1 1 STATE OF NEW JERSEY 2 LOCAL UNIT ALIGNMENT, REORGANIZATION AND 3 CONSOLIDATION COMISSION 4 - - - 5 6 7 FORMAL MEETING 8 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 9 10 11 12 LOCATION: Department of Community Affairs 13 101 South Broad Street, Po Box 800 14 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 15 DATE: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 16 TIME: 9:40 a.m. to 11:25 a.m. 17 18 19 - - - 20 GUY J. RENZI & ASSOCIATES 21 Golden Crest Corporate Center 22 2277 State Highway #33, Suite 410 23 Trenton, New Jersey 08690 24 (609) 989-9199 - (800) 368-7652 (TOLL FREE) 25 www.renziassociates.com 2 1 C O M M I S S I O N M E M B E R S: 2 3 JOHN H. FISHER, III, Chair 4 EDWIN CARMAN (for Commissioner Doria) 5 MARVIN REED 6 ROBERT F. CASEY 7 GARY PASSANANTE, Mayor of Somerdale Borough 8 STEVEN M. COZZA 9 HANNAH SHOSTACK (for Treasurer Rousseau) 10 11 C O M M I S S I O N P R O F E S S I O N A L S: 12 13 PATRICIA STERN, D.A.G. 14 STACY SPERA, Secretary 15 SUSAN JACOBUCCI, Director, Local Government 16 Services 17 MARC PFEIFFER, Deputy Director, Local Government 18 Services 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 I N D E X 2 SPEAKER PAGE 3 BRIAN McCORD 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 1 CHAIRMAN FISHER: I'd like to call 2 the meeting to order. We'll begin with the salute 3 to the flag. 4 (Pledge of Allegiance.) 5 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Roll call, please. 6 MS. SPERA: John Fisher. 7 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Here. 8 MS. SPERA: Commissioner Joseph 9 Doria. 10 MR. CARMAN: Edwin Carman for the 11 Commissioner. 12 MS. SPERA: Treasurer David 13 Rousseau. 14 MS. SHOSTACK: Hannah Shostack for 15 Dave Rousseau. 16 MS. SPERA: Mayor Gary Passanante. 17 MAYOR PASSANANTE: Here. 18 MS. SPERA: Steven Cozza. 19 MR. COZZA: Here. 20 MS. SPERA: Jane Kenny. 21 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Jane is not going 22 to be able to attend today. I think this is one 23 of the very few meetings that she had a conflict 24 with on her schedule. And I will bring her up to 25 speed with the discussion. 5 1 MS. SPERA: Marvin Reed. 2 MR. REED: Here. 3 MS. SPERA: Robert Casey. 4 MR. CASEY: Here. 5 CHAIRMAN FISHER: The reading of the 6 public notice, please. 7 MS. SPERA: Pursuant to the New 8 Jersey Open Public Meetings Act, notice of the 9 time, place, and date of this meeting was given on 10 April 17, 2008, to the Secretary of State of New 11 Jersey, the Star Ledger, The Times, the Courier 12 Post, and by posting the notice at the Department 13 of Community Affairs in Trenton. 14 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Thank you. 15 First order of business, a little 16 housekeeping. Approval of the April 8th minutes. 17 Is there a motion? 18 MR. REED: So moved. 19 MR. CARMAN: Second. 20 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Moved and 21 seconded. 22 Roll call. 23 MS. SPERA: Mr. Fisher. 24 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Yes. 25 MS. SPERA: Mr. Carman. 6 1 MR. CARMAN: Yes. 2 MS. SPERA: Ms. Shostack. 3 MS. SHOSTACK: Yes. 4 MS. SPERA: Mayor Passanante. 5 MAYOR PASSANANTE: Yes. 6 MS. SPERA: Mr. Cozza. 7 MR. COZZA: Yes. 8 MS. SPERA: Mr. Reed. 9 MR. REED: Yes. 10 MS. SPERA: Mr. Casey. 11 MR. CASEY: Yes. 12 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Thank you. 13 First order of business, again, a 14 little bit of housekeeping, but some important 15 housekeeping. We need to adopt a code of ethics. 16 And, Susan, you'll walk us through 17 that, please. 18 MS. JACOBUCCI: Sure. Part of any 19 duly constituted state commission is the adoption 20 of a code of ethics. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 21 52:13D-23, the State Ethics Commission has adopted 22 the Uniform Ethics Code to govern and guide the 23 conduct of state officers and employees and 24 special state officers and employees of state 25 agencies in the executive branch state government. 7 1 As a duly constituted state commission, the LUARC 2 Commission is subject to the State Ethics Code, 3 N.J.S.A. 52:13D-2 et seq., pursuant to Section 4 23(a)(1) of the State Ethics Code conflicts law, 5 each state agency is required to promulgate a code 6 of ethics to govern and guide the conduct of 7 commission members and employees. As such, it is 8 my suggestion that the Commission, with DAG 9 advice, to adopt the State Ethics Code to govern 10 and guide this Commission. Commission members 11 will need to file a financial disclosure statement 12 and will also need to take ethics training, which 13 can be completed online. 14 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Is there a motion 15 to adopt? 16 MR. COZZA: Motion. 17 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Moved. 18 MAYOR PASSANANTE: Second. 19 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Moved and 20 seconded. 21 Is there any discussion, any 22 questions? It's rather routine. 23 Seeing no questions, roll call, 24 please. 25 MS. SPERA: Mr. Fisher. 8 1 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Yes. 2 MS. SPERA: Mr. Carman. 3 MR. CARMAN: Yes. 4 MS. SPERA: Ms. Shostack. 5 MS. SHOSTACK: Yes. 6 MS. SPERA: Mayor Passanante. 7 MAYOR PASSANANTE: Yes. 8 MS. SPERA: Mr. Cozza. 9 MR. COZZA: Yes. 10 MS. SPERA: Mr. Reed. 11 MR. REED: Yes. 12 MS. SPERA: Mr. Casey. 13 MR. CASEY: Yes. 14 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Our next order of 15 business is the designation of an ethics liaison 16 officer now that we have an ethics code. And I 17 would recommend Susan Jacobucci for that role. 18 Is there a motion? 19 MR. CARMAN: Moved. 20 MR. REED: Second. 21 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Roll call. 22 MS. SPERA: Mr. Fisher. 23 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Yes. 24 MS. SPERA: Mr. Carman. 25 MR. CARMAN: Yes. 9 1 MS. SPERA: Ms. Shostack. 2 MS. SHOSTACK: Yes. 3 MS. SPERA: Mayor Passanante. 4 MAYOR PASSANANTE: Yes. 5 MS. SPERA: Mr. Cozza. 6 MR. COZZA: Yes. 7 MS. SPERA: Mr. Reed. 8 MR. REED: Yes. 9 MS. SPERA: Mr. Casey. 10 MR. CASEY: Yes. 11 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Next item of 12 business is the adoption of a meeting schedule. 13 And I think we've all gone over this rather 14 thoroughly with Stacy. The subcommittees will be 15 doing a lot of busy work in between. We'll talk 16 about the subcommittees in a couple minutes. But 17 this will be our regular schedule for the balance 18 of this year. If there are no problems with the 19 schedule as you see it, a motion would be 20 appropriate. 21 MR. CASEY: If I might, the schedule 22 you changed the one on the 24th to the 23rd? So 23 that's the schedule we're working on, not the 24 original one; the revised one? 25 MS. SPERA: Yes. 10 1 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Is there a motion? 2 MR. CASEY: So moved. 3 MR. COZZA: Second. 4 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Moved and 5 seconded. 6 Roll call. 7 MS. SPERA: Mr. Fisher. 8 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Yes. 9 MS. SPERA: Mr. Carman. 10 MR. CARMAN: Yes. 11 MS. SPERA: Ms. Shostack. 12 MS. SHOSTACK: Yes. 13 MS. SPERA: Mayor Passanante. 14 MAYOR PASSANANTE: Yes. 15 MS. SPERA: Mr. Cozza. 16 MR. COZZA: Yes. 17 MS. SPERA: Mr. Reed. 18 MR. REED: Yes. 19 MS. SPERA: Mr. Casey. 20 MR. CASEY: Yes. 21 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Thank you. 22 With the housekeeping pieces out of 23 the way, something that we talked about at our 24 first meeting at great length. 25 Marc, if you will introduce the 11 1 folks from OLS. And we're going to begin to level 2 the playing field of working knowledge amongst all 3 the members of the Commission. 4 MR. PFEIFFER: Yes. Thank you, Mr. 5 Chairman. 6 Good morning, everybody. 7 A year and a half ago, the State 8 Legislature embarked on a pretty much 9 unprecedented exercise of examining on a joint 10 bipartisan basis a number of aspects related to 11 property tax relief. This was called a special 12 session of the Legislature. And four, as I said, 13 bipartisan joint committees were created to study 14 various aspects of what was loosely defined as the 15 property tax problem in the state. Those four 16 special committees were -- they had one on 17 Constitutional reform and property tax 18 Constitutional convention, one on public school 19 funding reform, and one on public employee 20 benefits reform, and the fourth one was government 21 consolidation and shared services. And you might 22 guess that we're going to talk about that one 23 today. All four resulted in substantive 24 legislation. We reformed the state educational 25 funding program. Shared services and 12 1 consolidation were addressed by what was called 2 the CORE bills that were introduced primarily by 3 Assembly Speaker Roberts and enacted into law. We 4 did public employee benefit reform with the 5 creation of defined contribution retirement 6 program and related programs that were intended to 7 stem some of the abuses that had been identified 8 in the state pensions. 9 But as I said, what we're going to 10 talk about is the Government Consolidation and 11 Shared Services Committee. Each committee was 12 staffed by representatives from the non-partisan 13 Office of Legislative Services, the research and 14 development arm, if you will, of the State 15 Legislature. We are fortunate that we have one of 16 the two representatives to the Government 17 Consolidation and Shared Services Committee, Brian 18 McCord, with us this morning. Brian has been with 19 OLS FOR five years. He's an associate and 20 legislative analyst. We've asked him to come in 21 and give you an overview of what the Special 22 Committee on Government Consolidation and Shared 23 Services looked at. We think a lot of it is going 24 to inform the work of LUARC and in many ways 25 provide kind of a starting point of where to go 13 1 from here because, frankly, your legislation came 2 from the work of this committee. 3 So without further ado, Brian. 4 MR. McCORD: Mr. Chairman, members 5 of the Commission, thank you very much for 6 inviting me to provide a brief overview of the 7 work of the Joint Legislative Committee on 8 Government Consolidation and Shared Services. 9 Mr. Pfeiffer had asked me to break 10 the presentation down into three sections: 11 Structure, outcomes, and lessons learned. And in 12 doing that, at any time I'm glad to stop and 13 answer any questions you might have, provide any 14 kind of clarification you might need. You have 15 the final report of the Committee in front of you. 16 If you peruse that as I'm speaking and find 17 something you'd like some clarification on, by all 18 means, please just raise your hand and I'll be 19 happy to provide any kind of clarification or 20 answer I might be able to provide. 21 The Joint Legislative Committee on 22 Government Consolidation and Shared Services was 23 created by Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 3. 24 It was the duty of the Committee to review and 25 formulate proposals that addressed the sharing of 14 1 services and regionalization of functions at all 2 levels of government. As a basis for these 3 deliberations, the Committee used the CORE agenda 4 proposed by the Speaker of the General Assembly, 5 which were Assembly Bill Nos. 51, 52, 53, 54; and 6 I'll talk about the contents of those bills in a 7 little while. 8 In addition, the Committee 9 considered proposals to consolidate or eliminate 10 state agency functions and state agencies or 11 commissions. The committee members were, as 12 chairs, Senator Bob Smith and Assemblyman John 13 Wisniewski. Also on the committee were 14 Assemblyman Robert Gordon, Senator Ellen Karcher, 15 Senator Joseph Kyrillos, Jr., and Assemblyman 16 Joseph Malone, III. 17 The Joint Committee organized on 18 August 8, 2006; and between that date and October 19 25, 2006, held a total of nine Joint Committee 20 meetings. The Committee also invited experts from 21 various sectors to discuss their experiences, 22 successes, and failures in consolidation and 23 shared services, as well as the savings generated, 24 the increase and efficiency, and reduction of 25 duplicated services, and other pertinent matters. 15 1 In addition to its meetings, the Committee held 2 three public hearings to afford the members of the 3 public an opportunity to be heard on the issues of 4 consolidation and shared services and to present 5 their recommendations for consideration by the 6 Joint Committee. 