TABLE OF CONTENTS

Overview
About Page & Contact Information
Page 1
Key Issues & Background Page 2
Where does all the money come from?
Page 2
Income Tax, Sales Tax, and Corporate Taxes by the Numbers
Page 4
Growth in Major Taxes Page 5
Expenditures Not Budgeted Page 6
Federal Government Control Page 8
The Earned Income Tax Credit
Page 10
Agricultural Sector Page 11
Medicaid Expansion Page 12
Public Employees Retirement System (PERS)
Page 13
PERS Liabilities Page 15
Transportation Infrastructure Issues Page 17

Budget Recommendations
Highlights of the Americans for Prosperity Taxpayers Budget
Page 21
Explanation of Categories of Funding
Page 21
Department of Agriculture Page 22
Department of Banking and Insurance
Page 24
Chief Executive






Page 28
Legislature Page 29
Children & Families






Page 30
Community Affairs Page 34
Department of Corrections Page 37
Department of Education Page 41
Department of Environmental Protection
Page 46
Department of Health and Senior Services
Page 56
Department of Human Services
Page 57
Labor and Workforce Development
Page 63
Law and Public Safety Page 67
Interdepartmental Accounts Page 70
Miscellaneous Commissions Page 71
Military & Veterans Page 72
Judiciary Page 74
Department of the State Page 78
Higher Education Page 80
Department of Transportation Page 87
Department of the Treasury Page 91

Model Budget
Summary of Appropriations Page 100
The Model Budget in its Entirety
Page 105

ABOUT THE AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY TAXPAYER BUDGET AUTHOR, STEVE ANDERSON:
Mr. Anderson is the managing partner of Anderson, Reichert and Anderson CPAs, LLCs Oklahoma
office. Prior to joining the firm, he spent an extensive portion of his career in the oil and gas
industry first as a comptroller of a multinational company and later as owner and operator of
his own firm.
He served in the administration of Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating and most recently spent
three years as the Kansas State Budget Director and State Comptroller in the administration of
Governor Sam Brownback. The Kansas City Star noted that, Perhaps no one is more pivotal in
Brownbacks call to limit spending than one of his first appointees...Steve Anderson.
He has been a prolific author on efficiency in government operations and on governmental
accounting issues as well as a lecturer for a number of state and national think tanks on a variety
of governmental budget issues. He serves on the Governmental Advisory Board of the Kansas
State Society of CPAs, as well as being a Continuing Professional Education lecturer on multiple
governmental accounting and finance issues. His study of Oklahoma school spending, The Real
Cost of Education was praised by Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman as a great service.
Forbes magazine described his actions in designing a new form of governmental accounting
that measured cost of service delivery as revolutionary. He holds a B.S. in finance from Fort
Hays State University and a MBA from University of Central Oklahoma; in addition to teaching
certifications from Advanced Placement Calculus to Physics and Business in Oklahoma.

AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITYS MISSION:

Americans for Prosperity exists to recruit, educate, and mobilize citizens in support of the
policies and goals of a free society at the local, state and federal level, helping every American
live their dream especially the least fortunate.

CONTACT:
Americans For Prosperity - New Jersey
550 West Main Street, Suite 5, Boonton NJ, 07005
Erica L. Jedynak, State Director
Phone: 862-229-4953

THE AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY TAXPAYER BUDGET FY-2017

KEY ISSUES AND BACKGROUND
It is a sad fact that hardly anyone, including the politicians who spend it, understand where all
the dollars that pass through Trenton come from or where they go. It is difficult for the average
citizen to understand not only the magnitude of the spending from the state of New Jersey,
much less the multitude of different revenues sources that New Jersey state government draws
on. This disconnect is partially the fault of government accounting rules that produce financial
documents which are so different from the private sector that even experienced financial experts
have trouble deciphering them. The Americans for Prosperity Taxpayer Budget attempts to cut
through this confusion and create a document that allows for citizens to become more informed
about how elected officials are spending taxpayer money.

WHERE DOES ALL THE MONEY COME FROM?

There are some dollars that never make it to the states coffers that should be just as interesting
to the average citizen as the final amount of funding that the state legislature allocates to
various state programs. Sometimes these diversions make perfect sense, but many times they
are nothing more than favoritism to specific industries. As the following chart shows, the amount
of funding that could have been collected before the various exemptions and deductions for
industries or individuals totaled a staggering $64.4 billion in forgone taxes over just a three
year period.i If these exemptions, deductions, and credits were eliminated, New Jersey could
significantly lower taxes across the board.
2

THOSE FUNDS NEVER REACHING THE TREASURY

$s in Millions
FY-2015 Actual

FY-2016 Estimated

FY-2017 Estimated

Gross Income Tax

Credits

$3,820.30

$4,088.70

$4,243.80

Deductions/
Exemptions

$2,330.10

$2,465.50

$2,582.60

Exclusions

$1,387.60

$1,438.80

$1,469.60

Total

$7,538.00

$7,993.00

$8,296.00

Sales and Use Tax

Credits

$14.10

$14.80

$13.00

Deductions/
Exemptions

$4,465.10

$4,595.50

$4,620.70

Exclusions

$4603.60

$4,512.00

$,448.70

Total

$9,082.80

$9,122.30

$9,082.40

Corporate Business Tax

Credits

$203.50

$205.80

$386.20

Deductions/
Exemptions

$1,052.00

$1,060.00

$1,063.00

Exclusions

$3,100.00

$3,118.90

$3,140.00

Total

$4,355.50

$4,384.70

$4,589.20

$20,976.30

$21,500.00

$21,967.50

Grand Total

Any time the legislature has a discussion of tax increases, citizens should insist politicians look
to end costly special interest handouts before looking to taxpayers for additional sources of
revenue.
Citizens seldom are aware of all the revenue sources and hidden taxes they pay outside of sales
and income taxes, even though they can be just as costly. Politicians often prefer this tactic
to hide funding for programs within different revenue streams. They can make the claim they
reduced General Revenue funding despite the fact total spending increased. The following list
is the sources of funding for expenditures used to finance state government and its programs in
the recently proposed Fiscal Year 2017 Budget.ii

BUDGETED EXPENDITURES

FY-2017

General Revenue

$19,398,167,000

Casino Control

$50,268,000

Casino Revenue

$199,927,000

Gubernatorial Election

$6,200,000

Property Tax Relief

$15,174,130,000

Total

$34,828,692,000
4

General Revenues is typically the category that receives the majority of the attention, because
this is the fund that is debated on the chamber floors and attract most of the media attention.
General revenue comes from a diverse set of tax sources and as the following chart shows, as
a total, they grew at over double the rate of the consumer price index in the last five years.iii
Its critical to understand that the goods and services which are purchased by government
should have roughly the same cost increases as the economy overall, assuming that there were
no new services or programs provided.

MAJOR TAXES TO GENERAL REVENUE 5 YEARS GROWTH RATE

Sales

21%

Less: Sales Tax Dedication

20%

Corporation Business

16%

Transfer Inheritance

32%

Motor Fuels

28%

Insurance Premium

3%

Motor Vehicle Fees

11%

Cigarette

15%

Realty Transfer

16%

Petroleum Products Gross Receipts

-30%

Alcoholic Beverage Excise

24%

Corporation Banks & Financial Institutions

4%

Tobacco Products Wholesale Sales

7%

Public Utility Excise (Reform)

8%

Total Major Taxes

19%

Property Tax Relief funding is where New Jerseys Gross Income Tax and one half-cent of
the Sales and Use Tax are dedicated by the State Constitution for the purpose of reducing or
offsetting property taxes.iv The legislature over the years has strayed from its original purpose
with this revenue flowing to counties, municipalities and school districts. This funding has been
growing at a rather high rate, increasing 8.7% higher than the consumer price index over the
same period.

PROPERTY TAX RELIEF $S IN THOUSANDS

5 Year Growth Rate
Gross Income Tax

23%

Sales Tax Deduction

16%

Total Property Tax Relief

22%

The Casino Revenue Fund comes from taxes imposed on the casinos, internet gaming and other
related activities. Appropriations from this fund must be used for reductions in property taxes,
utility charges and other specified expenses of eligible senior citizens as well as for individuals
with disabilities.V

CASINO CONTROL $S IN THOUSANDS

5 Year Growth Rate
Investment Earnings

-45%

License Fees

7%

Total Casino Control

7%

CASINO REVENUE $S IN THOUSANDS

Casino Simulcasting

-48%

Gross Revenue Tax

-14%

Investment Earnings

-14%

Total Casino Revenue

-36%

EXPENDITURES NOT BUDGETED

For such a benign-sounding category, expenditures not budgeted exceeding $22 Billion is
certainly shocking. Generally, the term expenditures not budgeted simply means that these
expenditures are not going through the proper appropriations process. Unfortunately, the media
often fails to report on this category leaving nearly 40% of the states expenditures unreported.
The chart shows the tendency for growth in these funds that are not being exposed to the
public scrutiny.iv

BUDGETED EXPENDITURES
General Revenue

10 YEAR GROWTH

EXPENDITURES NOT BUDGETED

3%

10 YEAR GROWTH

Dedicated

56%

Casino Control Budgeted

-24%

Federal

90%

Casino Revenue Budgeted

-55%

Revolving

21%

Property Tax Relief Fund

24%

Special Transportation

-11%

Total Growth

10%

Total Growth

64%

The Dedicated and Special Transportation expenditures that are off budget are especially
interesting given the current discussion of raising the gasoline tax. Although many politicians
have claimed the need to raise additional road funding they often omit that the Department of
Transportation revenue stream has grown by 236% in the last ten years, more than offsetting
the reduction in the Special Transportation fund. This will be covered in more detail in the
Transportation section.
Equally if not more troubling, this process of budgeting reduces the flexibility of the legislature to
react to fiscal crisis moving funds to where they are most beneficial. Not only has the legislature
reduced its flexibility but they have also hidden the funding from the light of day, keeping the
spending away from scrutiny. Despite these pitfalls, total off budget spending has grown by 87%
since FY-2002 while total budgeted expenditures has grown 51% over the same period.

All of this off budget spending allows statements such as spends $2.3 billion less in discretionary
spending compared to fiscal 2008vii in the current Governors Citizens Guide to the Budget, to
be made with a straight face.

A COMPLETE LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY

The off-budget issue is only part of how spending is hidden from view in government finances.
A citizen cannot compare how much any New Jersey state program or service costs relative to
another states similar program going through all 400 pages of the FY-2017 governors Governors
Budget. I have served as State Comptroller and Budget Director of a state, as well as sitting
on the Governmental Accounting Board of a State Society of CPAs but after examining the
budget documents of the state, I cannot tell the citizens of New Jersey how much they are truly
spending on any service or program they finance with their tax dollars. How can citizens make
judgements on their governments programs if they do not know what they truly are spending?
After my examination of the states budget process the only reasonable conclusion is that New
Jerseys government structure, like most but not all the states, is designed to hide expenditures
on the various programs and services that it provides. For example, when a consumer enters a
store and buys an item, they know the cost of the cashier is included in the price of the product
they purchased. That is not so in their state government. The Department of the Treasurys
cost of collecting funds from taxpayers and other sources of revenue are not allocated to the
programs and services that they fund. This hiding of expenditures is repeated in various forms
in New Jersey but the most egregious is the use of a whole department to hide expenditures.
Hidden near the end of the budget documents is the Interdepartmental Accounts which provide
funds for the cost of certain services that are administered centrally on behalf of all agencies of
State government.viii These are large costs that are being hidden here as the graph below shows.

A total exceeding $4 billion is not an inconsequential sum. These costs include things such as
employee benefits and salary increases, which should be allocated and appropriated to those
services and programs where those funds will ultimately be spent. However, this is not the only
area where transparency is an issue in the budget processes of New Jersey.
An individual wishing to see just how effective the hundreds of state programs are will find that
the Evaluation Data for each service is merely inputs and outputs almost without exception.
For example, K-12 education expenditures are one of the largest taxpayer-funded services. But
yet, there is almost no data on outcomes that the nearly $13 billion in state funds achieve that
citizens can use to judge the efficiency or results generated by that amount of funding.ix
In summary, citizens and legislators have no idea exactly how much is spent or what is achieved
with that expenditure. Is it any wonder that citizens have concerns about where their tax dollars
go? Transparency is not a partisan issue, but the single most important quality a governments
financial document can have to ensure the citizens are properly informed. The state has an
obligation to fix this flawed system and provide a real accounting to their citizens who are after
all the primary stakeholders of what goes on in Trenton.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTROLS A LARGE PART OF THE STATE BUDGET

Hidden in the off-budget numbers is an area that creates a similar conundrum for citizens and
their legislators, but with greater damage to the states constitutional powers. The following
graph shows the 131% in growth of the amount of federal funds received by the state since FY2002.

These funds are almost all part of cost sharing agreements where the state agrees to fund a
program with the understanding the federal government will contribute either on a short or
long term basis some percentage of the program cost. The federal government buries a type
of worm in many of their programs that either by design or happenstance has already taken
over large parts of state budgets and continues to grow in New Jersey. Unless you are on the
inside of government, you may never have heard of the term Maintenance of Effort (MOE), but
anyone who has had to construct a state budget knows that federal MOE provisions seriously
hamper states ability to make effective and efficient use of taxpayer money.
Those who are nave about the acceptance of federal funds in these cost sharing agreements
will often proclaim those funds to be free money or just getting back some of what we sent
to Washington. The federal government does not see it through the same lens as those who
make those claims. The intent of the federal governments MOE provisions is explained in no
uncertain terms by the Congressional Budget Office, which offers an insightful observation on
the federal grants and attendant MOEs: Federal grant programs provide a mechanism for
federal policymakers to promote their priorities at the state and local levels by influencing
the amount of money spent by state and local governments and the types of activities on
which those governments spend their money.x This amounts to federal policy manipulation via
control of state budgets that may not represent the policy views of its citizens or their elected
officials.
As the following graph shows, the percentage of federal funds in the total state
budget has grown by 51% over the last decade.

The majority of these funds are in Medicaid and No Child Left Behinds (NCLB) K-12 educational
services. But when I served as Budget Director of a Midwestern state, I found federal funds
with MOE constraints on the ability to control or reallocate spending in almost every part
of the budget. Once a Governor and Legislature accept a program with MOE, the long term
commitment begins. Every administration that expands the program hands down to the next
administration a bigger MOE to deal with. Once you have committed to a level of services
floor under the Medicaid MOE, you are now subject to the restrictions on the amount that
spending can be reduced, if at all, going forward. Even if a state finds a better way to provide
an equivalent or better service, if that better way changes the level of service offered, or in
some programs merely reduces expenditures, the state is in a position to either have to submit a
waiver application or increase spending in another part of the program to avoid any MOE issues.
This budget will note in the various sections the existence of MOEs in various programs and the
hidden costs these federal programs can bring to state government. The scope of this budget
will not allow full discovery and reporting on the impact but there is no doubt that within just
the two programs already discussed a large part of the New Jersey budget process is controlled
by the federal government.

