WELCOME TO MY WEB BLOG
Welcome to the blog for markparadis.com.
For those of you that do not know me - my name is Mark Paradis and I am currently serving my first term as Mayor of Lebanon Borough, NJ. Lebanon is a small Borough in Hunterdon County. I hope that by the use of this blog and my web site, you will have the opportunity to get to know me and I will have the opportunity to share my experiences as Mayor of a small municipality. I can tell you one thing, there is NEVER a dull moment! So sit back, relax and enjoy.
You can subscribe to eMail alerts for new posts here: Feedburner or use an RSS Reader
Happy Birthday Marine Corps - 233 Years!
“Click” the following link for a special birthday message from GODADDY. Happy 233rd
Birthday to the United States Marine Corps!
Mayor’s Open House and Holiday Food Drive
Residents of Lebanon Borough are invited to the last Mayor’s Open House for 2008
Event: Mayor’s Open House
Date: Saturday, November 15, 2008
Time: 11:00a.m - 1:00p.m
Place: 84 Brunswick Avenue, Lebanon, NJ
Please join us this season, as we will be collecting non-perishable food items to be donated to the Flemington Food Pantry on behalf of the residents of Lebanon Borough.
Light refreshments will be served.
The Mayor’s open house was initiated in the Spring of 2007 to promote a positive atmosphere while furthering the accessibility of local government officials. It has also served residents of Lebanon Borough the opportunity to have personal one-on-one attention to their issues and concerns.
For more information, please contact Mark Paradis at 908-236-8464 or at the blog “Inside the Trenches”
In the News - The City That Cried Wolf
NJ doesn’t have an extra $12M to keep up State Police patrols in rural towns - yet $45M in “distressed cities aid” is given to the city of Newark - and even after Newark is slated to receive $45M in emergency funding - a bold (insensitive) move on the part of Newark’s governing body to increase salaries.
Pay hike sought for 63 Newark employees
City leaders, aides among nonunion staff
Sunday, August 24, 2008
BY KATIE WANG
Star-Ledger Staff
Newark Mayor Cory Booker’s administration is proposing to give a retroactive 3.5 percent salary increase to 63 city employees, including the business administrator, city clerk and other department directors who are not represented by a union.
The proposal, which would give a raise for this year and last year, has the initial backing of the city council. It comes less than a week after the state agreed to supply $45 million in emergency funding to plug the city’s budget and dodge a fiscal crisis.
In exchange for the money, the city agreed to tighter restrictions on its spending, including a freeze on hiring, pay hikes or promotions. Any salary increases must be approved by the state Department of Community Affairs and the state Department of Personnel.
“We are currently looking into this situation and have reached out to Newark for further information,” said Chris Donnelly, a spokesman for the Community Affairs department.
Assemblywoman Alison Littell McHose (R-Sussex), who sits on the Assembly Budget Committee and has been critical of Newark’s spending practices, was surprised the raises were being proposed.
“I think it’s very bold of them and a little brazen,” McHose said. “I would think that the mayor would be a little more sensitive to the political ramifications of this.”
The city council approved the first reading of the salary ordinance on Tuesday. It is scheduled to vote on it a second and final time at its meeting next month. If approved, it will then go to state officials.
Michelle Thomas, acting business administrator, said the fiscal impact of these increases is $185,000, but said they have already been included in last year’s and this year’s budget.
“These employees have not received salary increases since 2006,” said Thomas.
Thomas said the employees deserve a raise because they have found ways to increase the city’s revenues even as state appropriations have dropped.
“It’s because of the efforts of these leaders who have been working really hard with no cost-of-living adjustment,” Thomas said.
The proposed increase, she said, is the average of all the increases that union-represented employees received. Thomas said the city just settled and signed off on its last remaining union contract with SEIU 617, prompting the administration to propose raises for management.
The nonunion employees on tap for a raise include Thomas, corporation counsel Julien X. Neals, Police Director Garry McCarthy, Fire Director David Giordano, Police Chief Anthony Campos, city clerk Robert Marasco and Stefan Pryor, director of the Department of Economic and Housing Development.
