state officials not only should reject the local tax, but they also should consider lowering the state realty transfer tax, since it has shot up 80 percent during the past four years.

"Gov. Corzine has come out talking about no new taxes, no new fees. We want that mantra to continue," Grasso said.

Online story here. Archived here.

(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)