THE EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT (EITC) PROGRAM IS NOT TAX RELIEF
In his latest budget, Governor Christie trumpeted his enacted law to increase the Earned
Income Tax Credit from 20% to 30% of the federal benefit. Approximately 500,000 Garden State
households will benefit from this tax relief, with the credit for an average working family rising
by 50% from approximately $420 to $630.xi A bit of math using the Governors numbers shows
that, including the federal EITC benefit, recipients in New Jersey will now receive a lump sum
payment averaging $2730 per filer. Here are some facts about this payment for the taxpayers
who finance EITC.
EITC is not a reduction in the taxes of the person receiving it, but instead a social welfare
program which redistributes citizens tax dollars to the recipients of EITC. Those individuals
who receive EITC did not pay enough taxes to receive this large of a refund and this point
seems to be left out of the Governors description of the program when he claims it is tax
relief. EITC is a redistribution program, not a tax reduction of an amount owed or any other
classical definition of tax relief. However, that is not the only significant problem with EITC and
the Governors claims.
10

EITC is racked with fraud and IRS estimates that in FY2013, 22% to 26% of EITC payments
between $13.3 billion and $15.6 billionwere issued improperly.xii As a partner in a Certified
Public Accounting firm, I have seen EITC up close and personal and the fraud issue is certainly
reinforced by that experience, but the issue goes deeper than just the fraud. EITC recipients are
often not knowledgeable about the conservation of fiscal resources and a lump sum payment
can be spent in places that do not provide benefits to the family as a social welfare program
like this is intended to provide. There is an alternative approach that can ensure these taxpayer
funds end up providing the assistance they were intended too and prevents the element of fraud.
It is difficult to tell from the records that are publicly available, but there is almost certainly a
part of that EITC disbursement being used to meet a Maintenance of Effort (MOE) obligation
for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program that the state operates in
conjunction with the federal government. Most states used the liberalization of the TANF rules
to fund part of their EITC program, and though it is difficult if not impossible to completely
eliminate the EITC program because of the MOE, it can be converted to better uses via the TANF
program. The state could direct TANF vouchers funded by the money currently being sent to
EITC to be specifically aimed at purchasing milk, and fresh or frozen fruits/vegetables similar
to the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program. You will see WIC certified products in the
grocery store and the state could have a similar certification for these new TANF vouchers.
Vouchers that can only be used for certified produce reduce fraud and increases the probability
of these funds feeding needy citizens and their children.
Furthermore, there is an opportunity to make a significant part of that funding stay with New
Jersey agri-industry via the emphasis on fresh produce. The principal variable cost in fresh
produce is shipping distance between farm and retailer. The further the farm from the grocery
store where the produce is sold, the higher the cost of the produce. New Jersey producers,
of which there is a significant agricultural community growing produce that qualifies, would
certainly be a beneficiary of such a change from the EITC program to a TANF-type program.

WAYS THE STATE CAN HELP SUSTAIN THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR WHILE REDUCING STATE EXPENDITURES
The state Agriculture Department conducts advertising, market development, and promotional
activities to create a positive image of New Jerseys agricultural products and to increase
consumer awareness and sales. These sort of activities are the agricultural sectors obligation and
not for the citizens of New Jersey to fund with their tax dollars. These policies and expenditures
are obviously inappropriate uses of tax dollars, but the distortions of the free market do not stop
there.
State agricultural policies directly support price suppression of certain segments of the states
private sector real estate. The State Agriculture Development Committee (SADC) administers
New Jerseys Farmland Preservation Program. The Farmland Preservation Program compensates
farm owners for their development rights if their deeds restrict their farms against future
development. The terms of these deed restrictions can be permanent or for as short a period
as eight years. Future owners of permanently preserved farms must comply with all deed
restrictions. The SADC also coordinates a variety of programs with participating counties and
farmland owners to protect important farmland in sufficient quantity and quality to foster long
term agricultural viability. It is also charged with specific righttofarm responsibilities relating
to agriculture.xiii If the state desires to support agriculture it can do it through the free market,
not by separating taxpayers from their hard earned dollars.
The state has several opportunities to use existing federal programs that are not direct subsidies
for any industry to facilitate the goals of the two programs listed in the prior two paragraphs.
11

As noted in the prior section on EITC there are federal programs that have an element of state
control that can be reshaped to keep more of those dollars in state when they are spent.
The state receives federal funds from multiple sources to provide support for New Jerseys
farmers, but they are either being used ineffectively or not at all. For example, the USDAs
Farm to School program has the stated purpose of assisting eligible entities in implementing
farm to school programs that improve access for local growers to public schoolsxiv. On top of
that up to $5 million in the grants per year is available for implementing the program including
a provision that, support service grants are intended for state and local agencies, Indian tribal
organizations, agricultural producers or groups of agricultural producers, and non-profit entities
working with schools or school districts to further develop and provide broad reaching support
services to farm to school initiatives.xv
The New Jersey State Department of Education can be a central player in addressing the
seasonal issues with this program by accessing the grants available. The program provides
special funding that state agencies can use their State Administrative Expense (SAE) funds,
both as initially allocated and when reallocated, and State Administrative Funds (SAF) for statelevel coordination of farm to school activities. This guidance applies to the National School
Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, Special Milk Program, Child and Adult Care Food
Program (CACFP), Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program,
and Food Distribution Programs that provide USDA Foods to applicable programsxvi. The state
and/or local school districts could use grant funds to bulk buy and contract with frozen produce
processers, effectively putting New Jersey-grown produce on school menus all over the state
while providing savings for local school districts.
A program already in place in many states solves some of the logistic issues in moving fresh
produce for either consumption or to freezing facilities. The United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) in cooperation with the Department of Defense (DoD) operates a program
called DoD Fresh. It provides easy ordering and funds tracking: Schools place orders via the
web-based Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Order/Receipt System (FFAVORS). FFAVORS tracks
schools entitlement fund balances and total order costs. DoD manages vendor payment and
reconciliation. USDA does not impose a cap on the amount of entitlement dollars that a state
can allocate to DoD purchases making this a program with great flexibility for New Jersey
schools and growers.
This is a potentially huge marketplace for New Jersey farmers, and as noted in the EITC section,
the advantage to New Jersey agriculture producers is not a state subsidy, but the pricing
advantage from the free market.

THE ILLUSION OF SAVINGS FROM THE MEDICAID EXPANSION

Taxpayers are always pleased when they hear any program has saved some tax dollars as the
Governor claims in regards to Medicaid expansion; which was packaged under the moniker NJ
FamilyCare. His budget in brief claims: In response to a steep reduction in the demand for
uncompensated hospital care due to the expansion of NJ FamilyCare, the budget recommends
a $75 million State-funded reduction in Charity Care grants to hospitals.xviii
However, savings in government programs dont end up back in taxpayers pockets but in
another program, and that is the case here too. Per the Governor: A portion of these funds will
be reinvested and matched with federal dollars to provide $60 million in increased funding for
Graduate Medical Education grants, and to provide additional State and federal funding of $45
million to annualize the January 2016 increase in NJ FamilyCare physician reimbursements.xix
12

We should note the use of the term annualize, which translated into common terms means
that the expenditure base for this program just became a fixed part of their budget even though
the savings from the reduction in demand could be temporary. However, in this particular case
it gets worse even if the savings somehow became permanent and it is potentially much worse.
A large part of the lure of Medicaid expansion for states was the promise to states the federal
government will pay 100 percent of the cost of expansion in 2014, 2015 and 2016. Then the
federal match is eventually pared back to 90 percent in 2020 and beyond. It would stay at the
90 percent level unless the lawmakers change or repeal the legislation. It needs to be noted this
rate of cost sharing does NOT apply to the administrative costs of NJ FamilyCare which will be
subject to the roughly 50% match rate of the regular Medicaid programxx. Even if the federal
government sticks to its promise, the costs to the state will go up.
However, the rate the states share of costs will go up will be far greater than the reduction in
the federal percentage paid of NJ FamilyCare. The Maintenance of Effort (MOE) agreement
for Medicaid and Medicaid expansion are unique in the MOE agreements with the federal
government, in that MOE is tied to eligibility. In other words, once you have set an income
level for an individual to qualify you are committed to continue that level. Why is this such a
dangerous policy? Consider that incomes will usually go up AND populations grow in states
which means more and more people will qualify over time. On top of that health care costs
rise annually and at a rate much greater than inflation. For instance, in New Jersey in a ten year
period those costs grew at 5.3% per year. Mathematicians will tell you that multiple increasing
factors in an equation create a geometric progression which creates a very rapid increase.
This mathematical certainty of states that have accepted the Medicaid expansion MOE will find
their costs going up greater than the change in matching dollars. But wait, it gets worse!
The Congressional Budget Office in their March 2013 publication Federal Grants to State and
Local Governments noted: Adjusted for inflation, the amount of federal grants for health
programs in 2011 was about seven times the amount in 1980. Over that period, such grants
more than tripled as a share of GDP, rising from 0.6 percent in 1980 to 1.9 percent in 2011. In
particular, the share of federal health grants in the national economy has increased significantly,
primarily because of rising federal spending on Medicaid. That has led President Barack Obama
to backtrack from the claim that the federal government will pay all the costs for 3 years and at
least 90 percent thereafter, and begin to talk about blended rates that will transfer a sizeable
portion of the cost to state budgets.xxi One of the major groups supporting Medicaid expansion,
the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, is cautioning that this new shift by
the President in how Medicaid expansion will be financed will likely prompt states to cut
payments to health care providers and to scale back the health services that Medicaid covers
for low-income children, parents, people with disabilities, and/or senior citizens (including
those in nursing homes). Reductions in provider payments would likely exacerbate the problem
that Medicaid beneficiaries already face regarding access to physician care, particularly from
specialists.xxii This analysis actually left out the administrative cost impact on the states of
Medicaid expansion and the geometric progression of total cost so more than likely the impact
is going to exceed even those dire predictions.

THE FISCAL ISSUES WITH THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF NEW JERSEY (PERS)
New Jersey uses a type of pension plan called a defined benefit plan that has largely been
abandoned by the private sector and a growing number of public sector entities. A defined benefit
plan identifies the specific benefit that will be payable to the employee at retirement assuming
that employee vests in the plan. PERS requires 10 years of service before an employee vests
and actually qualifies for retirement. Leaving state service before vesting means the employee
13

receives a refund of their accumulated contributions plus, if the member has completed three
years of service, interest on those contributions with the state, keeping all of the employer
contributions made on behalf of the employee.xxiv In other words, an employee is left with a
pittance of a benefit if they serve for less than a decade making this a benefit system that
rewards primarily longevity.
An inspection of the actual outcomes for state employees in PERS is eye-opening. The New
Jersey state employee retirement benefit is based on a formula that is generally determined
as a percentage of the retirees final salary, which is the average of either the average annual
compensation for the three years of creditable service immediately preceding retirement, the
highest three fiscal years of membership service, or the highest five fiscal years of membership
service, depending on what Class of Member the employee is, multiplied by the number of
years of service times 1.66 percent. While this is a guaranteed payment for a lifetime there are
two very troubling issues for the employee if they do vest and reach retirement age.
First is that it is actually not a very lucrative retirement income for the state retiree that PERS
generates given the amount of money taxpayers invest in PERS. For example, a retiree with a
final average salary figure of $75,000 and 20 years of service is only going to receive $2075 per
month from PERS. Second there is no guaranteed cost of living increase and in a retirement
system that has funding issues like PERS it is not likely to receive one. The net effect is someone
who receives a pension they plan to live on for 20 or 30 years is ravaged by any inflation that
occurs during their lifetime. The effect can be dramatic even in the relatively low inflation
periods of the last 20 years. That $2075 payment if it had been received starting in 1996 would
only have the equivalent buying power of $1374 in 2015.xxvi
There are additional problems with how defined benefit systems like PERS treat employees,
besides the requirement of 10 years until vesting. For example, a husband/wife can only leave
a lowered monthly payment to their spouse if they die. Whats worse, heirs cannot inherit any
benefit like they might with a personal retirement account. The PERS system gets to keep the
savings when a retiree dies soon after retiring just as they get to take back their part of PERS
contributions if an employee leaves before vesting. A system that cannibalizes retirement
accounts of those who leave through early death or taking a private sector job does not make a
great argument when it is suggested that PERS helps attract and retain good employees.
The deal provided by PERS to New Jersey taxpayers is just as poor. One of the fiscal issues
with defined benefit plans is the full costs of any benefit improvement or plan change does
not show in the budget for the year in which it is enacted. Since defined benefit cost of living
adjustments (COLAs) or other system changes that benefit state employees do not incur current
period expenditures because they are promises to pay in the future. The state of New Jersey
like all other states uses something called cash basis accounting. Cash basis budgeting only
shows those expenditures that will be incurred in the current budget year and does not include
any future expenditures that may be written into law in that year. Therefore, when a COLA is
given that might actually be estimated to cost $500 million in the future, that amount is not
shown in the budget nor in any future budget. This is one of the ways the sort of huge unfunded
liabilities---known as Unfunded Actuarially Accrued Liability (UAAL)---that plague PERS occur.
The other way these UAALs grow is because defined benefit plans also offer a loophole in
tight budget years to legislators. Often the legislature or governor will choose to not fund
the pension and instead use those funds for other purposes. Typically, citizens only find out
about this budget disparity when the pensions UAAL reaches the point that the system must
be subsidized with an influx of cash, leaving the taxpayers financially responsible for the budget
mismanagement. PERS is a great example of these two issues but there is one more fundamental
14

problem with defined benefit plans that creates problems not even the most conscientious
legislator can avoid.
Legislators are asked to make decisions based on information that is limited in trustworthiness.
Aaron Shapiro, the principal consulting actuary for Buck Consulting which perform the actuary
services for PERS, said this in his April 1, 2015 letter to the Board of Trustees of PERS: Future
actuarial measurements may differ significantly from current measurements due to plan
experience differing from that anticipated by the economic and demographic assumptions,
increases or decreases expected as part of the natural operation of the methodology used
for these measurements, and changes in plan provisions or applicable law. An analysis of the
potential range of future results is beyond the scope of this valuation. Use of this report for
any other purpose or by anyone other than the Board of Trustees or staff of the State of New
Jerseys Division of Pensions and Benefits may not be appropriate and may result in mistaken
conclusions because of failure to understand applicable assumptions, methods, or inapplicability
of the report for that purpose. No one may make any representations or warranties based on
any statements or conclusions contained in this report without Buck Consultants prior written
consent. It needs noted that in 2005 this same firm did NOT make these same statements when
they produced the same report.xxvii Here is an example of the sort of errors that occur within
PERS that are included in the UAAL long after the original report was given to the legislature.

