AR32

An Assembly Resolution strongly urging the council to dismiss the complaint filed by Deptford Township since P.L.2014, c.54 authorizes funding to equip police vehicles with cameras.

Whereas, Members of the General Assembly and Senate, as elected representatives of the taxpayers of New Jersey, passed Assembly Bill No. 2280 of 2014 with bipartisan support, which was signed by Governor Christie and enacted as P.L.2014, c.54 (C.40A:14-118.1 et al.); and

Whereas, Under P.L.2014, c.54, certain new or used municipal police vehicles are required to be equipped with cameras if the vehicles are purchased, leased, or otherwise acquired on or after March 1, 2015; and

Whereas, P.L.2014, c.54 establishes a funding source for costs associated with equipping police vehicles with cameras by increasing the surcharge imposed on persons convicted of driving while intoxicated, to be payable to the municipality in which the conviction was obtained; and

Whereas, In May 2015, Deptford Township, of Gloucester County, filed a complaint with the Council on Local Mandates alleging that P.L.2014, c.54 imposes an unfunded mandate in violation of Article VIII, Section 2, paragraph 5 of the New Jersey Constitution; and

Whereas, Deptford Township alleges that the statute is an unfunded mandate, causing the municipality to incur additional direct expenditures for implementation; however, the township insufficiently demonstrates that the law imposes a mandate applicable to the vehicles it acquired; and

Whereas, New patrol vehicles were purchased by Deptford Township prior to the effective date of P.L.2014, c.54, and thus, the township does not face imminent hardship because it is not subject to the mandate at issue; and

Whereas, Deptford Township has not shown it will incur additional direct expenditures as a result of the mandate and consequently, will not suffer irreparable harm, nor be denied any legal right at the denial of injunctive relief; and

Whereas, Correctly, Deptford Township admits that the mandate is funded, but contends that the funding is inadequate; and

Whereas, Since the enactment of P.L.2014, c.54 provides funding for the municipalities’ costs of acquiring video recording systems through an increase in the surcharge issued to persons convicted of driving while intoxicated, this mandate is funded; and

Whereas, The Attorney General filed a Motion to Dismiss Complaint in June 2015, and the Council on Local Mandates subsequently held a hearing on September 29, 2015 on the State’s Motion to Dismiss; and

Whereas, While the council is comprised of nine members, four vacancies currently exist and only four of the five appointed members were present for the September 29, 2015 hearing; therefore, the council conducted business without a quorum contrary to requirements set forth in the enabling statute, section 9 of P.L.1996, c.24 (C.52:13H-9), which provides, in relevant part, that: “At least five members of the council shall be present in order for the council to conduct its business. A ruling of the council shall require at least five votes”; and

Whereas, The council erroneously denied the State’s Motion to Dismiss, and, further, wrongly granted Deptford Township’s Motion for Injunctive Relief until such time as the council reaches a decision as to whether the statute is an unfunded mandate or the Legislature appropriates funding sufficient to offset the expenditures required by the statute; and

Whereas, The Council on Local Mandates is not empowered by the New Jersey Constitution or by State law to determine the sufficiency of funding; and

Whereas, Any determination by the council of insufficient funding would have the unintended consequence of exposing the State to additional local government complaints regarding inadequate funding for State mandates; and

Whereas, The funding mechanism authorized by the Legislature under P.L.2014, c.54 negates Deptford Township’s claim and renders the township’s allegations of inadequate funding to be beyond the council’s purview; and

Whereas, P.L.2014, c.54 does not create an unfunded mandate in violation of Article VIII, Section 2, paragraph 5 of the New Jersey Constitution and should therefore continue to be mandatory and in effect; now, therefore,

Be It Resolved by the General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:

1. The Council on Local Mandates is strongly urged to determine that P.L.2014, c.54 (C.40A:14-118.1 et al.) is not an unfunded mandate, and therefore, the law shall be mandatory.

2. Copies of this resolution, as filed with the Secretary of State, shall be transmitted by the Clerk of the General Assembly to the Governor, the President and Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate, the Executive Director and each member of the Council on Local Mandates, and the Attorney General.

STATEMENT

This resolution strongly urges the Council on Local Mandates to dismiss the complaint filed by Deptford Township in response to enactment of P.L.2014, c.54 (C.40A:14-118.1 et al.), which requires certain police vehicles to be equipped with cameras, since the law authorizes funding.

With bipartisan support, the General Assembly and Senate of the State of New Jersey passed Assembly Bill No. 2280 of 2014, which was signed by Governor Christie and enacted as P.L.2014, c.54 (C.40A:14-118.1 et al.). This law requires certain new or used municipal police vehicles to be equipped with cameras if the vehicles are purchased, leased, or otherwise acquired on or after March 1, 2015. The law also establishes a funding source for costs associated with equipping police vehicles with cameras by increasing the surcharge imposed on persons convicted of driving while intoxicated, to be payable to the municipality where the conviction was obtained.

In May 2015, Deptford Township, of Gloucester County, filed a complaint with the Council on Local Mandates alleging that P.L.2014, c.54 imposes an unfunded mandate in violation of Article VIII, Section 2, paragraph 5 of the New Jersey Constitution. Since the enactment of P.L.2014, c.54 provides funding for the municipalities’ costs of acquiring video recording systems by increasing the surcharge imposed on persons convicted of driving while intoxicated, this mandate is funded.

The Attorney General filed a Motion to Dismiss Complaint in June 2015, and the Council on Local Mandates held a hearing on September 29, 2015 on the State’s Motion to Dismiss. The council erroneously denied the State’s Motion to Dismiss, and, further, wrongly granted Deptford Township’s Motion for Injunctive Relief until such time as the council determines whether the statute is an unfunded mandate or the Legislature appropriates funding sufficient to offset the expenditures required by the statute. While the council is comprised of nine members, four vacancies currently exist and only four of the five appointed members were present for the September 29, 2015 hearing. Therefore, the council conducted business without a quorum contrary to requirements set forth in its enabling statute, which provides “At least five members of the council shall be present in order for the council to conduct its business. A ruling of the council shall require at least five votes.”

The Council on Local Mandates is not empowered by the New Jersey Constitution or by State law to determine the sufficiency of funding. The funding mechanism authorized by the Legislature under P.L.2014, c.54 negates Deptford Township’s claim and renders the township’s allegations of inadequate funding to be beyond the council’s purview. Therefore, P.L.2014, c.54 does not create an unfunded mandate in violation of the New Jersey Constitution and it should continue to be mandatory and in effect.