ࡱ> 9;45678%` cbjbj 8$̟̟c*******>BBBB N>TNNNNNNNN"$$$$$$h;!N$*NNNNN$**NN9N*N*N"N":**NB pWsBNv O0.!NR!!*XNNNNNNN$$NNNNNNN>>>>>>>>>>>******  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 14 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 15 DATE: Thursday, May 29, 2008 16 TIME: 9:40 a.m. to 12:15 p.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 JANE KENNY 5 MARVIN REED 6 ROBERT F. CASEY 7 GARY PASSANANTE, Mayor of Somerdale Borough 8 STEVEN M. COZZA 9 JOSEPH V. DORIA, JR., Commissioner 10 HANNAH SHOSTACK (for Treasurer Rousseau) 11 12 C O M M I S S I O N P R O F E S S I O N A L S: 13 14 PATRICIA STERN, D.A.G. 15 STACY SPERA, Secretary 16 MARC PFEIFFER, Deputy Director, Local Government 17 Services 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 I N D E X 2 SPEAKER PAGE 3 ERNEST C. REOCK, JR 8 4 MICHAEL A. EGENTON 20 5 SETH B. BENJAMIN 27 6 HENRY A. COLEMAN 30 7 MARCUS RAYNER 46 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 1 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Good morning. I'd 2 like to call this meeting to order and ask for 3 roll call, please. 4 MS. SPERA: Jack Fisher. 5 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Here. 6 MS. SPERA: Commissioner Joseph 7 Doria. 8 COMMISSIONER DORIA: Here. 9 MS. SPERA: Treasurer David 10 Rousseau. 11 MS. SHOSTACK: Hannah Shostack for 12 David Rousseau present. 13 MS. SPERA: Mayor Gary Passanante. 14 MAYOR PASSANANTE: Here. 15 MS. SPERA: Steven Cozza. 16 MR. COZZA: Here. 17 MS. SPERA: Jane Kenny. 18 MS. KENNY: Here. 19 MS. SPERA: Marvin Reed. 20 MR. REED: Here. 21 MS. SPERA: Robert Casey. 22 MR. CASEY: Here. 23 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Thank you. 24 Would you read the public notice, 25 please? 5 1 MS. SPERA: Pursuant to the New 2 Jersey Open Public Meetings Act, notice of the 3 time, place, and date of the meeting was given on 4 May 22, 2008, to the Secretary of State of New 5 Jersey, the Star Ledger, The Times, and the 6 Courier Post, and by posting the notice at the 7 Department of Community Affairs in Trenton. 8 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Thank you, Stacy. 9 The minutes have been circulated. 10 Are there any additions or corrections to the 11 minutes? 12 If not, a motion will be in order to 13 approve the minutes of the April 23rd meeting. 14 MR. REED: So moved. 15 MAYOR PASSANANTE: Second. 16 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Moved and 17 seconded. 18 Roll call. 19 MS. SPERA: Mr. Fisher. 20 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Yes. 21 MS. SPERA: Ms. Shostack. 22 MS. SHOSTACK: Yes. 23 MS. SPERA: Commissioner Doria. 24 COMMISSIONER DORIA: Abstain. 25 MS. SPERA: Mayor Passanante. 6 1 MAYOR PASSANANTE: Yes. 2 MS. SPERA: Mr. Cozza. 3 MR. COZZA: Yes. 4 MS. SPERA: Ms. Kenny. 5 MS. KENNY: Abstain. 6 MS. SPERA: Mr. Reed. 7 MR. REED: Yes. 8 MS. SPERA: Mr. Casey. 9 MR. CASEY: Yes. 10 CHAIRMAN FISHER: The minutes are 11 approved. 12 The next item of business -- we have 13 a full plate this morning. And I'd ask Marc 14 Pfeiffer to lead us into the historical 15 perspectives of the various commissions and 16 studies that have taken place in the past. 17 Marc. 18 MR. PFEIFFER: Thank you, Mr. 19 Chairman. 20 Good morning, everybody. 21 In discussing the Commission's 22 mission, one the things that was recognized early 23 on is that State Government has, in a sense, been 24 here before on many of these issues. And looking 25 at those old doctrines of "Those who forget the 7 1 past are condemned to repeat," and "What's past is 2 prolog," we felt it would probably be useful for 3 the Commission to get a sense of those things that 4 have been discussed in the past, because in many 5 ways some things haven't changed. And we felt to 6 spend about an hour this morning giving you a 7 perspective from people who were there, as it 8 were, and part of these various commissions and 9 committees and studies that have taken place in 10 the past. To spend a few minutes on those will be 11 helpful and give you the opportunity to ask the 12 actual people who participated, and then some 13 questions. 14 So we've got five presentations for 15 you this morning. We're going to go back in sort 16 of chronological order to the earliest and bring 17 ourselves forward. You have biographies. There's 18 two pages in your package of bios of everybody, so 19 we're not going to spend any time talking about 20 that. You can take a look at that as we go 21 forward. But we're going to ask each to come up 22 in turn. We're going to start with a discussion 23 of the Cahill Commission by Professor Ernie Reock, 24 Professor Emeritus of Rutgers. We're going follow 25 that by the County and Municipal Government Study 8 1 Commission with Mike Egenton and Dr. Seth Benjamin 2 who were staff of that study commission; the State 3 and Local Expenditure Revenue Policy Commission, 4 Dr. Henry Coleman, who was the executive director; 5 the Whitman Property Tax Study Commission, Marcus 6 Rayner. Marcus is here, who was the professional 7 staff to that Commission. And for the New Jersey 8 Initiative, Ingrid Reed, unfortunately, will not 9 be able to be here today. She was the coordinator 10 of that program. Instead, I'm going to present 11 her notes. I was the inside person on that 12 project. And then we'll go from there. 13 So, again, a reminder, we asked 14 everybody to work with a 10-minute time frame, and 15 we'll go from there. 16 Ernie. 17 DR. REOCK: Thank you. Good 18 morning. Thank you for inviting me to talk about 19 something that happened a long time ago, giving me 20 an excuse to go back and try to refresh my memory 21 on it. 22 The New Jersey Tax Policy Committee, 23 I think let me start off just with the context of 24 it. It was appointed by Governor Cahill in April 25 1970. He had been elected in November 1969. The 9 1 context is that we had at that time the highest 2 property taxes that we have ever had in New 3 Jersey. I thought it might just be of some 4 interest, I ran off a chart showing property taxes 5 as in terms of the statewide equalized property 6 tax rate over the last 50 years. But in 1970, we 7 were approaching the highest in history, and we 8 also, not coincidentally, had the highest school 9 enrollment that we have ever had. Just about the 10 full load of baby boomers were in the public 11 schools at that time; and, obviously, that 12 contributed to the high tax rate. 13 The Tax Policy Committee was created 14 by Executive Order of the Governor in April 1970. 15 It provided for 40 members, all appointed by the 16 Governor; two of the members to be senators 17 appointed on recommendation of the President of 18 Senate, four of them to be members of the General 19 Assembly appointed on recommendation of the 20 speaker. But the Governor made all the 21 appointments and named the chairman. The chairman 22 was Harry Sears, who was a State Senator from 23 Morris County. So that the Commission also came 24 to be known as the Sears Commission. 25 The membership of the commission was 10 1 pretty broad: Two former governors, Driscoll and 2 Hughes; eight legislators or former legislators; 3 and quite a variety of business and labor and 4 academic persons, including the publishers of what 5 were probably the two major newspapers of that 6 time, the Newark Evening News and Bergen Record. 7 The Commission divided itself into 8 five working task forces. And the other thing 9 I'll distribute to you, I pulled out some pages 10 from the report. These, I won't go into any 11 detail on those, but the top page gives you the 12 membership of the commission as they divided 13 themselves into these five task forces. 14 And then there was a sixth task 15 force, which was made of the chairman of the other 16 five. The staff -- the Executive Director was 17 Bill Miller who had been the former Director of 18 the Tax Policy Commission which had operated in 19 New Jersey on a semipermanent basis for about the 20 previous 15 years. There were consultants for 21 each of the task forces. I was one of the 22 consultants for the task on state aid and service 23 levels. That was chaired by Bob Wilentz who went 24 on to become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. 25 The Commission began -- it was 11 1 appointed in April or created by Executive Order 2 in April 1970, began its work in July 1970, 3 reported in February 1972. So it took about a 4 year and half to do its work. Its recommendations 5 were quite sweeping, really, at that time. I 6 think they still are if you look at the numbers. 7 The total of the recommendations were to reduce 8 the property tax by $863 million. If you 9 translate that into today's dollars, that's a 10 property tax reduction of approximately 11 $5 billion. They were going to increase 12 non-property taxes by 926 million, which today 13 would be approximately 5 and a half billion 14 dollars of new taxes to be levied. There was to 15 be an income tax, personal income tax, which we 16 did not have at that time. There was to be a 17 broadening of the base for the sales tax. And 18 there was to be a state property tax, a one dollar 19 per hundred state property tax for school 20 purposes. 21 I'll just try to -- I won't go into 22 the tax proposals in any detail. I'll try to 23 focus mainly now on the major local government 24 recommendations. And on the hand out that you 25 have there, the blue pages, the first page -- just 12 1 to identify things, the first page gives you the 2 breakdown of the Tax Policy Committee. Then the 3 next white pages give you the summary of the 4 overall report of the whole committee. The blue 5 pages give you a summary of the report of this 6 particular task force on service levels and state 7 aid. 8 The major local government 9 recommendations were about -- I think you can put 10 them into about four categories. First, there 11 were a number of recommendations to transfer local 12 functions to the state level. And the ones that 13 they singled out were welfare, about 75 million; 14 courts, about 30 million; and county tax boards. 15 Now, the first two, I think, have largely been 16 done since then in one way or another. Welfare 17 has largely been taken away from the local level. 18 The cost of the courts has largely been taken away 19 from the local level. County tax boards was a 20 really sort of a minor proposal. I don't think 21 anything has happened along that line. But the 22 transfer of functions to a higher level of 23 government certainly was one of the major thrusts 24 of this task force and of the committee as a 25 whole. 13 1 The second one, the second major 2 aspect of their recommendations was to promote the 3 regionalization of local government functions. 4 And they were thinking there -- when I first 5 looked back at this, I thought, oh, that sounds 6 like shared services. They were thinking of much 7 more than shared services on a one-to-one basis, 8 which frequently happens today. They were 9 thinking of much in the way of regionalization of 10 local services, and they had in mind the use of 11 the county governments, the existing county 12 governments, as the regional governments in a lot 13 of cases for the future. They pushed county 14 assumption of municipal services. 15 And if I can go back to the state of 16 mind in the 1970s, I think you can say that back 17 at that time county government in New Jersey was 18 on a roll. Really, people were looking to county 19 government as the government of the future. 20 Traditionally, one way of measuring county versus 21 municipal government, just the size and 22 responsibilities, and if you take a look at the 23 taxes that are levied had by each one and you take 24 the total taxes, property taxes levied by county 25 government, they had always been less than the 14 1 total levied by municipal government, 2 substantially less. But beginning in 1977, that 3 reversed. And county governments were taking on 4 more and more functions, becoming more and more 5 proactive in terms of providing local government 6 services. And this is what this Commission, I 7 think, fell right into. They agreed with that. 8 From 1977 to 1985, county 9 governments levied more taxes than municipal 10 governments in New Jersey. And then for some 11 reason -- and I don't know what the reason is. It 12 may be a whole collection of reasons. For some 13 reason, the steam went out of this movement to 14 accentuate the roll of county government in New 15 Jersey. Now municipal governments can -- they tax 16 much more than county governments do. 17 Along with this idea of pushing the 18 assumption of municipal services, there were 19 proposals to provide financial incentives from the 20 state level more regionalization. And I think you 21 can read the description. They didn't call it 22 this, but you can read the description of the more 23 recent programs in the recommendations of this tax 24 policy committee. 25 One of the specific recommendations 15 1 they made was to continue and make permanent the 2 County and Municipal Government Study Commission, 3 with a push for that Commission to study 4 regionalization plans and to recommend them to 5 local governments. The County and Municipal 6 Government Study Commission was convened at that 7 time and produced some reports, but the impression 8 was that it was a very temporary commission. And 9 the Tax Policy Committee proposed that this become 10 a permanent study commission; and, as a matter of 11 fact, it did become permanent for the next 12 approximately 20 years. That was the second 13 general thrust of the recommendations. The first 14 was transfer of functions to a higher level of 15 government. The second was regionalization with 16 the County and Municipal Government Study 17 Commission playing a major role in terms of 18 recommending how this can be done, but with a 19 strong element of volunteerism. In other words, 20 mayors and local governing bodies would be asked 21 to voluntarily suggest regionalization plans, 22 which would include local services. 23 The third major thrust was to 24 greatly increase municipal state aid. And they 25 proposed a formula which would equalize the tax 16 1 base of all municipalities so that any 2 municipality could tax at the same level as -- 3 could provide services at the same level as any 4 other municipality with the same tax rate. This 5 would be done through what was known as a 6 guaranteed tax base formula. That's the sort of 7 formula that we did use in New Jersey for state 8 school aid, from 1976 to 1990. It was thrown out 9 by the courts in the Abbott case because it did 10 not assure that local school boards would 11 appropriate sufficient funds to provide for a 12 thorough and efficient school system, as the 13 Constitution required. There is no such 14 Constitutional requirement at local level for 15 municipal purposes, so that the guaranteed tax 16 base formula is really much more appropriate for 17 municipal government than it was for the schools. 