DATA VALUATION APPLIES TO

ACTUARIAL VALUE OF LIABILITIES

2005 PERS report page 39

6/30/2005

$13,432,528,883

2014 PERS report page 20

6/30/2005

$13,682,163,564

Difference

$249,634,661

Gaining $250 Million in liabilities after the fact shows one of the basic problems with defined
benefit systems. The estimates never seem to hit the mark and the actuary admitted as much in
his disclaimer. The State of New Jersey cannot accurately plan if the underlying numbers they
are provided cannot be trusted to be relatively accurate. While the failure to adequately plan has
little cost to the government, it will have large costs to New Jersey taxpayers. When the annual
required contribution to the pension system begins to become a significant part of the budget
a state has problems. New Jersey citizens need to understand these payments are not current
expenses but are payments on debt that was accumulated in the past, and directly remove
funding from the ability to provide essential services like schools and public safety.
Many states have either moved to or are in the process of going to a defined contribution
system for employees. The state of Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System(OPERS) is
amongst those where all new employees now go into a defined contribution system instead of
the old defined benefit plan. The author of this study designed a conversion with the knowledge
and input of Oklahoma Public Employees Association (OPEA) that was the model for the final
plan. A properly designed system conversion, even if just for new employees, can provide
a funding stream to accelerate the payoff of the UAAL, while reducing the total amount of
funding required from General Revenue.
For example, the approach the author used was to assume an employer contribution to the
state employees account that began at 3% of salary and grew to 8% of salary by the end of
the fifth year of service. However the employer payment that was being made to the defined
benefit plan was approximately 14% of salary. The state continued to fund retirement at 14% of
salary and directed the employer difference between those in the defined contribution system
to be used to pay off the UAAL. The net effect was employer contribution was now not only
15

frozen instead of constantly increasing like the situation in PERS but the amount of liability
being created within OPERS was instantly reduced. The astronomical growth from 2006 to
2015 of 294.4% (shown in the chart below) of the actuaries recommended contribution to PERS
underscores how important it is to start to reduce the creation of new liabilities and be able to
freeze or even reduce the growth in employer contributions as soon as possible.

PERS Actuarially Determined Contributions for State Employees

$1,200,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$800,000,000

$600,000,000

$400,000,000

$200,000,000

$-

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Just as importantly for the long run fiscal stability of the state, a defined contribution system
does not involve accruals and hidden debt. The cost of the retirement system for employees
is known at the time of each years funding and is transparent in a state budget, versus what
NJ currently has in PERS. From the state employees perspective, the positives are they own
their retirement account and can take it with them when they change jobs and pass it on
to the heirs of their choosing. They also can control the investments if they choose or allow
professional management---in the New Jersey design the investor can give it to OPERS and
allow them to invest for the employee---which can provide an avenue to defeat the long term
effects of inflation on their pensions value.
One of the other huge benefits of the movement to a defined contribution is that it automatically
brings one of the hidden costs of government out into the open and simultaneously ensures
the state receives every dime a federal program owes them. The flip side of the Maintenance of
Effort (MOE) requirement is that the federal government agrees to pay their share of expenses
on the joint state and federal programs when the state pays theirs. The cash basis assumption
that both the states and federal government uses does not allow the state to bill the federal
government when unfunded liabilities are created such as in PERS. A defined contribution
employer payment is always incurred in the year it is received thus the federal government is
billed for that expense as it is incurred.
During the course of this paper, the Americans for Prosperity staff discovered in conjunction
with the author that because of the way the PERS UAAL is currently being funded the state
may be missing out on hundreds of millions of federal payments owed to the taxpayers of
New Jersey. As we noted in the prior paragraph, the unfunded liabilities that accrued to those
joint programs was not being funded by either the state or federal government. However, that
liability is now being paid on by the state in a direct payment to PERS.
During the Christie administration, approximately $6.3 billion has been paid to PERS.xxviii The
scope of this paper does not allow a full investigation of how much of those funds were direct
payments, but AFP staff found that the current payment of $1.8 billion is being paid in that manner.
16

The author was involved in the discovery and application of billing the federal government in
just such a situation in a Midwestern state. If the rate of participation in federal programs is
similar, New Jersey taxpayers missed out on about $520 million during that time of money
they were owed.

STATE EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFITS COMPOUND STATE FISCAL ISSUES

If New Jersey continues to disregard the growth in pension and health benefits, by the end of
2016, we could see the State spend 23% of its budget on pension and health benefits.xxix Private
sector employers pay approximately 18% of health premium costs while state employees have
95% of their premiums paid by New Jersey taxpayers.xxx There are a number of issues with this
disparity. First and very importantly, is that much of the funding source for these state benefits
comes from the citizens of New Jersey who are having to pay 82% of their health premium cost
versus the 5% for the employees they fund with their tax dollars.
What is the net effect of New Jersey government employees only having to pay 5% of their health
benefit payment? State employees have significantly less financial incentive than the privately
employed NJ taxpayer to control their health care costs. Economics has long shown that the less
that something costs the more of it will be consumed. It also tends to attract workers who are
likely to be older and higher users of medical care. Thus it is no surprise that in FY-2014, 48,101
of the 81,957 or 58.7% of state employees who are also in PERS were between the age of 40 and
60xxxi. This raises the cost of employing government workers, as well as discourages younger
workers who might prefer different types of benefits.
Furthermore, every dollar spent on pension and health benefits for employees is money away
from the core functions of government. The Report of the New Jersey Pension and Health
Benefit Study Commission dated February 24, 2015 stated: Public employee health benefits
costs have always been high: New Jerseys public-sector health benefits are the third-costliest
in the nation. These costs, projected to increase from $3.1 billion in 2014 to $3.7 billion for 2016
for State-paid groups alone, place a significant drag on the State budget and have done so for
decades. The same is true at the local level, where annual health benefits costs, without reform,
could approach $10 billion by 2016. Without substantive reforms to the retirement and health
system, now these costs will continue to grow at an unsustainable pace and little money will be
left for providing other essential services.

Transportation Infrastructure Issues

The Reason Foundations 21st Annual Report on the Performance of State Highway Systems
confirmed what many of New Jerseys drivers already know--- in general the states roads are
not in great condition. The report rated the states system as the third worst system in the
country but it also highlighted some issues the detractors of the report have conveniently left
out of their critique.
New Jersey citizens have been told that the states widespread infrastructure issues can only be
solved by increasing the gas tax and pumping hundreds of millions of additional funding into
the states transportation agencies. Here are a few facts for citizens to consider.
The legislation which would raise the gas tax hike 25-cents per gallon, effectively tripling the
states gas tax, and imposing a $1.5 billion per year hike on motorists.xxxii
New Jersey already has the 2nd highest tax burden and highest property taxes in the country.
High taxes are hurting our economy and costing NJ jobs.xxxiii
New Jersey spends over $2 million per mile in roadwork that is 3 times more than the next
closest state, Massachusetts, and 4 times more than New York.xxxiv
17

 New Jersey collects more revenue for roads than 42 other states, yet ranks 48th in overall
road conditions.xxxv
Americans for Prosperity has reviewed available data to find potential approaches to the
infrastructure issues and finds that the solution set is not a tax increase of any type, but a
more comprehensive plan that brings better accountability. One of the glaring examples of
the infrastructure issues in New Jersey is also the poster child for the lack of a commonsense
approach to infrastructure.
Just this last summer for three days, electrical problems in century-old rail tunnels under the
Hudson River left commuters frustrated and late to work. Citizens need to consider what the
tunnel provides to New Jersey and just as importantly what it provides to New York City and
the state of New York. The net result for New Jersey is to see state income tax dollars flow
into the coffers of the two aforementioned beneficiaries of the project. According to the Tax
Foundation of the $6,926.47 in per capita income tax paid by New Jersey residents $2,050.03
is paid to other states.xxxvi As we mentioned earlier in this section, New Jerseys Gross Income
Tax is one of the sources dedicated by the State Constitution for the purpose of reducing or
offsetting property taxes but when those income tax dollars are going to New York there should
be little doubt that income leaving the state has helped create property taxes that are some of
the highest in the nation.
In FY-2016, over $3.2 billion in tax credits were given for taxes paid in other jurisdictionsxxxvii.
In other words a wage earner who works in New York City, but lives in New Jersey will have
their New Jersey income tax calculated and then reduced dollar for dollar by the amount of
income taxes paid in New York City and the state of New York. The New Jersey state Treasury
Department has the data in their system to tell citizens how much money was provided to New
York through this credit. It begs the question why should citizens in New Jersey rebuild the
tunnel to enrich New York without driving an equitable agreement asking the state of New York
to contribute some percentage of the revenues they gain to the construction of the tunnels?
One of the issues that creates both transparency and inefficiencies is the structure of New
Jerseys approach to infrastructure. There are three major entities involved in transportation
issues in the state:
1. The New Jersey Department of Transportation (DOT) which is the primary road and bridge
entity in the state.
2. The New Jersey Transit Authority which operates bus, rail and light rail services.
3. New Jersey Turnpike Authority that builds, maintains and operates the toll roads.
One of the overlooked issues with transportation funding in the state is that the Transit
Authority siphons off funds that could be spent on roads and bridges with $503 million from
the Special Transportation Trust fund in FY-2016 alone.xxxviii This should come as no surprise as
you look at how the Transit Authority came to be. Created by the Public Transportation Act of
1979, was established to acquire, operate and contract for transportation service in the public
interest.xxxix
In 1980, the Transit Authority purchased Transport of New Jersey, the States largest private
bus company at that time. The services of several other bus companies were incorporated in
the mid 80s into the Transit Authority and the agency assumed operation of bus service in the
Trenton/Mercer County area.xl In short, New Jersey taxpayers purchased failing or struggling
services and began subsidizing riders in those areas served by the Transit Authority. Every dollar
in passenger fares is split roughly 50/50 with state and federal taxpayer funding. Without
the funding the Transit authority would go bankrupt very quickly with the stark fact that total
18

fares collected in the last year fell far short of Transits labor costs. The fact that this entity is
operated so inefficiently that it could not cover even employee costs should be cause to ask for
an external examination of the operations.
When the citizens of New Jersey encounter a pot hole on their drive to work, they can look
to the Transit Authority for a large part of the reason that infrastructure has been neglected.
Maybe it is time the state consider if subsidizing all users of the services the Transit Authority
provides is appropriate. Means testing fare riders and providing a subsidy in the fare rate
schedule only for those whose income levels justify it would provide savings currently missing
from the system. Without question, the current infrastructure issues suggest that no expansion
of the Transit Authoritys operations should be allowed until the siphon is turned off or at least
significantly reduced.
The New Jersey Turnpike Authority has a role to play that can be significant in eliminating the
need to raise the gas tax. The Authority has permission to improve and maintain roads that feed
the Turnpike which is not only good for the taxpayer in New Jersey but can be a sound business
practice if that work funnels more vehicles to the toll roads. The importance of this should not
be underestimated. The ability to share or avoid costs that DOT might have to manage alone
could help significantly in reducing DOTs capital construction cost issues.
DOT has its own issues that must be resolved before the state provides it more funding
through a gas tax increase. No legislator should vote for a gas tax increase on drivers in New
Jersey when there is the huge disparity in DOTs costs compared to the surrounding states. The
simplest approach is to copy New Yorks approach, which according to the report cited earlier
in this brief, allowed New York to only spend 25% per mile what New Jersey is spending. It
is unconscionable to dip into citizens pockets, when the state is being so inefficient with the
money currently being provided for transportation.
When advocates, lobbyists and the medias editorial boards are claiming that throwing more
money at the problem is the solution, citizens should consider the recent lessons of the federal
stimulus program that was aimed at shovel ready infrastructure projects infamous for their
fraud, waste and inefficiency as those funds flowed into projects across the country. The
artificial change in the demand-supply curve that dumping billions of dollars into the construction
sector revealed what any business person could have told them would be the problems inherent
in that approach. The construction entities were no more prepared than state departments of
transportation to take on such large projects as quickly as was required. The result can be the
same in a state when the solution is to dump more money into what in New Jerseys case is a
system that appears to have enough problems being efficient with the money already provided.
However, the total solution will not be easy or quick and requires a fully comprehensive reform
to operations. AFP suggests that the following steps should be taken and allowed for some
time for them to take effect before considering the gas tax increase option:
1. A top to bottom review of the cost factors that drive the difference in building costs between
New Jersey and the surrounding states. Bid requirements, regulatory issues, and construction
requirements that create the cost differences should be quickly reviewed and dealt with by
either DOT management or legislators if DOT fails to act or lacks the regulatory authority.
2. All three transportation entities should be required to coordinate projects with each other
and share resources when appropriate and it might be wise to go even further in achieving
coordination. While serving a Governor in a Midwestern state, we consolidated management
of the toll roads and the highway department. The net result is we removed redundant layers
of costly upper management while minimizing equipment costs as the two entities entered
into cost sharing agreements on big ticket items. With commodity prices on construction
materials currently at a low ebb, the ability of the three New Jersey transportation entities to
19

cost share should bring down the cost to build significantly. The scope of this paper did not
allow a full review of the debt structure of the three entities, though it did appear that there
also were significant opportunities to better manage debt with a coordinated approach to
bonding and long term debt.
3. Begin a non-partisan structured approach to prioritizing road and bridge construction and
maintenance. There are a number of models to look at, but there are a few points that are
essential to any approach that could eliminate the critical issues in New Jersey. The first
priority as always should be public safety with the volume of traffic as a weighting factor on
any road or bridge project. The second should be the cost/benefit weighting base applied
to the previously identified and prioritized project list. Any project should have the percent
of city, county, or federal participation in relation to the states cost calculated to adjust the
priority list and maximize the state dollars spent. Accomplishing these two steps alone may
by themselves create enough savings to allow the state to do more projects simultaneously.
4. This last suggestion is really the most important but has clearly been ignored in New Jersey
government operations. Issues of the past cannot be avoided if we dont know what they are.
Americans for Prosperitys review of how agencies measure services found that performance
measures provided by the different programs are often useless in providing legislators and
citizens any information on how much each programs services actually cost, and DOT was
no exception. If you arent measuring you arent managing has long been the mantra in the
private sector and it is clear that New Jerseys state governmental units are not measuring
their costs in any way that is discernable. Typically, any businessperson can explain the
various cost components of their service or product. If one uses the performance measures
provided by DOT one can only assume they cannot. Legislators must demand a new set of
performance measures that will provide for better management of resources to avoid the
problems that led New Jersey roads and bridges to the condition they are currently.

