|
TO:CHAIRMAN SENATOR ROBERT SMITH AND
CHAIRMAN ASSEMBLYMAN JOHN S. WISNIEWSKI
OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE FOR GOVERNMENT CONSOLIDATION AND SHARED SERVICES
FROM: WILLIAM G. DRESSEL, JR., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
NEW JERSEY STATE LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES
DATE: DECEMBER 7, 2006
RE: Recommendations of the Joint Committee on Government Consolidation and Shared Services
___________________________________________________________________________
The report of the Joint Committee on Government Consolidation and Shared Services includes a total of eighteen recommendations. We thank the members of this Committee for the dedication and commitment to the cause of property tax relief. We appreciate the wide range of experts you invited to provide testimony and comments, and for synthesizing so many ideas into eighteen recommendations.
We believe a number of this Committee’s recommendations, particularly the CORE proposal, does move the proverbial ball forward for tax relief. Below are the positions and comments submitted by the New Jersey State League of Municipalities.
Please note that we are submitting separate documents on A-14/S-39 as well as a one-page summary of changes we propose for A-4 and A-15/S-38.
I. A-4 “CORE PROPOSAL”
The League maintains its support for the majority of Speaker Roberts CORE reform proposal, which is now A-4.
We believe the changes from A-51 to A-4 reasonably and responsibly deal with reemployment lists and reconciliation plans. This is a fair and reasonable fashion to manage personnel issues in a merged or consolidated process. This overcomes a major obstacle for consolidation of inter-municipal agencies, and is to be commended. We thank the Sponsor and the Committee for these changes.
Section 53 Fire District Elections
Overall, the bill appears to address the issues the League raised in its comments before this Joint Committee:
-fire districts should have elections at the general election to increase voter participation;
-fire districts should not have a separate vote on their budget so long as it is subject to the CAP;
-fire districts should be under the same CAP as municipalities and under the same oversight by the Division of Local Government Services;
Below are technical concerns we would like to cite in A-4, as introduced:
Section 3 Definitions:
The definition for the term “terminal leave” has been placed in Section 19a (2). This presents a problem since it refers just to Section 19. Actually, the term “terminal leave” also appears in several other locations including Section 8b (second paragraph, not numbered), Section 11a (2), and Section 17b (2). The definition should be placed in Section 3.
Section 23
The section provides:
The joint contract shall be terminated upon the adoption of a resolution to that effect by the governing bodies of two-thirds of the local units then participating; except that if only two local units are then participating, adoption of a resolution by both units shall be required to terminate the contract.
This means that one entity (of a two entity joint meeting) that may be benefited by the joint meeting can stop the other entity from dissolving the joint meeting when it hurts the other entity. This would inhibit some municipalities from entering into a joint meeting knowing that the other entity could effectively hold them hostage if conditions did not justify its continued existence for both parties. When there are only two local units participating, one unit must be able to dissolve the joint meeting unilaterally with sufficient notice to the other side.
Lastly, the provisions of “Article 3 Joint Meeting” should also be applicable to the statute governing Regional Health Commissions since they are so similar. NJSA 26:3-84 permits the creation of this commission. It needs the same latitude provided to joint meetings in regard to personnel issues and civil service jurisdiction. Staff should add this extension specifically. Without doing so, it is possible that the repeal of NJSA 11A: 9-8 could be interpreted as removing the mandatory NJDOP jurisdiction. Including an extension of the joint meeting to this statute would make it clearer.
II. A-11/S-2375; ACR-5/SCR-123: APPOINTMENT OF MUNICIAL JUDGES IN JOINT COURTS
The League supports both of the above bills.
III. A-15, “ESTABLISES “LOCAL UNIT ALIGNMENT, REORGANIZATION AND CONSOLIDATION COMMISSION”; ESTABLISHES MEASURE FOR LCOAL GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY; APPROPRIATES $95,000
We acknowledge and appreciate that some of our concerns regarding alternate versions of this proposal have been heard and addressed. Most importantly the vote on approval of consolidation can be vetoed by the residents of any of the involved municipalities. We also appreciate our suggestion than any such body should prioritize local governments that come to it voluntarily. Nevertheless, there are operational issues that should be addressed. For the reasons below, the League opposes A-15 and S-38.