Thomas’ salary is $178,145, Neals is earning $154,057, McCarthy’s salary is $170,000, Giordano is earning $137,125, Campos’ salary is $149,360, Marasco is earning $148,214, and Pryor is earning $178,125.
Pryor’s salary was adjusted in 2007 from $137,125 to $178,125 — which is what he had negotiated for when he took the job.
“This to me seems outrageous at a time when everyone is struggling financially,” said McHose. “For this small number of political appointees in the city of Newark’s administration to receive retroactive pay raises is wrong.”
In addition to high-level directors, the city also is proposing to give raises to aides in Booker’s office, the executive and personal secretaries in the mayor’s office, and all of the council aides.
The salary range for aides in Booker’s office runs from $58,956 to $135,340, but seven of his 10 aides earn more than $100,000.
Aides include key employees such as chief of staff Pablo Fonseca, who was the highest-paid aide, and deputy chief of staff Jermaine James, who earned $114,821.
Council President Mildred Crump said voting in favor of the increases was a difficult decision for the entire council, which voted unanimously on the first reading of the salary ordinance. Council members Oscar S. James II and Augusto Amador were absent.
“It was a most difficult decision,” Crump said. “The unfortunate truth is the legislation ties the salaries of those who make six figures with those who make $35,000 and $45,000.”
Aides to the council members earn between $43,596 and $64,651.
Crump said she is aware of the negative perception this will bring to a city that has already been criticized for its spending practices.
“As so often happens, there are people who are the recipient of a windfall when you’re trying to help the underdog,” Crump said.
West Ward Councilman Ronald C. Rice said he agonized over voting in favor of the ordinance.
“We did it for the lower-ranking folks,” he said. “We couldn’t separate them out. We thought at the end of the day it was in the interest of the lower-salary folks who are not covered by contracts to get the 3.5 percent.”
Rice said the administration has agreed to find other cuts in its budget in exchange for these increases.
The city has struggled for years to get its finances in order. Under former mayor Sharpe James, it balanced its budget using hundreds of millions of dollars from a one-time settlement with the Port Authority over payments for Newark Liberty International Airport.
Under Booker’s administration, its reliance on the payments has dropped to $40 million, but the city still needed help from the state to balance its budget and avoid a significant tax increase.
City officials anticipate asking for more emergency money next year. In addition to the hiring and salary freezes, employees are forbidden from out-of-town travel and overnight stays in New Jersey.
Katie Wang may be reached at (973) 392-1504 or kwang@starledger.com.
NJ.Com Opinion - State Police Funding
Cops shouldn’t have to sing for their supper
Posted by djcohen August 20, 2008 17:19PM
As if I needed another reason to never again visit Staten Island…
I went there a few weeks ago to cover a press conference at which Belmar Mayor Ken Pringle caught hell for having suggested that Staten Islanders are not the world’s most well-mannered tourists.
The point of the exercise was to introduce outsiders to the wonders of Staten Island. But it cost me an $8 toll just to get onto the island. And then the other day the New Yorkers hit me up for another $50. It seems a camera caught me running a red light. I imagine these cameras nail a lot of Jersey drivers who make the mistake of crossing the Arthur Kill. That’s because our state, despite its many flaws, at least has sufficient intervals between the green and the red lights. So we’re easy pickings for those greedy New Yorkers.
Those red-light cameras don’t do anything to improve traffic flow. But they sure do a lot to improve cash flow. And soon we’ll be getting them in New Jersey thanks to the Democrats who run this state. The Democrats sneaked through a bill permitting such cameras last winter while everyone was occupied with that other form of highway robbery, the “asset monetization” of the toll roads.
And now we’ve got a plan to charge rural towns for the cost of State Police patrols. Patrolling small towns is the reason the State Police were formed in the first place. And ever since that 1921 statute was passed, the troopers have provided police services across a wide swath of the state at minimal cost. The system’s not broken. So why is the administration trying to fix it?