18 I think it's probably a very appropriate thing to 19 consider in the future. And as a matter of fact, 20 the SLERP Commission, which you'll hear about 21 later on, did propose a guaranteed tax base 22 formula for municipal aid. 23 The fourth thing that they 24 proposed -- and this is somewhat out of your 25 purview, and that is that the State take over the 17 1 basic funding of the entire school system in New 2 Jersey, that the basic cost of schools will be 3 paid by the state government with local school 4 districts having the opportunity to spend beyond 5 that, what was called local leeway, if they wanted 6 to go beyond the basic state funding. The state 7 funding would come from non-property tax revenue 8 from new income tax that the committee proposed 9 and from a broadened sales tax, broaden the base 10 of the sales tax, and from the statewide property 11 tax at $1 per hundred of true value. The result 12 would have been, as they predicted, that it would 13 reduce property taxes to 35 percent of all school 14 costs. It then was 60 percent; it's now about 55 15 percent. 16 Those were the major proposals 17 dealing with local government. 18 The overall report, there were 19 actually 40 members -- the Executive Order said 20 there would be 40 members. There were only 34 21 members listed on the cover page of the report. I 22 don't know what happened to the other six slots. 23 Of the 34 members, 32 actually signed the report. 24 One of the state senators was the principal 25 holdout, that was Senator Ed Crabiel from 18 1 Middlesex County. 2 The report was delivered in February 3 1972. A package of bills was introduced that 4 spring. There were 12 or 13 bills. Of those 5 bills, only two passed. One instituted a 6 corporation income tax, and the other required the 7 filing of business activities reports by foreign 8 corporations. There were two relatively minor 9 bills. The rest ran into strong opposition led by 10 Senator Crabiel, who had been on the Tax Policy 11 Committee. By the mid-summer of 1972, the other 12 bills had been recommitted in the Legislature. 13 The major argument against the 14 thrust of the committee report was that a lot of 15 the recommendations would have resulted in 16 proposals that would have levied taxes on 17 individuals while business owners would have 18 benefited from the reduction in the property tax 19 rate. That was used, I think, as a principal 20 argument against the proposal. 21 As I said, the steam went out of the 22 proposals by the summer of 1972. As a matter of 23 fact, Governor Cahill is the only Governor who had 24 served one term and then been denied renomination 25 by his own party. The tax policy report 19 1 undoubtedly was one factor which was involved 2 there. 3 These are the records that were 4 produced. Rather voluminous. We did -- just the 5 last thing I'll provide. We did put together 6 early in the summer of 1972 a little booklet 7 called Tax Reform 45 Questions and Answers, which 8 tries to summarize what the report proposed and 9 what the arguments were for the proposals and 10 arguments against it. I only have one copy of 11 this, but we can make copies if anybody would like 12 to get a quick picture of it. 13 COMMISSIONER DORIA: That would be 14 very helpful. 15 DR. REOCK: I'll take this back and 16 we'll make copy. 17 MR. PFEIFFER: Thank you. That was 18 one big breath of air there. 19 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Well done. 20 MR. PFEIFFER: What we're going to 21 do, we're going to ask everybody to stay around. 22 And then if the Commission has questions that they 23 want to ask, everybody could maybe do some dialog 24 as a group at the end. 25 I ask Seth and Mike to come up to be 20 1 our next presenters. 2 I would like to note that Dr. 3 Benjamin worked for the Japan Local Government 4 Center which brings Japanese local government 5 officials, employees, over to the United States to 6 learn how we do things in America. He has brought 7 two of his colleagues with him today. Basically, 8 Japanese civil servants. I just want recognize 9 Mr. Tanak and Mr. Kimura who are here from Japan 10 for short period assignments with the Center, so 11 we want to welcome them as well. 12 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Just an as aside, 13 what you may learn today is what we don't do. 14 MR. PFEIFFER: Gentlemen. 15 MR. EGENTON: Thank you very much 16 for the opportunity to, as I told my mentor and 17 colleague from the State Commission of County and 18 Municipal Government, sort of like an old 19 homecoming for us, so we appreciate the 20 opportunity to provide some comments. 21 What I had proposed to set is I'll 22 set up some historical background on the 23 Commission and then Seth will talk about some 24 specifics that we did. 25 I just passed around a list of the 21 1 report. I believe there were 42 reports that the 2 County and Municipal Government Study Commission 3 had issued. And in the interest of -- if there's 4 follow-up, as far as reviewing any of the reports, 5 I checked with the OLS library, and all the 6 reports are available at the OLS library. So if 7 there's staff here that want to work out with them 8 to make copies of the respective studies that we 9 did, they are available. 10 As far as background, what was then 11 called the County and Municipal Government Study 12 Commission was created in 1966, and it was chaired 13 by then Senator William Musto. And we were also 14 termed the Musto Commission. We were charged to 15 study the structure and functions of county and 16 municipal government and determine their 17 applicability in meeting the present and future 18 needs of the state and its political subdivisions. 19 The Commission had a long record of 20 making positive contributions to the legislative 21 process, to improving the effectiveness of local 22 government operations, and to harmonizing policy 23 between county and municipal government and the 24 state government. To achieve as broad a 25 representation as possible, the Commission was 22 1 composed of 15 members, with 9 members named by 2 the Governor, 3 senators named by the President of 3 the Senate, and 3 members of the Assembly named by 4 the Speaker of the Assembly. Of the Governor's 5 appointees, three were nominees of the New Jersey 6 Association of Counties, three were nominees from 7 the New Jersey State League of Municipalities, and 8 three came from among the citizenry of the state. 9 The Commission worked extensively on 10 structural studies dealing with the organization 11 to form a county municipal government. The 12 commission also engaged in functional studies that 13 were focused upon the services that local 14 governments provided or should so provide. These 15 intergovernmental function studies have included 16 such examinations in the areas of solid waste, 17 water supply, sewerage, roads, open space, 18 judicial, human service, and redevelopment 19 programs. In addition, a series of informational 20 periodicals and handbooks were published for the 21 use of officials, administrators, and others 22 interested in New Jersey government. 23 Additionally, the Commission 24 analyzed the transfer of functions from one level 25 of government to another to purchase the services 23 1 on a contractual basis; the establishment of 2 regional special districts, authorities, and 3 commission; and the merger of autonomous agencies 4 to the existing structure of county and municipal 5 government. 6 While the Commission's research 7 efforts are primarily directed toward continuing 8 structural and functional studies, the staff were 9 often asked to assist in drafting of legislation 10 and regulatory action based on Commission 11 recommendations. To our credit and track record, 12 numerous legislative bills were enacted to 13 implement Commission recommendations. The 14 Commission also served as a general resource to 15 the Legislature, executive agencies, local 16 government officials, and civic organizations, as 17 well as related to activities on the national 18 level. 19 Just to give you a sense of the 20 makeup of the Commission during the time that I 21 served on staff, which was then reconstituted and 22 renamed the State Commission on County and 23 Municipal Government, our Executive Director at 24 the time was David Maddock. And we had such 25 prominent individuals on the Commission, such as 24 1 senator Carmen Orechio, who was the Chairman at 2 the time; Senator McNamara; Assembly Speaker Chuck 3 Haytaian; County Representative Linda Spalinski. 4 We've had municipal representatives in the like of 5 Fred Stickle, Jack Trafford, who was, I believe, 6 in the League of Municipalities at the time; Kathy 7 Frank White from Montgomery Township. And we had 8 some at-large representatives, Ben Fitzgerald, the 9 Clerk of Atlantic City; and we also had an 10 individual by the name of Bob Casey, who also 11 served on the Government Study Commission. Other 12 members included Senator Bill Schluter, Cherry 13 Hill Mayor at the time Susan Bass Levin, 14 Assemblyman Jerry Green; Senator Bob Singer, 15 former Assemblywoman Carol Murphy, and so on. We 16 had a good makeup of individuals who served with 17 us on the Commission. 18 A interesting historical note, the 19 Commission was disbanded in 1992, basically 20 because the Commission didn't receive operational 21 budget funding in that fiscal year during the 22 Annual Appropriations Act. However, it should be 23 noted that the Commission never was by legislation 24 disbanded and is still on the record of existing. 25 There was an effort in 1999 to 25 1 reactivate the Commission. And actually, the 2 legislation did pass in the Senate and Assembly, 3 but was vetoed due to that it didn't go through 4 the actual budgetary process. So there was an 5 interest back then to reconstitute the Commission. 6 I'll just add -- and I'll turn it 7 over to Seth on some of the specifics that we did. 8 I was -- one of the last studies that we did that 9 was issued in May of 1992 was the report that I 10 was project director and principal author, Modern 11 Forms of Municipal Government. Basically, the 12 recommendations in there, we -- Seth and I went 13 out in the field to interview a lot of 14 municipalities, specifically the special charter 15 municipalities. And it was our goal at the time 16 to convince and encourage the municipalities to 17 look at the Faulkner Act and look at the forms of 18 government within there. 19 One the recommendations that I 20 thought I would share with the Commission here, on 21 an interesting note, I had come up, in reviewing 22 and analyzing the Commission form of government 23 had come to the conclusion that it was an 24 antiquated form of government and that we should 25 abolish it and we should probably heavily convince 26 1 the municipalities to pick one of the forms of 2 government in the Faulkner Act. Now, being a 3 young research assistant, I got my first 4 experience of Politics 101, when then Senator 5 Carmen Orechio put his arm around me and said, 6 "Son, you know I'm the Mayor of Nutley." He said, 7 "Do you know form of government I'm in?" 8 I said, "Would it be commission?" 9 He said, "That's right." He said, 10 "I think you need to go back and revise your 11 recommendations." 12 So I worded it in the report that we 13 encourage the municipalities to look at the 14 Faulkner Act. 15 I owe a lot to the State, to the 16 Commission. It was a great institution for my 17 learning experience. I had the privilege and 18 honor of working with Seth Benjamin, with Dr. 19 Ernie Reock, with Dr. Coleman, and probably set up 20 for the time now that I have my current position 21 with the State Chamber of Commerce. 22 So with that, I'll hand it over to 23 Seth who will go into a little more detail about 24 some of the studies that we did and 25 recommendations. 27 1 DR. BENJAMIN: Thank you very much 2 for inviting us. I should mention that Marc's 3 introduction about Japanese colleagues was because 4 we sent him to Japan last year. 5 Anyway, I'm only going to say a few 6 things. But what I want to say is the following: 7 One of the things successes of the Commission was 8 the leadership of the Commission. It is not for 9 nothing that the Senate President was the Chairman 10 of the Commission, and also subsequently the 11 Assembly Speaker sat on the Commission. And 12 because of that, it enabled, I would say, 13 approximately 80 percent of our recommendations 14 into becoming legislation which passed. 15 Our reports were aimed at improving 16 county and municipal government, but we did touch 17 on state government and we did touch sometimes on 18 the federal relationship as well. One thing that 19 Dr. Reock mentioned was the county court system. 20 Well, finally, we wrote a report on that, and I 21 believe -- something like in 1990, was it? I'm 22 not sure exactly when it was. But eventually the 23 State did take over the court costs, and that was 24 as a result of one of our reports. 25 Equally, we did champion the role of 28 1 counties. And one of our reports on human 2 services allowed for the transfer of general 3 assistance to the counties, and that became law as 4 well. 5 One thing I would say that we were 6 unsuccessful on was one of our reports described 7 the state budget and how it should be discussed in 8 reality at the time the state budget was reported 9 as being -- I think it was in a 1990 report or 10 1991 report. In the end, it didn't get published, 11 and there was a reason for it, of course. At the 12 time, the stated budget was, I think, $16 billion. 13 But we decided to look at the real cost of state 14 government. And after figuring in such things as 15 post-employment benefits and so on, like that, it 16 turned out that the real cost of state government 17 at that time was $23 billion. It is rather ironic 18 now that GASB, as you know, the Government 19 Authority Standards Board, has issued its 20 Statement 45, and it's sort of forcing most states 21 now to take that into account into their budget 22 statements. 23 One of the reasons for our success 24 was the enormous amount of work the staff did with 25 local governments. In any report we did, we spent 29 1 an enormous amount of time going out and talking 2 to local governments. Not only the elected 3 officials, but also the appointed officials, to 4 interested parties. And I could mention plenty 5 examples of that, but for the sake of time, I 6 won't. And it's only because of that that we used 7 to get near unanimity on any of our reports. 8 In only one instance, as far as I'm 9 aware, in only one instance in all the reports we 10 wrote did one member of the commission -- and then 11 not object but abstained, and that was on the 12 hotly political report of local government 13 liability insurance. And as you know, that was as 14 a result of 1983 Supreme Court decision holding 15 the Township of Jackson liable -- actually, 16 holding the insurance company liable for the class 17 action suit against the Township of Jackson. And 18 subsequently, all insurance for governments just 19 disappeared. 