Our public statements and our testimony have been very clear: we do not necessarily oppose consolidation; nor do we necessarily support it. We acknowledge that shared services have led to modest savings and that if the Legislature removed the existing barriers, there would be a likely expansion of shared services and consolidation. In that regard, the League has championed the cause, providing expertise and assistance to our membership for decades. The success of the joint insurance funds is just one example. However, ultimately we defer to the judgment of those who live in their communities. In that regard, the new provision placing the vote in the hands of the voter is an improvement.
However, we note that for a number of years the League has championed property tax reform and, specifically, the constitutional convention. Our goal has been a simple on: to reduce our State’s over-reliance on the property tax. We were asked to refocus our goals and work with this Special Session, and we have done so. The recommendations from the four Joint Committee has put forth some progressive public polices that could help move the ball forward. We do not believe that the new layer of government to be created by A-15 and S-38 moves the ball forward. On the contrary, we are concerned that it could even serve to delay and ultimately undermine local governments that are currently considering consolidation or may opt for the preferable consolidation provisions in A-4.
Section 2
School districts are not included. Yet in Section 8e, upon the approval of a consolidation, the DOE is directed to meet with local superintendents “to determine if the consolidation of those districts is necessary or desirable.” If schools compose on average 55% of the property tax bill, why is this given such brief comment?
Section 3a
The "Local Unit Alignment, Reorganization and Consolidation Commission" is placed in the Department of Treasury. Since it is required to work in coordination with the Local Finance Board and the Division of Local Government Services, it should be placed in the Department of Community Affairs.
Section 5b
Why does a consolidation have to conform to the boundaries of a legislative district?
Criteria
No mention is made regarding political culture of the communities under study. Is it not significant for the eventual success of the potential consolidation to consider if the communities are compatible?
Priority to voluntary requests for Study
This is reasonable and should be the initial object of the studies since it would be safe to assume that if these local governments come in voluntarily then there is at least some support for a consolidation. It is however necessary to define the operation meaning of “voluntary.” How would staff and the commission determine that two or more municipalities wish to have a study conducted?
Section 7b2
It reads, “Under provisions contained in a consolidation plan, a provision of the plan may be effective at a time later than the date on which the plan otherwise is effective.” What does this mean?
Section 8a
It appears that one municipality can veto a consolidation as did Princeton Borough in the 1996 case. This allows the electorate of an individual municipality to determine their own governmental future. If this is the case, then more attention needs to be given to the question that would be placed on the ballot. The question should be simple and basic as possible. Issues of form of government, civil service jurisdiction, debt responsibility, etc should be left for future determination.
Section 8d
It reads, “The adoption of a form of government, the election of officers, the apportionment of debts, and other issues between pairs or groups of municipalities required to consolidate pursuant to an approved consolidation recommendation under subsection a. of this section shall be determined, as far as practicable, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the ‘Municipal Consolidation Act…’"
How is this to work? Under the current JMCSC provisions, the Commission makes these findings and conclusions in their report which is the subject of the referendum. This should be a two or three or four decisions process in stead of just one vote by the electorate. The mechanics need to be worked out in more detail.
Section 8e
See above regarding DOE role.
One of the key issues in a consolidation under the Municipal Consolidation Act is the impact of the consolidation of school districts. This bill practically ignores the issue. This is a major failing of the bill. A major reason consolidation was considered in the Princetons and in the Maplewood-South Orange votes was that a joint school district already exists. This bill must address this issue if it is to have any future benefit for the State of new Jersey.
Section 9
This section calls for the development and implementation of performance measures. These measures are to be the basis for providing rewards for municipal efficiency performance. In 1999 to 2001 the Division of Local Government Service took on a project to create a Flexible Chart of Accounts to bring greater uniformity to the budgeting and accounting process of municipal and county governments. More than 6 years later there is still a lack of uniformity in budgeting and accounting practices in municipal and county government.
There is also a requirement to provide an annual report of performance, based upon DCA generated performance measures. What is the anticipated workload, expected benefit, etc.? Will this be worth the added expenditures and the lost opportunities to effect desired changes? Listen to the school administrative personnel talk about the time and money spent on reports to the state that appear to have no effect or benefit whatsoever.
Section 10.1
This amounts to a conversion of a formula aid program that was instituted to supplement short falls in regular aid to a performance based aid program. We note that due to political reasons, there will be great deal of cynicism about the real intent of this program.
cc: Senator Ellen Karcher
Senator Joseph M. Kyrillos, Jr.