7 Just briefly, I want to give an 8 overview of the meetings, to give a sense of the 9 depth and breadth of Committee's work. But if any 10 members of this Commission would like further 11 details on any specific committee meetings, any of 12 the witnesses, any of the testimony that was 13 offered, please let me know; I'll gladly provide 14 it either now, if I can, or after the meeting. 15 Please also note that the Committee 16 web site is still up on the OLS web site. It 17 provides a vast resource of materials from our 18 deliberations, all the transcripts of the 19 meetings, all of the written testimony and data 20 that was submitted, all the PowerPoint 21 presentations and other resources that were made 22 available to us, and other materials that were 23 pertinent to our deliberations. I believe Mr. 24 Pfeiffer does plan to link our site to the LUARC 25 site for your further convenience. So with that 16 1 in mind, I'll just go briefly through the 2 meetings. And please stop me with any questions. 3 As I said, on the 8th of August, we 4 met to organize and receive a presentation by the 5 Office of Legislative Services and heard testimony 6 from invited speakers on their experiences of 7 sharing services. 8 On August 30, the Committee 9 considered the question of cost savings associated 10 with consolidation and what constitutes efficiency 11 in municipal service delivery. And here, I'll 12 just pause to mention the witnesses that day, 13 because Mr. Chairman and the Honorable 14 Commissioner had mentioned last week that it might 15 be helpful to have academics come in and talk 16 about the data that they had compiled and assessed 17 regarding consolidation. We had Dr. Marc Holzer 18 of the National Center for Public Productivity at 19 Rutgers Newark come and speak, as well as Dr. John 20 Yinger from the Center of Policy Research at 21 Syracuse University. Both spoke on their 22 measurement of efficiency and economies of scale, 23 respectively, in local units and in provision of 24 educational services. Finally, we had Dr. Ernest 25 Reock of Rutgers, the State University of New 17 1 Jersey. I would mention the possibility of 2 inviting these witnesses to participate in these 3 proceedings. You might want to take a look at the 4 transcripts. I'll be happy to provide them for 5 you. 6 On September the 6th, the Committee 7 heard testimony from invited speakers regarding 8 friendly based school systems in the State of 9 Maryland and the consolidation of municipalities 10 in the City of Toronto, Canada. And later when we 11 talk about outcomes I'll speak a little bit more 12 about the witness from Metro Toronto. 13 On September the 13th, we heard 14 testimony focusing on best practices in the 15 delivery of local services, including health 16 services, joint insurance, purchasing, and other 17 services on a regional basis. 18 On September the 27, 2006, we heard 19 testimony on the regionalization and consolidation 20 of police and fire operations, and on Assembly 21 Bill 51, which was the Uniform Shared Services and 22 Consolidation Act. I'll just briefly mention that 23 we heard from members of the Cherry Hill Fire 24 Department and the North Hudson Regional Fire and 25 Rescue Agency and current and former mayors of 18 1 Wharton Borough, the Borough of Princeton, and the 2 Township of Hardyston. Again, if LUARC is 3 concerned with the idea of regionalizing or 4 consolidating fire and police services, these may 5 be witnesses you might want to call. 6 On October the 4th, the Committee 7 heard testimony from three panels on pending 8 legislation concerning consolidation and shared 9 services. We heard from a management panel 10 comprised of the New Jersey League of 11 Municipalities, the New Jersey Association of 12 Counties, and the New Jersey Conference of Mayors. 13 We heard from a police and fire panel comprised of 14 the Association of Fire District Commissioners, 15 the Fraternal Order of Police, the Association of 16 Professional Firefighters, and the New Jersey 17 Fireman's Mutual Benevolent Association. Finally, 18 we heard from a business group panel comprised of 19 the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce, the Business 20 and Industry Association, and the Commerce and 21 Industry Association. 22 On October 11th, we heard testimony 23 from Honorable Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts, 24 Jr., and various interested parties on the 25 honorable speaker's CORE reform package, which 19 1 consisted of the following: A-50, which created 2 the Municipally Efficiency Promotion Aid Program 3 in DCA; A-51 again was the Uniform Shared Services 4 and Consolidation Act; A-52 would have moved fire 5 district elections to November along with the 6 other elections; A-53 would have provided for the 7 election of school board members at the November 8 general election and eliminated the vote on school 9 budgets except for separate proposals to spend 10 above the caps; and A-54, which would revise the 11 title and duties of the county superintendents of 12 schools. 13 On October the 18th, we heard 14 testimony from invited stakeholders concerning the 15 consolidation of schools and school services. We 16 heard from the Association of School Business 17 Officials, the NJEA, the New Jersey Principals and 18 Supervisors Association, the School Boards 19 Association, the Association of School 20 Administrators, and the Garden State Coalition of 21 Schools. 22 On October the 25th, we heard 23 testimony from various information officers, 24 government officials specializing in information 25 technology, and some private sector efficiency 20 1 experts concerning initiatives for streamlining 2 state government functions. Briefly, I'll mention 3 Ms. Terri Takai who is the Chief Information 4 Officer of the State of Michigan who spoke about 5 their program of consolidating the provision of 6 information technology services throughout the 7 state; and Mr. Adel Abeid, the Chief Technology 8 Officer of the Office of Information Technology 9 here in New Jersey. 10 Now, on October 26th, November the 11 1st, and November the 9th, 2006, the Committee met 12 in three public hearings to receive testimony from 13 members of the public who were invited to offer 14 comment on pending legislation on the 15 consolidation and shared services. 16 On November the 20th, we approved 17 the final report of the Committee. 18 And on December the 7th, 2006, 19 finally, the Committee released the following 20 bills, which then went -- it's a technical 21 process, but they then went to second reading in 22 their respective houses. Assembly Bill 4 and 23 Senate Bill No. 42, which was the combined CORE 24 Program bill; Assembly Bill 8 and Senate Bill 49, 25 the pilot County School District Program, which I 21 1 will speak about more a little later; Assembly 2 Bill 9 and Senate Bill 46, the Board of Education 3 self-insurance bill; Assembly Bill 10 and Senate 4 Bill 47, which would have provided for agreements 5 between the Department of Transportation and local 6 governments to provide road maintenance on a local 7 level; Assembly Bill 11 and Senate Bill 2374, 8 which provides for joint municipal judges; 9 Assembly Bill 12 and Senate Bill 45, which 10 reorganized the Division of Risk Management and 11 the Treasury; Assembly Bill 13 and Senate Bill 48, 12 which would eliminate inactive boards, 13 commissions, and other agencies; Assembly Bill 14 14 and Senate Bill 39, which would have reformed 15 property assessment and organized property 16 assessment on a county-wide basis; Assembly Bill 17 15 and Senate Bill 38, which actually organized 18 this Commission; and finally, Assembly Concurrent 19 Resolution 5 and Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 20 123, which would remove certain gubernatorial 21 appointments of municipal judges, thus allowing 22 for joint municipal judges. 23 So that's just a brief overview of 24 the meetings of the committee. 25 In terms of outcomes, the Committee 22 1 made 17 recommendations at the end of its 2 deliberations. Of the 17 recommendations of the 3 Committee, 14 have been implemented in whole or in 4 part through legislation. The first 5 recommendation was to create a permanent Local 6 Unit Reorganization and Consolidation Commission 7 to facilitate municipal mergers and shared 8 services. As you know, this was approved by 9 Sections 3 through 8 of P.L. 2007, Chapter 54, 10 which implemented the Local Unit Alignment 11 Reorganization and Consolidation Commission. 12 Recommendation 2 was to streamline 13 the existing process for sharing services and 14 municipal consolidation to remove barriers and 15 introduce flexibility for municipalities to design 16 their own procedures. This was addressed in the 17 Uniform Shared Services and Consolidation Act, 18 which was enacted into law by P.L. 2007, Chapter 19 63. The Division of Local Government Services has 20 informed us that no local units thus far have 21 requested money for a study on shared services or 22 consolidations which was a part of this Act. 23 Consequently, no grants have been given out, and 24 we do not know of any school districts that have 25 joined with other school districts in group 23 1 insurance plans, which was another provision of 2 this Act. 3 The third recommendation was to 4 create a modern county-based system of property 5 tax assessment. This was addressed in Assembly 6 Bill No. 14 and Senate Bill No. 39 of 2006, the 7 Property Assessment Reform Act, which was on 8 second reading in the General Assembly and the 9 Senate at the end of the 2006-2007 legislative 10 session. This legislation has not been 11 re-introduced in the 2008 legislative session. 12 The fourth recommendation was to tie 13 state aid to efficient local government operation, 14 which was implemented by Section 30 of P.L. 2007, 15 Chapter 54, which established measures for local 16 government efficiency and appropriated $95,000. 17 The Division of Local Government Services has 18 reported the Local Finance Board is still 19 establishing rules for performance measures in 20 promoting cost savings and delivery of services to 21 municipal governments. In his recent testimony, 22 the Honorable Commissioner has stated that the 23 Local Finance Board intends to invite experts on 24 municipal performance in New Jersey and outside 25 the state to offer advice on developing 24 1 performance standards and measurement and 2 recording practices. 3 The fifth recommendation was to move 4 fire district elections to November to encourage 5 greater voter turnout and eliminate the need for a 6 budget vote. No legislation has been enacted to 7 address this recommendation. 8 The sixth recommendation was to 9 provide for the coordination capital purchasing by 10 municipalities to help avoid redundancies and 11 duplication. No legislation has been enacted to 12 address this recommendation. 13 The seventh recommendation was to 14 expand the powers of 21 executive county 15 superintendents to oversee local school district 16 administrative spending. This recommendation was 17 addressed in Article 3 of P.L. 2007, Chapter 63, 18 which provided for the appointment of an executive 19 county superintendent of schools and an executive 20 county business official in each county. The 21 Department of Education has informed OLS that 11 22 of the 21 executive county superintendents have 23 been appointed. Three candidates are currently 24 being screened. The Governor has not yet made 25 nominations on the remaining seven. The 25 1 Commissioner of Education has not yet appointed 2 any of the executive county business officials. 3 The Department has been interviewing current 4 business administrators for possible appointment 5 as executive county business officials, and it is 6 selecting new nominees. The adoption of 7 regulations pertaining to the provision of this 8 article is also still pending. There's a lot of 9 detail involved with that. And I can provide 10 further details on those provisions upon request. 11 The eighth recommendation was to 12 move school board elections to November and 13 eliminate the April budget vote of the school 14 budgets, except for budgets that exceed the cap. 15 No legislation has been enacted to address this 16 recommendation. 17 Recommendation nine was to require 18 the adoption of user-friendly county, municipal, 19 and school district budgets. This recommendation 20 was addressed in Sections 38 through 41 of P.L. 21 2007, Chapter 63, and Section 2 of P.L. 2007 22 Chapter 50. This would require a budget to be 23 posted on a local unit's web site and be made 24 available online. We have no information at this 25 point as to the extent to which this provision has 26 1 been implemented in local units across the state. 