About 30 small-town mayors got together last week to discuss that very question. A week ago Tuesday, the mayors met in Hunterdon County and decided they will refuse to pay the new fees imposed by the state for the rural patrols. The Corzine administration is demanding a total of $12.5 million from 89 towns. The Democrats say they need the dough. But the very next day they provided proof that they don’t. The Corzine administration announced that Newark will receive an additional $45 million in “distressed cities” aid. That’s in addition to $153 million the state had already allocated to distressed cities - which are distressed mainly because of the incompetence and corruption of the Democratic machines that run them.
In other words, the state has a $198 million slush fund to bail out Democratic cities. But Corzine can’t afford to provide a service to small towns at a mere 6 percent of that cost.
There’s something else going on here. And that something else isn’t good for us Jersey drivers.
Having created a nonexistent crisis over a blip in the budget, the Democrats immediately created a solution that could cost you plenty. State Sen. Jeff Van Drew, a Democrat from Cape May County whose district includes many rural towns patrolled by the troopers, proposed a $40 surcharge on traffic tickets. This would generate not a mere $12.5 million but a staggering $80 million per year.
The Democrats tried this stunt before, by the way. Jim McGreevey was fond of balancing budgets by imposing traffic ticket surcharges and then selling bonds funded by the proceeds. Drivers ticketed in 2024 will still be paying off the Democrats’ debts from 2004.
But the new surcharge is just part of the problem. What good is a surcharge on traffic tickets if you don’t have cops to write the tickets in the first place?
That’s the real problem with Corzine’s plan. The mayors at that meeting said they are being pressured by the state to start municipal police forces or to join with neighboring towns in setting up regional police forces.
Once you hire all of those new cops, how will you pay for them? You have them write tickets. The cops have a name for this sort of thing. They call it “singing for your supper.” And they don’t like it. Most cops would prefer to do actual police work as opposed to writing parking tickets and setting up speed traps.
But all over New Jersey, cash-strapped towns are turning to their police forces to generate revenue. This effect is most prominently seen at the Shore, where speed traps and “gotcha” parking meters are ubiquitous. But the syndrome is spreading, and once those red-light cameras are installed, no driver will be safe anywhere.
Well, if the Democrats want to raise taxes, they should come right out and raise taxes. The cops aren’t tax collectors. And a stream of traffic tickets is not a revenue stream - unless you make the mistake of visiting Staten Island.
ADD: FOR THOSE NAIVE ENOUGH TO TRUST THOSE CAMERAS: Read this column by Pat Bedard of Car and Driver.
In the News - State Police Funding
Towns buck police plan
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
By Heather Simione
hsimione@sjnewsco.com
With the state now requiring municipalities to begin paying for state police patrols, at least two local government bodies are protesting.
The Borough of Elmer and Mannington Township have both officially objected by passing resolutions opposing the payments.
Under the new state budget, 89 municipalities across the state must chip in on the cost of state police coverage for their rural areas starting in January 2009.
Alloway, Elmer, Mannington, Oldmans, Pilesgrove, Pittsgrove, Quinton and Upper Pittsgrove will all be required to pay. Elmer has a part-time police force and depends on the state police for coverage only a portion of the day.
Pittsgrove Mayor Pete Voros, Alloway Mayor Joseph Fedora and Quinton Mayor Joseph Donelson are among rural mayors all opposed to the plan. A few have a similar resolutions on their upcoming agendas, but nothing has been officially stated.
Elmer Borough Council voted to pass a resolution opposing fees for state police service and endorsing a proposed bill that would increase motor vehicle violation surcharges to raise funds to help pay for the police patrols.
“We believe these fees represent an unconstitutional, unfunded local mandate and will force an increase in local property taxes,” reads the ordinance. “The mayor and borough council of the Borough of Elmer, Salem County remains strongly opposed to changing rural municipalities any amount for state police services.”
Mayor Donald Asay of Mannington Township said his local governing body takes the position to support Sen. Jeff Van Drew in his bill to increase motor vehicle surcharges.
“Is there some reason that smaller municipalities were singled out with this particular service?” asked Asay. “This is a perfect example of a shared service, which is the rhetoric from Trenton. We’re certainly hoping other municipalities will soon join us.”
Still recovering from the loss of approximately $37,000 in state aid, Elmer would now be charged $47,475 for part-time state police coverage.
