Towns, villages challenge patrol charges
Erie County towns and villages facing extra charges for sheriff's patrol services argue that the practice already has been ruled out by the state comptroller's office.
"There is no statutory authority for a county to charge back the cost of a sheriff's road patrol to particular municipalities within that county," states a 1993 opinion of the state comptroller.
Nineteen towns and villages and the Seneca Nation of Indians have been reacting to a May 25 letter from County Executive Joel A. Giambra asking them to pay a third of the cost of providing patrol services to their communities next year. The full charges would be phased in over three years.
Grand Island Town Supervisor Peter A. McMahon said that in addition to the comptroller's opinion that counties may not charge towns for the service, there is another constitutional issue. The sheriff acts as the "conservator of the peace within the county," according to the state constitution. McMahon believes that means the county must provide the resources for the Sheriff's Department to answer 911 calls.
"It's impossible or inconceivable for me how a sheriff could conserve the peace if he doesn't have anyone to do it," McMahon said.
The communities were asked to respond to the county by Saturday. Most are expected to decline to sign a contract with the county to pay for the service. Springville already has a contract with the Sheriff's Department for 20 hours of dedicated service, and has been told that it was sent a letter by mistake.
Giambra notes that charging the towns and villages for the patrol service was included in the four-year plan approved by him and the County Legislature.
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial...30/1074048.asp
A more likely reason to protest charges...
New to these boards. Life-long Niagara County resident.
I have read extensively on this and other boards, and in the news media, about this issue. Nowhere do I see addressed what I consider a very critical aspect of the municipalities' protests over the prospect of being charged for road patrol, nor do I see the county stating their real reason for wanting to charge for patrols.
This is not about the county saying, "hey, we provide patrols and we want to be paid for it," and the towns and villages saying, "you are obligated to provide patrols." It's more complicated than that.
The road patrols are a cash cow for the municipalities. The sheriff's dept. and the State Police provide road patrols. They write tickets, and the supposed offenders appear in local traffic courts. The offenses are almost always for speeding, and are almost always reduced by either the DA or assistant DA to local ordinances - muffler charges (noise ordinance) or overnight parking, or some other parking-type offense - whatever, just so long as it's a local ordinance. The offender either goes to traffic school or the charge is just reduced in court, at the discretion of the DA or judge, and then reappears in court, or sends the fine (usually $75-$100, for a parking conviction - sound familiar yet?) by mail. The municipality pockets 100% of the money, because it's a local ordinance, while providing nothing more than a few minutes of court time and handling the paperwork. Sweet, huh?
The county or state law enforcement entity gets stiffed and stuck with the expense of providing the road patrol. That's why they want to get paid - they know what the patrols are worth, and we're not talking about the worth of the law enforcement presence - we're talking dollars. In my little town of Lewiston, in 2001, the traffic court brought in over $240,000. In Amherst, in that same year, the traffic court brought in over $5 million. Now, some of those tickets were written by local town PDs, but many of them were by county mounties and NYS Troopers.
The law enforcement entity that prosecutes the stop and writes the ticket gets nothing unless the motorist is convicted of a moving violation - and that almost never happens in local traffic courts, if they can help it. Ever wonder why the court clerks and DAs rush to offer traffic school in return for a reduced/no points conviction? They will admit that they don't want cases going to trial, because it costs them money to put on a trial and clogs up their dockets, but what they won't admit is that if a speeding case goes to trial and the person is found guilty, the $$ then goes to that state, not the local court. Then they're out the court costs and the bucks from the fine, too. PDs don't want cases to go to trial, either - they have to pay OT and endure staffing tie-ups for officers to appear to present evidence.
This general situation is the reason that several years ago, the State Police began to object to paying the OT required to have Troopers show up in traffic court to present evidence - because that represents another expenditure for the Troopers, in addition to providing the basic mechanism for towns and villages to make money by pocketing 100% of the fines in the first place. It's also the reason that two years ago, the state tried to change the law that lets municipal traffic courts reduce these moving violations and keep the fine monies (they did change the law briefly, as a matter of fact, and then changed it back again due to muni's outcry).
Now, why are we not hearing this from either of the parties involved - the towns/villages or the PDs - if one of them has a legitimate axe to grind? Because the towns obviously don't want to admit that maybe being asked to pay for something that makes them a very good buck in return is not that far out of line, and the PDs don't want to admit that this speeding nickel-and-diming of the driving public IS in fact largely about revenue generation, not about safety. Those messages don't serve either party, so there is somewhat of a gentlemen's agreement about not airing this aspect in public.
As always, follow the money.