2 It also requires the Local Finance Board to 3 promulgate a user-friendly plain language summary 4 format for use by local governments. The Division 5 of Local Government Services has informed us that 6 this implementation is still underway. 7 Section 39 will require that the 8 Local Finance Board promulgate user-friendly plain 9 language budget summary forums for the use of 10 counties, municipalities, and local authorities 11 and fire districts to promulgate a procedure for 12 local units to follow for submitting their budget 13 summary forms. And again, the implementation of 14 this provision is still underway. It also 15 requires a local unit to hold a public meeting 16 prior to adopting an action affecting employee 17 salaries or benefits. Thus far, we have not 18 received information as to the extent to which 19 this provision has been implemented. 20 Finally, in terms of this 21 recommendation, it requires the Local Finance 22 Board to promulgate rules and regulations to 23 implement this particular program. And the 24 Division of Local Government Services informs us 25 that the promulgation of these rules is still 27 1 underway. 2 In terms of education, finally, it 3 requires the Commissioner of Education to 4 promulgate user-friendly plain language budget 5 summary forums for the use school districts. DOE 6 informs us that the Division of Finance is working 7 on this and that it is a priority, that it has not 8 yet been fully implemented. 9 The tenth recommendation was to 10 expand the options for local units to jointly 11 insure and self-insure for an expanded range of 12 life, health, and liability coverage. This was 13 addressed in P.L. 2007, Chapter 18, which 14 authorizes individual boards of education to 15 self-insure for certain insurance and removes 16 current prohibitions. We did contact the 17 Department of Banking and Insurance to inquire 18 about implementation of this law, but thus far we 19 have not received a apply. 20 Recommendation 11 promoted shared 21 municipal courts. This recommendation was 22 addressed in part in Assembly No. 11 and S-2374 of 23 2006, which would permit the appointment of joint 24 municipal court judges by the agreement of the 25 affected municipalities. The bill did not pass by 28 1 the end of the 2006-2007 session and has not been 2 reintroduced in 2008. However, several bills 3 which permits several municipalities to share a 4 joint municipal court facility but appoint their 5 own judges and court administrators have been 6 introduced. I can provide specific bill numbers 7 at your request. 8 The 12th recommendation was to 9 consolidate public safety answering points, 10 basically, the place where 911 calls are fielded. 11 Consistent with the State 911 Commission 12 recommendations, this was implemented by Sections 13 18 through 21 of P.L. 2007, Chapter 56. We spoke 14 with the Director of the Office of Emergency 15 Telecommunication Services in the Office of 16 Information Technology who informed us that the 17 911 Commission has been working on a process to 18 encourage the consolidation PSAPs and a new grant 19 criteria has been adopted by a commission. The 20 PSAPs with a population coverage of less than that 21 of the smallest county PSAP, which at this point 22 is in Salem County. Funding was also used to 23 further encourage consolidation of PSAPs and 24 provide aid for needed technological and 25 operational upgrades. 29 1 The 13th recommendation was to 2 permit the county assumption of state road 3 maintenance in certain circumstances. This 4 recommendation was implemented by P.L. 2007, 5 Chapter 17, which clarifies the authority of the 6 Department of Transportation to enter into such 7 agreements. We spoke with one of the legislative 8 analysts with the Department of Transportation who 9 told us that he is not aware of any such 10 agreements that have been made between local units 11 and the Department of Transportation. 12 The 14th recommendation was to 13 centralize state risk management which was 14 implemented by Sections 1 through 5 of P.L. 2007, 15 Chapter 56, which established the Division of Risk 16 Management in the Department of Treasury. We 17 spoke to one of the analysts in the Division of 18 Risk Management concerning the hiring of 19 administrators and the organization of the 20 division, which was a bureau before it became a 21 full-fledged division. He informed us that the 22 Division continues its exhaustive review of 23 applications for the position of administrator but 24 has not yet found a suitable candidate. He 25 assured us that many of the Division's 30 1 responsibilities have already been undertaken as 2 the bureau, the Division's predecessor, had very 3 similar responsibilities. 4 Recommendation 15 was to streamline 5 information technology service by codifying the 6 recommendations of the GEAR Commission. This was 7 implemented by Section 6 through 17 of P.L. 2007, 8 Chapter 56, which reorganized the Office of 9 Information Technology. 10 The 16th recommendation was to 11 eliminate defunct state boards, commissions, 12 agencies, et cetera. And this was implemented by 13 P.L. 2007, Chapter 31. 14 Finally, recommendation 17 was to 15 authorize a pilot program for the county 16 administration of school districts. This 17 recommendation was addressed in Assembly No. 8 and 18 Senate No. 7 of 2006, which would establish a 19 pilot program in DOE for the organization of a 20 county administrative school district. The bill 21 passed the Assembly and was on second reading in 22 the Senate at the end of the 2006-2007 session. 23 It has been re-introduced in 2008 as Assembly No. 24 1004, with a similar bill Senate No. 708 in the 25 Senate. 31 1 So that's just the overview of the 2 17 recommendations and their current status. 3 Finally, Mr. Pfeiffer had asked me 4 to talk briefly just about lessons learned in the 5 deliberation of the Committee. I can speak at 6 first generally about what some have perceived as 7 a disconnect between the initial and final 8 recommendations of the Committee, between the 9 recommendations and the legislation, and between 10 the legislation and the implementation. That 11 disconnect or that series of disconnects can be 12 read in a number of ways. While I am now by my 13 nonpartisan status to remain descriptive of the 14 Committee process and not offer an opinion on its 15 relative successes and failures, I can say that 16 the seeming disconnect between the recommendations 17 and their outcomes both in terms of legislation 18 and their implementation in actual practices by 19 local units may say something about to what extent 20 certain sectors of the state populous were prepared 21 to take fairly drastic measures to enable 22 consolidation and the sharing of services and 23 perhaps more to the point to what extent they were 24 not prepared. One of the questions this poses is 25 whether these sectors of the state are in any way 32 1 better disposed toward consolidation and shared 2 services now that the joint committee's work has 3 ended and LUARC's own work begins. 4 I should note here that the 5 committee envisions LUARC as the body that can 6 move the process begun by the Committee to the 7 next level. If LUARC seeks the wisdom in 8 advocating measures that for one reason or another 9 were not implemented by the Legislature, nothing 10 prevents LUARC from recommending them again. And 11 it may be that a deliberative body outside of the 12 Legislature may provide a different perspective 13 and a different force to its recommendations. At 14 the same time, if LUARC comes up with rather 15 different ideas for consolidation and shared 16 services than those posed by the Committee, 17 certainly you are within your mandate to pose them 18 to the Legislature and put them up for 19 deliberation. With that in mind, let me offer a 20 few examples that might illustrate this disconnect 21 I have discussed between the initial and final 22 recommendations, the legislation, and the 23 implementation of the recommendations, which may 24 offer some material for reflection on your part. 25 LUARC itself was initially 33 1 envisioned as a final arbiter of consolidation 2 with no provision for a vote among the affected 3 municipalities. Later, a vote was suggested but 4 with stiff penalties for voting no. The penalties 5 would include withholding of state aid for several 6 years followed by several years of reduced aid. 7 Bills to this effect were introduced but 8 eventually other bills carried which provided the 9 system that you work with. 10 In terms of the consolidation of 11 fire districts or departments by county or other 12 boundaries, this was also discussed but 13 legislation was not passed. Firefighter 14 associations argued against this legislation, 15 citing certain industry standards for optimal 16 provision of fire services, though several did 17 admit to success in the example from the North 18 Hudson Regional Fire and Rescue and the Cherry 19 Hill Fire Department. 20 Fire and school district elections 21 were also discussed in terms of moving them to 22 November in general elections, but no legislation 23 was passed. Firefighter and school district 24 associations argued against this legislation, 25 citing, in part, the logistical hurdles of 34 1 overlapping voting boundaries. So fire and school 2 districts may not be contiguous voting districts, 3 and how would you get the machines to work, and 4 also the question of local custom. 5 The county administration of the 6 schools was first discussed as a state-wide plan, 7 but eventually reduced to a pilot program in Salem 8 County, which itself is still pending in both 9 houses of the Legislature. There was a large 10 turnout by concerned parents of public school 11 students which quickly turned opinion against the 12 initial idea. 13 Finally, in terms of county tax 14 assessors, legislation did not pass in 2006 and 15 2007 to reorganize property assessment at the 16 county. This was not reintroduced in 2008. I can 17 say that assessors reached out to every state -- 18 municipal assessors, that is, reached out to every 19 state legislator and urged them to oppose the 20 legislation. 21 Finally, in terms of lessons 22 learned, one of things that came up time and again 23 in the deliberations of the Committee was this 24 notion of benchmarks for performance. Can we 25 compute benchmarks to measure the optimal delivery 35 1 of services and the best economy of scale between 2 services and the population served? And at 3 various points in the process, committee members 4 requested from OLS and other bodies that 5 performance benchmarks and projected economies of 6 scale be provided for reference in planning for 7 consolidation and shared services. The Committee 8 wanted to know the ideal number of residents for 9 the most efficient provision of certain services 10 and they wanted to know how much cost savings 11 could be achieved by a more efficient provision of 12 services. As you know, LUARC itself has been 13 charged with compiling such data. 14 It's important to note that during 15 one of the early meetings of the committee, 16 Professor Marc Holzer, Director of the National 17 Center for Public Productivity of Rutgers 18 University in Newark, testified that the savings 19 associated with shared services are hard to 20 document, and that a lack of thorough accounting 21 records made it difficult to establish whether the 22 local units that participated in shared services 23 truly achieved any cost savings. However, he 24 testified that performance measurements may help 25 to drive efficiencies if progress is benchmarked 36 1 and trend lines are examined early in the process. 2 In other words, it may be useful to recommend that 3 local units begin to measure their efficiency 4 early in your own deliberations and measure their 5 cost savings as they begin to share services, 6 engage in joint purchasing regional 7 administration, et cetera, so that more reliable 8 data can be mined as your own process moves 9 forward. 10 It may also helpful to note that Dr. 11 Enid Slack who served as a member of the Who Does 12 What Panel, organized by Ontario's Ministry of 13 Municipal Affairs and Housing -- she was also the 14 special advisor to the Greater Toronto Area Task 15 Force -- testified about the mandated amalgamation 16 of Toronto and offered some perspective on the 17 process. Dr. Slack testified that the data 18 collected following Toronto's consolidation 19 revealed that the amalgamation did not save very 20 much money. In fact, she indicated that costs 21 have actually risen since the amalgamation, 22 probably due, in her words, to increasing salaries 23 to the level of the highest paying municipality. 