Councilman Benjamin Laury said passing such a resolution is simply an attempt to avoid a property tax increase on already cash-strapped residents.
“It will probably be five more cents on one hundred (dollars of assessed property value),” he said. “Obviously all over the state of New Jersey property tax is a problem.”
The borough is patrolled from roughly 7 a.m. to midnight by their local police department and the rest of the time by state police.
“We’re paying more than Pittsgrove that has roughly 10,000 residents,” said Elmer Capt. Patrick Bryan. “I’d like to see the other municipalities merge (their police services). It would be a bigger savings. The state police aren’t giving you more coverage or personnel. They’re just assessing a fee.”
Furthermore, Laury said as part of a charter written in the early 1900s, the purpose of state police is to provide coverage for smaller municipalities that can’t afford their own police force.
“The higher crime ridden areas like Camden and Trenton get the majority of the state police time and now the governor is trying to pass that burden on to us,” he said.
Does Size Matter? It does if you live in NJ
Now that I got your attention, you can get your mind out of the gutter…….consider the following from PolitickerNJ regarding the efficiency of small municipalities.
Does size really matter?
By Debbie Holtz
Apparently size matters where the Governor’s concerned. He’s proposed reducing aid to local towns less than 10,000 residents and slashing it completely for communities smaller than 5,000.
As reported in the Philadelphia Inquirer this week: “The governor says that governments for small municipalities are among the root causes of New Jersey’s property taxes, which are the highest in the nation. He has suggested that some towns merge.”
But here’s where a bit more analysis or fact checking would go a long way toward helping readers better understand the budget debate…the kind recently offered by The Record’s James Ahearn’s in his column: “Real help from Trenton, not talk”.
Consider these facts easily found with a few clicks of the mouse from a recent 2005 Local Public Finance Database prepared by the Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers:
* The average municipal expenditures per capita were $1,151 statewide.
* Of the 323 communities with populations under 10,000, 60 % had municipal per capita budgets below the state average.
* For the 243 larger towns and cities, 66% similarly had municipal per capita budgets below the state average.
* The state’s ten lowest ranked municipal spenders per capita were all communities with less than 10,000 residents - in fact, spending in these towns averaged two-thirds lower than the state average.
* The state’s ten highest ranked municipal spenders per capita all had populations greater than 10,000 residents, including Trenton, Newark, Camden and Atlantic City. On average, the top ten ranked 113% higher than the state average.
So where are the inefficiencies in smaller governments?
In the News - Newark Receives $45M in Aid
How long are New Jersey taxpayers going to take this type of abuse? A $45M dollar bailout, state designations as a “Distressed City” and oversight of hiring and finances -
QUESTION - What’s the definition of insanity?
ANSWER - Doing the same thing over and over again - and expecting different results.
How about taking a % of this $45M and using it to offset the rural policing charge in the 89 municipalities?
Newark gets $45M in aid in exchange for state oversight
Newark accepted a $45 million bailout from New Jersey taxpayers today, in return for accepting the state designation of “distressed city,” and allowing state oversight of hiring and finances.
The special infusion will head off what otherwise would have been a property tax increase of almost $800 for the typical Newark household, said Michelle Thomas, Newark’s acting business administrator.
Thomas said the city needed the emergency aid despite a series of reform efforts since 2006 that have trimmed the city payroll by 453 people, cut the city budget by $52 million and boosted revenue from payroll taxes and other sources by millions of dollars.
“We’ve come a long way in a short period of time,” Thomas told members of the state’s Local Finance Board today. “We have proven that investments in Newark yield results.”
Members of the finance board voted 5-0 with little discussion to approve Newark’s application for the special state aid. The new aid is in addition to about $108 million in standard municipal aid already included in the state budget for Newark.
You Tube Video - Army Band vs. Skydiver
Who said being in the band was NOT hazardous? Check out this crazy accident! The video is of the Ft. Riley Army band out of Kansas vs. a skydiver.
Further research reveals the following:
3 bandsmen injured (a broken jaw, a broken ankle, minor other injuries). 2 tubas destroyed.