20 So in sum, what I would say -- and 21 one of the other ironies, of course, is that the 22 County and Municipal Government Study Commission 23 was originally created, I believe, on the 24 inspiration of the ACIR, the United States 25 Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental 30 1 Relations, which both Dr. Coleman and I have had 2 the opportunity to work with. And even though it 3 was a temporary commission, I think the 4 Legislature saw it as a permanent resource. And 5 it was unfortunate that it went out of -- 6 MR. EGENTON: Chairman, I just 7 wanted to add one more thing, too. I did take the 8 liberty of bringing two of the studies of the 9 Commission, the one on consolidation, the other on 10 joint services. So I'll leave that here. Copies 11 can be made. 12 MR. PFEIFFER: Gentlemen, thank you 13 very much. I do have, actually, Mike's last 14 publication of Modern Forms of Municipal 15 Government. I have a 15 copies of it left. 16 MR EGENTON: Oh, you're the one who 17 has it. 18 MR. PFEIFFER: When you were 19 cleaning out YOUR offices, I scored some, yes. 20 Dr. Coleman, you're up. 21 DR. COLEMAN: My name is Henry 22 Coleman. The last name is C-O-L-E-M-A-N. 23 Let me begin by saying good morning, 24 and thanks for inviting me. I guess my first 25 reaction when I was invited to address your 31 1 Commission was to think about something that one 2 of the SLERP Commission members, former Maplewood 3 Mayor Bob Grasmere once offered. He said that we 4 were the State and Local Expenditure and Revenue 5 Policy Commission, which gave rise to the 6 unfortunate acronym of SLERP. And he suggested 7 that someone had just been a bit more thoughtful, 8 they could have same used the same terms and come 9 up with Local and State Expenditure and Revenue 10 which would have been LASER, which would have been 11 sort of been much more dynamic and would have 12 signaled this is really a current age commission 13 here. 14 Marc has asked me to just give an 15 overview of the SLERP Commission, take about 10 16 minutes to do that. I'll tell you as I tell my 17 students, whether I have 10 minutes or three 18 hours, I'll say the same thing; I'll just talk a 19 lot faster in the 10 minutes here. So please feel 20 free to interrupt me if I'm going too fast for you 21 to catch some of the things that I have to say. 22 I did, by the way, share several 23 documents with Marc that will provide a bit more 24 background on some of the things that I'm going to 25 discuss. It occurred to me that I did not share 32 1 with you a copy of the final report, and I do have 2 an electronic version of this. So I will send 3 that along to you that you can share with the 4 members of the Commission at your discretion. 5 The SLERP Commission was established 6 in -- I guess, the legislation passed, I think it 7 was, in late 1984. It was September of 1985 8 before I was hired and we were able to get the 9 first Commission meeting under way, and we issued 10 the final report for the SLERP Commission in July 11 of 1988. So the Commission took somewhere in the 12 area of about 30 months to complete this work. 13 Well, what was that work? That 14 assignment, the mission was to conduct a 15 comprehensive review and analysis of state and 16 local government finances in New Jersey, including 17 both revenues and expenditures. 18 Now, I think that that was part of 19 what made the SLERP Commission unique. There had 20 been tax study commissions in the State of New 21 Jersey previously and in many other states around 22 the country that have focused on revenues, looking 23 at the tax situation, most of which focusing on 24 state revenues. The SLERP Commission was unique 25 in two respects: It gave presumably equal weight 33 1 to local finances; and secondly, it also was asked 2 to look at the spending as well as the revenue 3 side of the ledger. 4 Now, there's some sense on the part 5 have a number of individuals that the Commission 6 did not focus on spending, but I think the 7 confusion is that at the outset the Commission 8 made a decision to conduct this analysis in a 9 revenue neutral kind of fashion. And what that 10 was interpreted to mean was that at the conclusion 11 of our recommendation, we were not propose that 12 the size of state government would change. So if 13 we proposed increasing certain revenues, that 14 would have to be offset by reductions in other 15 revenues so that the overall size of State 16 government would not change. And I think a number 17 of people who suggest that the Commission never 18 looked at the spending side interpreted it to mean 19 that we didn't look at spending because spending 20 didn't decrease. But in fact, we did looked at 21 spending, and we talked about a number of 22 different things with respect to the spending side 23 of the ledger. 24 What are some of the ideas that gave 25 rise to the Commission? I won't spend an awful 34 1 lot of time talking about that. I think that the 2 title of the Commission report signals a large 3 part of that, the specific circumstances. And the 4 title was "Creating a Fiscal Balance." It was 5 suggested that there were a number of imbalances 6 within the state and local public sector in the 7 ǿ޴ýapp. There was an imbalance in 8 terms the State's ability to raise revenue versus 9 the local ability to raise revenue, with the idea 10 being that the local jurisdictions in the State of 11 New Jersey could only raise revenue via the 12 property tax. And as a result, the State 13 over-relied on property taxation as a means of 14 generating revenue. I think at that time, as is 15 the case now, property taxes constituted about 45 16 percent of all state and local state revenue; 17 whereas, the national norm was about 30 to 33 18 percent in terms of how much of all state and 19 local tax revenue generated property taxation. 20 Another imbalance was this notion of 21 fiscal disparities, that as you looked among local 22 jurisdictions there were certain local 23 jurisdictions that had extensive resources and 24 relatively modest spending needs; whereas, if you 25 looked at a number of other jurisdictions, they 35 1 had rather modest resources and extensive spending 2 needs. We labeled those as fiscal disparities and 3 we identified them, particularly with respect to 4 municipalities, but also to some extent among 5 school districts. 6 We talked about problems of this 7 imbalance with the distribution of tax burden 8 versus the ability to pay. There was some 9 evidence that was available to us to suggest that 10 for some households, they were devoting as much as 11 50 percent of their household resources to meeting 12 their tax obligation, particularly their property 13 tax obligation. I think that there's a noise in 14 that number, but if it's anywhere close to that 15 number, it still suggests that you have a pretty 16 significant problem. And the Commission took on 17 as a challenge to try to rebalance the 18 distribution of tax burdens relative to ability to 19 pay. 20 An imbalance was with respect to who 21 within the state and local public sector or which 22 level, the type of government was assigned certain 23 responsibilities, but who had the decision-making 24 authority. And the idea was that the State 25 through things like how it assigned 36 1 responsibilities to local jurisdictions and 2 through State-mandated activities, the State made 3 a lot of the decisions within the state and local 4 public sector, but local jurisdictions, in 5 particular counties, but local jurisdictions more 6 generally were charged with raising the revenues 7 to finance those decisions. 8 I think beyond those kinds of 9 general concerns about imbalances, there was also 10 some uneasiness that -- if you remember back in 11 the middle part of the 1980s, the State of New 12 Jersey's economy was going great. I mean, things 13 were pretty terrific with respect to the overall 14 fiscal circumstances within the State of New 15 Jersey. But one of the first assignments that the 16 Commission staff undertook was to do what we 17 called a current services estimate. I'm sure that 18 many of you are familiar with those, but it 19 basically just suggests given the in-place 20 policies and revenue structures, what are the 21 circumstances, the fiscal circumstances, to 22 confront the State likely to look like in 10 years 23 or 20 years. It's always dangerous to project out 24 that far, but nevertheless, we did, I think, the 25 analysis in '86, and we projected out to 1990, if 37 1 I'm not mistaken, and to 2000. And the conclusion 2 was that by 1990 and certainly by 2000, the State 3 was going to be experiencing significant fiscal 4 difficulties, what we would currently call a 5 structural deficit. It was pretty easy to see 6 that based on just a couple things. One was the 7 growth in Medicaid expenditures, which is 8 something that I guess wasn't so much on the radar 9 screen then but clearly the trends were underway. 10 And secondly, what a number of economists refer to 11 as the archaic revenue system. Most states don't 12 have revenue systems reflect the current economic 13 circumstances. For instance, you look at 14 something like the sales tax is designed to tax 15 the exchange of goods, whereas, most of the 16 economic activities these days is in the area the 17 consumption of services. Well, most state sales 18 taxes do not adequately tax services. We've seen 19 some modest movement here in the State of New 20 Jersey in that direction over the course of the 21 last several years, but if you look in the State 22 of New Jersey and around the country, we actually 23 do a relatively poor job of taxing services in 24 this state and in most states. 25 So we have this poorly functioning 38 1 overall revenue system and we have all of these 2 different imbalances, and that was the SLERP 3 Commission was designed to try to a deal with. 4 The Commission came up with 111 5 different recommendations. I would note that of 6 these 111 different recommendations, I believe 7 that all but two of them received unanimous 8 support from the Commission. I believe the ones 9 that didn't had to do with pension funding or some 10 recommendations that the Commission made about 11 pension funding; and the other, I believe, had to 12 do with, I believe, the assessment practices, but 13 my memory is a little fuzzy about that. And I 14 would also say that of the 33 members on the SLERP 15 Commission, all but one voted to approve the 16 overall final report. I believe that former State 17 Senator John Dorsey who was the member one of four 18 legislators on the Commission was the only 19 individual who did not sign on and support the 20 overall report. 21 In terms of the recommendations, 22 those recommendations were broken down into three 23 different categorize. We talked about revenue 24 reform, we talked with spending reforms, and then 25 we talked about what we refer as safeguards. 39 1 These safeguards were notions that once we had 2 achieved the kinds of corrections that we were 3 aiming for through the spending and revenue 4 reforms, the safeguards would prevent the State 5 from reverting back to bad past practices. 6 I'll just quickly note a couple of 7 overall reforms. And I should note, by the way, 8 that these 111 recommendations would have resulted 9 in an overall reduction of about $1.2 million in 10 property taxes which, if I'm not mistaken, was, I 11 believe, about 20 percent of total property taxes 12 at that time. So it was a significant reduction 13 in property taxes, and that would have been offset 14 by an increase in a number of other state taxes. 15 For the revenue reforms, I would say 16 that the governing theme behind many of the 17 revenue reforms was the old economist mantra that 18 the best tax in terms of equity and efficiency is 19 a tax with a broad base and a low rate. So our 20 ideas with respect to the sales tax to extend the 21 base, and we did that through things like 22 repealing exemptions for cigarettes and cable TV 23 and admissions to sporting events and disposable 24 paper products and those kinds of things. 25 For the gross income tax, we talked 40 1 about repealing a lot of the property tax 2 advantages that were found in the gross income tax 3 at that time. Things such as the Homestead 4 Rebate, the Homestead Tax Credit. We talked about 5 repealing exemptions for college students and 6 phasing out deductions for individuals with 7 retirement income over $50,000, which was a lot of 8 money back in the middle part of the 1960s. 9 I should note that, you know, we 10 weren't being harsh because there were a couple of 11 other things in the way of fairness that we 12 proposed. We proposed something called a 13 consumption tax offset, which would have been a 14 kind of a circuit breaker for consumption taxes, 15 whether these were general sale taxes, selected 16 sales taxes, utility taxes and the like. And we 17 also proposed a pure circuit breaker as an 18 alternative to the then array of property tax 19 relief mechanisms that were available. 20 I would say that among the most 21 interesting recommendations that the SLERP 22 Commission made are two: One was what we called a 23 mandatory tax on new construction. This was a tax 24 that worked in conjunction with the then growth 25 tiers that were included in the State Plan, Tiers 41 1 1 through 7, I believe that they were. And 2 basically, this mandatory tax would have been 3 imposed in inverse order of the growth tiers, so 4 that Growth Tier 1, the urban areas and the like, 5 would have had a low or no tax. And Growth Tier 6 7, the environmentally sensitive areas would have 7 had a higher tax. And the idea was to use the tax 8 to try to provide an incentive to support the 9 directions that were being pursued by the State 10 Planning Commission. 11 The other thing was what we called 12 the Farmland Assessment Program. And here, the 13 idea was to sort of discourage individuals from 14 participating in the Farmland Preservation Program 15 and then simply at the 11th hour selling off their 16 property for development purposes. And the way in 17 which this was done was to say that for each year 18 that a piece of property was in the Farmland 19 Assessment Program, the State would build up 1 20 percentage point equity in that property. So that 21 if you were in the Farmland Program for 20 years 22 and then you decided to convert that program, the 23 State would own 20 percent of that property and 24 receive 20 percent of the value in lieu of the 25 preferential treatment that had been granted to 42 1 the farmland property during the years that it was 2 in the program. 3 Marc's given me my heads-up here, so 4 I'm not going to go through that much detail about 5 some of the others. I will simply say that in 6 terms of spending reforms, they were directed 7 toward each type of local government. So for the 8 school districts, for counties, and for 9 municipalities, each would have received benefits 10 totaling somewhere in the area of about 11 $400 million in the two reduced property tax 12 pressures. That accounts for the $1.2 million -- 13 I'm sorry, I said 1.2 million earlier, but it was 14 $1.2 billion in property taxes. So that's $400 15 each was directed toward school districts, 16 counties, and municipalities. 