Dear Mayor,

Moments ago, we presented testimony to the Assembly Budget Committee on the Annual Appropriations Act for the State’s next Fiscal Year (A-5000/S-3000), which was published on the Legislature’s internet site late yesterday. Pursuant to the budget process reforms put in place by Senate President Codey and Speaker Roberts, with the support and encouragement of Governor Corzine, this is the first year that a printed version of the proposed Act is available to the public, prior to final consideration. And, thanks to Speaker Roberts and Budget Committee Chairman Greenwald, this is the first time that the public was able to address itself to specifics contained in, and absent from, an official printing of the appropriations proposal.

Our testimony asked the Committee to add the language contained in Budget Resolution 1491, sponsored by Assemblyman Russo, which would provide a levy cap exception for local library appropriations. (See our “Urgent Alert” of earlier today.)

We commended the inclusion of $8 million in flood recovery money in the Department of Law and Public Safety budget. This funding, included pursuant to Budget Resolution 3036, will help local units meet the match requirements for FEMA funding. We asked, however, that the funding be made available for additional disaster losses, predating the Spring Nor’easter. (See our June 13 “State Budget Crunch Time” letter.)

We thanked the Legislature for the inclusion of an additional $9 million in Extraordinary Aid, but asked the Committee to include another additional $9 million, needed to return funding to last year’s level. This funding was added pursuant to Budget Resolutions 1267 and 3158. (See our June 14 “Proposed Budget Changes” letter and the June 13 “Crunch Time” piece.)

We will work on a better analysis of A-5000/S-3000 over the weekend and, as always, keep you posted on all the latest developments. (For a summary of the proposed budget, please click here.)

Both Houses are scheduled to debate and vote on the Appropriations Act next Thursday, June 21.

IMPORTANT NOTE – PROPOSED RECORD RETENTION CUT

After we testified today, we learned that the proposed FY 2008 State Budget will include language cutting $10 million from the amount allocated to the Public Archives and Records Infrastructure Support (PARIS) Grants Program, the Division of Archives and Records Management’s highly successful program that funds innovative county and municipal government records management, preservation and storage initiatives, and promotes intergovernmental shared services. The cut represents 39 percent of the funding expected to be awarded in PARIS grants in 2008.

The $10 million in anticipated Public Records Preservation Account revenue has been diverted to other programs and projects that have nothing to do with public records. This diversion subverts the original purpose of NJPRPA, which was established by the Legislature in 2003 expressly to provide “grants to counties and municipalities for the management, storage and preservation of public records” (P.L. 2003, c. 117, §39). Moreover, the 2003 establishing legislation expressly forbade diverting NJPRPA funding for other purposes.
-2-

The Assembly Budget Committee will hold its final public hearing on the FY 2008 State Budget on Monday, June 18, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. in Committee Room 11, Fourth Floor, State
House Annex, in Trenton. Please urge your State Legislators to rescind this cut before the final budget is enacted into law.

If you have questions about any of this, please contact Jon Moran at 609-695-3481, ext. 121.

We urge you to also be aware of another issue.

A-1323 and S-2601, companion bills which require that when an inspector or team of inspectors finds a violation of the code at an owner-occupied single family residence, the same inspector or team of inspectors that found the violation must be assigned to carry out any necessary reinspection, are posted for a vote by the State Senate on Monday.  A-1323 has already passed the General Assembly, though it would have to be returned to that body for concurrence if it passes the State Senate.     
When the same inspector or team of inspectors cannot be assigned to reinspect, the enforcing agency is required to assign an available inspector, provided the scope of the reinspection is limited to the violation for which the reinspection is required.  The bill does not apply to violations of the plumbing subcode, the electrical subcode, fire safety code violations or to other violations determined by the Department of Community Affairs to be health or safety violations.  The bill also allows a property owner to request a different inspector, team of inspectors or a supervisor to perform any required reinspection.

The Senate committee amendments limit applicability of the bill to single family owner-occupied residences.  The amendments also limit applicability of the provisions of the bill to violations that are not health or safety violations and to allow a property owner to request a different inspector, team of inspectors or a supervisor to perform a reinspection. While the amendments do narrow the scope and impact of the legislation, the League maintains its opposition to the legislation since it is simply an impractical and unnecessary requirement.   There has been no demonstrated need for the bill, and discretion on these matters should remain in the hands of local officials. We recommend contacting your State Senator and ask them to oppose A-1323 and S-2601.

                                                                        Very truly yours,

                                                                        William G. Dressel, Jr.
                                                                        Executive Director