Assemblyman Robert M. Gordon
Assemblyman Joseph R. Malone, III
NJLM - Recommendations of the Joint Committee on Government Consolidation and Shared Services
|
TO:CHAIRMAN SENATOR ROBERT SMITH AND
CHAIRMAN ASSEMBLYMAN JOHN S. WISNIEWSKI
OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE FOR GOVERNMENT CONSOLIDATION AND SHARED SERVICES
FROM: WILLIAM G. DRESSEL, JR., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
NEW JERSEY STATE LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES
DATE: DECEMBER 7, 2006
RE: Recommendations of the Joint Committee on Government Consolidation and Shared Services
___________________________________________________________________________
The report of the Joint Committee on Government Consolidation and Shared Services includes a total of eighteen recommendations. We thank the members of this Committee for the dedication and commitment to the cause of property tax relief. We appreciate the wide range of experts you invited to provide testimony and comments, and for synthesizing so many ideas into eighteen recommendations.
We believe a number of this Committee’s recommendations, particularly the CORE proposal, does move the proverbial ball forward for tax relief. Below are the positions and comments submitted by the New Jersey State League of Municipalities.
Please note that we are submitting separate documents on A-14/S-39 as well as a one-page summary of changes we propose for A-4 and A-15/S-38.
I. A-4 “CORE PROPOSAL”
The League maintains its support for the majority of Speaker Roberts CORE reform proposal, which is now A-4.
We believe the changes from A-51 to A-4 reasonably and responsibly deal with reemployment lists and reconciliation plans. This is a fair and reasonable fashion to manage personnel issues in a merged or consolidated process. This overcomes a major obstacle for consolidation of inter-municipal agencies, and is to be commended. We thank the Sponsor and the Committee for these changes.
Section 53 Fire District Elections
Overall, the bill appears to address the issues the League raised in its comments before this Joint Committee:
-fire districts should have elections at the general election to increase voter participation;
-fire districts should not have a separate vote on their budget so long as it is subject to the CAP;
-fire districts should be under the same CAP as municipalities and under the same oversight by the Division of Local Government Services;
Below are technical concerns we would like to cite in A-4, as introduced:
Section 3 Definitions:
The definition for the term “terminal leave” has been placed in Section 19a (2). This presents a problem since it refers just to Section 19. Actually, the term “terminal leave” also appears in several other locations including Section 8b (second paragraph, not numbered), Section 11a (2), and Section 17b (2). The definition should be placed in Section 3.
Section 23
The section provides:
The joint contract shall be terminated upon the adoption of a resolution to that effect by the governing bodies of two-thirds of the local units then participating; except that if only two local units are then participating, adoption of a resolution by both units shall be required to terminate the contract.
This means that one entity (of a two entity joint meeting) that may be benefited by the joint meeting can stop the other entity from dissolving the joint meeting when it hurts the other entity. This would inhibit some municipalities from entering into a joint meeting knowing that the other entity could effectively hold them hostage if conditions did not justify its continued existence for both parties. When there are only two local units participating, one unit must be able to dissolve the joint meeting unilaterally with sufficient notice to the other side.
Lastly, the provisions of “Article 3 Joint Meeting” should also be applicable to the statute governing Regional Health Commissions since they are so similar. NJSA 26:3-84 permits the creation of this commission. It needs the same latitude provided to joint meetings in regard to personnel issues and civil service jurisdiction. Staff should add this extension specifically. Without doing so, it is possible that the repeal of NJSA 11A: 9-8 could be interpreted as removing the mandatory NJDOP jurisdiction. Including an extension of the joint meeting to this statute would make it clearer.
II. A-11/S-2375; ACR-5/SCR-123: APPOINTMENT OF MUNICIAL JUDGES IN JOINT COURTS
The League supports both of the above bills.
III. A-15, “ESTABLISES “LOCAL UNIT ALIGNMENT, REORGANIZATION AND CONSOLIDATION COMMISSION”; ESTABLISHES MEASURE FOR LCOAL GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY; APPROPRIATES $95,000
We acknowledge and appreciate that some of our concerns regarding alternate versions of this proposal have been heard and addressed. Most importantly the vote on approval of consolidation can be vetoed by the residents of any of the involved municipalities. We also appreciate our suggestion than any such body should prioritize local governments that come to it voluntarily. Nevertheless, there are operational issues that should be addressed. For the reasons below, the League opposes A-15 and S-38.