17 The school district reform were 18 basically to do some modifications to the then 19 existing Chapter 212 school aid formula. In the 20 case of the county provisions, the idea was to do 21 a number of what we called intergovernmental 22 structural reforms, some of the things that you've 23 heard about already from my colleagues who 24 contributed very, very greatly, by the way, to the 25 work of the SLERP Commission. So we talked about 43 1 things like transferring the responsibility for 2 the state court system from the counties to the 3 state, and shifting to the State the 4 responsibility for financing public assistance, 5 and shifting to the State the responsibility for 6 financing a number of the mental institutions. 7 These were situations where the State made the 8 policy decisions, and we said that the State 9 should have the financial responsibility as well. 10 As Ernie already mentioned, we did 11 propose the establishment of a guaranteed tax base 12 program for municipalities, which was to be 13 fundally sensitive by taking a number of the 14 existing municipal aid programs, remove their 15 spending restrictions, make them a kind of lump 16 sum program, much in the contra program right now 17 and then provide that money via guaranteed tax 18 base kind of program. 19 For the safeguards, we talked about 20 things such as requiring tax expenditure reporting 21 so we would know how much money we were spending 22 through large revenues or a state mandate, state 23 pay kind of provision, or that the State should 24 simply fully fund all state aid programs so that 25 local jurisdictions would know what revenues from 44 1 the State they could count on, on ongoing basis. 2 The last think that I'll mention is 3 that the Commission also proposed that there 4 should be permanent study commissions for tax 5 policy and for the State's retirement system. 6 So those were just, I guess, some of 7 the highlights for the SLERP Commission. The last 8 time I did a tally, I think I was able to 9 determine that approximately half, somewhere in 10 the area of about 60 of the SLERP Commission 11 recommendations had been implemented at one time 12 or another in one form or another. Maybe not to 13 the specific numerical level that was proposed by 14 the SLERP Commission, but nevertheless, they had 15 been implemented. In many instances, some of the 16 things were implemented and then rescinded, so 17 they may not have had a long life. But I would 18 say that about half of them had been implemented, 19 which, by the way, violated one of the primary 20 recommendations that the SLERP Commission had 21 made; and that is that you can't take a piecemeal 22 approach to addressing these problems. You do 23 need a comprehensive solution. And that 24 comprehensive solution would require doing the 25 entire complex of things that the Commission had 45 1 described; if not to the specific numerical level, 2 at least that kind of substantive approach. 3 So I'll end there. And at whatever 4 point you think it appropriate, I'll try to 5 respond to questions. 6 MR. PFEIFFER: Thank you. Thank 7 you, Henry, very much. 8 While Marcus comes up, there's two 9 things I want to tell you about other types that 10 commission happened in between. Just prior to 11 SLERP, the Legislature authorized a Property Tax 12 Assessment Study Commission, which was very 13 narrowly focused on property tax assessment 14 practices in the State. It became known as the 15 Glazer Commission, who was the head of the 16 Division of Taxation. They issued a report and in 17 1996 that had 37 recommendations strictly 18 focusing on tax assessment administration issues, 19 which clearly is at the core of those. 20 I'm going to make copies of those 21 recommendations and pass that around to the 22 Commission as well. 23 Prior to the Whitman Property Tax 24 Commission, in 1992, a report was issued by 25 Governor Florio's Governor's Task Force on Local 46 1 Partnerships. This was a very narrowly focused 2 commission that Governor Florio appointed. It had 3 about 16 members. They strictly studied the 4 notion of what we now call shared services, made a 5 number of recommendations as well, and that in a 6 sense was a solid look at that which led to some 7 of the things you're going to hear about that 8 evolved in the Whitman report. I'll also make 9 copies of their one-page of recommendations as 10 well. 11 And with that, Marcus Rayner. 12 MR. RAYNER: Thank you for having me 13 today. I'm confident that anything I don't cover 14 will be adequately given you by Marc who is 15 probably -- or Commissioner Casey who is on the 16 Commission, but Marc and Stacy probably spend as 17 much time on this I did back in the day, and I'm 18 happy to be here today to give a quick overview. 19 As you may know -- I think you've 20 been given the report -- the Whitman Property Tax 21 Commission was created by Governor Whitman in 22 December of 1997. It was appointed entirely by 23 the Governor and asked to come up with the 24 recommendations for the Governor for property tax 25 relief and reform. It had 25 members, 10 of which 47 1 were mayors, school superintendents, or county 2 executives. And the Commission was asked 3 specifically by the Governor to look at the cost 4 of government and the funding method for 5 government, and was the only stipulation that 6 whatever recommendations the Commission came up 7 should not increase the overall tax burden on the 8 residents of New Jersey. 9 The Commission did something that I 10 think is a little bit unique. It spent a lot of 11 time looking at the history of how we evolved to 12 where we are today and in regard to delivery of 13 government services. And one of the things I 14 always like to look at when I read the Commission 15 report is the map that's in the back of the 16 Commission appendices which shows the map of New 17 Jersey in 1877 by local jurisdiction and the map 18 of New Jersey in 1998 by local jurisdiction and 19 the massive explosion in local municipalities. 20 And then the Commission did 21 something that it asked DCA to do, and Marc was 22 helpful in this, which was take a sampling of 23 towns by similar size and similar population that 24 exists today and look back at towns that have 25 broken up for various reasons over that 48 1 intervening years and compare the cost per person 2 of those towns. There were 24 of them that we 3 were able to match up. So for example, you'd take 4 a town like Cinnaminson today with a town in 5 Bergen County that may have at one time been one 6 town but is now six or seven small boroughs and 7 municipalities. In all but two of those cases, 8 accounting for inflation and passage of time, the 9 cost per capital was greater back then or in large 10 municipality that had broken than it was in the 11 whole municipality. In other words, the 12 suggestion was that having one larger jurisdiction 13 deliver services was less costly to the individual 14 taxpayer than having many jurisdictions deliver 15 services to a similar population. And that was 16 really where the Commission ended up, which was, I 17 believe, that you could not look at the way we 18 fund government until you address the way we pay 19 for government. And I'd say the vast majority of 20 the 60 recommendations that the Commission came up 21 with looked at ways to give local mayors, county 22 superintendents, county executives, greater 23 flexibility in terms of sharing services, reducing 24 costs, and working together. 25 As I mentioned, the Commission came 49 1 up with 60 recommendations. By my last tally at 2 the end of the Whitman administration, I think 3 roughly two-thirds of those had been implemented 4 in some fashion. And the Commission in doing its 5 report broke it into five basic areas: Tax 6 restructuring, shared services and consolidation, 7 school regionalization, a ratables chase, and tax 8 administration. And there was a sixth chapter of 9 other recommendations which were some of the more 10 aggressive and controversial, which I'll mention 11 at the end. 12 For tax restructuring, as I said, 13 the Commission concluded that major tax 14 restructuring should basically await, looking at 15 the cost drives of government, but it did 16 recommend that certain local units, mostly urban 17 units, be able to implement some version of local 18 taxes to offset the property tax burden, such as 19 hotel taxes and other fees that many other 20 jurisdictions around the country are able do but 21 in New Jersey have not traditionally been 22 authorized. 23 And looking then to shared services, 24 the conclusion being that we needed to address the 25 cost drivers. The Commission made the bulk of its 50 1 recommendations in shared services, and that's 2 where many of these have been actually 3 implemented. Most of these were looking at small 4 changes in rules and legislation in the current 5 services, several things that would kind of 6 eliminate obstacles to services. One of the 7 things that was not implemented and was condition 8 of state aid on consolidation of services. And, 9 of course, Governor Corzine's budget this year 10 aggressively did that in some cases and it's been 11 very controversial. But there was a belief by the 12 Commission that unless the State puts some real 13 teeth into encouraging towns into this direction 14 that it would ultimately be unsuccessful. And 15 that was one of the major recommendations of 16 shared services that Marc implemented. Of course, 17 the new program was created by the Property Tax 18 Commission and many other programs that awarded 19 municipalities for these services, and there have 20 been some dramatic successes leading into this and 21 as a result. 22 On school regionalization, the 23 Commission adopted and recommended the 24 recommendations of a New Jersey Regional Advisory 25 Panel and issued its report in January of 1998. 51 1 That was on school regionalization. Basically, I 2 think it's fair to say that large-scale school 3 regionalization has not happened. There still are 4 611 school districts in the state. The Commission 5 noted that there were 389 in 1900. We've seen a 6 massive explosion of school districts over the 7 last 100 years, many of them sending districts 8 that but don't administer their own schools. And 9 the Commission, as many people concluded, 10 concluded that those needed to be urged out of 11 existence and consolidation need to occur, as did 12 this Regionalization Advisory Panel. 13 On of the ratables chase, something 14 that I don't hear a lot of talk about today, the 15 Commission basically believed that local officials 16 and residents needed to be educated about the 17 impact of development in the towns. And most of 18 the Commission's recommendations on this area 19 focused on giving local officials tools to slow 20 growth or control growth in their municipality. 21 The Commission specifically recommended looking 22 closely at the COAH rules and how those would 23 encourage development in towns and hurt property 24 taxpayers. It recommended such things as time 25 growth legislation and impact fees so that local 52 1 towns, where development was forced upon them, 2 could pass some of that on to developers as 3 opposed to property taxpayers. In fact, the 4 Commission put together an economic chart we sent 5 around to planning boards and local elected 6 officials around the state at the time where they 7 could evaluate certain data points whether a 8 development would hurt the property taxpayer or 9 benefit the town as a way to basically make sure 10 that when development occurred, it was in the 11 interest of the taxpayer if at all possible. 12 The Commission also recommended that 13 large regional ratables be able to be shared among 14 the municipalities. So when a large development 15 like a large shopping mall or large sports complex 16 was put into a municipality in its entirety, if it 17 affected area towns by road congestion, 18 environmental impacts, things like that, the 19 ratables of that should be shared by multiple 20 jurisdictions in those cases. 21 Looking on to tax administration, 22 the Commission spent a lot of time in the interest 23 of making sure that the administration of our 24 property tax structure, especially assessments, 25 were uniform and fair across jurisdictions. At 53 1 the time we looked at it, a number of 2 jurisdictions, most notably Newark, were out of 3 date on their assessments. I'm not sure where 4 that stands today. But the Commission recommended 5 that there be better equality assessment and, in 6 fact, recommended counties take over the 7 assessment of property in the ǿ޴ýapp 8 and looked at areas where if jurisdiction did 9 merge the State should essentially hold harmless 10 the taxpayers of those jurisdictions for a period 11 of up to five years so that the impact on the 12 individual property taxpayer of a regional 13 consolidation of services would be minimized for 14 at least five years. 15 On the final section of other 16 recommendations, there are a few notable ones that 17 I think are somewhat controversial and need to be 18 re-examined. Moving school board elections to 19 November. That's something that Speaker Roberts 20 is very focused on. That kind of stem from the 21 believe that individual taxpayers needed to be 22 educated on the cost of the services that are 23 delivered to them. I'm sure you've talked about 24 this, it's something that comes up all the time is 25 people in New Jersey like their high level of 54 1 service they get at the local government but are 2 upset paying for them. And there's a belief in 3 the Commission, I think, that if you force voters 4 through the ballot box to examine the budgets and 5 the cost of their local services and educate them 6 about those, you should begin to get more 7 awareness about the cost of the services being 8 delivered. 9 By a similar vein, the Commission 10 suggested examining the possibility of having 11 voters approve municipal budgets. Very 12 controversial. But again, having voters 13 appreciate the cost of the services they get every 14 day. 15 The Commission recommended examining 16 existing caps. There's a lot of discussion about 17 whether caps on municipality budgets are actually 18 effective. That's something that's always worth 19 examining because while it sounds good and you may 20 get some cases very effective, it isn't always. 21 And the Commission realize that probably greater 22 analysis need to be done. 23 There's also a belief that there 24 need to be greater flexibility, especially in 25 cases of regionalization for local municipalities 55 1 to control public employee salary. Rather than 2 putting a cap on it based on inflation or allowing 3 certain exemptions from civil service rules or 4 bargaining rules, regional bargaining, bargaining 5 agreements so that regional services could control 6 salary growth, which is obviously a big cost of 7 government. 