i. Compiled from New Jersey Governors Budget FY-2017

ii. Compiled from New Jersey Governors Budget FY-2017
iii. Compiled from New Jersey Governors Budget FY-2008 to FY-2017
iv. New Jersey Governors Budget FY-2016 Page C-1
v. Ibid
vi. Ibid
vii. http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/omb/publications/16citizensguide/citguide.pdf
viii. New Jersey Governors Budget FY-2016 Page D-421
ix. New Jersey Governors Budget FY-2016 Page D-81
x. Congressional Budget Office Publication, Federal Grants to State and Local Governments March 2013 Page 9
xi. FY-2017 Governors Budget in Brief page 9
xii. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43873.pdf
xiii. New Jersey Governors Budget FY-2016 page D-13 through D-21
xiv. http://www.fns.usda.gov/farmtoschool/farm-school-grant-program
xv. Ibid
xvi. http://www.fns.usda.gov/farmtoschool/farm-school
xvii. http://www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/dod-fresh-fruit-and-vegetable-program
xviii. FY-2017 Governors Budget in Brief page 9
xix. FY-2017 Governors Budget in Brief page 9
xx. http://kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/federal-matching-rate-and-multiplier/
xxi. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3521
xxii. Ibid
xxiii. http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/pensions/pdf/financial/2014pers.pdf Appendix A
xxiv. http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/pensions/pdf/financial/2014pers.pdf Appendix A
xxv. http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/pensions/pdf/financial/2014pers.pdf Appendix A
xxvi. http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
xxvii. http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/pensions/pdf/financial/actuary-reports-2005-2000/pers2005.pdf
xxviii. FY-2017 Governors Budget in Brief page 10
xxix. http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/pdf/FinalFebruaryCommissionReport.pdf
20

xxx. Pension Crisis Policy Brief, Americans For Prosperity

xxxi. http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/pensions/pdf/financial/2014pers.pdf Age and Gender Breakdown of PERS
members
xxxii. http://taxfoundation.org/article/facts-figures-2015-how-does-your-state-compare?mc_cid=fa4ca825
d&mc_eid=52ce65c525
xxxiii. http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2014/Bills/A4000/3886_I1.HTM
xxxiv. http://reason.org/files/21st_annual_highway_report.pdf
xxxv. http://reason.org/files/21st_annual_highway_report.pdf
xxxvi. http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-and-local-tax-burdens-1977-2012
xxxvii. http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/taxexpenditurereport.shtml
xxxviii. http://www.njtransit.com/pdf/FactsAtaGlance.pdf
xxxix. http://www.njtransit.com/tm/tm_servlet.srv?hdnPageAction=CorpInfoTo
xl. http://www.njtransit.com/tm/tm_servlet.srv?hdnPageAction=CorpInfoTo

The Americans for Prosperity Taxpayer Budget addresses all current costs and still delivers
savings. Most of the identified savings will be in the areas of General Fund Revenue due to
both the amount of legislative control and ease of compiling programs revenue from the
appropriations process. This budget recommends cuts in many fees that were identified as
back door taxes. These revenue sources are being used to fund other programs or represented
increases unsupported by service volume or improvements. The Americans for Prosperity
Taxpayer Budget advocates for a broad based, legislatively-driven revamp of the current
department performance measures that are largely just inputs and outputs, and that in their
place, a comprehensive set of data aimed at outcomes be included to reflect the actual impact
of those inputs and outputs. If a program cannot meet expected outcomes, then funding should
be reduced or removed and transferred to programs that are performing.

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY TAXPAYERS BUDGET

This budget frees over $1.1 billion for tax relief for New Jersey citizens.
This budget shows how the state can save $750 million and solve the huge debt problems
created by the public workers retirement systems, while providing an inflation protected
retirement.
This budget points to and shows how to collect hundreds of millions of federal dollars that
New Jersey is owed but have not been collecting leaving the burden to be carried by the
states taxpayers.
This budget provides an alternative for fixing the infrastructure issues to raising the gas tax
on citizens.
This budget removes $105 million from a program with a fraud rate that exceeds 25% and
returns it to citizens.
This budget addresses individual programs on a point by point basis showing where existing
programs, including those federal programs administered by the state, can be retooled to
either benefit New Jerseys private sector or operate more efficiently.

EXPLANATION OF CATEGORIES OF FUNDING

State Operations consists of programs and services operated directly by the State Government.
The largest single component is for the salary and benefits of State employees. This portion of
the budget is subject to the spending limitations imposed by the Cap Law.
Grants-in-Aid appropriations are for programs and services provided to the public on behalf
of the State by a third party provider, or grants made directly to individuals based on assorted
program eligibility criteria. The NJ Family Care program, Tuition Aid Grant Program, Homestead
Benefit Program, and funding for New Jersey Transit and State colleges and universities fall into
this category.
21

State Aid consists of payments to or on behalf of counties, municipalities, and school districts
to assist them in carrying out their local responsibilities. This category of expenditure includes
school aid and municipal aid. It also includes funding for county colleges, local public assistance,
and county psychiatric hospital costs.
Dedicated Revenues consists of Special Transportation Trust Fund, Property Tax Relief, Casino
Control Funds, Casino Revenue Fund, and Gubernatorial Elections Fund. This category includes
those funds that are removed from the appropriation process and directed by statute.

DEPARTMENT BY DEPARTMENT BUDGET DISCUSSIONS

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
The mission of the Department of Agriculture is to promote and provide high-quality, nutritious,
abundant, safe, and affordable food and other agricultural products; improve the economic
viability of the agricultural industry; foster opportunities for farm profitability; preserve and
protect agricultural and natural resources; and provide leadership and excellence in services to
New Jersey agriculture and to the general public.
The Departments goals are to preserve farms; protect producers and consumers by ensuring
sage, high-quality agricultural products and services; support and expand profitable, innovative
agricultural and food industry development; protect and conserve natural and agricultural
resources; provide access to fresh and nutritious foods for children, the needy, and other New
Jersey citizens; promote agricultural education awareness and involvement; and guarantee the
delivery of quality services.i

22

PROGRAM ANALYSIS FOR COST SAVINGS:i

Animal Disease Control: Resident and imported animals are subject to Department programs
of disease detection, control, and eradication. This is one of the essential services provided by
the Department but there are areas of concern when you have a 46% increase over a five-year
period. In reviewing the evaluation data for this function there is neither an increase in actual or
anticipated demand for regulatory licenses or in laboratory examinations performed. Subject
to the Department providing a reasonable explanation for this inequity, this budget reduces
funding by $248,000 to reflect a Consumer Price Index adjustment.
Food and Nutrition Services: This division provides some of the most essential functions of this
department in their commodity distribution and child nutrition programs. The Americans for
Prosperity Taxpayer Budget believes resources focused on the truly needy are an appropriate
expenditure of taxpayers dollars; however, this budget believes legislators and citizens need
to ensure that the recipients qualify for their assistance. The Child Nutrition program consists
of six components in public and nonpublic schools, residential and nonresidential childcare
institutions, day care centers, recreation centers, and other agencies. The huge growth in federal
funds in this area indicates a large expansion of the population being served. This budget suggests
means-testing for all programs should be instituted, if not already in place for each component.
In addition, Americans for Prosperity would like a review to ensure that those program options,
like the United State Department of Agriculture Farm to School program, are being maximized.
Farm to School uses the school lunch program as an end market for local produce thus putting
fresh fruits and vegetables in the school lunches, but also provides a relatively stable market for
local truck farmers.
Marketing and Developmental Services: Some of these programs services should be discontinued
immediately as an inappropriate use of tax dollars. Eliminating the programs that conduct
advertising, market development, and promotional activities to create a positive image of New
Jerseys agricultural products and to increase consumer awareness and sales and the promotion
of the New Jersey horse industry are inappropriate, even if like the horse industry; as they are
funds derived from a small percentage of the parimutuel handle at both the thoroughbred and
standard bred racetracks. This budget discontinues the fee for the racing industry promotion
and believes there will be savings in overhead for the remaining programs. Appropriations
for the remaining industry promotional programs are removed. The discontinuation of these
programs will allow more focus of the Agriculture Department on more essential services. This
budget reduces the budget by 25% immediately and encourages a phase out as an unnecessary
23

function of government.
Farmland Preservation: The State Agriculture Development Committee (SADC) administers
New Jerseys Farmland Preservation Program. The Farmland Preservation Program compensates
farm owners for their development rights if their deeds restrict their farms against future
development. The terms of these deed restrictions can be permanent or for as short a period
as eight years. Future owners of permanently preserved farms must comply with all deed
restrictions. The SADC also coordinates a variety of programs with participating counties and
farmland owners to protect important farmland in sufficient quantity and quality to foster long
term agricultural viability. It is also charged with specific righttofarm responsibilities relating
to agriculture.ii This budget finds the allocation of taxpayer funds, to commit land to less
productive use than market forces dictate, is an inappropriate use of hard working New Jersey
familys tax dollars and discontinues appropriations to this program beginning with a phase out
of 25% immediately.
Administrative and Support Services: This area has grown by 42%, just since 2011, without
including the personnel costs hidden in the pension and benefit payments made within the
Interdepartmental funds. The Americans for Prosperity Taxpayer Budget reduces this department
by 30% to reflect the phase out of some programs and/or scaling back of others per the above
sections. Americans for Prosperitys proposals included in the first section of this report will do
more to support the agricultural community using free market principles then the misguided
allocation of resources that some of these programs represent.

DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND INSURANCE

The mission of the Department of Banking and Insurance is to regulate the banking, insurance,
and real estate industries in a professional and timely manner that protects and educates
consumers and promotes the growth, financial stability, and efficiency of those industries.
The Departments goals are to ensure the solvency of the financial institutions through regular
financial examinations and analysis; to protect the public from unlawful or unfair practices by
insurers, financial institutions, and real estate licensees by promptly investigating complaints filed
by consumers and aggressively prosecuting violators; to issue licenses to qualified individuals
and companies to provide banking, insurance, and real estate services to New Jersey citizens; to
improve the efficient and effective review of insurance rates and forms; and to apply technology,
where appropriate, to more effectively interact with the public and regulated industries.iii
This budget believes it is inappropriate for the citizens to fund services that are primarily
industry-oriented. The many regulatory services that this department performs are transferred
to a fee base system with the consumer protection functions being transferred to the appropriate
agency within the Department of Law and Public Safety. Fees are invariably passed thru by the
regulated entities to their consumers, but not every New Jersey citizen experiences expenses
related to the industries these programs regulate. However, this budget believes that transferring
this department to a primarily fee based revenue stream should not be a carte blanche to keep
funding levels at current appropriations. This budget believes there are opportunities to reduce
fees by increasing efficiencies with modern technology or system redesigns. The Americans
for Prosperity Taxpayer Budget suggests reducing the fees by cutting the expenditure of this
department across the board and discusses the reasoning and amounts in each program writeup.

24

PROGRAM ANALYSIS FOR COST SAVINGS:iv

Consumer Protection Services and Solvency Regulation: Insurance companies, brokers, and
agents are licensed to engage in the business of insurance in the State. Companies are examined
periodically for solvency and compliance with statutes and regulations and market conduct with
regard to treatment of consumers. This budget finds these regulatory functions acceptable for
fee based funding and reduces the budget by 10% in relation to the existing appropriation to
provide some relief to the industries regulated and the consumers they supports.
Actuarial Services: Reviews policy forms and other insurance forms relating to individual
and group, accident, health, life, annuities, property, liability and title; regulates compliance
with the rating laws for insurance of property, liability and title; reviews networks, premium
rates and loss ratios for health insurance; and reviews and analyzes reserve calculations of
domestic life and health insurers. Actuaries are high pay band employees and this budget
finds some of the functions performed to be questionable from both an industry regulation
and consumer protection perspective. For instance, domestic life and health insurers risk their
capital and accordingly use the best actuaries they can find to control their risk and the function
of verifying and analyzing their work seems to be purposeless at best and an unnecessary cost
to the consumer at worst. This budget finds these regulatory functions acceptable for fee based
funding and reduces the budget by 10% in relation to the existing appropriation to provide some
relief to the industries regulated and the consumers they supports.
25

Regulation of the Real Estate Industry: Ensures that members of the industry comply with
existing statutes and regulations; investigates and resolves complaints, conducts hearings
involving violations and improper practices; registers and regulates out- of- state land sales
through New Jersey brokers; inspects brokers offices; examine and licenses brokers and
salespersons; and maintains a directory of licensees and publishes bulletins.
Public Affairs, Legislative and Regulatory Services: Promulgates regulations, drafts bulletins,
orders and other public notices, drafts legislation, serves as the Departments liaison with the
Legislature, the Governors office and other government agencies, serves as a liaison to the
press and the industry on policy matters, and monitors proposed legislation and legal issues
affecting the regulation of the insurance, banking and real estate industries; handles internal
legal issues and legal inquiries from the public; publishes a newsletter and consumer booklets
on various types of insurance; and researches policy questions and consumer issues. This
budget does not believe that any agency should perform lobbying functions or participate in
the legislative process other than to answer direct questions of elected officials, while expending
tax or consumer fee dollars and therefore recommends immediate closure of this office.
Bureau of Fraud Deterrence: (Formerly Insurance Fraud Prosecution and Prevention) This
program is funded by a dedicated assessment on the insurance industry which funds both the
Bureau of Fraud Deterrence (BFD) in the Department of Banking and Insurance and the Office of
the Insurance Fraud Prosecutor (OIFP) in the Department of Law & Public Safety. Both entities
investigate allegations of insurance fraud in a coordinated fashion, in order to fully develop
the facts and evidence, so that the State can make a reasoned decision as to how to globally
address each alleged scheme and individual case: by civil and/or criminal prosecution and/
or administrative professional licensing sanction. Both entities coordinate with the insurance
industrys Special Investigation Units and their affiliates, as well as other law enforcement and
regulatory agencies to implement the statewide enforcement strategy addressing insurance
fraud in its many forms. Information is collected and analyzed about persons and entities alleged
to be engaging in insurance fraud- related conduct in order to assess the prosecutorial merit and
to support actual criminal, civil or administrative actions. The only area without redundancy is
that BFD pursues civil cases and OIFP is the criminal prosecution arm. This budget consolidates
both functions into the Attorney Generals office and reduces the appropriation by 15% to reflect
savings from consolidation, reduction in paperwork between bureaucracies and self-funding
created by successful prosecutions after transferring this function. It will improve efficiency and
allow more coordinated prosecutions.
Supervision and Examination of Financial Institutions: Responsible for the supervision and
examination of New Jersey State-chartered commercial banks, savings banks, credit unions and
savings and loan associations. Responsible for the supervision and examination of consumer
financial institutions such as check cashers, insurance premium finance companies, pawnbrokers
and money transmitters. Ensures compliance with the mortgage loan discrimination statute
(C.17:16F et seq.). Regulates, supervises and examines residential mortgage bankers and brokers
(C.17:11C-51 et seq.). Determines financial and legal compliance with all applicable statutes and
regulations and takes appropriate legal and regulatory action to ensure compliance with existing
statutes and regulations. Responsible for examinations and enforcement action under the New
Jersey bank holding company law (C.17:9A- 409 et seq.); responsible for examination of savings
and loan holding companies (C.17:12B- 281 et seq.). This budget finds these regulatory functions
acceptable for fee based funding, but reduces fees by 10% to provide some relief to the industry
and the consumers it supports.
Pinelands Development Credit Bank: Empowered to purchase and sell Pinelands development
26

credits in accordance with the Comprehensive Management Plan for the Pinelands, thus
preserving the resources of this area and accommodating regional growth in an orderly fashion.
This is not an acceptable function of government and this program should be discontinued. If
there is asset value available in this program it should be liquidated and used to help fund
necessary and essential programs.
Administration and Support Services: Directs the activities of the Department and provides
administrative and support services. The Office of the Commissioner provides legislative and
policy guidance to programs within the Department and coordinates all regulatory and legislative
initiatives with the Legislature, Executive Branch, and the financial community. This section may
either be absorbed within the above programs or those deemed unnecessary services may be
discontinued to allow the reductions in fees of those programs. The Americans for Prosperity
Taxpayers Budget immediately reduces funding by 25% to reflect the transfer of a division and
to force efficiencies on the remaining commingled group of functions.