Friday Link of Interest - I-78 Corridor Historic and Scenic Byway
Those of us that live in Hunterdon County are very aware of the beauty that surrounds us. At times, this quality of life we enjoy is threatened. One of the regional projects to help preserve certain intrinsic qualities in our area is the I-78 Corridor Historic and Scenic Byway Alliance. The alliance was formed for the express purpose of applying to the NJDOT in it’s quest for designating a proposed portion of the I-78 Corridor from the PA border to the I-78/287 Interchange into a scenic byway.
In the News - Rural Police Funding
Officials fight patrol fee
Representatives from both Warren and Hunterdon counties meet to discuss alternatives to paying for state police protection.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
BY STEPHEN J. NOVAK
The Express-Times
HAMPTON | Less than a week after South Jersey officials gathered to find alternatives to charges for state police coverage, leaders from Warren, Hunterdon and Sussex counties assembled to form their own ideas.
“This is the tip of the iceberg,” said Knowlton Township Mayor Frank Van Horn, one of the organizers of Tuesday’s informal meeting in Hampton.
About 50 officials attended.
Van Horn previously had said he would rather be arrested than let his township pay the $123,060 the state, under Gov. Jon S. Corzine’s budget, says it owes for continued state police coverage.
Officials left the meeting with sample resolutions opposing the payment to bring back to their respective bodies. The resolutions were supplied by Jim Doherty, township administrator for Wantage Township, Sussex County. The township had drafted and passed a similar resolution in 2006, the last time state police rural patrol fees were proposed in Trenton.
According to the state budget, rural municipalities that use state police patrols are required to raise $12.6 million to fund continued coverage.
Hampton Mayor Rob Walton asked for unity among local leaders in opposing the mandate.
“A lot of people have the misconception that the state police are patrolling in front of our houses 24/7, and we all know that’s just not the case,” Franklin Township, Warren County, Mayor Bonnie Butler said.
Twenty-four Warren and Hunterdon municipalities owe money for the coverage, according to the state Treasury Department. That includes Oxford Township, which only briefly used state police coverage. Facing a charge of $236,077, White Township stands to be the hardest hit in either of the two counties.
Towns have until Dec. 15 to find an alternative for law enforcement before being subject to the charge.
Efforts to avoid the cost have municipalities looking at sharing police departments with other towns, considering county sheriffs for coverage and weighing the option of forming a regional police force.
About 40 elected officials from Cumberland to Hunterdon counties attended a news conference in Buena Vista Township, Atlantic County, on Aug. 6 where they supported a plan to place a $40 surcharge on moving violations. The fee could fund a grant system to give money back to affected municipalities.
While there were doubts such a system would work, even from state legislators present at the meeting, all local officials were encouraged to plan on attending another meeting of officials from around the state to be held at The College of New Jersey in September.
“They call us crybabies,” Van Horn said Tuesday about other parts of the state. “But we pay for everything else in the state besides the state police.”
Reporter Stephen J. Novak can be reached at 908-475-2174 or by e-mail at snovak@express-times.com.
Public Officials Meeting - State Police Funding
A brief update on the public officials meeting last night in Hampton Borough.
It was practically standing room only in a sometimes “heated” discussion as to why the State feels the need to charge 89 municipalities for rural policing coverage of their municipalities.
Assemblywoman Marcia Karrow, Assemblyman Mike Doherty and Assemblyman Gary Chiusano along with Mayor’s Rob Walton of Hampton Borough, John Inscho of Liberty Twp and Frank VanHorn of Knowlton Twp and League of Municipalities Assistant Executive Director Michael Darcy updated the various municipalities in attendance what has been done, what is being done and next steps.
The unifying position thru all of this is that the “line in the sand” must be drawn and we will NOT PAY for rural police services.
A few next steps -
- Meeting on September 4th in Ewing, NJ
- Draft Resolution opposing-state-police-cost-shift-2008 from Wantage Township, NJ to be distributed to affected municipalities - Please feel free to modify.
- File complaint with the Council on Local Mandates
- Get the public involved.
- Contact your local elected officials and legislators.
This latest unfunded mandate from the State is the latest “scare tactic” in their quest to consolidate small, rural municipalities into “Corzine Town”.