8 So that is the general direction the 9 Commission took. I think it's important to note 10 that this Commission is unique and it was not 11 created by Legislature, it was created by the 12 Governor to advise the Governor. I think it's 13 notable that she did move forward on about 14 two-thirds of recommendations, but the Commission 15 felt very strongly that the cost of Government 16 needed to be primarily addressed before looking at 17 the way that we raise the money and the greater 18 flexibility needed to be given to local officials 19 and the greater awareness needed to be given to 20 the electorate about the cost of government and 21 how that affects their property tax bill and the 22 history of how we've gotten to where we are, which 23 I think is very informative in terms why the 24 public feels so strongly about home rule. That 25 was an important aspect of the Commission's 56 1 report. 2 With that, I look forward to 3 answering any questions you have. 4 MR. PFEIFFER: Thank you, Marcus. 5 The final presentation that Ingrid 6 Reed was going to do was on what we call the New 7 Jersey Initiative. Some of you know that over the 8 years Governing Magazine had basically produced 9 biannual assessments of county of state 10 governments. They also look at county governments 11 and then looked at municipalities. And the then 12 Commissioner of the Department -- and I have to 13 give the props here to Commissioner Kenny -- said, 14 "Why can't we do that here?" And we basically 15 reached out to the folks up at Maxwell School at 16 Syracuse University who conducted those studies. 17 The Q Foundation at the time was very interested 18 in helping look at this issue, and we basically 19 provided some of our funding from the Reading 20 Program to come up with what we call the New 21 Jersey Initiative Building Management. So it's 22 very different from all the other studies that 23 you've heard about. It was funded by, basically, 24 DCA and the new Charitable Trust who get a lot of 25 credit for this effort. And the purpose was to 57 1 understand the management capacity of municipal 2 government through case studies of seven 3 municipalities as a means to improve performance 4 and better meet the needs of citizens. And we use 5 the Governing Magazine Maxwell School process of 6 looking at the management capacity in five areas: 7 Financial management, capital management, human 8 resources management, information technology 9 management, and what we've euphemistically called 10 managing for results. 11 Research teams were developed with 12 folks from Maxwell School. We chose seven 13 municipalities, which was sort of arduous process 14 to figure out seven representative municipalities. 15 I will say at one point we wanted to focus on our 16 distressed cities. Additional evaluation led us 17 to include several distressed cities, but also use 18 non-distressed cites so we'd have a benchmark of 19 both types in the model. We did publish a lengthy 20 book on the subject. We have this. I actually 21 have some of the remaining copies. We have a 22 summary document as well, which Ingrid was able to 23 provide for the Commission. We worked hard on it. 24 My office was involved. We had staff member who 25 was intimately involved in the day-to-day 58 1 administration of the program. 2 The seven municipalities that were 3 invited and agreed to be included range in 4 populations between 50,000 to 150. Four were 5 cities and three large suburban municipalities. 6 They were Irvington, Patterson, Trenton, 7 Elizabeth, Brick Township, Old Bridge, and 8 Franklin Township in Somerset County. 9 The evaluators basically surveyed 10 and looked for practices in each municipality. 11 Overall, the researchers saw impressive strengths 12 and dedication on the part of staffing the 13 municipalities. And while it's difficult to 14 summaries in a paragraph the findings, Ingrid was 15 able to prepare the following sketch. 16 In financial management, the 17 analysis focused on the importance of multiyear 18 budgeting and more sufficient and reliable 19 information through application of IT. Capital 20 management was seen as lacking as a base and a 21 fixed asset inventory and a strategic plan that 22 resulted from departments working together to set 23 priorities. Human resource management was 24 performed as a support function for hiring and 25 firing rather than workforce planning with 59 1 improving intension, evaluation and recognition of 2 both departments. 3 Information technology management in 4 2001 was mainly supported by vendors rather than 5 applications developed and leadership provided by 6 municipal staff to integrate department 7 applications while pooling resources with counties 8 libraries and school systems had begun and was it 9 approached that they concluded should be 10 increased. 11 Managing for Results Programs were 12 not found in any of the municipalities, and it was 13 recommended that the State and municipalities take 14 advantage of learning what other governments have 15 done to introduce forms of performance management 16 linked to budgeting. 17 The Maxwell team recommendations 18 stressed that increasing and improving the 19 management capacity of municipalities would only 20 result if there was a collaborative effort with 21 state government and appropriate flexibility and 22 assistance were exercised. 23 The reports were widely distributed. 24 Presentation of initiative was made at the 2002 25 League of Municipalities conference to an overflow 60 1 crowd and well received. The individual 2 municipalities have reported informally that they 3 found their participation useful. Since the 4 research was done at the end of an administration, 5 implementation to the new administration was not a 6 priority. 7 Ingrid came up with some 8 observations as it affects what this Commission is 9 doing. 10 The Commission might find it helpful 11 to review the criteria of the management areas to 12 consider what is expected of municipal management 13 capacity and whether that level of management 14 competency can be met by small municipalities. 15 The systematic case study method of 16 the initiative appears to be productive in 17 analyzing current practices and identifying issues 18 to be addressed in a manner that was accepted by 19 the municipalities involved and other 20 municipalities that received its findings. A 21 parenthetical note there. One of the real 22 challenges of getting municipalities to 23 participate in what was a very public process and 24 entailed some risks, and that risk was if they 25 weren't doing well it would be highlighted and 61 1 printed and the leadership of in those 2 municipalities subject to public criticism. That 3 was a highly sensitive area that was basically in 4 a sense in the report by saying improvements could 5 be made in these areas. One of the things from a 6 staff standpoint we observed that this was a 7 significant hurdle in getting voluntary 8 participation in the process. 9 The collaboration between an out of 10 state institution with relevant research capacity 11 with and in-state institution -- I should point 12 out that Ingrid was involved because Eagleton 13 Institute was basically project manager working 14 with the folks from Maxwell from an academic 15 standpoint and liaisoning with local 16 municipalities here in the state and our local 17 officials that that proved to be a useful manner 18 in which to capture expertise and make it relevant 19 to the unique characteristics of New Jersey and 20 the initiative study places considerable emphasis 21 on the state role in improving management, thereby 22 raising the question of how the state would have 23 to change its practices and contribute to the 24 capacity building of municipalities in order to 25 achieve increases in efficiency and effectiveness. 62 1 That was basically a thumbnail 2 sketch of the New Jersey initiative. And you've 3 got copies of Ingrid's comments and the handbook. 4 With that, I think we're at the end 5 of the formal presentations. 6 Mr. Fisher, how would you like to 7 proceed? 8 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Well, first, I'd 9 like to proceed by congratulating all of you on 10 your ability to be so concise in summarizing life 11 efforts on your part. I know personally many of 12 the commissioners participated directly in a lot 13 of the activities that were brought forward today. 14 I have not. I was on the other end of the local 15 county government trying to follow the new rules 16 that kept coming down. So I appreciate immensely 17 the concise presentations today. I think it was 18 very useful. 19 Now would be a very appropriate time 20 if there are questions or dialogs or points or any 21 discussions amongst the commissioners with the 22 folks that we've gathered with us today. 23 DR. COLEMAN: May I just raise one 24 observation about the report that Marc gave? 25 I think part of the idea of the 63 1 initiative project was to develop a model that 2 could then be implemented by local jurisdictions 3 in the future without involvement by Syracuse, 4 Governing Magazine, or even Eagleton Institution. 5 So the idea was to develop a process that could be 6 replicated at the local level and then implemented 7 beyond just the seven communities that were able 8 to do it. I'm not convinced that that's happened, 9 but that was part of the design. 10 COMMISSIONER DORIA: I think your 11 comment is well taken; it hasn't taken place. 12 I have a question. 13 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Yes. 14 COMMISSIONER DORIA: Having sat 15 through my own history in the Legislature from 16 1980 to the present and knowing -- like, for 17 example, the SLERP Commission, when it came out, 18 the speaker at that time said it was dead on 19 arrival, DOA. My question will be -- and one 20 problem I see in all of this is how do we, this 21 commission, put together proposals that in the end 22 are realistic enough and effective enough that 23 there will be support to get it done? 24 You mentioned -- and I thought it 25 was interesting -- one instance Senator Crabiel 64 1 and the Cahill report being vehemently against it; 2 in another instance, Senator Dorsey being opposed 3 to the SLERP Commission. One of the things we 4 don't have on this Commission are any legislators, 5 for good or for bad. 6 The question that I find the most 7 difficult is -- and I'd ask your opinion from all 8 of those who made the presentation. What do you 9 believe was the major point that was lacking in 10 the reports that were presented that in the end 11 did not accomplish the totality of what you 12 wanted? Even though I understand parts were 13 done -- I can talk directly towards expanding the 14 sales tax to paper products. So the question I 15 have is, what do you feel did not occur in the 16 various previous reports that needed to occur in 17 order for them to be more successful? Do you have 18 any opinion on that? 19 DR. COLEMAN: The one thing that 20 I've heard from a number of individuals on the 21 SLERP Commission, including the former chairman, 22 is reform in New Jersey only happens at the point 23 of a gun. And unless you have a crisis, then 24 nothing happens to inspire some of these 25 recommendations to get implemented. 65 1 I did a short study several years 2 ago where I looked at several different study 3 commissions. And from the aggregate of all of 4 these commissions, there's been about 400 5 different recommendations that have been 6 developed. And over time, as you know, several of 7 them have been implemented. But it's done on a 8 piecemeal basis, and often there's some sense 9 urgency at the moment that's necessary to get 10 greater attention focused on some of these 11 recommendations. So we don't have, at least in 12 the minds of a number individuals, an immediate 13 policy crisis. 14 DR. REOCK: I think you should not 15 set yourselves up for saying you'll be a failure 16 if your recommendations are not immediately 17 implemented. I think going all the way back to 18 the earliest in '72, a lot of the things that were 19 recommended then have over the years been 20 implemented, and so in a sense that commission was 21 successful. And the same with all other 22 commissions. I don't think there's any commission 23 which gets all of its recommendations adopted 24 immediately. So don't worry about that. 25 Recommend what you think is appropriate, and maybe 66 1 you'll get it right away, but probably; but 2 eventually you may get it. 3 I think we -- just looking at the 4 first chart I distributed, property taxes have 5 come down tremendously since 1972. So a lot of 6 the things that have been recommended have had an 7 impact. The thing that brought them down the most 8 was we stopped having kids as much as we did 9 before. But a lot of recommendations -- 10 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Whose report was 11 that in? 12 DR. REOCK: A lot of recommendations 13 eventually were enacted. And really, our property 14 taxes are a good bit less than they were back at 15 that point. 16 COMMISSIONER DORIA: It's hard to 17 convince the general public that. 18 DR. BENJAMIN: The one thing I would 19 mention is one of the reasons why the County and 20 Municipal Government Study Commission was 21 relatively successful was it limited its scope as 22 to what it thought it could do in any one report. 23 And if you want to be sweeping -- then I think Dr. 24 Reock is absolutely right -- then it's going to 25 take a long time for it eventually to be accepted. 67 1 But if you want to achieve a specific goal, then 2 one of the things we did was go out and aim our 3 discussions at the people who were affected by it 4 and get them on board before we actually came to 5 the recommendation. And part of that was having 6 the League represented on the Commission, the 7 counties represented on the Commission. And, of 8 course, we didn't touch schools and they weren't 9 represented. But also having constant 10 communication with the state departments and the 11 affected interest groups. I think that's one of 12 the reasons why we were quite successful in 13 getting much of our recommendation into 14 legislation. 15 DR. COLEMAN: I think that Ernie is 16 right, but I would suggest that if you bit and 17 determine to try to get your recommendations 18 implemented, you may think that's part of your 19 strategy to develop recommendations and an 20 implement schedule, something that would suggest 21 how things could be perhaps implemented over some 22 period of time or the proper sequencing for your 23 reform, if that's appropriate. 