|
|
|
08/25/06 -
Court re: Public Vote
Ocean City in court to stop public vote on spending limit
CAPE MAY COURT HOUSE —
Ocean City took a group of taxpayers to court Thursday to thwart
their efforts to curb city spending.By MICHAEL MILLER Staff Writer, (609) 463-6712
The taxpayers want to put a public question on the ballot to tie spending increases to the federal cost of living adjustment. The town of Bogota enacted a similar limit, but until Thursday, the concept's legality was never challenged. Residents Pete Guinosso, Jim Tweed and Joe Somerville collected enough signatures to put their idea on the ballot. The city responded by suing them. Ocean City Solicitor Gerald Corcoran predicted chaos akin to this year's state government shutdown if the court allows the spending controls. In oral arguments Thursday before Superior Court Judge Joseph Visalli, Corcoran said the city could not pay pensions, employee benefits or debt service under the proposed spending cap. In 2007, the city's pensions are expected to cost taxpayers $806,000 more. "Will there be less police, firefighters and lifeguards?" Corcoran asked Defense counsel Frank Corrado, who represents the taxpayers, said the city just wants to keep the tax-revenue geyser flowing. The city is spending $52 million this year — 25 percent more money than five years ago. The city's biggest expenses are for salaries and wages with its eight unions. “The city seems to take the position that it is entitled to enter into these (contractual) agreements. There's a certain arrogance in that. Don't bother us with participatory democracy. We're too busy spending your money,” Corrado said. A group of residents collected enough signatures to put their idea — the Taxpayer Protection Ordinance, or TP — on the ballot for a public vote. Under their proposal, city spending would be tied to the Social Security Administration's Cost of Living Adjustment, which was 4.1 percent for 2006. If the City Council wanted to spend more than that in a given year, the city would have to ask the public through a referendum. Visalli took issue with wording of the ordinance for being ambiguous when it came to existing debt and multi-year contracts. “People don't know that. People might think next year we don't have to worry about a 20 percent increase,” Visalli said. Corrado suggested that could be clarified in an explanatory statement that accompanies all public questions. Corcoran said the ordinance as written is too vague. Corcoran said residents already have the ability to challenge bond ordinances through initiative and referendum. In Ocean City, voters struck down an ordinance to buy the former Fourth Street lifesaving station. “That's the correct way to do it,” Corcoran said. Better yet, voters can elect new representatives, he said. Corrado noted that the City Council might never have to go to the public for a referendum on the budget if it decides to hold the budget within the annual cost of living increase. “Mr. Corcoran has outlined a parade of horribles that will ensue if the TPO is approved,” he said. “It is an illusory claim.” Visalli said he would issue his opinion within 10 days. The defendants and Councilman Roy Wagner watched the lawyers from the gallery. “I don't think the world will end if we put this on the ballot,” Somerville said after the court session. “This is the leading issue in New Jersey, reducing costs. The city acts like, ‘What are you talking about reduced costs?'” To e-mail Michael Miller at The Press: MMiller@pressofac.com Sands of Time |