24 She further testified that the city is both too 25 big and too small as a result of the amalgamation. 37 1 That is, it is too big to be locally responsive to 2 residents on a micro level. And at the same time, 3 it is too small to deal effectively with regional 4 issues such as traffic and congestion. 5 It's interesting to note this 6 because in many ways, at least in my opinion, 7 LUARC is charged with some of the same tasks as 8 Toronto's Who Does What Panel, to determine what 9 is too big and what is too small, what can 10 realistically lead to efficiency and cost savings, 11 and what can lead to a diminishment of local 12 responsiveness. 13 One lesson that may be drawn from 14 this is that expectations should not be raised too 15 high too early in your process until reliable data 16 could be assessed in order to realistically gauge 17 possibilities, cost savings, and increased 18 efficiencies. 19 Thank you for your time. And I hope 20 this information is helpful. At this point, I 21 would be glad to respond to any questions or 22 concerns. 23 MS. SHOSTACK: Enid Slack and her 24 portrayal of the Toronto situation, it was my 25 understanding of what she presented to the 38 1 committee that was talking about the second 2 amalgamation that happened, which was the Greater 3 Toronto Authority. But the original amalgamation 4 that created Metro Toronto, she says that there 5 were savings. I think that there were a set of 6 studies done on two different amalgamations. So I 7 think that to say that the creation of the GTA 8 didn't create efficiencies was really kind of only 9 one small piece of the picture. 10 The other thing that she said is 11 that, I believe, for political reasons the 12 recommendations of the Who Does What Commission 13 weren't followed; and instead, political 14 expediency kicked in and what they did was not 15 what was necessarily recommended. But I think 16 that was also an important piece of her story. 17 MR. McCORD: It is. It's a fair 18 point. It's also fair to note that the GTA itself 19 is much bigger than anything we might try to 20 undertake here in the State of New Jersey. So I 21 point those out merely to say that you may be 22 interested to look at the transcripts and consider 23 that process. But it's absolutely a fair point, 24 that second process might or might not be worth 25 considering in light of what might happen here. 39 1 MS. SHOSTACK: The other question I 2 have, I lost track of the sharing of municipal 3 court. I believe that the legislation that would 4 put the question on the ballot about removing the 5 Governor's approval of appointments of the judge 6 is actually proceeding in both houses. 7 MR. McCORD: That its still pending, 8 yes. 9 MS. SHOSTACK: So that will be on 10 the ballot? 11 MR. McCORD: As I far as I know, 12 yes. The counterpart, the structural part has not 13 been reintroduced. There other bills that do 14 something very similar. 15 MR. CASEY: Clarify that. I know 16 that there's a bill that is sitting supposedly in 17 the Governor's officer now, but that's only to 18 amend the Constitution to remove that one clause 19 from the Governor's appointments. 20 MR. McCORD: That's correct. 21 MR. CASEY: If that was removed, 22 would not municipalities have the authority under 23 the shared service consolidation bills in order to 24 move in that direction anyway? 25 MR. McCORD: Yes. And it becomes a 40 1 question of how that structure would work, because 2 there was some interest among legislators to say, 3 you can share buildings. But there's some 4 interest among municipalities to share a facility 5 but to still appoint one's own municipality's own 6 judge and court administrator. You would simply 7 share facilities and cut down savings that way. 8 Other municipalities may want to go through that 9 process of actually having a joint municipal 10 judge. 11 MR. CASEY: There are several 12 municipalities which have inactive joint -- or 13 sharing joint courts now. 14 MR. McCORD: Yes. 15 MR. CASEY: Which were okay until a 16 judge in Monmouth County decided that it was 17 contrary to the law. 18 MR. McCORD: That's correct. 19 MR. CASEY: But if, in fact, you 20 remove the Constitutional issue that is before the 21 Governor now, would not municipalities have to 22 take whether its doing that under the existing 23 authority in the shared service statute? 24 MR. McCORD: As far as I know, they 25 would, yes. And I can provide information to make 41 1 sure that that's clear. 2 MR. CASEY: My impression was if you 3 remove that one impediment -- 4 MR. McCORD: The cards should fall 5 into place, yes. 6 MR. CASEY: Okay. 7 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Marvin. 8 MR. REED: Question on 9 recommendation 9, which had to do with 10 user-friendly -- could we have a little discussion 11 as to that? It said that was with the Local 12 Finance Board. Can we -- a little more on the 13 status of that, because it would appear to me that 14 getting that process along its way would be a big 15 advantage to us in being able to have access to 16 the kind of data that would make comparisons 17 possible. Where does that stand? 18 MS. JACOBUCCI: Sure. Right now, 19 Local Government Services staff has been working 20 on it. We're doing it for municipalities, 21 counties, and authorities. It should be in place 22 for the FY '09 fiscal year budgets. It's out of 23 its first stage, as I call it, and into "let's get 24 it to the IT people so they can work out the 25 spreadsheet that it can go online." But 42 1 understand that this user-friendly budget isn't 2 posted until after the adoption of the budget. 3 It's not put in the introduction stage or anything 4 else. 5 MR. REED: But the budget process 6 that most municipalities are going through right 7 now and about to conclude and adopt, that's using 8 the old format? 9 MS. JACOBUCCI: Yes, yes. We're 10 hopefully -- and Marc's going to cringe at this, 11 but I've been pushing to have a pilot on some of 12 the programs to make sure that it works for some 13 of the calendar year towns. Right now, a lot of 14 the calendar year towns are not adopting because 15 they're waiting to see what the situation on State 16 aid is. 17 MR. REED: Oh, they're not adopting 18 the budgets. 19 MS. JACOBUCCI: Correct. 20 MR. REED: But the budget format is 21 pretty much -- 22 MS. JACOBUCCI: The budget format is 23 remaining the same. This is in addition to the 24 regular budge format. This will be the 25 user-friendly budget, so anybody that logs onto 43 1 their web site onto our web site would be able to 2 see the data without having to leaf through the 3 whole budget and be able to compare it from last 4 year to this year, the prior fiscal year to this 5 current fiscal year. 6 MR. REED: Okay. 7 MS. JACOBUCCI: It will be an Excel 8 spreadsheet type format, so it's easily 9 downloadable. 10 MR. REED: That may raise the 11 question then, at what level of municipal size do 12 you have an adequate IT system locally and an 13 adequate web site locally that enables local 14 citizens to do that? 15 MS. JACOBUCCI: I'm not sure if we 16 even have a handle on that. Do we, Marc? 17 MR. PFEIFFER: Probably about 80 18 percent of municipalities in the State have their 19 own web sites. The way we're designing this 20 particular user-friendly budget, what in the end 21 will be posted locally would be a PDF-type report. 22 The database that backs up all the data will be 23 available from our web site as well as the DBS 24 itself. We would collect the data through a 25 spreadsheet, we're going to throw that into the 44 1 database and produce a report that's useful for 2 the public and more importantly consistent in 3 style and appearance from place to place. It 4 would be able to handle it that way. The data set 5 will also be -- like I said, the data set itself 6 to each municipality will be available in some way 7 downloading from our web site and any municipality 8 linking to that as well. 9 MR. REED: Are we now collecting 10 most municipal budgets electronically? 11 MR. PFEIFFER: No. That program 12 never took off. 13 MR. REED: So whoever does this, 14 it's a lot of hand work? 15 MR. PFEIFFER: They'll be able to 16 basically -- that is correct. The finance 17 officers are going to have to basically aggregate 18 information from their budget document and put it 19 into the worksheet. Our current technology and 20 where we are on that site doesn't allow for 21 anything else. It will be some shortcuts. People 22 will be able to take a flexible chart of account 23 that we implemented. That will help people as 24 well from some of the drudge work, as you might 25 call it. 45 1 MR. REED: So they'll say it's extra 2 time, not the efficiency of just transmitting 3 existing data? 4 MR. PFEIFFER: The Legislature 5 required something new, yes. 6 MAYOR PASSANANTE: Recommendation 7 No. 7, it talks about the county superintendents. 8 It's been a long time, and we still don't have -- 9 we only have 11 of 21 that have been appointed, as 10 you indicated. Is there any plan for how quickly 11 it's going to move forward? Or why it has not 12 moved forward? And the reason I suggest this is 13 that from a municipal standpoint, it's going to be 14 very hard for us as a commission to make 15 recommendations on the municipal side to do 16 consolidation, when a year later we can't get the 17 school side to do what we've asked them to do. 18 And, you know, we need to see a bipartisan, if you 19 will, relationship between the school budgets, the 20 school cost, and municipal. And I know when I've 21 talked to a number of my colleagues, my 22 recommendation is we should strongly consider 23 sharing consolidation because this is what the 24 schools are going to do and we're going to see 25 this happening. But until we see that really 46 1 happening, it's going to be hard to convince the 2 municipal side that they should be doing it. 3 MR. McCORD: In terms of a 4 timetable, I can't say that I have any kind of 5 reliable information on that. I can speak again 6 to the Department of Education. My co-aid, who is 7 more the education expert, is no longer with the 8 agency. I know he had been speaking to DOE about 9 just this issue before he had left, and I can try 10 to compile that information and get it to you. 11 But I don't have an exact timetable as to when we 12 can expect the remaining nominations to be made or 13 implemented. 14 MAYOR PASSANANTE: My assumption is 15 until all 21 are made, then things like 16 eliminating the districts that have no schools in 17 them, consolidating K through 12, none of that 18 will take place until all 21 are in place? 19 MR. McCORD: I believe that is the 20 case. 21 MAYOR PASSANANTE: So that needs to 22 be addressed, obviously. 23 MR. REED: Question on that. You 24 implied that most of -- the intent was that most 25 of them are expected to be county business 47 1 administrators? 2 MR. McCORD: There's two parts to 3 Article 3. There would be an executive county 4 superintendent of schools and an executive county 5 business administrator in each county. 6 MR. REED: Twenty-one counties, that 7 adds up to a rather expensive operation. And if 8 it's productive, maybe it will save enough money 9 to pay for itself. But I'm curious as to where 10 that goes in terms of the added cost. Or is the 11 department redeploying people? You don't know? 12 MR. McCORD: I don't know. I can 13 get that information. 14 MR. PFEIFFER: I might be able to 15 help on that. There are already county 16 superintendents of schools and county business 17 administrators. My understanding that these 18 executive ones are basically new people in those 19 positions. The county, when there's an executive 20 county superintendent is in place of the existing 21 county superintendent of schools, there are -- as 22 I said, there are already county business 23 administrators. So the cost may be marginal that 24 you're given more authority but you're not 25 duplicating people, you're not necessarily hiring 48 1 more bodies to do the work. 2 MS. SHOSTACK: There were also 3 contractual issues with the people who were in 4 place at the time that the legislation was being 5 produced. So you couldn't automatically just turn 6 over 21 people, because some of the them were 7 under contract. 8 MR. REED: To the Department of 9 Education? 10 MS. SHOSTACK: To the County. 11 MR. COZZA: Each county 12 superintendent is paid for out of the county 13 budget. 