24 MR. EGENTON: Commissioner, I would 25 add, Dr. Coleman pointed out that, as you know, 68 1 you're a Commissioner, you were a state senator 2 and assemblyman, that, you know, usually things 3 are not acted unless there is a crisis. I would 4 challenge to say that the current state of the 5 fiscal concerns here in the State is in a crisis 6 mode. 7 Two years ago, we had the property 8 tax reform initiative by Assembly Speaker Joe 9 Roberts. And it's in our believe, at least in the 10 organization I'm at now, that a lot of good 11 recommendations were left on the table. And I 12 really think there has to be a revisiting of those 13 recommendations, because obviously now the public 14 at-large wants to see things done better with more 15 fiscal accountability, doing more with less. And 16 that's the challenge. And I know you've seen 17 those challenges as a state legislator. 18 And Seth is right. One of the 19 things that we did when we came up with these 20 studies and ideas, we didn't just lock ourselves 21 in a room and say we were academics and we were 22 going to come up with recommendations and move 23 forward. Seth and I went out into the field and 24 we visiting all those municipalities and sat down 25 with them and said, "Here is some of the ideas 69 1 that we have. What do you think as we draft them 2 into legislation?" 3 And then, as I pointed out in my 4 remarks, there is a political component that you 5 have to get the buy-in. And it should be a 6 bipartisan effort. So whatever comes through this 7 Commission, although there are not legislators 8 that are represented in here, I think there has to 9 be a nexus of meeting with at least the 10 legislative leadership on both sides of the aisles 11 as you make recommendations and move forward with 12 them. 13 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Any other 14 observations? 15 Any questions from the 16 commissioners? 17 MR. COZZA: I have a couple of 18 questions. To everyone that presented, do you 19 think that your work was fruitful or fruitless? 20 Because I think at one point, 21 Doctor, you said only two bills were passed out of 22 twelve. 23 DR. REOCK: Well, obviously, there's 24 a sense of frustration there when that's all that 25 happens. But if you look over the next 15 or 20 70 1 years, there are a lot of bills that were passed 2 that did implement some of the things that that 3 committee recommended. 4 I think Seth's remarks highlight one 5 aspect, and that is that a continuing or permanent 6 commission may have a much better chance of 7 achieving something than a big bang commission, 8 which was what the Cahill Committee was and which 9 was what SLERP had, because that committee takes 10 some time, comes up with a substantial program, 11 puts it forward, and then goes away. But the 12 County and Municipal Government Study Commission 13 had the advantage of remaining in existence and 14 being able to take things a bite at a time and to 15 sell them. 16 There's another commission which we 17 haven't touched on at all today because it's even 18 further in the past, and that was the State Tax 19 Policy Commission, which was in effect -- it 20 operated from about 1949 up through about 1970, 21 and issued, I think, 12 reports during that period 22 and had a remarkable pattern of success because 23 they were able to break things in pieces and stay 24 with them. 25 MR. RAYNER: I think our effort was 71 1 fruitful but also had some frustration to it. But 2 I think this is probably an answer to the 3 Commissioner's question. In order to be 4 successful, it doesn't have to be a sweeping group 5 of recommendations. The commission we put 6 together had the vast majority more small changes 7 to the law, to the rules, that could dramatically 8 expand local flexibility. Most of those got done 9 and they've benefited taxpayers throughout the 10 state. It's a little more controversial, but 11 we're still talking about it today. Moving school 12 boards to November is something that Speaker 13 Roberts has publicly embraced. It may not happen, 14 but some of these ideas keep coming back. To the 15 extent we can amplify them by bringing them up in 16 public sector again, if you think they're good 17 ideas, they'll continue to come back and if 18 political will is there maybe they'll be 19 implemented. 20 MS. KENNY: I always felt that what 21 we were trying to do in the Whitman Commission was 22 educate people about the cost of government; what 23 does it really cost to run municipal government, 24 which that story really hadn't been told, because 25 people expected a certain amount of services and 72 1 thought that was a right, just a right to 2 existence that you have this kind of service. 3 Obviously, the services really vary around the 4 state, depending on the municipality you live in. 5 Some services are much more expensive than others. 6 We were really trying to get to that nugget. I 7 think, still, people don't understand that cost 8 of -- really, the cost of running the government, 9 which is one of the reasons we wanted to do this 10 initiative, to really look at that again. 11 MR. PFEIFFER: If I could chime in 12 on that point. That issue of cost and the 13 diversity of services along the State is really 14 almost an underlying platform which really runs 15 through a whole lot of debate that this Commission 16 is charged at looking at, and I think it's one of 17 the more vexing things, because something we 18 really don't have a terribly good handle on. 19 MS. KENNY: Right. We tried, I 20 know, but it's very hard to get your hands around 21 that. 22 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Gary. 23 MAYOR PASSANANTE: My question, Mr. 24 Chair, is that in the end, we talk about success 25 with all of these studies and commissions that 73 1 were formed. But I guess the real question in my 2 mind is, what is our measurement of success? 3 Because depending on what we state our measurement 4 of success is, we'll be, in the end, our ability 5 to succeed. So is the public looking at the 6 measure of success being reduced property taxes? 7 I mean, is it that simplified? Or is there some 8 other goals and objectives that we would consider 9 to be successful that may not necessarily result 10 in reduced property taxes? Because there are two 11 different, very different things that we would 12 have to be challenged to find out. We can come up 13 with a lot of recommendations on, you know, 14 consolidations and mergers. And I think that many 15 of us have already -- who have been involved have 16 realized that some of these consolidations don't 17 necessarily result in cost savings, at least 18 today. Maybe 10 years from now it might. So if 19 the measurement of success is reduction of 20 property taxes today, then we may come out as 21 complete failures if we come up with 22 recommendations that are enacted that result in no 23 property tax savings. So the real question in my 24 mind, aside from our mission statement, is what is 25 it we're going to look back 10 years from now and 74 1 say, what is the success measure of this 2 Commission? And I'm not sure I have that answer, 3 but I think that's what we're trying to find out 4 with asking questions of the other commissions. 5 CHAIRMAN FISHER: In the form of 6 question, what measure of success your various 7 approaches incorporate into your process? 8 DR. COLEMAN: I don't think we were 9 ever as explicit as Mayor Passanante would 10 suggest. Our idea was that property tax reduction 11 would be an end result of the Commission. I don't 12 know whether that was ever formally stated, but it 13 was sort of the centerpiece of the discussion at 14 each and every Commission meeting. But we had 15 broader concerns as well, such as just improving 16 the overall functioning of the revenue system, 17 such as just improving the overall amount of 18 accountability and equity in the revenue system. 19 So I think that those things were part of the kind 20 of things that the Commission kept making 21 references to. 22 Another concern in the SLERP 23 Commission was the extent of interstate 24 competitiveness. I mean, some people, including 25 several of the business representatives on the 75 1 Commission were quite paranoid almost about not 2 damaging New Jersey's economic competitiveness 3 relative to Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, 4 and some of the other states in the region or that 5 the ǿ޴ýapp viewed as its economic 6 competitor state. So I don't know whether we were 7 ever as explicit as I think you're trying to be, 8 but those are ongoing constant themes that 9 Commission had. 10 MR. RAYNER: I think Commissioner 11 Kenny is very succinct in describing one of the 12 goals of success of our Commission, which was 13 understanding the process of government and begin 14 to educate policymakers and the public about it. 15 But in reviewing the history of how we got where 16 we are, if you look at the report, it's taken 17 decades, if not a hundred years, hundreds of 18 choices of why we created the governments we did 19 in New Jersey and some of the local jurisdictions. 20 As evidenced by the proposals and presentations 21 here, we've been talking about this for 30 years, 22 and a lot of these reforms keep coming back. So I 23 don't think you can expect immediate property tax 24 relief. And I think if you aim for that entirely, 25 I think you will fail. But I think you need to 76 1 look at what specific problems can be fixed today 2 and what are the things that New Jersey needs to 3 do. It may take decades. We arrived where we are 4 based on our long-time choices. 5 DR. BENJAMIN: I'm going to take a 6 little bit -- a slightly different tactical. One 7 of the last reports I wrote, actually, which we 8 didn't publish in the end was on volunteers in New 9 Jersey at the municipal level. And it astonished 10 me that almost 40 percent of the amount of 11 services provided at that time, obviously, was 12 done by volunteers, whether it was in libraries, 13 whether it was in fire departments, whether it was 14 in EMS, whether it was in certain aspects of 15 health. And I was really quite surprised by that. 16 Also part of that report was to try 17 to merge the five smallest municipalities with a 18 neighbor. And I visited every municipality on 19 that list and their neighbors to see who would be 20 interested. I actually happen to live next to 21 probably the smallest now, Tavistock, which, as 22 you know, is golf course. But it's a 23 municipality. I think the whole issue of the 24 Whitman initiative brings out that one of the 25 remarkable things about New Jersey municipal 77 1 government -- or actually, local government in 2 general, but in particular municipal government, 3 is it's inventiveness and its creativity. There 4 are many municipalities that exist with one member 5 of staff; some with no members of staff. I could 6 mention quite a few boroughs in Camden County. 7 And I think that your focus on success has to be 8 what will cause the least amount of disruption to 9 these municipalities and yet still produce the 10 result that you want to see. And municipalities 11 like Tavistock or Barrington, for example, they 12 don't have employees, they don't need employees. 13 They contract everything out. 14 Now, Henry and I know this is a 15 battle not just in New Jersey; this is a battle 16 all over the country. And there are those who 17 want consolidation and those who want 18 fragmentation because they argue that it provides 19 much more in terms of flexibility. And at ACIR 20 they used to write reports back and forth the 21 whole time about this. 22 So I think your measure of success 23 has to be -- you have to determine is it saving 24 money or is it making sure that the services that 25 are provided are done to the best interest of the 78 1 local population in the area that they're 2 provided. 3 MR. REED: In any of your studies 4 when you examined local services, did you identify 5 particular services in particular kinds of 6 communities where in order to render that service 7 it just simply wasn't efficient for it to be 8 delivered that way, that it was costing them an 9 enormous amount of money or what they were able to 10 produce, either because they were too small a 11 community or they simply didn't have the property 12 tax base in that municipality in order to render 13 the service at a quality level. Any 14 determinations along those lines? 15 DR. COLEMAN: We did not look at 16 service provision in individual jurisdictions. 17 MR. REED: You did look at 18 equitable -- trying to provide state aid in order 19 to take care of the equity. 20 DR. COLEMAN: That's correct. 21 MR. REED: But you didn't actually 22 look at the services that were being produced for 23 that additional state contribution. 24 DR. REOCK: I think that's something 25 nobody knows anything about right now. How do we 79 1 know who does what, to what extent? 2 MR. REED: Unfortunately, that's 3 what the Legislature seem to have come up with and 4 said there ought to be commission like ours that 5 ought to come up with some of those answers. 6 MR. PFEIFFER: Could I ask staff a 7 very leading question? And a very brief answer, 8 if you can. On an international perspective of 9 the notion of places having, quote, too many 10 municipalities and efforts to consolidate them. 11 DR. BENJAMIN: You're referring to 12 the recent wave in Japan? 13 MR. PFEIFFER: Yes. 14 DR. BENJAMIN: Well, it's slightly 15 different there. There, the Ministry of Internal 16 Affairs and Communications is able to provide 17 financial incentives, which now I think has been 18 completed, but to merge municipalities. In fact, 19 I think my colleague from Saitama City -- is that 20 a recently merged city? Yes, a recently merged 21 city. There, they provide for a 10-year grant 22 system to offset the cost of the merging of the 23 municipalities. I don't know -- they've had a 24 wave of merges in Japan over the last hundred 25 years or so. And I'm not sure that the country's 80 1 terrain helps in terms of defining what we do 2 here. 3 One thing is for certain, in New 4 Jersey, municipal government in the north is not 5 the same as municipal government in the south. 6 And in the sense that the populations -- the 7 nature of the municipalities are quite different. 8 Many of the municipalities in the south are quite 9 rural and are quite happy to be that way even if 10 they're very small. Unless they're along the 11 shore, which is a different matter. And the same 12 applies, of course, to the northwest. But in the 13 core center, that's where your issue of efficiency 14 tends to be the most acute. So when you devise 15 programs at the state level, you've got to 16 consider that it's not going to satisfy all 17 different types of municipalities. 18 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Any other 19 questions from commissioners, or any points to be 20 made at this juncture? 