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS BY PROGRAM $S IN THOUSANDS

Governors Budget 2017
Direct State Grants
Services
in Aid

State
Aid

AFPs Budget 2017

Direct State
Services

Consumer Protection
Service

$21,484

$13,336

Actuarial Services

$5,200

$4,680

$3,680

$3,680

$2,322

$22,996

$8,853

$4,159

$3,743

$4,172

$4,172

Regulation of the Real

Estate Industry
Public Affiars,
Legislative &
Regulatory
Bureau of Fraud
Deterrence
Supervision &
Examination of
Financial
Pinelands
Development Credit
Bank
Administration &
Support Services
Totals

$64,013

27

$44,464

Grants
in Aid

State
Aid

CHIEF EXECUTIVE
The Governor is the States chief executive officer. The Governors Office directs and coordinates
the activities of the various State departments. These duties include the implementation of new
laws and activities, as well as ongoing responsibilities associated with existing laws and other
essential aspects of governing. The Office reviews and formulates proposals of law that are
ultimately submitted to the State Legislature. It develops public policy affecting the citizens of
New Jersey, and implements the States fiscal plan, once it is adopted.

It is always the expectation, especially in a strong executive power state like New Jersey, that
a Governor will lead by example. Americans for Prosperity is pleased to note that Governor
Christie has made changes to the issues we raised in 2010 about some of the memberships the
Governors office has paid for in the past and removed them from taxpayer support.

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS BY PROGRAM $S IN THOUSANDS

Governors Budget 2017

AFPs Budget 2017

Chief Executive

Direct State
Services

Grants in Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

Direct State
Services

Grants in
Aid

Dedicated

State
Aid

Personal Services

$5,724

$5,724

National Governors
Association

$185

$185

Educaition Commision of
the State

$125

$125

National Conference
of Commissioners On
Uniform State Laws

$65

$65

Brian Stack Intern Program

$10

$10

Allowance to the Governor

of Funds

$95

$95

Materials & Supplys

$133

$133

Services Other Than

Personel

$356

$356

Maintenance & Fixed

$43

$43

$775

$775

$6,736

$775

$6,736

$775

Executive Management
Totals

28

LEGISLATURE
MISSION
The Legislature is the States highest lawmaking body. It is one of the three separate and
independent branches of government that make up the checks and balances system created by
the New Jersey Constitution and is empowered to appropriate funds for the operation of state
government. The 40 members of the Senate are elected for a term of four years, except after
the decennial census. The 80 members of the Assembly are elected for a term of two years. The
Office of Legislative Services, a nonpartisan agency that provides legislators with economic and
budget analyses required for making legislative decisions, is also a part of the legislative branch.
Legislative commissions assist in the legislative process by providing in- depth studies, holding
public hearings and making recommendations on select issues as they arise.

The funding stream has been relatively flat, but the large growth since 2015 in Legislative
Commissions is an area that should be scrutinized for savings possibilities and/or the
appropriateness of those items that have been lump summed into the line item.

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS BY PROGRAM $S IN THOUSANDS

Governors Budget 2017

AFPs Budget 2017

Legislature

Direct State
Services

Grants in Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

Direct State
Services

Grants in Aid

Dedicated

Stait Aid

Senate

$11,700

$11,700

General Assembly

$18,217

$18,217

$32,146

$32,146

$15,573

$15,573

$77,636

$77,636

Legislative Support
Services
Legislative Commissions
Total

29

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

The mission statement of the Children and Families is In partnership with New Jerseys
communities, the Department of Children and Families (DCF) ensures the safety, well- being
and success of New Jerseys children and families.
With a staff of approximately 6,600 employees, DCF encompasses Child Protection and
Permanency, Childrens System of Care, Family and Community Partnerships, Specialized
Education Services, the Division on Women, Adolescent Services, Child Welfare Training
Academy and the Centralized Child Abuse/Neglect Hotline.
DCF focuses on partnering with children, youth, families and communities to achieve child and
family safety, support, well- being and success. DCF incorporates the best thinking of New Jersey
stakeholders, frontline workers and supervisors to achieve positive results and improvements
in supporting New Jerseys women, children, youth and families. Current priorities include
reducing the incidence of child abuse and neglect, ensuring permanency for children who enter
out- of- home care, managing outcomes by data, continuing the integration of a system of
care for children with behavioral, intellectual and developmental disabilities and co- occur- ring
disorders, supporting programs and services for women and adolescents in the transition to
adulthood.vi
While this mission statement outlines a worthy endeavor, we should look a little deeper into this
agency. This agency had been under Modified Settlement Agreement (MSA) in a class action
lawsuit regarding improvements to the States child welfare system. Under the terms of the
MSA, the Center for the Study of Social Policy (CSSP) was appointed by the U.S. District Court
of New Jersey as the independent Federal Monitor to assess the compliance of the Department
of Children and Families (DCF) with the terms and conditions of the MSA. The MSA required the
implementation and evaluation of certain child welfare reforms, as follows:
Phase I (through December 2008) required systematic reforms to improve the States child
welfare system, including: development and implementation of a new case practice model;
improved delivery of critical services; reduced caseloads; improved caseworker training;
improved recruitment and licensing of foster/kinship care resource families; and improved use
and publication of performance data.
Phase II (beginning January 2009) required the measurement of certain performance indicators
to evaluate the Phase I reforms and assess the States overall compliance with the MSA. The
required performance targets were established either in the MSA or by the Federal Monitor in
consultation with the State and other parties involved in the lawsuit.vii
This case could have been dismissed as early as 2010, if the State had achieved and maintained
the established performance targets. As of this budget, that has not occurred, but in the
meantime the agencies budget has grown by 68% since FY-2005. Is it time for legislators to
ask for a change of management? Even without the MSA hanging over their heads, the need for
stringent performance measures is more important in these areas than possibly any other. The
amount of money available for any single function of government is a finite resource and it is
essential particularly in this area that limited resources not only be focused on the truly needy in
our society, but also that the taxpayers investment actually produces positive results for those
served.
The following charts show the huge amount of funding that is going to this department. There
30

is a decrease of $9.9 million or 0.9% attributable to a reallocation of State- supported costs to

the federal Social Services Block grant.vii

31

PROGRAM ANALYSIS FOR COST SAVINGS:ix

Social programs need to be examined to determine whether all the individuals being served
are truly needy. Too many government programs have moved from being safety nets for the
needy to being a permanent welfare for elements of the population. Citizens expect their state
government to provide essential support services for those in need but they also expect it to
spend their tax dollars wisely. Programs within social services should be means tested whenever
possible and fees set relative to income and/or asset ownership of the non-impoverished
recipient for those services.
Increasing responsibility for taking care of others is placed at the foot of government. In a
culture that speaks about desires in terms of needs, needs in terms of rights, and rights in terms
of entitlements, government is considered obligated by many to become the extended family
for all citizens. This approach actually serves to break down the historical institutions that have
provided many of the current government services to its members over the years.
While we are encouraged that the department heeded the FY-2010 Americans for Prosperity
Taxpayers Budget and reduced administrative staff and reallocated them to field operations. In
this budget, we suggest there is a more aggressive approach needed to both end the MSA and
meet the publics expectations of service to this vulnerable population. Caseworkers are the
most important element of the staff in improving outcomes. Requiring their direct supervisors
to go into the field at least once a month to deal with those cases that field workers have
indicated are in crisis should improve outcomes and improve morale in the field.
Most of the programs have some overlap as children or families in one, may also be involved in
the other. Child Protective and Permanency Services that investigates allegations of abuse or
neglect, responds to voluntary requests for family services, and provides services to children
found to have been abused or neglected. It has four basic components: family support services;
permanency; placements; and staffing to address the child protection process. Child Behavioral
Health Services program has an emphasis on the family or caregiver as playing a central role
in the health and well-being of children. Prevention and Community Partnership Services fall
within five areas that focus on primary prevention: early childhood services, family support
and engagement, school-linked services, domestic violence, and county welfare services. The
difficult part for legislators is to determine the best allocation of limited resources among these
worthy programs.
This budget believes these are important functions, but suggests that they are not immune
from the concept of means testing when services such as homemaker services, transportation
assistance, psychological/therapeutic services, day treatment, companionship, legal and health
related services are being provided. This does not mean that those that do not meet means
testing standards should be disregarded, but that the department should simply coordinate with
religious organizations, nonprofits and charities which form a third or independent sector
that can deliver services, support and benefits effectively to those non-qualifiers. The state
should always be careful not to supplant these institutions of civil society and in fact should
seek to create public-private partnerships whenever possible to utilize the strengths of these
organizations. With limited funds available for social programs, this is the perfect opportunity
for legislators to allow the private sector an opportunity to help in providing for those needs.
In fact, the court mandates for reduced caseloads could possibly be achieved by these publicprivate partnerships without expanding staffing.
Another area that could achieve greater success from public-private partnerships is in the area
of permanency. This budget could not agree more with the departments goal of a sustained
32

forever family who will love and nurture the child. Much can be learned from the disaster in Haiti
and the quick action of the private institutions, especially church organizations, to find families
for children needing adoption should highlight the resources that are waiting for a properly
structured partnership which minimizes bureaucracy and focuses on results. Government
bureaucrats and legislators need to embrace the assistance of historic institutions like churches
in recognizing the departments goal.
There are several programs that this budget encourages legislators to look at first for efficiencies.
Education Services oversees the provision of educational programming for students who are
involved with the department. The New Jersey Child Welfare Training Academy delivers preservice training for new recruits, investigator training for intake staff, and supervisory training for
new supervisors. Safety and Security Services provide funding for the reimbursement of costs
associated with the utilization of the Department of Human Service Police to provide escort
and intervention services for department staff and clients. Administration and Support Services
directs and supports the divisions and offices of the Department of Children and Families. These
are areas where efficiencies could be gained thru consolidations with other functions in Human
Services and Public Safety.
This budget suggests the immediate implementation of outcome based criteria for evaluation
data along with a set of delineated repercussions for failure to meet those outcomes. Given that
the outputs and inputs are not predicted to increase in the performance targets, Americans for
Prosperity questions the large increases in the Child Protection and Permanency and Childrens
System of Care. Coupled with a movement to means testing and stronger interaction with the
private sector, this budget believes the proposed large increases in Grants-in-Aid will not be
needed.

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS BY PROGRAM $S IN THOUSANDS

Governors Budget 2017

AFPs Budget 2017

Children & Families

Direct
State
Services

Grants in
Aid

Dedicated

State
Aid

Direct
State
Services

Grants in Aid

Dedicated

State
Aid

Children Protection
& Permanency

$186,490

$439,021

$186,490

$417,069.95

Childrens System of
Care

$1,919

$363,472

$1,919

$345,298.40

Family &
Community

$1,889

$62,386

$1,889

$62,386

Education Services

$8,201

$8,201

Child Welfair
Training Academy
Services

$6,181

$6,181

Saftey & Security

Services

$3,775

$3,775

Services

$46,674

$46,674

Total

$255,129

$864,879

$255,129

33

COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
MISSION AND GOALS
The Department of Community Affairs has numerous responsibilities, but defines that its one
common mission is to invest in the people, places, and progress of New Jersey. Through its
various divisions and affiliates, it provides a wide range of services and programs the Department
says will improve the quality of life in New Jersey. The Department of Community Affairs
(DCA) organizational purpose is perhaps the broadest of all the executive agencies. It functions
in a variety of ways to help communities to be safe, healthy and economically viable, as well as
attractive to residents and visitors alike. The DCA offers its resources to local officials, nonprofit
community organizations, businesses and individuals. The Department helps municipalities
contend with the mandates of change that are critical to sustaining and improving the quality of
life in the state. The DCA delivers administrative guidance, financial support, technical assistance
and other services to address ongoing issues of public concern including fire and building safety,
housing assistance, community planning and development, local government management and
finance, and recovery from Super Storm Sandy.xi
Like many of the government bureaucracies, the mission statements often sound like good
ideas until you apply a fiscal responsibility check. Is it governments mission to decide who gets
tax dollars or is it better to leave tax dollars in the citizens hands and allow the free market
to make most of these decisions? For instance, one of the programs provides assistance to
nonprofit groups, local governments and other local organizations in improving the quality of
life for the states low-income population by alleviating the causes and conditions of poverty
in communities and fostering self- sufficiency in individualsxii. It is doubtful that alleviating
the causes and conditions of poverty is going to be done by a state agency, but it shows the
overreach that programs like this tend to develop.
However, as the following charts show, a fairly large amount of money flows through this entity.
The spike in federal assistance is of course due to the recovery from Hurricane
Sandy. A review of the outputs and inputs in these programs reveals that little has changed
in terms of volume of work or responsibilities with the exception of Hurricane Sandy and the
program devoted to that issue. Taking that in account, this budget will recommend that most
of the fee based programs reduce their fees by 10% to reduce their impact on consumer costs.
State Funding
$s in Thousands