14 MS. SHOSTACK: And these people were 15 under contracts. And so the contracts were not 16 necessarily being removed with the anticipation, 17 but it really depended upon how long the contract 18 was when these positions would turn over. 19 MAYOR PASSANANTE: It's possible you 20 can have three to five-year contracts -- 21 MR. CASEY: I think they're 22 three-year terms. 23 MS. SHOSTACK: There were a lot that 24 were turning over, but not all of them. So maybe 25 Brian can find out what the status is. 49 1 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Is there an 2 advocate somewhere that's on top of this? 3 MR. McCORD: In terms of the 4 education matters? 5 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Yes. 6 MR. McCORD: There are legislative 7 liaisons who worked upon these issues whose job it 8 is to keep on top of these things. I can get the 9 information fairly quickly. 10 MR. CASEY: My understanding is that 11 having talked to one of the town's super 12 superintendents, whatever they call them, that one 13 of the issues that's pending is the rules and regs 14 coming out as to how they go about the issue of 15 the consolidation or whatever you want to -- 16 there's a missing piece of the rules and regs, and 17 that seems to be holding several of them back who 18 are ready to move that they don't know all the 19 rules and regs on that and also the issue of 20 consolidation of services. That seems to be your 21 missing piece. 22 MR. REED: If you need rules and 23 regulations, why do you need the executive 24 superintendent in the first place? 25 MR. CASEY: The issue is that they 50 1 are charged with the responsibility of coming up 2 with a plan within a one or two-year timeframe to 3 do A, B, and C; one of which was to eliminate the 4 non-functioning schools, another one was to do 5 this, do this, do this. But the guidelines of how 6 that plan was created, have to be done DOE, and 7 DOE have yet to come out with the guidelines. So 8 they're in place. They're working as to what they 9 anticipate the rules will be, but the rules are 10 not out there. Very similar to what you're 11 hearing from, you know, DCA and stuff like that, 12 is that those rules have to come out as to what 13 guidelines they've got to work within their 14 functions, especially education which is, of 15 course, guided by the State. That's another piece 16 that's not in place that's a key piece, for even 17 those 11 superintendents who are appointed. 18 MR. REED: Knowing what school 19 superintendents basically command in terms of 20 salaries, that's why I think to have 21 executive 21 superintendents and 21 business administrators 22 becomes a relatively expensive operation at the 23 county level. And I'm trying to judge how much 24 productivity we're getting for the investment 25 that's being made there. 51 1 MR. COZZA: But you currently have 2 that in place now. You currently have 21 3 superintendents and 21 county business 4 administrators. 5 MR. CASEY: And the ones that have 6 been appointed were already serving in the 7 capacity -- maybe not in the same town. Some of 8 them moved counties. 9 MR. REED: All right. 10 MR. CASEY: So it's not a duplicate. 11 MS. SHOSTACK: But I think that 12 you're raising a good point, Marvin, and it's 13 something that we talked about when working 14 legislation, how much we have to pay people to 15 take on the added responsibilities. Because I 16 don't think the county supers were paid that much 17 relative to the enhanced responsibility. So it 18 may be not a duplication but it may require more 19 salary. 20 MAYOR PASSANANTE: But the real 21 issue with this is giving the county 22 superintendents the responsibility and the dictate 23 to do some of the things that they just don't do 24 right now. It's historically been where if 25 there's appeal, it goes to the county 52 1 superintendent. In 9 out of 10 cases, the 2 municipality loses. And so it's been we throw our 3 hands up and say, "Why do we fight this when it 4 doesn't get us anywhere?" And the hope here was 5 that this was a new day where somebody could take 6 a look at this objectively and make some real 7 changes. I see this as a big impediment if we 8 don't see this get off the ground and try to 9 convince the municipalities that they should be 10 doing their part when this is not being done and 11 you look at the comparison. There's more school 12 districts than there are municipalities. There's 13 more cost out of the tax dollars. And so the 14 logic out there, at least the thinking on the 15 municipal level is that the big gorilla is 16 tackling the cost of education and property taxes. 17 And I was hoping that this was going to be one way 18 to show that we're trying to do this; and so since 19 this is being done, we should step up to the plate 20 and do the same thing. I just think that the 21 Governor and someone needs to be prodded to make 22 sure that this thing happens sooner than later, 23 because when we come out with our recommendations, 24 it's going to be difficult for the municipalities 25 to believe in us if there's no demonstration that 53 1 this side is happening. 2 MR. COZZA: But this Commission 3 isn't charged to look at it. And that's the sad 4 part. You can't look at school districts because 5 these 21 super superintendents are going to, yet 6 they're not in place. 7 MAYOR PASSANANTE: Then my 8 suggestion is if we can't look at it, but we can 9 certainly put as part of this findings that this 10 needs to be underway or else our ability to effect 11 changes can be limited. 12 CHAIRMAN FISHER: And I think Marc 13 mentioned it at the first meeting. When you 14 introduced the concept of shared services, it 15 opens a lot of areas that this Commission can look 16 at, comment on, et cetera, because there is an 17 opportunity for shared service in that area. 18 I listened to your comment, Marvin, 19 and it made me think of something else. I don't 20 know that we can answer it right now, but the 21 written piece from the Department of Education 22 that provides the guidelines, is it scripted so 23 tightly that you're appointing someone to just 24 read lines in a script and not act and not use 25 whatever creativity could be used. Different 54 1 areas of the State are going to address things 2 differently. And I'm just wondering if that's 3 also part of this impediment. 4 MR. McCORD: Education is not my 5 area of expertise, so I wouldn't want to presume 6 to try to parse that. What I can do is provide 7 the information we have, the language of the bill 8 itself and the language we've received legislative 9 liaison on the implementation of the bill, and 10 that might give the Commission a better sense of 11 what the range is of movement, so to speak. 12 MR. COZZA: To expand on the 13 Chairman's comments, wouldn't you want these 21 in 14 place to help develop those guidelines? Because 15 they're going to have to live within the framework 16 of those guidelines. They're the educators. You 17 would want them incorporating some of those rules 18 into what they have to abide by. I don't see the 19 benefit of that. 20 CHAIRMAN FISHER: That's been my 21 same point. 22 MR. REED: I assume that having 21 23 different ones rather than having a single bureau 24 in the DOE in order to consolidate school 25 districts is because they expect them to adjust to 55 1 the individual variations and traditions and so 2 forth within those regions and areas. But let me 3 also suggest that I don't think we should hold 4 back in terms of our process simply because of 5 their delay or their procedure. If we see that 6 there are service levels in municipalities that 7 would be logical from our point of view, I think 8 we should go ahead and make those recommendations. 9 CHAIRMAN FISHER: I think that was 10 Gary's point also. We'll footnote it and tell 11 people. We have enough on our own plate to do. 12 But the point is well made for things that we do 13 have jurisdiction over and things that we will be 14 working on. 15 MR. REED: And that if it turns out 16 later when they make their recommendations it's 17 not consistent with what we recommended, then they 18 can say that and that can be ironed out after the 19 fact. 20 MR. COZZA: Recommendations 5 and 8, 21 if this was a joint legislative committee, why was 22 there no legislation that was introduced by any of 23 these legislators that sat on this committee to 24 introduce 5 and 8? 25 MR. McCORD: There was legislation 56 1 introduced on 5, the fire district elections in 2 November, but no legislation was enacted to 3 address that one. 4 In terms of the School District 5 elections, I have to look to see -- I believe 6 there was legislation introduced, but -- 7 MR. PFEIFFER: The original CORE 8 legislation by Speaker Roberts did everybody's 9 elections. 10 MS. ROUSSEAU: And there has been 11 legislation pending on years on both of those as 12 well. 13 MR. COZZA: What are the hurdles to 14 that? Because, to me, that seems like -- 15 MR. CASEY: Local government power. 16 Need I say anything else? 17 MR. McCORD: I was going to say if 18 you take a look -- again, on our web site we have 19 the transcripts of all the meetings. Let me just 20 take a look real briefly to see which meeting that 21 was. 22 If you take a look at the 23 transcripts for, I would say, October the 4th and 24 the one before that, September the 27th, those are 25 when we heard from -- on the 27th of September we 57 1 heard from Cherry Hill Department, North Hudson 2 Regional Fire and Rescue. And then on October the 3 4th we heard from police and fire district 4 commissioners, Fraternal Order of Police, 5 professional firefighters, and the Firemen's 6 Mutual Benevolent Association. If you listen to 7 those transcripts or read them on the web site, you 8 will see the kind of arguments. I'll leave it to 9 you to form an opinion on them. There was 10 certainly strong opposition to this initiative. 11 MS. JACOBUCCI: I'd just like to 12 make a comment on this. Being the attorney in 13 charge of the Cherry Hill Fire District 14 Consolidation -- I was the attorney for Cherry 15 Hill at the time -- we took, six fire districts, 16 different taxing districts, and they consolidated 17 into one, kicking and screaming into the void, so 18 to speak. But we actually had eight firehouses 19 with six active districts because you had a 20 combination of volunteers, you had a combination 21 of paid, you had fire engines all over the place. 22 They didn't even know what they had. Some were 23 owned by the firehouses, some were owned by civic 24 associations, et cetera. So was it difficult? 25 Yes, it was. But now there's one consolidated 58 1 fire district with one taxing structure. You know 2 you weren't buying four pumpers or six pumpers for 3 a town that doesn't need six pumpers. Or one fire 4 district wanted an aerial truck, and at that time 5 we didn't have any buildings over maybe three 6 stories. You know, so it got a little crazy. 7 The efficiencies that came from it 8 are obviously one taxing structure, but there was 9 a great efficiency in response time. I think 10 you'll find if you talk to anybody from North 11 Hudson Fire District that there aren't money 12 efficiencies, but there's human life efficiencies 13 that come from the saving of human life in 14 response time. 15 The other comment I want to make is 16 sitting on the Local Finance Board, when fire 17 districts come into us for funding and they talk 18 about we have -- we take testimony on their 19 elections, what referendum on their budget came up 20 with. And we asked them how many people voted. 21 And oftentimes they say, well, 23 to 2 was the 22 vote. And we ask them how many firefighters they 23 have in town. This is something that I think 24 municipalities -- and I think Bob can testify to 25 that -- is that municipalities have been going 59 1 through for a long time is not to have the fire 2 district elections on Presidents's Day weekend on 3 a Saturday. But as Brian was saying, the fire 4 community really is opposing to this. The school 5 district community is saying May is the only time 6 we can do it. And when we talked to the 7 speaker -- when Local Government Service talked to 8 the speaker, one of the hurdles that you have to 9 get over is the budgetary cycle and when the 10 budget is coming in, when the taxes are collected, 11 and what budget it goes to. If you put it in 12 November, then what elections are you dealing 13 with, are you dealing with the calendar year or 14 does it still have a school year that's a 15 different year? So that's one of the bigger 16 hurdles. There are other small hurdles that you 17 come by, but nothing that can't be overcome. 