21 Again, let me thank you all for the 22 information that you brought forward to the 23 Commission. Stay tuned. As Dr. Reock noted, many 24 things are still in process, I think. One of the 25 observations made by several of the commissioners 81 1 is that there's awful lot of good material that 2 doesn't necessarily have to be re-studied. It's 3 there. It stands on its own merit. And we need 4 to devise a method that's going to get us across 5 the finish line. Using football metaphor, when 6 you're in the red zone, I think you play the game 7 a little differently. And clearly, I feel that 8 this Commission is in the red zone. So we're 9 going to have break out and use whatever skill 10 sets these various commissioners have brought to 11 the Commission and work with the communities that 12 have both studied this and, quite frankly, that 13 dialoging with the local governments that are 14 dealing with the day-to-day on the other side, 15 notwithstanding LUARC Commission or SLERP or 16 Municipal Government Studies Commission. They've 17 just been going about doing an awful lot of this, 18 and we need to capitalize on that. 19 Again, thank you all. 20 At this point, I'd like to invite 21 the subcommittee chairs who have been busy since 22 our last meeting. And I've attended those 23 sessions, and I can warrant to everyone the work 24 effort and the thought process that has gone into 25 it. But I would like to invite the subcommittee 82 1 chairs to report to the full Commission so we can 2 begin to consolidate some of these activities. 3 Bob, you want to begin? 4 MR. CASEY: Yes. Thank you. 5 We had a very interesting meeting a 6 couple weeks ago relative to the subcommittee, the 7 county regional -- I'm not even quite sure what 8 the title was. 9 CHAIRMAN FISHER: That title may be 10 passe, anyway. 11 MR. CASEY: We started off the 12 meeting with a discussion that I think each of the 13 committee had is, what are we doing? And the 14 first area that, you know, we addressed was on the 15 area of consolidation and we talked a little about 16 that, and then the staff basically brought us back 17 to functional issues. I'd like to basically share 18 with you, coming out of that meeting, I indicated 19 at that point in time that one of the issues that 20 I foresaw was the need for some guidance to 21 municipalities, that if they were, in fact, ready 22 to consider consolidation, what they want to look 23 at. In that context, I prepared a consolidation 24 road map. 25 I'd just like to share with you. 83 1 This is purely for discussion purposes. This is 2 purely basically one area that I think that the 3 Commission will be getting into, which is, how you 4 go about if, in fact, you are a municipal and you 5 want to consider the issue of consolidation? 6 And one of the issues that I laid 7 out on that goes to the questions you just raised 8 as to goals. And this is a document which I 9 shared with managers and administrators throughout 10 the state last week at a conference that we had, 11 we put a program on consolidation and a two-part 12 program. One was just looking at the new local 13 option law, explaining that. And the second one 14 was this issue of a road map. But in this, I sort 15 of just very briefly laid out what I thought were 16 some long-term goals, which I think goes to the 17 goals in this Commission. 18 The first one I'm saying here is, 19 you know, the basic goals are determined where a 20 locality wants to be in five or ten years. It's a 21 long-term process. It's an evolution; it's not a 22 revolution. And I think that's part of the issue 23 we have to look at going to what was said here in 24 terms of we have to basically slowly show people 25 how to get there. 84 1 I think the basic goal has to be 2 local government effectiveness and efficiency so 3 their operations and tasks are performed at a 4 higher cost benefit ratio in the future. A goal 5 may be better to respond to growth pressures or 6 economic stagnation. 7 The goal may be cost avoidance. I 8 know in shared services cost avoidance is really 9 one of the biggest issue us on the table. It's 10 not reducing current cost, but avoiding cost you 11 know are coming down the road at you. 12 The goal may be a better delivery of 13 services. I think this goes -- as you've heard 14 the discussion of the North Bergen Fire District. 15 The issue there was a vastly improved service 16 system of the fire situation. Not economics, per 17 se, but on the question of service delivery. 18 The goal may be better utilization 19 of skills manpower. I think we're going to 20 finally -- there's a big problem in the State in 21 that significant portion of the existing skilled 22 manpower is aging out. 23 It may be coordinated land use 24 decisions. 25 It may be, and the final one, is 85 1 lower operational cost. And I put that 2 deliberately final, and I told everybody it was 3 final because I don't think consolidation is 4 basically a short-term save a buck at this point 5 in time, it's waiting in five years. 6 So then what I did, and I'm not 7 going over it now, I laid out that if, in fact, I 8 was asked by a group as to how you go about it, I 9 then laid out, like, eight or nine steps as to 10 what you really need to look at in order to reach 11 a decision as to whether consolidation or shared 12 services would go. That's the first issue. 13 This is for discussion. Down the 14 road, I'd like for you to call me. I think I'd 15 like to -- eventually, we should have something we 16 can get out of people, expand it beyond there so 17 that if people will want to look at consolidation, 18 they have something to look at. Because if you 19 read the law, you get very confused. 20 The second item was a discussion 21 that we started at the meeting of the subcommittee 22 with the issue of functional arrangements. And at 23 that point in time, I was making the position that 24 I think the Commission should organize itself and 25 should look upon the functional issues facing 86 1 governments and not by jurisdiction, but by 2 functional areas. 3 And in the second document I want to 4 send out -- and I know that you've had distributed 5 to you a list of all the functions that came from, 6 I believe, DCA. What I've done is I took the 7 first two, police and fire, and I started breaking 8 those down into sub-functions. And my goal was to 9 basically take a main function like police or law 10 enforcement and break it down into its components 11 so that everybody would have a very good idea 12 what's included within that generic term, and then 13 take those components and break them down into 14 subcomponents, because now you're at a level that 15 you can start looking at activities which may, in 16 fact, be assigned to an alternate level of 17 government. The goal I was driving at was to 18 approach this question as to if you were 19 reorganizing government, if you were creating 20 government, what would be a rational way of doing 21 it? I think we need to develop that rational 22 model. And what I would do -- what I hope to 23 do -- this is just the first two. I intend to go 24 through the list that we got -- I just need a 25 little more time on my computer -- and basically 87 1 try to take what my knowledge is and spread it out 2 over a number of years and then I'm going to share 3 that with a number of people who are retired 4 administrators and managers, both of local 5 governments and county governments, and see if we 6 can come up with an agreed upon master list of 7 functional areas. Once, I think, we have that, 8 then we can look at that list and I think the 9 Commission needs to come up with a matrix. We 10 look at each function to determine, all right, is 11 it a client based, is it a geo based, is it an 12 infrastructure based, what's the key to that? 13 Then we can start deciding on those key basis as 14 to whether that -- where is the most effective 15 location for that service to be provided? Then I 16 think once we've done that, we've basically have 17 put together possibly the start of a matrix, then 18 we start looking at the idea of what is the best 19 way of operating local government. 20 So again, this is purely for 21 discussion purposes. We carry it forward, unless 22 other people have alternate ideas. But I think we 23 need to establish this type of a matrix that we 24 can use as a structure to analyze what local 25 government can be. 88 1 One of the more interesting issues 2 that came out of one of the reports we did on 3 libraries, we went through this whole study -- the 4 Musto Commission. Cynically, I looked at it. It 5 was a tremendous rationalization as to how 6 libraries grew topsy-turvy with no plan. You 7 know, it started with the local -- you know, the 8 reading room, then it became the Association of 9 Library, then the municipalities, then counties 10 jumped in regionals and universities jumped in -- 11 and we ended up with this huge superstructure. We 12 still ended up down -- here to have two libraries 13 side by side where you have a local library here, 14 which because the school library which is here 15 will close at 3:00, the local library would 16 duplicate what the schools were doing, and then 17 you'd have regional which would basically do -- no 18 rhyme or reason to it. So what I'm saying to you 19 that maybe -- my thought, maybe we need to sit 20 back and say, if you were designing a rational 21 structure of government, what would it look like? 22 And then we'd have something to measure against. 23 That's what we started in my committee. We didn't 24 do all those discussion, but I raised those 25 issues, and it was a very interesting meeting. 89 1 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Just a footnote. 2 Each of the subcommittees brought forth an 3 entirely different agenda than what we thought was 4 likely to happen, and it was exciting. And I 5 don't say that casually. I mean, it was exciting. 6 And to me, it's testimony to the fact that this 7 Commission is going to be different than anything 8 that has happened heretofore. It has to be. The 9 first subcommittee that I attended was, in fact, 10 fiscal. 11 Jane, would you like to -- 12 MS. KENNY: Yes, just briefly. 13 Since we were the first subcommittee that met and 14 we were trying to define the role of the 15 subcommittees and we spent some time trying to 16 clarify and trying to avoid, as I always like to, 17 overlap and duplication and the same people do the 18 same thing. So we spent some time trying to 19 clarify that by defining the functions. And we 20 decided, too, that it would be very useful to hear 21 directly from people who had the experience of 22 merging government, the amalgamation of services. 23 And this was done -- we spent some time on the 24 phone with Dr. Enid Slack from Canada who had been 25 involved in a very short-term study and, you know, 90 1 recognized some of the frustrations and issues, 2 but actually some of the successes that they 3 underwent. So I think that was useful for us 4 being on the phone and hearing some real life 5 experience of people that actually did it. 6 In terms of the Finance Committee, I 7 believe that since this committee met, there's 8 been another review of what the actual functions 9 of the subcommittees would be. But we were 10 actually looking at just how the finances were 11 among county, municipal, state, fire districts, 12 how the money is raised, what the state aid is. 13 Those are the kinds of things that we thought this 14 subcommittee should focus on. 15 CHAIRMAN FISHER: And along that 16 line, that has not been erased yet either because 17 underpinning all of the activities, all the 18 functions and, as Bob said, some may be driven by 19 infrastructure, some may be driven by geography, 20 is that equitable financial underpinning that 21 needs to occur across the board. So again, the 22 work of the subcommittees is in a state of change 23 right now. 24 The final subcommittee, Marvin. 25 MR. REED: Yes. My mine started out 91 1 to be the Municipal Services Subcommittee. But as 2 you can see, since the other two committees had 3 already met and said that they were confused about 4 their function, we didn't have to apologize for 5 being confused about ours. But we also had the 6 pleasure of having the Commissioner Doria as one 7 of our members. So even though we started out 8 with a little bit of confusion, he joined us and 9 made it very clear to us that we'd better 10 unconfused as fast as possible, and that if there 11 was going research to be done, because nobody 12 seemed to have any data, we'd better get down and 13 get that started. So he convinced us and we're 14 meting next Friday, the subcommittee chairs, and 15 we're going to dig in to see whether there is 16 anybody in the ǿ޴ýapp that is capable 17 of providing us fairly quickly with some 18 benchmarks and data that people can really look at 19 and that the public can look at and the public can 20 say, is that really what it's costing us, or is 21 that really what our town gets for what we're 22 doing. 23 In the meantime, I had been talking 24 with Bob about this whole question of services. 25 And so from that, that I've been putting together 92 1 a combination. I call them local services in New 2 Jersey municipalities and counties, and we're 3 trying to get a basic outline of what are the 4 basic services that we're asking people to look 5 at. And then we're going -- it started out as two 6 separate lists, a municipal list and a county 7 list. And we quickly realized that there is a 8 certain amount of overlapping, so what gets 9 delivered at the municipal level, what gets 10 delivered at the county level? We merged them to 11 the other because that's part of our task. 12 I also wanted to share with you this 13 chart, because when we look at these services, I 14 think maybe one of the things -- the first things 15 we do, we look at them is ask ourselves, which of 16 these are actually essential, which are matters of 17 life and death and public safety, and which ones 18 of them are necessary simply because you have a 19 government entity and it's functional; which of 20 these are there because people consider them 21 desirable but they're probably not necessarily -- 22 they don't have to be done, or at least they don't 23 have to be done this week. Services that are 24 optional. And then the two most difficult to 25 challenge people with is it services and in some 93 1 people's judgment are simply not necessary. They 2 had been doing them for years. That's what we do 3 in this town, that's what's unique to our town, 4 that's what make us special. But nobody can 5 explain why it's necessary for us to actually do 6 them. 7 And, of course, the last one is 8 services that may actually be undesirable. We 9 could make a judgment that they'd be better off if 10 they didn't try to do that. 11 Another chart I want to have you 12 take a look at is as we look at these and 13 determine the level of service, identify 14 identified six levels of service. The first one 15 comes into the picture perhaps because we haven't 16 paid that much attention to it. And I call it is 17 the district. And it's referenced in the new 18 legislation, the fact that there is a place within 19 a municipality for a district. A district within 20 a municipality that has special interest that may 21 simply have a separate post office that may simply 22 have a body of interest; it may simply be what we 23 call the downtown. And in some towns that's a 24 special improvement district or the retail area 25 and it's already got a mechanism and it's there. 