A huge THANKS go out to the organizers of this meeting. See you all on September 4!
Opinion - Rural Police Funding
Don’t subsidize rural policing
ASBURY PARK PRESS EDITORIAL
State Sen. Jeff Van Drew, D-Cape May, is proposing a $40-per-summons surcharge on all motor vehicle violations to be used to underwrite State Police patrols in 89 towns that previously had received the service for free.
It’s a wrong-headed response to the problem - small towns, mostly rural, being allowed to avail themselves of a service without having to pay the full cost. Instead, the towns should be given a reasonable period of time - two to three years - to either wean themselves off State Police coverage or pay 100 percent of its cost.
Options for the towns would include creating their own police force, contracting with an adjacent police department for coverage or working with other small towns to create a regional police department.
For the first time this year, the 89 towns whose taxpayers never have paid for police coverage are being asked to pick up a portion of the tab. Their combined obligation is $12.6 million - only about 15 percent of the $80 million it costs the state to provide the patrols. The towns should be responsible for the entire share.
Van Drew’s surcharge, which would generate an estimated $160 million, is another in a long line of stealth taxes. It not only would pay for the full cost of providing State Police coverage to small towns, it would distribute $80 million to municipalities with full-time police departments.
The surcharge could end up doubling traffic fines for technical motor vehicle violations that don’t warrant such stiff financial penalties. More importantly, says Steven Carrellas, president of the New Jersey chapter of the National Motorists Association, it would create “another opportunity for some towns to grab statewide money for their own problems instead of finding real solutions to their high property taxes.”
Van Drew says he is “still researching” variations on his plan - perhaps imposing the surcharge only on the most serious motor vehicle violations or letting the small towns keep the revenue collected from the violations. He should scrap the idea altogether. And the state should make small towns assume full responsibility for the cost of police coverage.
Blogging - Google Ranks and SEO
OK, I am pretty psyched today.
I have been researching SEO (Search Engine Optimization) and other ways to move my blog “Inside the Trenches” up in the Google world. Last month, if you Googled “blogging mayor”, my site would have been listed roughly in the high 100’s. Meaning you would have to navigate quite awhile to either find the site or just happen upon it.
Today, I Google “blogging mayor” and I am #8 - ON THE FRONT PAGE!
Now, I understand from my research that Google ranking can change from day to day. Heck, if I can at least be listed on the first page - that is OK by me!
So, you ask what exactly did I do?
Oddly enough, I only changed my blog title from “markparadis.com” to “blogging mayor - Mayor Mark Paradis of Lebanon Borough”
A lot of the research I looked into talked about keywords and custom permalinks. I experimented with this a little bit, and will write more about this in a future post.
Changing the title made such a HUGE difference. And it was very simple.
I am curious what others have to say about this simple solution. Am I on to something…or is it all just dumb luck?
In the News - Public Safety
Parts of rural N.J. to pay for State Police service
By LISA GRZYBOSKI
Courier-Post Staff
After escaping similar plans in 2002 and 2006 that were ultimately scrapped from the final state budget, rural towns that rely on the New Jersey State Police for all or part of their police protection will have to start paying something for that service in January.
It costs an estimated $80 million a year for state troopers to cover the 92 municipalities involved, said Tom Vincz, a spokesman for the state Department of the Treasury. The amount includes such things as officer salaries and overhead expenses to run the police barracks.
Gov. Jon S. Corzine, who plans to sign the budget today, originally proposed having the affected towns contribute $20.5 million, around 25 percent, toward the cost of the State Police coverage. That amount was reduced to $12 million during the Legislature’s budget review, Vincz said.
The formula used to determine how much each rural town will pay won’t be completed until after the budget is adopted, Vincz said. Language in the budget guarantees that the share towns pay won’t result in more than a $100 increase over 2007 average residential property taxes.
The 77 municipalities that have full-time State Police protection would likely contribute more than the 15 towns that use the troopers for part-time service. The costs wouldn’t be imposed until January, when many municipalities begin their calendar year budgets, Vincz said.