18 MR. CASEY: Just one other question. 19 The report indicated that the Department of Health 20 and Senior Services was doing its own study on the 21 efforts of the cost savings of consolidated health 22 plans. Do you have know if -- 23 MR. McCORD: I don't know. I can 24 find out for you. 25 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Any other? 60 1 MR. REED: Question about the item 2 that had to do with the assessors and that there 3 was recommendation regarding assessors. And I'm 4 not going to belabor the assessors, per se, but as 5 we collect data on municipal services, is there a 6 way of telling it easily whether the services 7 contracted for or provided by the staff of their 8 own municipality? Because one of the questions 9 that I want to look into as we examine these is 10 the extent to which assessors, attorneys, planners 11 work for more than one municipality and then 12 produce quite a good business and career for 13 themselves by the multiple municipalities that 14 they work for. And so what you end up doing is 15 creating a built-in interest in maintaining the 16 multiplicity of municipalities rather than the 17 consolidation and efficient service, particularly 18 when you start adding up the cost when the Pension 19 Bureau started figuring out how many people were 20 working part-time in how many different 21 municipalities and starting to find that there 22 were costs involved in this. And that whether it 23 affects the kind of recommendations that we make, 24 if it's possible to collect that in our data 25 collection, it would -- I want to see if we can 61 1 make a judgment whether it's a factor or not a 2 factor. But I suspect in the case of assessors, 3 that there's a vested interest in local municipal 4 assessing that has very little to do with the 5 value of the properties. 6 MS. SHOSTACK: That's the question 7 that has come up a lot. I'm curious, as you're a 8 former Mayor, if you have people who work a 9 hundred hours a week or whatever and they say that 10 they work 24/7, the problem is how do you assess 11 how many hours somebody claims to be working for 12 municipalities, combined -- 13 MR. REED: We know because we know 14 how many hours we pay them for. We know whether 15 we consider them employees or -- whether we 16 consider them part-time employees or whether we 17 consider them contracts and whether we pay pension 18 contributions on their behalf as a part-time 19 person or not. Now, maybe the State will 20 eliminate part-time municipal employees all 21 together from the pension system and that will 22 avoid the issue. But as long as it's there -- our 23 particular case, on assessors and judges and so 24 forth, we just by informal agreement with 25 Princeton Township, we agree to hire the same 62 1 person. And then we agree with that person what 2 percentage -- what we're going to pay, what 3 they're going to pay, and basically balance the 4 load. But I also know that when you get to 5 smaller municipalities, they have their people 6 that are working one day in one town, one day in 7 another town. And that basically becomes a device 8 that encourages the multiplicity rather than 9 encouraging the consolidation and greater 10 efficiency. 11 MS. SHOSTACK: I guess you're 12 raising two questions there. One is the cost 13 because of the pension obligation, and the other 14 is at what point is one individual working billing 15 for so many hours that it becomes suspect. I 16 think there's many questions. 17 MR. REED: We don't necessarily -- 18 we know how many hours we're paying for. There's 19 nobody at a higher level that's collecting and 20 keeping track. Maybe the person is billing for 72 21 hours a week when it all adds up. But a variety 22 of taxpayers are then paying for that, for what is 23 probably almost an impossible service expectation. 24 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Marc. 25 MR. PFEIFFER: I can probably give 63 1 you a little bit of some of the outcomes in 2 response to Marvin's observations. One, part of 3 the pension reform was initiated started by the 4 Legislature and laws that went into effect. We do 5 have new laws that now say, particularly for 6 professionals like attorneys and engineers, going 7 forward, and that's now, you cannot be an employee 8 and a contractor at the same time. So all those 9 situations where you heard about abuses of 10 attorneys who were being paid X thousand dollars a 11 year and then have a contract for other services, 12 that is ending. That is being phased out this 13 year, and that will be over with. There's some 14 people who are trying to find some ways around 15 that, but that's going away. So that one's easy 16 to deal with. 17 The pension committee, the Public 18 Employee Benefit Committee did look at the issue 19 of part-timers in multiple municipalities. 20 Clearly, that is a very troubling area because it 21 affects folks like adjunct faculty members in 22 state universities as well as folks like tax 23 assessors and municipal court judges who are 24 part-time in many places, and as a result get a 25 salary much larger. That issue has been 64 1 unaddressed. There have been some recent calls in 2 the Legislature for the Legislature to go back and 3 look at that, but we haven't seen anything that 4 happened on that. 5 Clearly, it is within the scope of 6 this Commission's work to examine and in a sense 7 try to inventory those practices and look at, 8 well, how much -- since we're continuing the 9 discussion about the tax assessor, how much tax 10 assessor is needed of a municipality of a given 11 number of line items and where are those 12 thresholds. Having conversations with the tax 13 assessment community and the tax board people, I 14 think, may proven likely along lines, but I think 15 you'll have lots of opportunities to get that 16 information in a lot of different areas. 17 MR. CASEY: One of the issue I would 18 be very interested is when the bills were 19 considered, none of the counties were actually 20 putting in place plans locally back then. Of 21 course, when the Legislature -- when the assessors 22 were successful in the political arena, they 23 stopped. I think it would very productive for us 24 to talk to a couple of the counties who looked at 25 that and actually had active discussions with 65 1 assessing communities within their counties as 2 going forward as to what their contingency plans 3 were and what -- you know, because there was about 4 a three-month period there, there was active 5 discussion. I know in Morris County and probably 6 Somerset, actually, how are we going to do this. 7 Some of that have been worked out pretty far, and 8 I know that there was also some direct discussions 9 that some of us had with the assessors that, you 10 know, the issue when you go to part-timers, the 11 ultimate way is do a shared service agreement 12 where you basically have an assessor do a shared 13 service, like you might between the borough and 14 township -- 15 MR. REED: But we don't have a 16 shared service agreement. 17 MR. CASEY: No. If you did that 18 through a shared service, you would overcome the 19 problem of the statute. But I think that's an 20 area we're going look at because it came close 21 enough to actuality that there was some planning, 22 and I'd be very curious as what they saw at that 23 point. There's some good data out there on that. 24 And that's one that we can basically quantify and 25 look at a little bit easier than the other. 66 1 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Gloucester County 2 is still looking at it and pursuing it. I think 3 others are also. 4 MR. CASEY: There are three or four 5 counties who are looking at that. We could tap 6 that information just to see what they looked at. 7 MR. REED: Like I said, one of my 8 other concerns, is that a shared service is really 9 an agreement and that there's an agreement on 10 paper that's filed someplace that people can go 11 back and look at and what do we actually agree 12 upon and who shook whose hands in order to put 13 these line items in the budget. 14 MR. CASEY: One of the discussions 15 that I had when I met with the tax assessor -- I 16 had several meetings that occurred -- was exactly 17 them wanting to get away from the informal sharing 18 where the guy is actually paid to a formal written 19 document outlining responsibilities under the 20 shared service resolution, which would resolve a 21 lot of the concerns people had. But again, I 22 think that's an area we can do some early 23 exploration in and get some good feedback. 24 CHAIRMAN FISHER: I know it's 25 obvious, but it's also the measurability issue, 67 1 who's watching the store and recording what they 2 have seen. There's just a void of information 3 that's been available traditionally in a lot of 4 those areas of professional services, that I think 5 can be measured and can be followed with 6 discussions. 7 MAYOR PASSANANTE: In Camden County 8 we have instituted a county-wide animal control. 9 And it's shared by most of the towns that are in 10 Camden County. And we basically pay the cost of 11 that, but the county helped us organize the 12 acquisition of people, the costs, the payroll 13 costs and so forth, and we all contribute monthly 14 a fee to do that. Now, that same kind of thing 15 can be done here with the tax assessors. You're 16 sharing a tax assessor organization, if you will, 17 that would be contributed by all the communities. 18 Then you've got a clearly defined salary level and 19 how many hours you're going along with that, as 20 opposed to what we do right now which is many of 21 our towns just contract individually and pay a 22 flat fee for having the assessor available so much 23 time a week and after hours if he needs to take 24 calls or meet with residents. 25 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Any other 68 1 questions or discussion? 2 MR. CARMAN: I have a question for 3 Brian. Did I understand you to say that the joint 4 committee looked at the creation of efficiency 5 standards and benchmarks by which municipalities 6 or school districts could be compared? 7 MR. McCORD: Yes. Pretty early in 8 the process, we heard from two academics. One of 9 them -- I believe it was Dr. Holzer, said that he 10 might be able to actually provide some of the 11 data, this was something he was working on. This 12 was Dr. Holzer, Dr. Mark Holzer at the National 13 Center for Public Productivity at Rutgers Newark. 14 He said that he had been working for a few years 15 on compiling those kinds of benchmarking data. 16 During the deliberations of the Committee, he was 17 not able to produce that for us. But he may be 18 someone you can have to talk about the possibility 19 of making those kinds of arrangements. 20 We also heard from Dr. John Yinger 21 at Syracuse University who had been doing that 22 kind of work in the State of New York for schools. 23 And he also felt that that kind of process could 24 be undertaken here in the State of New Jersey. 25 MR. CARMAN: Did they talk about the 69 1 problems in developing that kind of information, 2 what pitfalls we need to be on guard against? 3 MR. McCORD: Off the top of my head, 4 I don't remember that discussion, but I can take a 5 look in the transcript and see if there was 6 anything pertinent to that issue that I can 7 provide for you. 8 CHAIRMAN FISHER: No other questions 9 of Brian? 10 Thank you, Brian. 11 MR. McCORD: Thank you. Please let 12 me know if I can provide anything else. 13 CHAIRMAN FISHER: We will. 14 It's almost a natural segue into the 15 next item on the agenda, and that's discussion on 16 the use of subcommittees and carving up the work 17 of this team into subparts and, obviously, more 18 productive and opportunity to meet frequently. 19 And I've asked -- Susan has prepared an outline 20 the background for the Commissioners and we'll 21 circulate to you after the meeting. But it more 22 or less just memorializes conversations that we've 23 all had about the use of subcommittee structures, 24 but also ties it back into the charges to this 25 Commission and the output that the Commission is 70 1 expected to produce. 2 Susan, you want to just take us 3 through that? 4 MS. JACOBUCCI: Sure. Staff at 5 Local Government Service -- Marc and myself is 6 probably my staff right now -- have sat down and 7 talked about the best lineup of subcommittees, 8 because I think the only efficient way this 9 Commission can meet their charge in a timely 10 manner is to form the subcommittees in separate 11 discreet area. And we've really identified three 12 of these areas, looking at the statute. The first 13 area is the fiscal structure process review 14 subcommittee. And we'll get you a copy of this 15 memo so you don't have to take copious notes. 