There have been a few changes since we had the 2007 Matrix report. The cost of contract police has more than doubled since then. Also we have new stream of revenues from City’s speed camera program, which can be potentially used for running a City wide police. Under these circumstances, one would assume to have more money available to run a College Park Police now than in 2007.

Also, with student housing like Mazza Grand Marc in north College Park, and many students living in our single family homes, some residents think that the entire city falls within the concurrent jurisdiction of the University of Maryland Police, thus they would be more willing to work in a City wide unified police department than before. Also, Mr. Loh's effort to have a city wide police is very encouraging. I’m curious to see the report of his public safety task force that he formed recently.

At the end, the key would be to have City wide police force, without raising residents’ taxes significantly. I don’t think, given the current economic situation, many residents would appreciate any big hike in their tax bill to support such a police department.

Mr. Kabir: Your comment about the speed camera revenue says it all in a nut shell. It is truly about the money. Everyone involved in the program says that the revenue will decrease as people slow down. So how do you propose to pay for the new programs then? Just about every government across the country got drunk with the huge revenues associated with the booming economy a few years back. Instead of saving the money for times like this, they brought in new programs that now cannot be paid for and the governments are scrambling to save these programs. The solution is not to fund new programs with short term cash flow but long term revenue.

The goal of speed cameras should only be about public safety, they should not be seen as "greed" cameras.

That said, per agreement with the State, revenues from these cameras can only be used for public safety purposes, such as supporting a police force etc. However, we should not be dependent on this revenue, since the amount is fairly small compared to what we spend on contract police etc. The amount will also fluctuate over time as safety situation improves.

To date the City has funded its recent initiatives with stable new revenues. The parking garge is being funded on increased meter fees and parking fines and the Ledo Restaurant lease. The one million dollar a year contrract police effort is being funded by a series of three property tax increases (from 26.8 cents to 32.2 cents per $100) that begn in about 2005. The speed camera money is being primarily used to indirectly replace the $700,000 a year in state highway user funds that was cut by the state.

Some of the windfall money was used for capital projects and some was saved.and some property tax relief was granted to owner occupied properties. As a result of the reserve level the City is likely to spend $1 million next year to put a modern modular building at Public Works and get rid of the 25 year old trailers there. The City is also looking at expanding City Hall so that the Public Service employees at the former Calvert Road School can be moved to free up that building for a public school initiative there. That iniative wouldl need to be funded to some extent by borrowing, though.

As a result no existing City programs are in danger of being noticably cut and no city employees have been laid off or furloughed.

Mr. Kabir--I might be in the minority, but I'm not that concerned about my city taxes. We get excellent municipal services; I don't mind paying for them. About paying for a police force--right now, I'm paying for NOT having a police force. I can count on some form of vandalism or theft at least once a year. It is an annoying cost of living in College Park. One of these days I'll reach my fill and move someplace else.

What is stopping us from using a camera contract recompete, to get a larger share of that speed 'take', and fund a department outright? Thats millions. It's a shame the majority goes away to other people that no one in the city even knows, but came out of the pockets of those who live and work here. We keep 10% ?

The state limits speed camera revenue to 10 percent of our budget. A couple of months ago we sent the state a check for $485,000 because we collected too much fine revenue in FY2011. We need more experience with speed cameras as the revenue drops off sharply over time, plus the County and other nearby cities and towns are planning to install speed cameras, so its likely that drivers won't be able to afford to not slow down.