94 1 But it's not the municipality. 2 And then the second one is the 3 municipality, the town, the township, or the city, 4 which is actually the primarily level of firm 5 forming the government, the budget, the taxation 6 level, but that a municipality could have and they 7 do have several districts within them: Garbage 8 collection districts that not necessarily 9 universal but for which people pay extra fees. 10 And then, of course, the multi-municipal regions 11 that we see in places like the Meadowlands, county 12 government, multi-county government regions, and, 13 of course, in the state government. But as we 14 look at what level is the service to be rendered, 15 we might keep in mind that it's at what part of 16 the service is rendered at each of these levels of 17 service and how do we make that rational. 18 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Thank you. Any 19 discussion on the subcommittee reports so far? 20 Again, thank you for the work of the 21 subcommittees thus far. 22 At this point, I think it would be 23 appropriate if there are any members of the public 24 that would care to address the Commission? 25 Seeing none, I would move to the 95 1 next order of business. We have to adjourn into a 2 closed session for some personnel matters that 3 need to be discussed. And we have a resolution 4 prepared. 5 MS. STERN: You can make a motion to 6 adopt a resolution. I do have a form of a 7 resolution if you'd like to use it. It's not 8 necessary. You can do it verbally, just make a 9 motion to go into closed session. 10 MS. KENNY: Moved. 11 COMMISSIONER DORIA: Second. 12 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Moved and 13 seconded. 14 Roll call, please. 15 MS. SPERA: Mr. Fisher. 16 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Yes. 17 MS. SPERA: Ms. Shostack. 18 MS. SHOSTACK: Yes. 19 MS. SPERA: Commissioner Doria. 20 COMMISSIONER DORIA: Yes. 21 MS. SPERA: Mayor Passanante. 22 MAYOR PASSANANTE: Yes. 23 MS. SPERA: Mr. Cozza. 24 MR. COZZA: Yes. 25 MS. SPERA: Ms. Kenny. 96 1 MS. KENNY: Yes. 2 MS. SPERA: Mr. Reed. 3 MR. REED: Yes. 4 MS. SPERA: Mr. Casey. 5 MR. CASEY: Yes. 6 CHAIRMAN FISHER: The motion is 7 passed. At this point, it's appropriate for us to 8 again thank all of you that came today and 9 provided all of that information. We look forward 10 to working with you in you future. 11 - - - 12 (Whereupon, the Commission met in 13 closed session.) 14 - - - 15 MR. PFEIFFER: Susan asked me to 16 pass this out today. She may have had reason for 17 it. Let's do this, you're in board, you need to 18 get this done. You have an outside activity 19 questionnaire, special state officials under the 20 state ethics law, you fall under this and you each 21 need to fill out. From a department, DCA; 22 Division will be LUARC; from a civil service 23 title, board member. Go with that. That's kind 24 of not the most important information on it, but 25 it's the other information that you need to fill 97 1 out. 2 COMMISSIONER DORIA: But they're not 3 an outside employee. They're all working for real 4 people. That's their real employment, not state 5 employment. 6 MR. PFEIFFER: I understand that. 7 COMMISSIONER DORIA: See, this stuff 8 is all absurd. On the record I'll say it. Let's 9 put together a form for these people that make 10 sense. 11 MR. PFEIFFER: This is a standard 12 state form, as I understand it. I'm not in a 13 position to comment. I'm just the messenger. 14 MS. STERN: I really wasn't prepared 15 to weigh in on it, but I can provide -- I do know 16 that every board and agency fills out this 17 standardized form. 18 COMMISSIONER DORIA: Yeah, but it 19 doesn't make sense to say to say outside 20 employment. It's they're real employment. They 21 don't have outside employment. They're employed 22 in their real job. This is their outside 23 activity. 24 MS. STERN: I will find out, given 25 that everybody's not going to fill out this out 98 1 right now, about modifications to it. I agree; it 2 should make sense. 3 COMMISSIONER DORIA: It should be 4 reflective of the reality of the situation. 5 MS. STERN: Yes, it should. It 6 should. 7 CHAIRMAN FISHER: If you've already 8 filled one out, do you have to fill another one 9 out? I mean, I have one on file. 10 MS. STERN: I'm guessing here, but 11 my guess is that you have to fill it out for 12 purposes of this particular commission. I will 13 find out for sure. 14 CHAIRMAN FISHER: So I just need to 15 make sure my answers match. 16 MS. STERN: You're a newly 17 constituted board, so I have actually never seen 18 this before. I will investigate and -- 19 MR. PFEIFFER: I can answer the 20 question when Susan asked me -- Susan is out 21 today, but she's asked me when I pass this out to 22 also tell you that the way this works is, because 23 she is your ethics liaison officer, the role is 24 for her to review it to see if there's any 25 apparent conflicts. And that's maybe as far as it 99 1 goes. 2 MR. COZZA: So we're going to wait 3 for e-mail clarification on filling out the form? 4 MR. PFEIFFER: Sure. If you want 5 to. 6 MR. COZZA: Also, was there an 7 online ethics class that need to taken? 8 MS. STERN: Yes. 9 MR. COZZA: Where do you access 10 that? 11 MS. STERN: Again, I don't usually 12 get involved in that, but I think that's easy 13 to -- 14 MR. PFEIFFER: Susan will be back 15 next week. We'll get that information out to you. 16 MS. KENNY: Mr. Chairman, can I ask 17 my fellow commissioners and the staff if we could 18 as much as possible do most of this stuff on the 19 web so we don't have to always be handling pieces 20 of paper, so we can reduce our violation of the 21 environment. I know Governor Corzine has some 22 goals. 23 And also, if you do have to print, 24 if you could print double sided paper? Sorry to 25 be a nerd. We have a lot of paper all the time. 100 1 It would be nice to reduce it. 2 MR. PFEIFFER: I would echo those -- 3 MS. KENNY: I think that website is 4 just great. 5 MR. PFEIFFER: Here's my question to 6 the Commission. For example, the folks who were 7 here brought things. As people bring testimony, 8 one, when we invite them, we will definitely 9 indicate those types of standards. If you want to 10 bring copies with the e-mail, do you want the 11 types of handouts you get and you post them two 12 ways. We can put them on the My New Jersey that 13 you have internally, or we can put them on the 14 public site. 15 MS. KENNY: I think put everything 16 on public site. 17 COMMISSIONER DORIA: Public site. 18 CHAIRMAN FISHER: Absolutely. 19 MR. PFEIFFER: The handouts -- 20 COMMISSIONER DORIA: I think 21 everything should go on the public site. 22 MR. PFEIFFER: Okay. We'll take the 23 stuff we got today. And what about the handouts 24 that you all passed out today, put those up on 25 site as well? 101 1 MR. REED: Yes. We'll send them to 2 you electronically. In the future, we'll send it 3 you electronically ahead of time. 4 MR. PFEIFFER: And we don't have to 5 do copies. 6 COMMISSIONER DORIA: Except for 7 those who don't use computers. I don't use a 8 computer, on principle. I'm a Luddite. Somebody 9 print it out for me. I, on principle, do not use 10 computers. 11 MR. COZZA: It's going on the LUARC 12 Website. 13 MR. PFEIFFER: It's going to go on 14 the LUARC website. We'll create a section for 15 basically each meeting, documents that were passed 16 out at the meeting and we'll set it up that way. 17 MS. KENNY: So do we need a motion 18 to adjourned? 19 MR. CASEY: Motion to adjourn. 20 MR. COZZA: Second. 21 CHAIRMAN FISHER: All in favor? 22 COMMISSION MEMBERS: Aye. 23 - - - 24 (Meeting adjourned at 12:15 p.m.) 25 102 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 I, Lisa C. Bradley, a Certified 4 Court Reporter and Notary Public of the State of 5 New Jersey, do hereby certify that the foregoing 6 is 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 13 14 __________________________ 15 LISA C. BRADLEY, CCR, RPR 16 CCR NO. 30XI00228700 17 18 19 Dated: June 20, 2008 20 21 22 23 24 25 bchb> hb>h_wFGHIJ, - = > N O / 0 gdb>c0 e f   - . \ ]   J K    gdb>  I J Z [ ,-PQ+,VWgdb>W  ,-=>NO_`pr2gdb>23wxFG$%gdb>%56FGWXhiyzMNgdb>*+klab  FGyzgdb> QR@A\^*+pq6gdb>67vw@A]^XYPQgdb>Q@A  : ; l m !!B!C!z!gdb>z!{!!!!! ""S"T"""""##O#P#v#w##### $$M$N$$$gdb>$$$% %c%e%%%%%%%9&:&&&&& ' 'M'N'''''((^(gdb>^(_((((())H)I)))))**a*b******+++o+p+++++gdb>+C,E,,,,,,,--`-a-----3.4.y.z...//I/J////gdb>//00M0N0v0w00000"1#1i1j1111122V2W22222*3+3gdb>+3,3-3p3q333337484{4|44455J5K5555566F6G6666gdb>6677W7X77777!8"8]8^88888+9,9d9e9999999::;:gdb>;:::::; ;K;L;;;;;<<[<\<<<<<!="=]=^=====(>gdb>(>)>l>m>>>>>9?:?x?y???@@I@J@@@@@@@AAXAYAAAgdb>AAA$B%BiBjBBBBB-C.CiCjCCCCC)D*DnDoDDDDD7E8E~Egdb>~EEEEEEF FaFbFFFFF.G0GvGwGxGyGGGHHCHDHHHHHgdb>HII*I+IfIgIIIII6J7J{J|JJJKKHKIKKKKKLL\L]LLgdb>LLLL#M$MiMjMMMMM NNNNQNRNNNNNOO`OaOOOOOgdb>O*+PPPP:;QQQSSTTYTZTTTTTTT U!UeUfUUUUU3V4VvVwVVVVV6W7Wgdb>7WxWyWWWXXFXGXXXXX Y YPYQYYYYYZ ZbZcZZZZZ[gdb>[[[[][[[[[[[0\1\m\n\\\\\6]7]}]~]]] ^ ^P^Q^^^gdb>^^^__Y_Z_____``^`_`````*a+abacaaaaa)b+bqbgdb>qbrbsbtbbbbb5c6czc{cccccAdBddddd e eKeLeeeeegdb>e f fNfOfffffg gegfggggghhRhShhhhh!i"i#i$ihigdb>hiiiiiii3j4jzj{jjjkkHkIkkkkkll^l_lllllmmgdb>mGmHmzm{mmmmmAnBnnnnnooSoToooooooppGpHppgdb>pppp q qPqQqqqqqr rcrdrrrrr+s,spsqsssss.t/tgdb>/ٳtttt./ٳuu=?vvvvvvv%&wb>ww45xxȣxٲɲyyyy!"ҳzzz˿zzb>z>?{{{;<|||||||||3}4}v}w}}}}~F~G~~gdb>~~~~Z[QR؀ـ\]ҁӁgdb>STLMNOكڃ fg23wxgdb>./uvCDćŇ PQڈۈ cdgdb>+,-.ً׹ϋЋՌ'b>'(ԍǍ78>?ďŏ;<ǐɐgdb>ɐRSّڑ ?@Œƒ PQԓՓRgdb>RSՔ֔]^xyCDƖǖLNgdb>ڗۗ!"fg9:ƙǙGHКњ NOgdb>ٛڛGH͜ΜUV"$jklmgdb>78z{ŸKLՠ֠^_ݡޡ"#ghgdb>^_./lm@ABCǥȥFGgdb>GЦѦ PQէ֧AB()jkgdb>89pq12VX'(no-.gdb>.st@A?@ʯ˯VW߰#gdb>#$ij,.tuvw=>WX'(mngdb>n=>ɵʵUV!"_` Ngdb>NOܸ޸$%&'kl34uvBCϻлgdb>лPQۼܼbcRSܾݾYZgdb>޿߿%&kl*+jk:;gdb>'(deCD=>MNOgdb>OP !ef-.st@Agdb>&'jk78~IJ fggdb>-.st=>RSZ[gdb>[[\,-qrHIgdb>=>|}EFXY!"efgdb>56st#$gi:; Mgdb>MNde%&jk45vwgdb>FG NP&'klWXgdb>#$jk9:~EF^_12gdb>2wx789:yzDE>?gdb> QR_`%&gh56z{gdb>{ QR_`)*opBgdb>BCJK[\)*\]gdb>./op89{|GHYZgdb>()opWX&'gigdb>78wx>?UV'(lmgdb>89~ FGSU"#bcgdb>+,;<{|BC  Lgdb>LM  N O      ! g h i j     0 1 v w   gdb>   H I       ; <       QR bcgdb>45xyGHIJAB  gdb> HI  QRLM[\gdb>"#ij=>CD  PQgdb>Q\]()kl!"fg4gdb>45z|  NO  Y Z     "!#!c!d!!!gdb>!!!3"4"x"y"""##E#F#####$$V$W$$$$$%%^%`%%gdb>%%%%%%/&0&t&u&&&&& '!'K'L'''''((\(](((((gdb>( )!)_)`)))))**+*e*f*****++S+T+++++ ,!,",#,f,gdb>f,g,,,,,5-6-z-{---..D.E.......&/'/l/m/////gdb>/5060z0{00011H1I11111 22S2T2222222'3(3e3f33gdb>3333)4*4m4n44444%5&5j5k555555666{6|66677E7F7gdb>F77777 8 8M8N8888899S9U9999999&:':m:n::::gdb>::7;8;;;;;< <L<M<<<<<==[=\=====)>*>n>o>>>gdb>>>>@?A???????=@?@@@@@@@AATAUAAAAA B!BfBgdb>fBgBBBBB7C8CWCXCCCCCDDYDZDDDDD)E*EhEiEEEEEgdb>E F FQFRFFFFF'G(G)G*GlGmGGGGG1H2HqHrHHHHH=I>IIgdb>IIII JJQJRJJJJJKKaKbKKKKK/L0LvLwLLLLLMMgdb>MXMYMMMMMMM,N-NoNpNNNNNBOCOOOOOPPLPMPPPPgdb>PPQQSQTQQQQQ!R"RfRgRRRRR0S1StSuSSSSS>T?TTTgdb>TTTTTUUPUQUUUUUVV]V^VVVVV'W(WiWjWWWWW7Xgdb>7X8X|X}XXX Y YFYGYYYYYYY>Z?ZZZZZ [ [O[Q[[[[[gdb>[[[\\Z\[\\\\\#]$]i]j]]]]]6^7^x^y^^^^^%_&_d_gdb>d_e_____4`5`y`z```aaBaCaaaaabbXbYbZb[bbbbbgdb>b)c*cocpccccc6d7dUdVdddddeeSeTeeeeeee?f@ffgdb>ffffggUgVggggg h hLhMhhhhhhh i!igihiiiiigdb>i7j8j{j|jjjjj&k'khkikkkkk,l-lrlslllll@mAmmmmgdb>mmnnSnTnnnnno o_oaooooooopp9p:p|p}pppqqgdb>qLqMqqqqqrrXrYrrrrr&s'skslsssss9t:t{t|tttugdb>uuCuDuuuuuvv[v\v]v^vvvvv#w$wjwkwwwww9x:xzx{xgdb>{xxxxx.y/ymynyyyyy@zAzzzzz{{X{Y{{{{{%|&|l|gdb>l|m|||||7}8}9}:}l}m}}}}}1~2~u~v~~~~~+,nogdb>67wx56yz?@ɂʂ KLgdb>҃ӃԃՃAB̄̈́NOۅ܅78{|†Ægdb>Æ  OP?@ȈɈ <=Ɖlj UVWgdb>WXڊۊbcNjȋHIcd56wxgdb>>?ʎˎFGJKՐ֐אؐXgdb>XY+,lmڒے ef/0pqgdb>12xyIJЖі[]*+pqgdb>)*FGΙϙYZ*+opgdb>ab()lm6789{|IJןgdb>ן؟cd۠ܠQRʡˡ NOԢբZ[gdb>[ab67|}/0rsgdb>ABŧƧLMӨԨ_`ʩ˩ RSgdb>ڪ۪OQܫݫabܬݬ#$gh*gdb>*+noծ֮^_)*gh23tugdb>@ABC78{|³ IJʴ˴-gdb>-.tuٵڵRSݶ޶ab23y{¸gdb>¸øĸ LM׹ع^_#$hi)*Jgdb>JKҼӼVWڽ۽ !efݾ޾!#ijklgdb>89{|`a*+qrDEgdb>DEUV&'()nogdb>\]-.ijMNop  Mgdb>MN34yzLMNOHIgdb>YZ$%ijWX"#fgdb>fg78VW,-jk-.stgdb>BC  ST"#bcLMgdb>bd,-op@Agdb>MNXY&'gh ABgdb>&'67b>)**+b>()b><=LM'(lm=gdb>=>  OP>?MNgdb>Z[*+pqDE]^gdb>bc34rsABSTgdb>T cd!"bd45yzgdb>IJ\]XY_`gdb>TU$&lmno TUgdb>^_-.rs#$fgWXgdb>_`' ( i j     6 7 z {     D gdb>D E       / 0 s t     @ A     STgdb>bd JKYZ&'lgdb>lm=>|}01vw&'mngdb>ABCDVW$%fg45xygdb>>?89{|DEgdb>_`^_  QRtu= >    gdb>  !!Y!Z!!!!!%"&"k"l"""""##V#X#######)$*$gdb>*$p$q$$$$$:%;%%%%%& &M&N&&&&&''b'c'''''(gdb>((](^(((((/)0)u)v)))**&*(*n*o*p*q*****9+:+~++gdb>+++++/,0,t,u,,,,,7-8-}-~---..I.J.....//T/gdb>T/U///// 0 0I0J0h0i00000000111t1u111113242t2u2gdb>u22233C3D3333344Q4R44444!5"5h5i55555'6(6n6gdb>n6o66666B7C7777777884858z8{8889 9J9K99999gdb>9::::::::0;1;;;;;;;=<><z<{<<<==D=E====gdb>==>>S>U>>>>>>>+?,?l?m?????4@5@x@y@@@@@CADAgdb>DAAAAA BBPBQBBBBB!C"CfCgCCCCC!D"DhDiDDDDDEgdb>EE\E]E^E_EEEEE+F,FqFrFFFFF7G8G{G|GGGHHLHMHHHgdb>HHHII[I\IIIII,J-JoJpJJJJJ=K>KKKKKL LOLPLQLgdb>ϳ鳢LLLղMMMM./ٱܱNNNNϰ鰿OOb>OձPPPP)*QQQSSSSTT\T]TTTTT*U+UjUkUUUUU5V6V|V}VVVVV6W7Wgdb>7WvWwWWWXXCXDXXXXXXX-Y.YsYuYYYYYZZHZIZZZZgdb>ZZ[[\[][[[[["\#\h\i\\\\\4]5]y]z]]]^^?^@^^^gdb>^^^__S_T_n_o_____=`?```````aaQaRaaaaabgdb>bbabbbbbbb'c(cfcgccccc7d8d}d~ddd e eMeNeeeeegdb>eff_f`fffff(g*gpgqgrgsgggggBhChhhhhhh#i$ifigdb>figiiiiij j]j^jjjjj%k&kkklkkkkk:l;lllll mmgdb>mPmQmmmmm!n"n#n$nVnWnnnnno odoeooooo-p.pppqppgdb>ppppBqCqqqqqrrVrWrrrrrss`sasssssttVtWtgdb>Wttttttt)u*ulumuuuuuvvSvTvvvvvwwCwDwwwwgdb>wwwwxxIxJxxxxxxx2y3ymynyyyyyzzOzPzzzzzgdb>zzz{{:{;{k{l{{{{{||]|^|||||}}K}L}}}}}}gdb>}}&~'~l~m~~~~~78~CD̀π01gdb>1vw"#ef45OPԃՃ\]gdb> KLͅ΅PQno>?@Agdb>12rsӈԈMN҉Ӊ=>34ogdb>op78}~ŒGI56xygdb>Ўю  >?ݏޏ 9:|}ÐĐ NOّڑgdb>`a{|IKƓǓ  QRqrABgdb>Bɕʕ  OPזؖ<=`a"#`agdb>()klՙ֙יؙbcݚޚ=>śƛ  gdb> *+opМќZ[EFz{'(jgdb>jk{}ßğşƟPQڠ۠ bc¡gdb>¡ҡӡ*+pq¢âӢԢ 01ABRScgdb>6&P1h:pb>/ =!'"'#$% D@D NormalCJ_HaJmH nHsH tHLL Heading 2$ & Fx@& OJQJaJPP Heading 3$ & F<<@& OJQJaJPP Heading 4$ & F<<@& OJQJaJDAD Default Paragraph FontViV  Table Normal :V 44 la (k(No List ZZ\Personal Compose StyleCJOJQJ^JphVVlPersonal Reply StyleCJOJQJ^JphBUB Hyperlink>*B*CJOJQJphV>"V Title$<@&a$5CJKHOJQJ\^JaJ 2 B.nAStyle Bold Centered Left: 0.25" Box: (Single solid line Auto ...S$ & F $d %d &d 'd N O P Q a$ 5\aJDZ@BD b> Plain TextCJOJQJ^JaJc$GHIJ,-=>NO/0ef  -.\]JKeX0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X0X00ccR0  W2%6Qz!$^(+/+36;:(>A~EHLOS7W[^qbehimp/twz~d'ɐRG.#nNлO[M2{BcL  Q4!%(f,/3F7:>fBEIMPT7X[d_bfimqu{xl|ÆWXן[*-¸JMfKE=TD l *$(+T/u2n69=DAEHQLOS7WZ^befimpWtwz}1oB j¡cSUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~     cTX  U  +be9}F Xb9^`56789;<B*CJH*OJQJS*TXo(ph. ^`56o(.^`o(.P^P`o()  ^ `o(() X^ `o(()(^`o(()^`o(()``^``56CJOJQJo(()  0 ^ `0o(hH. ^`hH.  L ^ `LhH.   ^ `hH. xx^x`hH. HLH^H`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. 9}F9}F9}F9}F9}F9}F9}F9}FXbr        v>;d#a0 m } Fuv3[] db>F4AQDEQgF_wF KIK_K`SXZ[\]v6];c esgPjjB.nqr~&t-u-uyvl|L~e~Je2dpHCLkwyFr)OtVY3h56+7kp"R%\B)nV9d88AGGu>hx"m8nNZ;ZbxplO\nz 7S14+-VUaPtu: C&hc+9W: X]E"Se@c`@UnknownG: Times New Roman5Symbol3& : Arial]  MS MinchoArial Unicode MS?5 z Courier New"1hL&L&c7Uc7U#'42HX ?G2 mpfeiffer mpfeiffer  Oh+'0t  0 < HT\dl mpfeiffer Normal.dot mpfeiffer2Microsoft Office Word@F#@mh@mhc7՜.+,0 hp  NJDCAU'  Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#%&'()*+-./0123:Root Entry F0ms<1Table!WordDocument8$SummaryInformation($DocumentSummaryInformation8,CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q