16 That's under the statute where the statute says, 17 "The Commission shall study and report on the 18 fiscal structure functions of county and municipal 19 government, including local taxing districts, 20 statutory basis, including the fiscal relationship 21 between local governments, and the appropriate 22 allocation of service delivery responsibilities 23 from the standpoint of efficiency." 24 We're really suggesting that the 25 fiscal point be underlined in this Committee. The 71 1 subcommittee would undertake a substantive review 2 of fiscal structure, fiscal relationships within 3 the government, including taxation structures, 4 structure of the budget, county, municipal fiscal 5 structures and functions, including state 6 agencies; suggest criteria for consolidation 7 realignment, provision of fiscal services in a 8 more efficient manner, and then by consultants of 9 support resources and data use needed to complete 10 the task, identify immediate reachable goals, and 11 identify and recommend legislation or revisions 12 needed to current legislation to create a more 13 efficient fiscal function. 14 The second committee would look at 15 the municipal service review best practices. And 16 the duties of this subcommittee, taken from the 17 statute, would be study and report on the 18 appropriate allocation of service delivery 19 responsibilities from the standpoint of efficiency 20 for municipal governments. The Commission shall 21 also consider optimal service levels, ratios of 22 employees to population served, cost structure for 23 service delivery and other practices. They would 24 have to determine the breadth of municipal 25 services, much like they were talking in Toronto, 72 1 who does what stratified by region, possibly 2 Office of Smart Growth planning areas; look at 3 method delivery of services, statutory versus 4 local decision-making; identify cost and 5 resources; the basis for service delivery 6 decisions; identification of best practices, 7 analysis of effectiveness, looking at optimal 8 service level ratios of employees to populations 9 served, cost structure service delivery and other 10 best practices; identify possibilities for 11 consolidations of specific municipalities mergers 12 specific assisting autonomous agencies into the 13 parent municipal or county government, or sharing 14 of services between municipalities or between 15 municipalities and other public entities. 16 Identify state mandates to affect the operation of 17 the municipal government; and again, identify 18 consultants and identify immediate goals and 19 recommend legislation. 20 The third committee would be a 21 county and authority services review committee 22 which would basically do the same thing as the 23 municipal committee, but really look at county and 24 authorities on the same basis: Optimal level, 25 service levels, ratio of employees to populations 73 1 served, see if anything is redundant, who does 2 what within a county and authority government. 3 So those are really the three 4 subcommittees that we've identified. Obviously, 5 the subcommittees would meet on their own. We can 6 provide staff support if you needed data or 7 anything else; we could certainly facilitate that. 8 And then the subcommittees would report back to 9 the Commission as a whole to start reaching some 10 of the tasks that are assigned to us. 11 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Thank you. We 12 obviously have the statutory requirements, but 13 beyond that, I would invite as much flexibility to 14 the leadership and the participation in those 15 subcommittees to shape it, reshape it, and make it 16 useful a format in terms of being able to produce 17 that end result. 18 The subcommittees are -- I've spoken 19 to members of Commission and spoken to those 20 individuals about participation about taking 21 leadership positions for chairmanship, and I'd 22 like to recommend on the fiscal for Jane Kenny to 23 chair that, with David Rousseau and myself as 24 members at this point. On the municipal, Marvin 25 to chair, along with Gary Passanante and 74 1 Commissioner Doria. And on the county authority, 2 Bob Casey and Steve Cozza and myself. 3 And just a footnote on my 4 participation in the committees, we still have one 5 more Commissioner to be appointed. And I'm 6 crossing my fingers that that will happen sooner 7 rather than later. And then we can make that 8 final assignment as would be appropriate to which 9 committee he or she would participate in. 10 If everyone is still comfortable 11 with that, I would entertain a motion for the 12 establishment of the membership of the committees. 13 MAYOR PASSANANTE: So moved. 14 MR. REED: Second. 15 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Moved and 16 seconded. 17 Roll call. 18 MS. SPERA: Mr. Fisher. 19 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Yes. 20 MS. SPERA: Mr. Carman. 21 MR. CARMAN: Yes. 22 MS. SPERA: Ms. Shostack. 23 MS. SHOSTACK: Yes. 24 MS. SPERA: Mayor Passanante. 25 MAYOR PASSANANTE: Yes. 75 1 MS. SPERA: Mr. Cozza. 2 MR. COZZA: Yes. 3 MS. SPERA: Mr. Reed. 4 MR. REED: Yes. 5 MS. SPERA: Mr. Casey. 6 MR. CASEY: Yes. 7 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Thank you. 8 Again, a footnote. In my 9 conversations with all of you, I want to say for 10 the record how heartening it is to listen to the 11 enthusiasm that all of you are bringing to this. 12 It is a daunting task. There is a lot to be done. 13 But there's also a tremendous opportunity. So as 14 your committees or subcommittees function and we 15 get together on a monthly basis to share some of 16 that experience, don't wait for the monthly event 17 if you can be passing on. 18 Steve, I know something right now 19 that's happening on another committee that you're 20 going to be keenly interested in. So I'm hoping 21 that that cross-pollination can continue to take 22 place throughout the month. There's just so much 23 of an overlap in our respective responsibilities 24 anyway. So thank you for your participation and 25 support of that. 76 1 MR. CASEY: Mr. Chairman, a 2 question. Maybe this is for the attorney. We 3 have a nine-member commission, which means we can 4 be four without Sunshine. If we only eight 5 members, how many can we meet before we have a 6 public meeting? 7 MS. STERN: Your quorum is five. 8 MR. CASEY: So in other words, if 9 one of us wanted to attend one of the meetings 10 held by one of the other committees, we can do so 11 as long as we don't go -- if there's no more than 12 four? 13 MS. STERN: That's absolutely right. 14 You have to keep it to less than five. 15 MR. CASEY: Okay. 16 MR. COZZA: That was my issue also. 17 If I know that the Municipal Services Committee is 18 meeting and they're tackling an issue that hits 19 home with me and I want to sit in on that, I can't 20 unless I know that there's less than five. So we 21 need to have some type of forum, maybe the web site 22 or the information we receive where we know who's 23 showing up that day, at least posting the 24 committee dates. There's got to be some 25 interaction, because if I feel compelled to show 77 1 up to one committee meeting that I want to, I have 2 to know that I'm not traveling for naught because 3 I can't sit there any way. 4 CHAIRMAN FISHER: I understand. 5 MR. CASEY: There's got to be a 6 logistical way to do that. 7 MAYOR PASSANANTE: Is there just 8 three per committee? So you would always be able 9 to go unless somebody else is going to be going as 10 well. 11 MR. COZZA: We need to coordinate 12 somehow. 13 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Obviously, that 14 becomes a responsibility of the chairs of the 15 subcommittees to be able to work through that. 16 MR. REED: Let me just clarify, 17 because I made a list of six things. I tried to 18 think, what are we actually supposed to deliver. 19 And let me recite the six, and tell me if I missed 20 something or if I'm misreading it. 21 Number one, we're supposed to 22 develop measures of efficiency in local government 23 services. Measures of efficiency. Now that's 24 defined as ratio to population or ratio to 25 assessed value, but comparative ratios, but some 78 1 level of measures. From that we're supposed to 2 recommend then optimal service levels. And 3 optimal, I assume, means that this is a reasonable 4 expectation as to what a level of government ought 5 to be delivering in terms of service to its 6 constituents. But in our final report, we'd have 7 some kind of listing and explanation like that. 8 The third thing then is the best 9 level of service delivery or levels, because it 10 may be that at the local level you deliver this 11 part of the service and at the regional level it's 12 that part of the service. I'm thinking of 13 emergency services at local level and dispatching 14 at the county level. But somewhere we're going to 15 comment on best levels of service delivery. 16 The fourth one is recommendations 17 for consolidation. And if I'm clear, from my 18 experience at legislative hearings, the 19 legislators actually expect a Brack-type report, 20 not that necessarily they're all going to 21 consolidate or so forth, but it's going to be some 22 kind of a report that's going to be a listing that 23 this Commission thinks that the following 24 municipalities should consider consolidation and 25 we're acting as the study commission in making 79 1 that recommendation. Now, there may be a further 2 group where we say, we're not requiring that group 3 to consolidate but we think they ought to look at 4 it; and then probably another group that we 5 consider are either large enough or efficiency 6 enough or whatever our measure is to say that, 7 well, we're probably not going to mention it. But 8 am I clear that they do expect some kind of a 9 listing, a list like that at the end of our 10 process? 11 MS. JACOBUCCI: The Commission shall 12 develop criteria to serve as the basis for 13 recommending the consolidation of specific 14 municipalities, the merger of specific existing 15 autonomous agencies in the parent municipal or 16 county for sharing of services. Recommendations 17 for sharing services may result from a study of 18 focusing exclusively on the sharing services. 19 So I don't know. Marc, you were 20 there. 21 MR. PFEIFFER: If I can maybe break 22 that down, because there's a couple different 23 tasks that are set up in order. The first part -- 24 and you could look at this as the first report 25 which was supposed to be done in two years for 80 1 enactment -- does not include the recommendations 2 for specific municipalities or other agencies to 3 merge. That's, if you will, later. That's later. 4 The first step in that formal report that we need 5 to provide is basically the report on structure 6 and functions of county and municipality 7 government, what the legal relationship, fiscal 8 responsibilities, allocation of service, the way 9 we fund perspective of efficiencies. 10 Recommendations to the Legislature on statutory 11 changes that could be made that could promote 12 structural and administrative streamline transfer 13 function between levels. That brings that optimal 14 service levels as well. We're looking for ratio 15 and cost structure, things like that. That's the 16 report that would be due next spring. 17 Once that's completed, you would 18 then commence applying the results of that towards 19 specific municipalities to develop those to see 20 where you think a consolidation should take place. 21 And then you would commence consolidation studies 22 in those places to see if they make sense. 23 At the end of that process, you 24 would then make your recommendations to the 25 Legislature based on those outcomes. 81 1 MR. REED: Now, is that a rolling 2 set of recommendations, or is it a complete list? 3 MR. PFEIFFER: It would perceived 4 that that would be ongoing. You would take the 5 first low hanging fruit, as it were, and make 6 those recommendations, do the studies, make 7 recommendations to the Legislature, start all over 8 again. 9 MR. REED: I was wondering why I had 10 a four-year term instead of two-year term. 11 MR. PFEIFFER: You'll notice that 12 Brian said that this is a permanent body. You go 13 on. 14 MR. REED: All right. Because I 15 guess I kind of got the impression from Senator 16 Kyrillos and Senator Smith when I was being 17 cross-examined by them that they really expected 18 us to produce a full list. And that was when they 19 were thinking of a Brack-type commission. 