“The only thing we can do is sit and wait for the figures,” said Shrewsbury Township Mayor Albert Klose, whose town uses the State Police full-time. “We’ve survived all these years with the State Police, and we hope to continue that relationship because it’s been a good one.”
But the township has begun exploring the option of entering into an agreement with a nearby municipality for police protection should State Police services become too expensive, Klose said.
“It’s going to have an impact on us one way or the other,” Klose said.
Municipalities that share police services with neighboring towns wouldn’t be charged for the State Police, said Corzine spokesman Jim Gardner. He said the initiative is meant to make sure towns are equitably sharing costs for services provided.
“Right now, many taxpayers are paying for their own towns’ police departments and subsidizing the State Police costs for other towns,” Vincz said.
If Corzine’s administration wants to talk about how it’s unfair for taxpayers around the state to help pay for trooper patrols in other towns, then Camden and Irvington should be included in the conversation, said Senate Minority Leader Thomas H. Kean Jr., R-Union.
In the original proposal, Camden would have contributed $800,000 for its State Police service and Irvington roughly the same amount, Vincz said. Corzine and the Legislature decided jointly to remove the two cities from the list because the services provided in those urban areas are different than those provided in rural communities, he said.
“If they’re talking about equality, let’s talk about it across the board,” Kean countered.
Coupled with decreases in state aid to municipalities and reductions in the property tax rebate program, the State Police cost-sharing plan will inevitably lead to higher local property taxes for many people, Kean said.
“This has been a reoccurring topic in the last few years,” said Mayor Chuck Chiarello of Buena Vista Township in Atlantic County.
In 2006, the last time Corzine proposed State Police cost sharing, Buena Vista was scheduled to pay nearly $800,000 annually for full-time trooper coverage, which would have increased municipal property taxes by one-third, Chiarello said.
Under that earlier proposal, the state would have charged $330 per housing unit for full-time patrols and $230 per home for part-time patrol. Buena Vista was overjoyed when that plan failed to make it into the state budget, Chiarello said.
This year, towns have yet to hear anything about the formula, even though they’re supposed to start paying by January, he said.
“Nobody even knows how the formula was done,” said Assemblywoman Marcia A. Karrow, R-Hunterdon.
Rural vs. urban
Of the 46 municipalities in Karrow’s district, about half rely on the State Police for all or part of their police service. She believes it’s wrong to require rural New Jersey to pay for State Police coverage when the force was created in the 1920s to patrol those very communities.
“These are municipalities that have very small populations, small budgets and little to no ratables,” Karrow said.
She noted many of the towns also can’t expand their tax base to pick up the cost of State Police service because either preserved farmland or conservation areas such as the one in the Highlands block development. Money can be found to help New Jersey’s urban areas, but when it comes to rural communities, the well is dry, Karrow complained.
Assemblyman John J. Burzichelli, D-Gloucester, said he, too, isn’t satisfied with the program as it’s described in the budget. More attention must be paid to what constitutes “rural,” he said.
“If you’re rural, you should get the service free, and if you’ve outgrown your rural status, you should pay something for it,” Burzichelli said.
Singled out
Many of these country communities can’t share police services with neighboring towns because nobody around them has a police department either, Burzichelli said. He also wondered aloud why rural towns were being singled out when the state police also does patrols in those municipalities with major highways running through them.
As far as Chiarello is concerned, rural towns pay for the State Police service through the court fines they collect.
For example, Buena Vista collected about $200,000 in 2007 in fines generated by State Police, he said. The township didn’t get to keep any of that money.
MParadis NOTE: This is an interesting point and we will be researching what contributions we make to the court system from the use of the State Police
“So, we see it as we’re already contributing,” Chiarello said.
Legislation was introduced this month by Sen. Jeff Van Drew, D-Cape May, and Assemblyman Nelson Albano, D-Cumberland, to assess a $40 surcharge on all motor vehicle violations in the state to pay for police services. It would generate an estimated $160 million in surcharges; half would help pay for State Police rural patrols, and towns and cities with police departments would receive up to $1 million each to pay for police.
Reach Lisa Grzyboski at (856) 486-2931 or lgrzyboski@courierpostonline.com