Our public statements and our testimony have been very clear: we do not necessarily oppose consolidation; nor do we necessarily support it. We acknowledge that shared services have led to modest savings and that if the Legislature removed the existing barriers, there would be a likely expansion of shared services and consolidation. In that regard, the League has championed the cause, providing expertise and assistance to our membership for decades. The success of the joint insurance funds is just one example. However, ultimately we defer to the judgment of those who live in their communities. In that regard, the new provision placing the vote in the hands of the voter is an improvement.
However, we note that for a number of years the League has championed property tax reform and, specifically, the constitutional convention. Our goal has been a simple on: to reduce our State’s over-reliance on the property tax. We were asked to refocus our goals and work with this Special Session, and we have done so. The recommendations from the four Joint Committee has put forth some progressive public polices that could help move the ball forward. We do not believe that the new layer of government to be created by A-15 and S-38 moves the ball forward. On the contrary, we are concerned that it could even serve to delay and ultimately undermine local governments that are currently considering consolidation or may opt for the preferable consolidation provisions in A-4.
Section 2
School districts are not included. Yet in Section 8e, upon the approval of a consolidation, the DOE is directed to meet with local superintendents “to determine if the consolidation of those districts is necessary or desirable.” If schools compose on average 55% of the property tax bill, why is this given such brief comment?
Section 3a
The "Local Unit Alignment, Reorganization and Consolidation Commission" is placed in the Department of Treasury. Since it is required to work in coordination with the Local Finance Board and the Division of Local Government Services, it should be placed in the Department of Community Affairs.
Section 5b
Why does a consolidation have to conform to the boundaries of a legislative district?
Criteria
No mention is made regarding political culture of the communities under study. Is it not significant for the eventual success of the potential consolidation to consider if the communities are compatible?
Priority to voluntary requests for Study
This is reasonable and should be the initial object of the studies since it would be safe to assume that if these local governments come in voluntarily then there is at least some support for a consolidation. It is however necessary to define the operation meaning of “voluntary.” How would staff and the commission determine that two or more municipalities wish to have a study conducted?
Section 7b2
It reads, “Under provisions contained in a consolidation plan, a provision of the plan may be effective at a time later than the date on which the plan otherwise is effective.” What does this mean?
Section 8a
It appears that one municipality can veto a consolidation as did Princeton Borough in the 1996 case. This allows the electorate of an individual municipality to determine their own governmental future. If this is the case, then more attention needs to be given to the question that would be placed on the ballot. The question should be simple and basic as possible. Issues of form of government, civil service jurisdiction, debt responsibility, etc should be left for future determination.
Section 8d
It reads, “The adoption of a form of government, the election of officers, the apportionment of debts, and other issues between pairs or groups of municipalities required to consolidate pursuant to an approved consolidation recommendation under subsection a. of this section shall be determined, as far as practicable, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the ‘Municipal Consolidation Act…’"
How is this to work? Under the current JMCSC provisions, the Commission makes these findings and conclusions in their report which is the subject of the referendum. This should be a two or three or four decisions process in stead of just one vote by the electorate. The mechanics need to be worked out in more detail.
Section 8e
See above regarding DOE role.
One of the key issues in a consolidation under the Municipal Consolidation Act is the impact of the consolidation of school districts. This bill practically ignores the issue. This is a major failing of the bill. A major reason consolidation was considered in the Princetons and in the Maplewood-South Orange votes was that a joint school district already exists. This bill must address this issue if it is to have any future benefit for the State of new Jersey.
Section 9
This section calls for the development and implementation of performance measures. These measures are to be the basis for providing rewards for municipal efficiency performance. In 1999 to 2001 the Division of Local Government Service took on a project to create a Flexible Chart of Accounts to bring greater uniformity to the budgeting and accounting process of municipal and county governments. More than 6 years later there is still a lack of uniformity in budgeting and accounting practices in municipal and county government.
There is also a requirement to provide an annual report of performance, based upon DCA generated performance measures. What is the anticipated workload, expected benefit, etc.? Will this be worth the added expenditures and the lost opportunities to effect desired changes? Listen to the school administrative personnel talk about the time and money spent on reports to the state that appear to have no effect or benefit whatsoever.
Section 10.1
This amounts to a conversion of a formula aid program that was instituted to supplement short falls in regular aid to a performance based aid program. We note that due to political reasons, there will be great deal of cynicism about the real intent of this program.
cc: Senator Ellen Karcher
Senator Joseph M. Kyrillos, Jr.
Assemblyman Robert M. Gordon
Assemblyman Joseph R. Malone, III |
|
|
|