20 MR. PFEIFFER: You notice the 21 legislation did not meet that initial projection. 22 MR. REED: And you talked, I think, 23 the last about the right fruit and volunteers. So 24 we're giving priority to volunteers. That was in 25 with your explanation. 82 1 MR. PFEIFFER: I think what you'll 2 see -- we're starting see it already. As I 3 mentioned last time, we're already starting to 4 hear from municipalities about consolidating. As 5 you go forward, once the report comes out, you 6 will start to see people say, "Wait a minute. Let 7 me get on the train early and come to you and say, 8 okay, look at us." 9 MR. REED: That means, though, that 10 people who may be overly anxious and worried, "Are 11 you going to put us on your list?" We don't know 12 yet. 13 MR. PFEIFFER: That's absolutely 14 correct. 15 MR. REED: And the next question, 16 "Do you want to be on our list?" 17 MR. PFEIFFER: If they want to be on 18 the list, have them call us and we can start 19 talking about consolidation studies now. 20 MR. REED: In any case, at least up 21 through this first period of time, we don't have a 22 list. We're not the -- 23 MR. PFEIFFER: There's not a little 24 list. 25 MR. REED: There's not a little 83 1 list. All right. So people don't have to feel 2 threatened. 3 Then the fifth thing is 4 recommendations for shared service and 5 recommendations for legislative change. Now, I 6 assume, though, that the recommendations for 7 consolidation, while it may not be a list, could 8 be something along the lines that the Governor 9 included in his budget message where we just make 10 a blanket statement that for whatever reasons 11 certain municipalities that form in a certain 12 category of geography or certain municipalities 13 that fall within a certain level of populations 14 are ones that ought to be examined for potential 15 consolidation, or at least as the Governor said 16 for perhaps provision of municipal aid at a lesser 17 level than an optimum municipality might be 18 eligible for. 19 MR. PFEIFFER: Again, watching that 20 timeline of the reports, the notion of the shared 21 services is in line with the consolidation notion 22 because the outcome of that report may say, if you 23 are a municipality of X size or X population it is 24 best that you do this service on a regional basis. 25 That's at the end of the report. As you go 84 1 forward then, you'll see people theoretically 2 starting to do that. Some imposters will start to 3 do that. As a result of some of the consolidation 4 studies you might engage in, you may find that 5 consolidation may not be particularly appropriate 6 for whatever reason, however, there certainly may 7 be good opportunities for shared services, and 8 that would come from there. 9 MR. REED: Okay. Now, we may also 10 say in coming up in optimal service levels, we 11 don't think that kind of service can be rendered 12 at such a small level of service and that that 13 level of service has to be at least a certain size 14 and capacity so that any municipality smaller than 15 that, you really should engage or consider 16 engaging in some kind of regional arrangement with 17 other municipalities in order to render that 18 service. 19 MR. PFEIFFER: That could certainly 20 become one of your recommendations. 21 MR. REED: One of our general 22 recommendations. 23 MR. PFEIFFER: Absolutely. 24 MR. REED: And that could be in the 25 two-year report. 85 1 MR. PFEIFFER: Well, the one-year 2 report now. 3 MR. REED: Well, I have a better 4 idea as to what we're supposed to do then. 5 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Excellent dialog. 6 The one piece that's missing that 7 kind of pulls that together and allows six 8 functions into three committees at this point is 9 the staff support that each of the committees and 10 the whole commission is going to get by way of, 11 number one, a full-time executive director and the 12 continued use of the existing staff; number two, 13 the hiring of whatever level of consultancy is 14 necessary to meet the needs of the Commission in 15 establishing those measurable benchmarks. And 16 that you're absolutely right and it's essential to 17 each one of the subcommittees. 18 Marc, did you have anything else? 19 MR. PFEIFFER: No. 20 CHAIRMAN FISHER: One other comment. 21 I know Marc and Susan -- Marc's worked on an 22 outline of a lot of other ingredients that are 23 focused into the work of the Commission. And 24 before the next meeting, we'll have that in a more 25 organized outline fashion and try to pin some of 86 1 the other things that need to be done, inviting 2 people into our meetings to provide direct 3 information to the Commission, et cetera. We'll 4 try to tie that into respective agendas for future 5 meetings. But I also want to give the 6 subcommittees the opportunity to figure out how 7 they want to prioritize that information. So 8 we'll be getting that to you also. 9 Is there any other discussion? 10 MR. CARMAN: If I may, I just wanted 11 to make the point that Commissioner Doria fully 12 intends to participate on a regular basis. He 13 couldn't make it today because he's chairing the 14 Meadowlands Commission. This is obviously a 15 priority of the Governor and of the Commissioner, 16 and he's just working to eliminate conflicts in 17 the future so he can be here. 18 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Thank you. 19 MR. PASSANANTE: Mr. Chair, I just 20 want to make one quick point. I suggest to all 21 the committees that are thinking about putting 22 together this criteria of how to determine levels 23 of efficiency that we should also keep in mind the 24 impact that State mandates have on the ability to 25 meet levels of efficiency, that there may be 87 1 issues where if there were not State mandates that 2 smaller communities might actually be able to 3 operate more efficiently. So I would suggest that 4 bigger is not necessarily better. In some cases 5 the State mandates that are enforced on the 6 smaller communities require them to operate 7 inefficiently. And that should be part of our 8 consideration as we move forward. 9 MR. COZZA: State agency mandates, 10 too, are important. And let me just give you a 11 quick example. The 911 Commission said that there 12 should be regionalized PSAPs. Great concept. But 13 in a small PD and if you have a jail cell, you're 14 required by the Department of Corrections to 15 either physically monitor that prisoner every 16 minute or every half hour. Well, if I get rid of 17 my dispatchers because we're going to a 18 centralized PSAP, now I have to find another 19 alternate means of watching that prisoner. So I 20 may have saved $2600 on maintenance agreements for 21 not having a PSAP and maybe some minimal training, 22 but now my overtime costs just skyrocketed because 23 of another agency rule that requires me to 24 physically monitor a prisoner. That's just one 25 small example. Though it sounds great; oh, yeah, 88 1 let's get rid of an answering point, but there's 2 another piece of the pie that has to be addressed 3 with that. I think that's a key point. You have 4 to look at every agency's mandate to 5 municipalities on how it's going to effect the 6 overall cost savings. 7 CHAIRMAN FISHER: In Gloucester 8 there were at least two municipalities that had 9 that safe haven precinct feel and use of the 10 police facilities on a 24/7 basis. And it didn't 11 destroy that opportunity but it interfered with 12 what that town had available to its residents when 13 the shifts took place. That was one of the later 14 towns to finally join the regional dispatch. 15 MR. COZZA: And I agree with 16 centralized regional dispatch. 17 CHAIRMAN FISHER: And so did they. 18 MR. COZZA: I truly agree with that. 19 But there's another piece of the puzzle that has 20 to be thought of when comes to preparing a 21 municipal budget. Okay, I got rid of this, but 22 now it's going to cost me this, which is 23 significantly higher than what it would have cost 24 me if I kept it. 25 MAYOR PASSANANTE: And State 89 1 mandates they pay has not been effective since the 2 day it was initiated, so to operate under the 3 misnomer that this a State mandate, that we're 4 going to be covered, is not even close to being 5 reality. 6 MR. REED: My experience with shared 7 services -- and we had a lot of them -- was that 8 it isn't enough just to say that you're going 9 share services, but the cost how you're going to 10 share service becomes very crucial. 11 In Princeton, we just have a 12 history -- we grew. So we have a couple of 13 services that are shared on equalized ratables and 14 then there's others that are shared on a different 15 formula for equalized ratables. Then we have 16 another one for equalized ratables, including the 17 value of non-profit -- non-taxable properties, and 18 we have population varies. So we have all these 19 variations in it. And so whether -- it's not a 20 question of sharing service and saying the service 21 is going to be more efficient, but how are you 22 going to pay for it. 23 And I have to confess that I come 24 from a town that suffers from what I call the 25 Millburn effect. And that is that when you shift 90 1 cost to the county level, there are particular 2 municipalities within that county that end up 3 bearing an unusual amount of the cost because of 4 the way county taxes are collected. So we are a 5 major donor municipality when it comes to Mercer 6 County, and we're not particularly -- we're 7 watchful as to the extent to which the county 8 expands its operations in order to deliver 9 services to other municipalities, because we end 10 up being the ones that pay for it. 11 MR. CASEY: I would just caution 12 everybody that if we look upon this purely in a 13 cost context, you're not going anyplace, because 14 the reality is, first of all, you'll find out -- 15 it's very difficulty to determine the cost. 16 Especially, if you start going by instantaneous 17 cost rather cost out in 10 years, as you know, Mr. 18 Mayor, you're going to lose real quick. So I 19 think the issue that is really the litany when you 20 came up with, and everything else is, you know 21 defining the structure of government and assigning 22 those functions in a rational manner. And then 23 with the leap of faith, fact for lack of a better 24 term, if we reorganize in this fashion, five years 25 down the road we will at that point have a more 91 1 efficient operation. There will be a transition 2 period to get there, but I think that's what we 3 have to look at in terms of the topsy-turviness, 4 as you have indicated there are basically 5 municipalities who are like this. I know when I 6 was on the study commission, we looked at 7 libraries. And that is a two-hump camel design 8 that's supposed to be a dog. But it ended up 9 because of everything, you know, redesigned -- 10 create a model as to what we should do in terms of 11 assignment many of functions, as you indicated, 12 the original determination as to services, levels 13 of efficiency. Once you have that, then you can 14 measure our government against that. And I think 15 that's the only way you're going to go about 16 making that change rather than to look at some of 17 the more specific items. The more we get into 18 specifics, when you go for the referendum, as you 19 know, you don't stand a chance. 20 MR. REED: Oh, somebody will find it 21 out. 22 MR. CASEY: You will not stand a 23 chance. 24 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Any further 25 discussion? 92 1 Is there any member of the public 2 that wants to address the Commission? 3 Seeing none and with no further 4 discussion, a motion to adjourned would be in 5 order. 6 MR. REED: So moved. 7 MAYOR PASSANANTE: Second. 8 CHAIRMAN FISHER: All those in 9 favor? 10 MEMBERS: Aye. 11 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Opposed? 12 (No response.) 13 CHAIRMAN FISHER: We are adjourned. 14 Thank you all. 15 - - - 16 (Meeting adjourned at 11:25 a.m.) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 93 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 I, LISA C. BRADLEY, CCR, RPR, a Certified 4 Court Reporter and Notary Public of the State of 5 New Jersey, do hereby certify the foregoing to be 6 a true and accurate transcript of my original 7 stenographic notes taken at the time and place 8 hereinbefore set forth. 9 10 11 ----------------------------- 12 LISA C. BRADLEY, CCR, RPR 13 CCR NO. 30XI00228700 14 15 16 Dated: MAY 15, 2008. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25