$1,200,000

$1,000,000

$800,000

$600,000

$400,000

$200,000

$-

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

General Revenue

34

2010
Property Tax Relief

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Federal

$s in Thousands

$2,500,000

$2,000,000

$1,500,000

$1,000,000

$500,000

$-

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

PROGRAM ANALYSIS FOR COST SAVINGS:xiii

The Housing Code Enforcement Program inspects, registers, and issues appropriate certificates
of registration and occupancy for hotels, motels, and multiple dwellings; encourages participation
in the cooperative housing inspection program; and maintains a statewide inventory of hotels
and multiple dwellings. Much of the funding is fee based according to the OLS, however this
budget reduces fees by 10%. It should be remembered that these fees are passed through to
renters and motel guests, thereby increasing their costs in a recession. Government should seek
to minimize its impact, even for important services such as code enforcement.
Housing Services provides services in such areas as the Balanced Housing program (Fair Housing
Act of 1985, C.52:27D-10), the regulation of limited dividend and non-profit housing agencies
(C.55:16-1 et seq.), assistance to established housing authorities (C.55:14A-1) and redevelopment
agencies (C.40:55C-1), and administers a federal and State sponsored housing assistance
program, and the HOME Investment Partnerships program. The Prevention of Homelessness
program assists the homeless by providing emergency accommodations, rental assistance, and
interest rate subsidies to low- and moderate-income families for affordable housing. The Shelter
Assistance program provides assistance for construction of emergency shelters and services
for the homeless. There are elements of this program that should be eliminated immediately
such as the HOME program and others that might be better transferred to social services such
as shelter and rental assistance. This budget reduces fees by 10% begins the elimination of the
HOME and other subsidized housing purchase programs by reducing those programs funding
by 20% initially with an additional 5% in funding reductions per year until they are closed out.
The Uniform Construction Code ensures that all buildings are constructed to meet uniform
standards; ensures the competence of local construction code officials through a licensing
program and verifies that all pre-manufactured buildings shipped into the state conform to
the code (C.55:13A-1, C.52:27B-119); administers the New Home Warranty program (C.46:3B-1
et seq.); and enforces the Planned Real Estate Full Disclosure Act (C.45:22A-1). Inspects ski
lifts, liquefied petroleum gas facilities, and carnival/amusement rides in the interest of public
safety. This budget reduces fees by 10% and advocates a review of the New Home Warranty
and Planned Real Estate Full Disclosure Act programs for the appropriateness of government
participation.
Codes and Standards provides for the management of the Division of Codes and Standards,
35

which includes Housing Code Enforcement, Uniform Construction Code, and Boarding Home
Regulation and Assistance. This budget reduces fees by 10% in keeping with the philosophy of
limiting the cost of government on consumer costs.
The Uniform Fire Code provides for public education programs to inform the general public on
fire prevention, provides loans to emergency service agencies, and provides training programs
for local firefighters, fire officers, and fire code enforcement personnel under the Uniform Fire
Safety Act (C.52:27D-192 et seq. and C.52:27D-25a et seq.). Administers a statewide fire incident
reporting program, administers local fire code enforcement and monitoring, conducts inspections
in approximately 100 municipalities as well as all State-owned and leased property, and regulates
and certifies the fire protection equipment industry. Provides domestic security guidance to
local fire departments, administers the States Fire Coordinator System and responds to all
emergency incidents requiring mutual aid. Investigates serious firefighter injuries or fatalities
and, in coordination with the NJ State Police Arson/Bomb Unit, seeks to determine the cause of
suspicious fires. Supports the New Jersey Fire Safety Commission and its six advisory councils,
and serves as the chair of the Governors Fire Service and Safety Task Force. This budget reduces
fees by 10% and suggests that some of the fire issues that require law enforcement involvement
should be moved to Public Safety to maximize efficiency and reduce costs.
The New Jersey Historic Trust and associated administrative costs are affiliated with the
Department of Community Affairs. The Historic Trust, through the Garden State Historic
Preservation Trust Fund, awards and administers grants for historic preservation planning
and capital projects. This budget rejects the entire concept of this program and immediately
eliminates all funding. Smart growth is fueled by investors making informed decisions based on
market forces not by government bureaucrats. Trusts and other set asides can find their funding
thru voluntary public participation via charitable organizations set up to facilitate these agendas.
Similarly, if local governments believe they can justify to their taxpaying citizens, expenditures
for such projects, it is appropriate for the funds to be provided by those entities.
The State Office of Recreation (created by P.L.1950, c.338) promotes and encourages the
development and expansion of recreational facilities, sites, programs and opportunities for all
citizens including the developmentally and physically challenged. This budget believes these
are worthwhile endeavors, but should not be funded by taxpayers at the state level. This is
another area where government should seek to create public-private partnerships whenever
possible to utilize the strengths of the many non-profit, civic and religious organizations that
already perform some of these functions. With limited funds available for social programs, this
is the perfect opportunity for legislators to allow the private sector an opportunity to help in
providing for those needs and eliminate this program.

36

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS BY PROGRAM $S IN THOUSANDS

GOVERNORS BUDGET 2017

AFPS BUDGET 2017

Community Affairs

Direct State
Services

Grants In Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

Direct State
Services

Grants In Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

Housing Code
Enforcement

$8,555

$919

$7,700

$919

Housing Services

$3,150

$25,160

$2,835

$25,160

Uniform Construction Code

$12,783

$8,571

$11,505

$8,571

$426

$383

Uniform Fire
Code

$7,622

$6,860

Community
Resources

$100

$990

$100

$990

Local Government Services

$4,512

$744,915

$1,600

$4,512

$744,915

$1,600

Historic Trust

$652

Administration
and Support
Services

$2,872

Totals

$16,184

$990

$744,915

$1,600

$11,855

$990

$744,915

$1,600

Codes And Standards

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
MISSION
The mission of the New Jersey Department of Corrections is to protect the public by operating
safe, secure and humane correctional facilities. The mission is realized through effective
supervision, proper classification and appropriate treatment of offenders, and by providing
services that promote successful re-entry into society.
In 2010, when Americans for Prosperity last examined the budget, these stark facts stood out:
Re-arrest rate for adult offenders previously incarcerated in a New Jersey state correctional
facility was 55%.
The reconviction rate was 43%.
The re-incarceration rate was 31%.
Those offenders rearrested and, about half were rearrested within nine months of release.
There is some good news in this area as the following chart shows and it explains the roughly
flat spending from all sources on what is certainly an important part of public safety.
37

NEW JERSEY POPULATION AND RATE OF CRIME PER 100,000 PEOPLE 2010-2014
Population

Index

Violent

Property

Murder

Rape

Robbery

Assault

Burglary

Theft

Vehicle
theft

2010

8,799,593

2,387.60

307.5

2,080.10

4.2

11.1

134.3

157.8

440.2

1,463.20

176.8

2011

8,834,773

2,455.30

307.9

2,147.40

4.3

11.4

138.2

154

489.4

1,460.90

197.1

2012

8,867,749

2,336.60

290.1

2,046.50

4.4

11.7

128.4

145.7

477.4

1,383.20

185.9

2013

8,911,502

2,170.00

288.9

1,881.10

4.5

9.7

135.6

135.5

402.7

1,324.20

154.5

2014

8,938,175

1,995.30

261.2

1,734.10

3.9

10.7

117.5

125.6

354.8

1,124.30

131

Year

38

PROGRAM ANALYSIS FOR COST SAVINGS:I

The improvement in the crime rate has driven the savings that have been included in Governor
Christies budget for this fiscal year, not the work of the Corrections Department. Violent
crime has dropped from 4.45 to 2.85 incidents per 1,000 residents, and property crime fell
from 26.81 to 18.81 incidents per 1,000 citizens. The national violent crime rate is 3.67 incidents
per 1,000 citizens and the property crime rate is 27.30 incidents per 1,000 people. This means
New Jerseys crime rate is approximately 30 percent less than the typical state.II New Jersey
also implemented the expansion of the GPS monitoring bracelets that the 2010 AFP budget
advocated, but they are still being used in a very small number of parolees. Expanding the
program should create a savings in the parole program, and provide better safety for citizens
with parolees in their city.
The lower crime rate has sent less people to prison, but the Corrections Department has not
been without their own issues internally. There have been recent incidents including one of
the academic staff having an affair with an inmate and the case of three New Jersey State
Prison corrections officers, 14 inmates, and 18 other people charged in a scheme to smuggle cell
phones and drugs into the Trenton facility.III
On top of these internal issues, a review of the performance measures shows little signs of
improving in any area of significance despite the reduced number of inmates. In some measures,
such as the rate of inmates taking the high school equivalency exams passing the test fell from
85.1% to 55%. The failure to help inmates construct a path to a job almost ensures they will reoffend.
The most significant area where the Corrections Department has failed to provide performance
measures is in the re-offender statistics. Despite a number of programs designed to reduce
re-incarceration, no outcomes are provided in the performance measures. Legislators should
not stand for that and should require the Department track, report and remove funding from
programs that do not reduce the rates that individuals return to prison. Programs that are
succeeding need to have the funding moved to their program in order to better serve the
citizens who ultimately not only fund but suffer the consequences of failed programs.

39

There are typically opportunities within the institutional structure that can be outsourced to
provide short term direct savings coupled with long term savings. One area that needs examined
is the food service area, where often a statewide contract can deliver lower cost meals with the
appropriate level of calories. Additionally, the state can include the counties in the contract
bid and gain volume for a better price while assisting the county jails that house some of the
Departments prisoners. The author of this study negotiated a similar contract while serving a
Governor in the Midwest that created significant savings.
The Americans for Prosperity Taxpayers Budget holds the spending at the level that is in the
Governors budget.

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS BY PROGRAM $ IN THOUSANDS

GOVERNORS BUDGET 2017
Corrections
Institutional Control & Supervision
Instutional Care &
Treatment
Institutional Program Support
Detention & Rehabilitation Admin &
Support Services

AFPS BUDGET 2017

Direct State
Services

Grants In Aid

Dedicated

State
Aid

Direct State
Services

Grants In Aid

Dedicated

State
Aid

$492,544

$492,544

$248,712

$248,712

$38,889

$72,979

$22,500

$38,889

$72,979 $22,500

$68,023

$68,023

Parole

$45,937

$35,882

$45,937

$35,882

State Parole Board

$12,788

$12,788

$3,795

$3,795

$18,868

$18,868

Parole Admin &

Support Services
Central Planning
Admin & Support
Services
Totals

$929,556

$108,861 $22,500

$929,556 $108,861 $22,500

I. New Jersey Governors Budget FY-2017 page D-63 through D-80

II. http://www.safewise.com/blog/safest-cities-new-jersey-2015/
III. http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2014/07/senior_correction_officers_inmates_accused_
of_smuggling_cell_phones_drugs_into_prison.html
40

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
MISSION
The mission of the New Jersey Department of Education (DOE) is to prepare all students,
regardless of ZIP code, to graduate from high school ready for college and career.I
Americans for Prosperity is pleased that the goal of the Education Department of ensuring
an adequate and equitable distribution of aid to districtII has been removed from the mission
statement. The 2010 Americans for Prosperity Taxpayers Budget called out the Department
for their focus on money and not kids and the correction has not only been in the mission,
but also in results.
New Jersey public schools have been improving steadily and by at least one rating service now
have an overall ranking of third best in the nation.III However, several large districts including
Camden and Atlantic City have schools that are listed at the bottom of public school rankings.
The focus should always be on the child as the mission statement now properly points out
and helping those children in these schools should be a priority even as the Department
works to fix those schools.
Currently, the primary option for parents is the Interdistrict Public School Choice Program. It
is a program designed to expand educational choices for New Jersey students by providing
them with the option of attending a school district outside their district of residence
without cost to their parents and paid for by the state of New Jersey. Districts must apply
to participate and must designate open seats by grade where they will accept non-resident
students. Each year the New Jersey Department of Education selects the choice districts from
those districts that have submitted an application. For 2014-15 there will be 136 participating
districts. As the program has grown in enrollment, so have its costs. What was a $9.8 million
expense in 2010-11 grew into a $49 million expense by 2013-14 which precipitated a cap of 5%
growth. IV Currently, there is a waiting list for the program in Camden and Atlantic City leaving
those children stranded in these poor schools.V The popularity of this program should be a call
to action for more choice not less.
In addition, this budget believes a properly structured school choice option would actually
increase per pupil funding in public schools while potentially decreasing the total cost to
taxpayers. New Jersey can provide a voucher which parents can use to switch their children
to private schools and pay less than what the state spends to educate them in the local public
school. The state and the locality would continue collecting the same tax revenues for schools
that they currently do but with less students. Even after the removal of the voucher amount from
the funding stream, there will be a significant increase in available funding for public schools on
a per pupil basis.

41

For example, a school choice voucher for private schools of $7,000 per year would be a savings
of approximately $10,000 per pupil over the current amount of $17,572 per pupil spent by K-12
public education1. Leaving this excess in the revenues for the public school system would
increase funding as each student leaves public school by transferring to one of New Jerseys
private schools. And the welcome by product is that education scores may actually go up across
the board! A study of school choice published by Harvard economist Caroline Hoxby2 asked the
question Do public schools respond constructively to competition induced by school choice,
by raising their own productivity? Contrary to the claim that private schools would cherry pick
students leaving public schools with only the lower performing students, the study found the
benefits were greatest where large numbers of students were eligible for choice.
This study was particularly interesting in that it looked at those school choice programs that
have existed for some time and which were large enough to have produced real competition. For
example, in Milwaukee, where children received vouchers worth up to $5,783, the improvement
in the public schools was substantial. Students in public schools, where at least two-thirds of
students were eligible for vouchers, scored 8.1, 13.8, and 8.0 national percentile rank points higher
in math, science, and language, respectively. Michigan and Arizona had similar results with
public schools raising achievement in response to competition. Hoxby found that the largest
achievement gains were in those public schools that faced the most competition.
There is another variation of this program that is popular in Pennsylvania, which allows an
Education Tax Credit scholarship and it also has some economic stimulus built into it. A properly
structured Education Tax Credit scholarship program creates a unique opportunity to stimulate
economic growth in New Jersey. Built in the scholarship program is an existing federal tax
deduction for charitable contributions that makes the program a win-win for individuals and
corporations. Not only would they receive the Education Tax Credit to use against their state tax
liability but they will receive a charitable deduction on their federal tax return that will maximize
the incentive to give to these scholarship programs. If the program were structured to mirror
an incredibly successful Pennsylvania program, corporations or individuals in New Jersey could
give up to 50 percent of their state tax liability to a scholarship program, receive the federal
deduction for the gift and have a net reduction in their total tax bill that actually approaches
their contribution.
This powerful financial incentive is coupled with the positive public relations that providing
scholarships for private school for underprivileged children gives a company. This combination
will encourage companies to locate or do business in New Jersey and reduce the disincentive
of a high marginal tax rate which encourages companies to minimize their state tax liability
in New Jersey by transferring it to lower tax states. The author of this study designed and
helped implement a similar program that is in place in Kansas currently. This budget supports
the Governors Opportunity Scholarship Demonstration Program, but believes the funding is
insufficient and advocates the state look to the Education Tax Credit approach.
The biggest issue facing the public school system is the huge drain of resources to a badly
funded pension system. This issue is discussed in detail in the first part of this budget. Suffice
to say that without addressing this problem, not only will New Jerseys public education system
face continuing funding issues, but the taxpayers of the state will find more and more of their
tax payments used to finance the financial sins of the past. This budget removes $500 million
from the pension payment of $3.25 billion and redirects $20 million to the tax credit program
for scholarships with the rest going to tax relief for the citizens of New Jersey.

