Del Haven Water Feasibility Discussed; Body Cameras Purchase Considered

COURT HOUSE – Middle Township Committee heard the results of New Jersey-American Water’s survey of Del Haven residents at its Nov. 16 work session. The survey was the latest step in the process of evaluating the feasibility of bringing the municipal water system to Del Haven where a number of residents have complained for years about the quality of well water.
According to water utility representative Elliott Schwartz, over 400 residents of the area returned survey forms with two thirds of them indicating that they would be “very interested” or “somewhat interested” in public water service.
The response rate represented a little less than half of the estimated 800 to 900 occupied properties in the community. Schwartz said the company was encouraged by the level of interest and was seeking ways to move the project forward.
The effort would entail approximately 57,000 feet of new pipe with a three-mile extension of water main from Whitesboro to Del Haven and piping to distribute the water throughout the community. The issue is one of cost.
New Jersey-American Water estimates that the project would require an initial investment from $8 million to $10 million. Water utility regulations will allow the company to “refund” up to 10 times the projected annual revenue that result from a capital investment paid for by a third party.
The projection of these numbers showed a significant estimated short fall for the project.
Schwartz said that he was encouraged by the responses but had no way to project the level of interest among those who did not respond. For the sake of the presentation to committee, Schwartz used an estimated customer number of 600 homes and the low end of the projected cost for the project at $8 million to show what is probably the best case scenario.
The short fall in this case, the amount that could not be covered by the utility’s refund would be $4.2 million. Some source for that shortfall would need to be identified for the project to be feasible in the scenario used.
The discussion ended with New Jersey-American Water noting that the company is continuing to seek funding options including possible state low interest loans or grants.
Mayor Timothy Donohue indicated that the township would try to encourage households that had not responded to return the survey. Higher levels of customer interest would have a positive impact on the shortfall, but the issue on the table at the end of the work session was clearly how any potential shortfall, a number that will be expressed in millions, could be covered.
Body Cameras
Police Chief Christopher Leusner briefed committee on the impending use of body cameras by all officers in the department.
Leusner said that he will be coming to committee with a formal recommendation for purchase of cameras in the “next couple of months.”
The estimated cost to outfit all officers with cameras and to upgrade the department’s technology infrastructure to handle the resulting storage of the video is $75,000.
Leusner indicated that about 10 percent of that likely will be covered by a grant from the County Prosecutor’s Office.  Leusner noted that up to 10 municipal police departments in the county will make the move to body cameras by June.
The use of body cameras is a controversial issue across law enforcement at present. As a way of informing the committee on the issues, Leusner provided his sense of the pros and cons involved in the potential adoption of the technology.
On the positive side, Leusner lauded the technology’s ability to provide an accurate record of an encounter or incident. He spoke of its ability to protect officers in controversial settings and its potential to reduce township liability.
Leusner also referenced studies that show the use of cameras impact behavior of both the officers and the public in positive ways. “The cameras also send a message that this is a professional police department,” he said.
Negatives for the technology exist. Leusner cited the issue of cost. “This is not an inexpensive technology,” he said. 
The use of cameras also creates additional work in the department that extends beyond officers involved. Video and audio recording in a number of instances will be creating new evidence that must be tagged, stored and preserved.
Leusner said that current usage in police departments shows that about one quarter of any officer’s shift may need to be stored.  He used an estimate of three hours out of a 12-hour shift.
Leusner also pointed to a significant risk. As in the case of drones, the use of new technology like body cameras is moving faster than laws meant to provide context or policy environments for the technology.
In this case, the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) never envisioned a technology such as body cameras.
Leusner said that some of the pioneering departments using the technology are seeing OPRA requests for video in gray areas where it is not clear if the law allows an exception. When an officer enters a hospital setting or a school; or when an officer interviews someone in their home about a non-criminal matter, such as a runaway; or when an officer enters a drug treatment facility, a record may be created that cannot be shielded from release under OPRA’s protections for a criminal investigator record.
Yet Leusner said there may be many such instances where they do not feel it proper to release the record. He predicted cases where the township denies a request and finds it challenged in court.
Policy is another major area of concern and is very fluid at the moment. The state is developing policy guidelines for law enforcement but actual use of the technology by multiple departments will have an impact on the evolution or refinement of any policy framework.
On balance, Leusner believes the time for the technology has come. Donohue expressed a concern that the expense is significant and the fluid nature of the technology could mean that equipment is obsolete before its expected life span.
Committee was supportive of the potential move; however, adoption of the technology will not be without issues.
To contact Vince Conti, email vconti@cmcherald.com.