42

How can you remove $500 million and not damage the pension system? Legislators should
look back at the 1980s when the private sector largely moved away from defined benefit plans
and how they approached it. A conversion to a defined contribution for new members changes
the dynamics in the system. The unfunded liability becomes a series of cash payments spread
over approximately 60 years. The power of the concept of present value of a dollar becomes a
positive for the conversion as the state makes those payments to retirees. The state need not
commit current funds until the asset base and current contributions of employers and employees
that remain in the defined benefit system begins to cash flow negatively. Add in that future
benefit accumulations in the defined benefit that will not being added constantly to the system
like currently for the new employees going into the defined contribution system.
As discussed in the pension discussion at the earlier section, the conversion actually creates
the cash flow stream to minimize the impact on the state and allows the state to begin to fix
the bond rating issue. The rating agencies are indifferent to what type of benefit plan states
have but instead are focused on how a state deals with debt including the defined benefit plan
unfunded liabilities. The author of this study has been the contact point in a state for negotiating
with the bond rating agencies and providing a cash flow and a plan to pay benefits to retirees
will be viewed very positively.

43

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS BY PROGRAM $ IN THOUSANDS

GOVERNORS BUDGET 2017

AFPS BUDGET 2017

Direct State
Services

Grants In Aid

Dedicated

State
Aid

Direct State
Services

Grants In
Aid

Dedicated

State
Aid

$215

$193,091

$215

$193,091

Facilities Planning &

School Building

$1,458

$1,004,792

$1,458

$1,004,792

School Finance

$3,736

$72,979

$22,500

$3,736

Marie H. Katzenbach
School for the Deaf

$6,950

$6,950

$981

$981

$23,637

$1,620

$23,637

$1,620

Grants Management

$694

$694

Teacher & Leader Effectiveness

$5,694

$5,694

Service to Local Districts

$5,201

$5,201

Innovation

$2,510

$2,501

Early Childhood Education

$1,738

$1,738

School Improvement

$2,916

$2,916

Education
Student Transportation

General Vocational
Education
Standards, Assesments
& Curriculum

44

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS BY PROGRAM $ IN THOUSANDS (CONTINUED)

GOVERNORS BUDGET 2017

AFPS BUDGET 2017

Direct State
Services

Grants In
Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

Direct State
Services

Grants In
Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

Learning
Supports
and Specialized Services

$1,223

$2,000

$1,223

$2,000

Data, Research &

Specialized
Services

$840

$1,004,792

$840

Office of
Fiscal Accountability
& Compliance

$3,291

$3,291

Admin &
Support Services

$13,450

$13,450

Misc. GrantsIn-Aid

$30

$103,717

$30

$103,717

General Formula Aid

$7,674,909

$3,978

$933,650

$3,978

Nonpublic School
Aid/School
Choice

$86,503

$20,000

$86,503

Misc. Grants

Adult &
Continuing
Education

Special Education

$935,650

$3,978

$935,650

$3,978

Facilities
Planning
& School
Building Aid

$4,860

$4,860

General
Vocational
Education

$4,860

$4,860

Teachers
Pension &
Annuity Assistance

$3,250,776

$2,750,776

$79,174

$3,650

$13,162,935

$149,274

$99,174

$3,650

$12,662,935

$149,274

Education

TOTALS

45

i New Jersey Governors Budget FY-2017 page D-81

ii Office of Legislative Services Analysis of Governors Budget FY-2010 page D-87
iii https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-the-best-schools/5335/Cached
iv https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interdistrict_Public_School_Choice_Program
v http://www.northjersey.com/news/n-j-limits-its-school-choice-program-1.1262801
vi http://www.governing.com/gov-data/education-data/state-education-spending-per-pupildata.html
vii Caroline M. Hoxby, School Choice and School Productivity (or Could School Choice Be a
Tide That Lifts all Boats?),National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper no. 8873,
April 2002

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

MISSION
The mission of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is to protect New Jerseys
land, air, waters and the public health and to preserve and manage New Jerseys natural and
historic resources.
The DEP has six major divisions: Natural and Historic Resources, Land Use Management, Water
Resource Management, Air Quality, Energy and Sustainability, Site Remediation and Waste
Management, and Compliance and Enforcement. The DEP also includes three in- but- notof agencies that receive State appropriations: the Palisades Interstate Park Commission, the
Highlands Water Protection and Planning Council, and the Pinelands Commission.ii
This budget will suggest several areas where fee and/or fine revenue should replace taxpayer
funding. However, all fees should be based on the cost of regulation, monitoring or licensing
with every effort to control this cost to industry. When a program becomes self-supporting
there is a tendency for fee funds that are outside the appropriation process to be ignored by
legislators. Strict outcome performance measures and the reasonableness of charges should be
monitored constantly to keep these functions from becoming back door taxes on the citizens
of New Jersey.
Maybe even more importantly for the sovereignty of New Jersey is the need for legislators to
be aware of an often hidden federal Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirement in the states
environmental programs. For example in the area of clean air each state including New Jersey
has a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that identifies how the State will attain and/or maintain
the primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) set forth in section
109 of the Clean Air Act (the Act) and 40 Code of Federal Regulations 50.4 through 50.12,
which includes federally-enforceable requirements. Each state is required to have a SIP that
contains control measures and strategies which demonstrate how each area will attain and
maintain the NAAQS. These plans are developed through a public process, formally adopted
by the State, and submitted by the Governors designee to the EPA. The Clean Air Act requires
the EPA to review each plan and any plan revisions and to approve the plan or plan revisions if
consistent with the Clean Air Act.1
Here is the outline of what that agreement includes: (1) State-adopted control measures which
consist of either rules/regulations or source-specific requirements (e.g., orders and consent
decrees); (2) State-submitted comprehensive air quality plans, such as attainment plans,
maintenance plans, rate of progress plans, and transportation control plans demonstrating how
46

these state regulatory and source-specific controls, in conjunction with federal programs, will
bring and/or keep air quality in compliance with federal air quality standards; (3) State- submitted
non-regulatory requirements, such as emission inventories, small business compliance
assistance programs; statutes demonstrating legal authority, monitoring networks, etc.); and
(4) additional requirements promulgated by EPA (in the absence of a commensurate State
provision) to satisfy a mandatory section 110 or part D (Clean Air Act) requirement.iii
In other words, states can do the federal enforcement plus some the state may add as long as
you at least meet their minimum requirements. The EPA adds this little reminder buried in the
lengthy SIP agreement that is a very scary MOE. Enforcement of the state regulation before
and after it is incorporated into the Federally- approved SIP is primarily a state responsibility.
However, after the regulation is federally approved, EPA is authorized to take enforcement
action against violators.iv
It has been argued there is an advantage to the state in how they enforce those regulations at
the ground level and that this is one of the areas that it would be possible to argue that it is cost
effective for the citizens. However, the idea that the EPA is authorized to take enforcement
action against violators of what was a state created regulation above and beyond federal
regulations is the hidden MOE that bring a cost to businesses and individuals in that state,
even if there is no financial MOE for the state. Once a state administration chooses a level of
enforcement and regulation in their SIP, retreating from that level creates issues that must be
negotiated and is not automatic by any means. Legislators should require that these SIPs be
approved by them to prevent a bureaucrat from tying their hands in the future.
i New Jersey Governors Budget FY-2017 page D-108
ii http://www.epa.gov/reg3artd/airregulations/sips/sipdetail.htm
iii Ibid
iv Ibid

PROGRAM ANALYSIS FOR COST SAVINGS:i

State Forestry Services works with public and private landowners to maintain and establish
healthy forests statewide. Despite being the most densely populated state, forests cover 42% of
New Jersey; 62% of all New Jersey forested land is privately owned. The State Forest Fire Service
prevents and suppresses wildfires to protect both the forest resources as well as residents living
near the forest. State Forestry Services provides technical support and educational materials to
municipalities, landowners and homeowners through private, non- industrial lands stewardship,
insect and disease control, and urban and community forestry resource programs. The agency
also provides educational programs, grows seedlings for reforestation, and identifies and
protects threatened and endangered plants and habitats.
Citizens understand the need to protect the public land but are more skeptical of using their tax
dollars for private lands and education. Americans for Prosperity believes a better alternative
would be for private land owners to pay a fee for protectiona type of risk management fee
or incur the actual costs of any required fire suppression. This will reduce the funding need for
this program and force private forest owners to maintain their acreages with an eye towards
fire control. This budget reduces the budget 10% for this function in anticipation of fees and
recovered costs.

47

Parks Management operates 42 State parks, five marinas, 57 historic sites and districts, and other
recreational, natural, and interpretive facilities; staffs facilities with maintenance, administrative,
ranger, and seasonal personnel to provide assistance, information, education, and interpretive
and protective services to the public; manages properties they consider natural and historic
resources in order to maintain recreational opportunities; plans for the development and
improvement of new facilities and reviews and approves all new construction; provides literature
regarding recreational facilities, natural area and historic preservation. Operates and maintains
State marinas for all boat owners and visitors. Safe moorings are provided for boaters during
heavy storms.
Americans for Prosperity believes that this is another area where only limited public funding
should be used. This budget believes there should be a conversion in the parks and recreation
programs to more user based financing. In going to a primarily fee based system, this budget
believes the bulk of those fees should be left with the park or recreation area that generates them.
This will allow the public to choose which parks and recreation areas are of importance and
incentivize management of the areas to focus on providing the best experience for the public.
Competition will ensue and over the course of a few years there will be an opportunity to assess
which parks the public has voted essential with their attendance and view possible liquidation,
lease or reconfiguration of those facilities that are not meeting the goals of becoming selfsupporting. This concept brings to bear the cost/benefit analysis approach that will encourage
greater local participation in funding if in fact the local government, non-profit entities and
private citizens believe it is important to preserve the park/area. This budget immediately
reduces the Parks budget by 10% and begins a 10% per year draw down until the state funding
is largely eliminated.
The Hunters and Anglers License Fund manages the wildlife resources of the State through
programs of research, regulation, habitat development, land acquisition, law enforcement,
and public education. Trout and other species of fish, pheasants, and quail are reared at State
hatcheries and game farms and released throughout the state; public lands are acquired and
maintained for use as wildlife management areas. Regulations regarding hunting and fishing
seasons are developed, and licenses, stamps, and permits are sold to provide a source of revenue
to manage the States wildlife resources.
The author of this budget believes there should be a conversion to a more user based financing.
In going to a primarily fee based system, this budget believes that fee income should be targeted
to the recreation type that generates them. This will allow the public to choose which activities
are of importance and incentivize management to focus on providing the best experience for
the public. Competition will ensue between programs and there will be an opportunity to assess
which programs the public has voted essential with their licenses. This concept brings to bear
the cost/benefit analysis approach that will encourage greater local participation in funding if
in fact the local government, non-profit entities and private citizens believe it is important to
preserve the program. Non-profit groups like Pheasants Forever should be asked for input and
involvement both financially and managerially in areas they have resources.
Opportunities to dedicate stamp sales such as trout and pheasant stamps with the proceeds
directed only to those programs will allow wildlife managers to assess the marketplace for
demand and incentivize them to manage with an eye towards the publics interests. This budget
immediately reduces the budget by 10% and begins a 10% per year draw down till the state
funding is largely eliminated.

48

Shellfish and Marine Fisheries Management manages the marine shellfish and finfish resources
of the state thru research, monitoring, habitat protection, licensing, and regulatory programs.
Clam and oyster grounds are leased to commercial shell fishermen for aquaculture activities.
Programs (relay and depuration) also provide for the safe utilization of shellfish from marginally
polluted areas. Marine fisheries programs support the effective management of the numerous
migratory species on a coast wide basis. An artificial reef program constructs fisheries habitat in
ocean areas to enhance productivity, thus providing additional fishing and diving opportunities.
This budget believes there should be a conversion to more user based financing. The average
citizen should not be subsidizing commercial fisheries. This budget immediately reduces the
budget by 10% and begins a 10% per year draw down till the state funding is largely eliminated.
Natural Resources Engineering (Office of Engineering and Construction) provides financial
and technical assistance to local governments for the construction of groins, jetties, bulkheads,
sea walls, and beach replenishment under the shore protection program, performs dam safety
inspections and dam construction and reconstruction permit reviews, manages the dam loan
program to achieve compliance with safe dam regulations, provides financial and technical
assistance to local governments for flood control projects, including flood walls, levees, and
property buy-outs operates and maintains the Bayshore floodgate, and dredges and marks 200
miles of navigation channels in the States tidal inland waterways and large State-controlled
lakes for boating safety. This budget encourages the program to use cost/benefit analysis in
the selection of all but the most critical elements of their assistance to local projects. The use of
this technique will encourage local participation in order to move their project to the forefront.
In this economic climate the program should carefully prioritize and focus on critical issues first
and delay non-critical projects.
The Palisades Interstate Park Commission operates and maintains existing parks and historic
sites; plans for the improvement and development of new facilities; maintains highways, bridges,
landscaped areas, signs, and traffic lines to ensure the safety of the motoring public. Enforces
traffic laws on the Palisades Parkway and the lands to ensure that park facilities are utilized in
accordance with laws, statutes, and Commission regulations; maintains a police court with the
powers and jurisdiction of a municipal court with respect to crimes, disorderly conduct, and
violations of the motor vehicle and traffic or other laws of the State or of any of the rules and
regulations of the Commission. This budget moves police functions to Public Safety with a 10%
reduction in administrative costs and applies the same user fee approach similar to the prior
programs to the remaining functions. This budget immediately reduces the budget by 10% and
begins a 10% per year draw down till the state funding is largely eliminated.
Environmental Management Since 1996, 4% of the revenue annually derived from the tax imposed
by the Corporation Business Tax Act (P.L.1945, c.162) has been dedicated to the Department.
Beginning in 2007, the dedication was expanded to provide funding and current legislation
has increased that tax for the development and conservation of recreational lands. There are
significant issues to tying the hands of your business community by forcing all corporations to
pay taxes that are only relevant to the industries that have environmental impacts of significance.
Is it appropriate for service industries like management services to pay an equal amount of tax
for this as a waste management company? This inequity creates a competitive disadvantage
for many New Jersey businesses and should be reviewed by the legislature. The purchase,
development and/or conservation of recreational land by an environmental management
function of government with business taxes is a similarly flawed concept. Is it any surprise with
this approach that New Jersey ranks 50th in the Tax Foundations State Business Tax Climate
Index? With the neighboring states ranked as follows: New York (49th), Pennsylvania (32th) and
49

Delaware (14th)ii it is clear that businesses in New Jersey dont operate on a level playing field.
This budget reduces the funding by 25% to reflect reductions in funding from corporate taxes
but encourages legislators to reassign the functions of this program that are more appropriate
in Parks or Wildlife Management and consider making environmental management strictly a fee
and fine based charge to those industries with environmental impacts of substance. This budget
also suspends capital construction in this agency until a review of each projects necessity can
be made in light of the new approach to environmental management.
Water Supply administers the New Jersey Private Well Testing Act and the federal and state
Safe Drinking Water Programs, the Well Permit program, and the Water Allocation Program
and also administers the Drought Management Program. As part of the Safe Drinking Water
program, administers the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF), which includes a
financing program for water supply projects, along with set asides for capacity development,
training for licensed operators, and source water assessment and delineation activities. This
budget recommends a reduction of 10% of appropriated budget to reflect the economic climate.
A thorough review of fees that account for approximately one third of the programs revenues
is suggested. Those that exceed the cost of regulation should be lowered and those that are
subsidized by taxpayers should be increased.
Land Use Regulation protects and manages the States land and water resources through the
implementation of the Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA), the Waterfront Development
Law, the Coastal Wetlands Act of 1970, the Flood Hazard Area Control Act, the Freshwater
Wetlands Protection Act, the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act, and the federal
consistency provisions of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. In addition to the resource
protection mandates of these statutes, these programs protect lives and property from storm
and flood damages and administers the allocation of State riparian rights. The relatively large
amounts of expenditures which exceed $15 million last year suggest legislators should review
activities to see if the original intent of the enabling legislation has been overstepped. Roughly
one fifth of the revenues to this agency where fee based and as in all fee accounts this budget
suggest thorough review of fees. Those that exceed the cost of regulation should be lowered
and those that are subsidized by taxpayers should be increased. This budget recommends a
reduction of 10% of appropriated budget.
New Jersey Geological Survey maps the geology and topography of the state, assesses offshore
beach nourishment sands and dredging, maintains a cooperative water monitoring program
with the United States Geological Service (USGS) and reviews plans for underground storage of
CO2, gas, oil, and chemical disposal wells. The program also evaluates the supply potential and
water quality of the states aquifers, maintains a statewide geohydrologic database, maps aquifer
recharge and wellhead protection areas, earthquakes and historic fill, investigates groundwater
pollution problems, and supports State permitting and municipal programs through geophysical
studies, groundwater investigations, and the use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
technology. This budget believes the overlap with Water Supply and Water Monitoring and
Standards is significant enough to warrant the consolidation of all three functions. Additionally
Environmental Management and Drinking Water should consolidate water functions with the
aforementioned programs to maximize efficiency.
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management provides leadership, planning, education, and financial
and technical assistance to the states citizens and businesses to help them manage their waste
responsibly. Regulates the generation, storage, collection, transportation, processing, treatment,
and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes. Regulations and standards are implemented and
monitored through on-site construction inspections, design reviews, data collection, and permit
issuance. Administers the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA).
50

Develops and implements programs to attain statewide recycling goals and to reduce the
quantities of waste generated. Monitors the solid waste collection industry to promote effective
competition and to prohibit anti-competitive practices. Regulates and oversees mergers,
acquisitions, and long-term financing arrangements of the solid waste utility industry. Promotes
the reuse of non-operating landfills, the Landfill Unit provides oversight of landfill remediation,
closure and redevelopment through the melding and implementation of solid waste regulations
and technical requirements for site remediation.
The Office of Dredging and Sediment Technology is responsible for evaluating and permitting
all coastal dredging projects and is committed to the beneficial reuse of dredged material. This
budget notes that the funding is roughly two parts tax dollars and one part fees and believes a
review of the programs components should be performed. For instance, the Office of Dredging
and Sediment Technology needs to be consolidated with the other water policy agencies. Quite
possibly many of the non-fee based components should be considered for cessation and the
many fee based should be reviewed to either raise the fee to cover the full cost of regulation or
lowered if they exceed the cost. Compliance and enforcement would appear to be candidates for
fees and/or fine revenues, but the budget shows that these functions were totally appropriated
funds. In the interim this budget recommends a reduction of 10% of appropriated budget to
reflect the economic climate.
Remediation Management and Response conducts a statewide program to oversee the
remediation of sites by private parties under both the States mandated and voluntary cleanup
programs. Provides oversight to ensure that appropriate standards and technical requirements
are met. The State Spill Compensation and Control Act, ISRA, Underground Storage of Hazardous
Substances Act, and the Water Pollution Control Act authorize the Department to oversee
these projects. Provides management assistance and coordination of remedial activities at
National Priorities List Site-Cleanups where the projects are led by the federal Environmental
Protection Agency, Department of Defense, or Department of Energy. Provides an around-theclock response program for chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNE)
emergencies. Also operates an around-the-clock communication center, which is the point
of initial notification for events and the key point of contact/ communication for many State
agencies.
The program also reviews preliminary assessment and site investigation reports to determine
the approval of child care/educational facility licenses and conducts periodic inspections of
those facilities in the State. This budget strongly supports the pursuit of those individuals and
businesses that are responsible for the sites that require remediation. The programs budget
appears to be largely borne on the backs of New Jersey taxpayers instead of the federal
government, which in many cases direct and/or control the remediation, and the offending
parties. This budget reduces expenditures by 10% and encourages the cooperation with the
appropriate authorities to recoup costs from the original polluters.
Radiation Protection licenses, registers and inspects owners of machine sources, naturally
occurring or accelerator-produced radioactive materials, and non-ionizing sources of radiation.
Responsible for maintaining the capability to respond and provide technical assistance during
radiological emergencies. Certifies and inspects businesses and individuals that conduct radon
testing and mitigation. Inspects mammography facilities under contract with the Food and Drug
Administration. Licenses x-ray technologists, nuclear medicine technologists, and radon testers
and mitigations. Determines exposure pathways and environmental or health impact of sources
of radiation and provides direction on remediation. Provides emergency planning and response
and monitoring around nuclear power plant sites. Tracks shipments of large quantities
51

of radioactive materials through New Jersey. Establishes and maintains policies and procedures
for the generation, compilation, review, and the use of data of documented quality, as required
by the USEPA. Reviews data submitted to the Department to verify its quality and determine its
usability. Certifies the analytical capabilities of laboratories performing analyses in response to
the States environmental programs.
Only roughly 12% of this programs revenues come from fees but the responsibilities of this
function lend themselves to becoming a primarily fee based program. The emergency response
and public safety functions arguably can be financed by citizens but the other functions all should
be supported by the industries being regulated. This budget reduces their appropriations by
10% immediately and 10% per year after that till only public safety issues are publically financed.
Air Pollution Control provides overall air quality management to attain the health-based ambient
air quality standards and visibility goals. Coordinates air quality planning to ensure compliance
with State and federal requirements. Conducts ambient air monitoring, emission inventory
development, and air pollution control rule development. Participates in the air pollution
control aspects of the motor vehicle inspection and maintenance programs, administers the
Low Emission Vehicle Program, and identifies and implements, where appropriate, programs
to reduce emissions of diesel exhaust. Reviews construction plans for new and modified
stationary sources of potential air pollution and issues permits for construction and operation;
validates tax exemption claims for air pollution control equipment; oversees the conduct of
periodic stack tests to determine air contaminant emission rates; oversees continuous emission
monitoring of stacks; reviews and conducts air quality modeling studies of major new sources of
air contamination; reviews and restricts the health risk of toxic air contaminant emissions from
stationary sources; and reviews and issues facility-wide operating permits for major existing
sources of air pollution. Provides program coordination in compliance with State and federal
mandates to attain air quality standards.
Conducts air monitoring, planning and analysis, as well as motor vehicle pollution control
projects and the development of regulations. Only roughly 2% of this programs revenues come
from fees but the responsibilities of this function lend themselves to becoming a more fee or
fine based program. This budget reduces their appropriations by 10% immediately and 10% per
year after that till only public safety issues are publically financed.
Water Pollution Control administers the NJPDES program to protect New Jerseys surface and
ground water by assuring proper treatment and disposal of wastewater (and its residuals) and
storm water from various types of facilities and activities, including beneficial management
of sludge and sludge-derived products. To accomplish this, the program issues permits which
impose requirements to limit and/or prevent the discharge of pollutants into waters of the state.
The regulated facilities vary widely in size, from small uses such as campgrounds, schools,
and shopping centers to larger industrial and municipal wastewater discharges. Implements
Treatment Works Approval program to regulate the construction of wastewater collection,
conveyance, and treatment facilities. About 50% of the programs revenues come from fees or
fines and that fits with the responsibilities of this function. This budget recommends expanding
that base and reduces their appropriations by 10%.
Regulatory and Governmental Affairs coordinates the proposal and adoption of environmental
rules and regulations. Serves as central point of contact regarding State and federal legislation.
Develops and executes public information, environmental education, and communications
strategies for the Departments programs. Serves as liaison to the Legislature as well as county
and municipal governmental officials. This budget finds the concept of program or department
52

liaisons to government officials tantamount to government paid lobbyists. Invariably they will
lobby for the best interests of the department they represent which may not be in the best
interests of taxpayers. This budget removes all funding for these types of positions. The Directors
and Deputy Directors should be available and able to answer questions about their departments
or they are not worthy of the job titles.
Administration and Support Services sets policies and develops short- and long-range plans
and strategies; coordinates with governmental agencies; and provides legislative review and
legal analysis. Provides general support services, including personnel payroll, purchasing,
data processing, printing, information technology, e-government applications, training and
organizational development, program evaluation, and property control. Provides financial
management, including budget and accounting services, as well as fiscal control and financial
monitoring of all General Fund monies, federal funds, bond funds, and tax accounts. This budget
asks all support services to take across the board reductions of 15%. Those programs that are
important services should never be cut a greater percentage than support functions.
Pesticide Control regulates the manufacture, distribution, storage, sale, possession, and use of
pesticides. Conducts complaint investigations and routine inspections. Compliance assistance
and pollution prevention activities are performed through training and outreach. Promotes
reducing the use of pesticides through practical pest control techniques known as Integrated
Pest Management (IPM). Enforces requirements for IPM in public, private, and charter schools in
New Jersey. Enforces farm worker pesticide safety requirements at agricultural establishments.
All pesticide products sold in the state are registered with this program. Pesticide applicators
and dealers are certified and licensed, and permits are issued for mosquito/fly control and
aquatic pesticide use. Monitoring and evaluation of pesticide hazards and laboratory analysis of
pesticide samples are also conducted. This program is totally supported by appropriations and
this budget recommends reviewing functions for the appropriateness of fees to cover regulation,
monitoring or compliance. In the interim this budget reduces appropriations by 10%.
i Ibid
ii http://taxfoundation.org/article/2016-state-business-tax-climate-index

53

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS BY PROGRAM $ IN THOUSANDS

GOVERNORS BUDGET 2017

AFPS BUDGET 2017

Environmental

Direct State
Services

Grants In
Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

Direct State
Services

Grants In
Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

Forest Resource Management

$8,864

7,977.60

Parks Management

$14,766

$2,025

$13,289.40

$2.025

Hunters &
Anglers License Fund

$15,315

$13,783.50

Shellfish &
Marine Fisheries Management

$2,282

$2,053.80

Wildlife Management

$364

$364

Natural Resources Engineering

$1,281

$1,280

Palisades Interstate Park

Commission

$3,007

$1,280.10

Envrionmental
Management
- CBT Dedication

$19,972

$14,979

Land Use
Regulation

$13,159

$13,158.10

$250

$249.10

$5,027

$5,026.10

Envrionmental Policy &

Planning

Publicly-Funded
Site Remediation & Response

9,606

9,605.10

Division of
Science,
Research &
Envrionmental
Health
New Jersey
Geological
Survey
- CBT Dedication

54

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS BY PROGRAM $ IN THOUSANDS (CONTINUED)

GOVERNORS BUDGET 2017

AFPS BUDGET 2017

Direct State
Services

Grants In
Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

Direct State
Services

Grants In
Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

$4,983

$4,982.10

$33,494

#33,493.10

Radiation
Protection

$5,984

$5,983.10

Air Pollution
Control

$14,851

$14,850.10

Water Pollution Control

$7,845

$7,844.10

Public
Wastewater
Facilities

$2,633

$2,632.10

$1,790

$19,629

$6,310

$19,628.15

$6,310

Air Pollution
Control

$4,550

$4,095

Pesticide
Control

$2,199

$1,979.10

Water Pollution Control

$6,185

$2,700

$5,566.50

$2,700

Land Use
Regulation

$2,792

$2,512.80

Solid &
Hazardous
Waste Management

$5,850

$5,265

$210,530.15

$2,025

$9,010

Environmental
Solid &
Hazardous
Waste Management
Remediation
Management

Clean Waters
Regulatory & Governmental
Affairs
Administration &
Support
Services

TOTALS

$225,332 $2,025

$9,010

55

CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SERVICES

The Taxpayer Budget advocates for the consolidation of those functions that overlap or serve the same
areas of need. The reduction in support personnel and facilitation of processes by avoiding inter agency
budget disputes offer allocation of resources should improve services and provide savings. We show their
current resources and mission statements separately, but discuss their operational issues jointly.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SENIOR SERVICES

MISSION
The mission of the Department of Health is to improve health through leadership and innovation.
The Department has two major branches: Public Health Services, which represents traditional
public health programs, and Health Systems, where the emphasis is on improving the quality of
health care through expanded oversight efforts, such as the licensure and inspection of various
health care facilities.I

56

i New Jersey Governors Budget FY-2017 page D-141

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

MISSION
The Department of Human Services (DHS) contracts, collaborates and partners with federal,
state and community- based organizations to maximize resources and provide an array of
services statewide that promote independence, dignity, choice and assistance for aging adults,
individuals and families with low incomes and people with disabilities.

57

58

JOINT CONSIDERATIONS OF HEALTH SERVICES

Legislators have a difficult time reducing spending for programs that have such important
missions as the prevention of disease which is why this budget has stressed the need for
stringent performance measures. It is instructive that New Jersey ranks 14th in state health
spending per capitai and has the 13th highest hospital chargesii in the nation, according to the
Kaiser Family Foundation, and the states health programs put significant and growing demands
on taxpayers. The amount of money available for any single function of government is a finite
resource and it is essential particularly in this area that limited resources not only be focused on
the truly needy in our society, but also that the taxpayers investment actually produces positive
results for those served.
Social and health programs need to be examined to determine whether all the individuals being
served are truly needy. To many government programs have moved from being safety nets for
the needy to being welfare for the greedy. Taxpayers expect their state government to provide
essential supports services for those in need but they also expect it to spend their tax dollars
wisely. Programs within social and health services should be means tested whenever possible
and fees set relative to income and/or asset ownership of the non- impoverished recipient for
those services. This means testing approach may actually make more existing programs eligible
for federal government fund matches and actually increase resources available to the needy.
Increasingly, responsibility for taking care of others is placed at the foot of government. In a
culture that speaks about desires in terms of needs, needs in terms of rights, and rights in terms
of entitlements, government is considered obligated by many to become the extended family
for all citizens. This approach actually serves to break down the historical institutions that have
provided many of the current government services to its members.
Public officials can help to promote a healthier society and find partners in assisting to social
and health needs by acknowledging the responsibility that families, neighborhoods, churches,
and similar institutions have for their members. Policy should serve to encourage and protect
such institutions. Legislators should pass legislation that recognizes the social and relational
nature of the citizens within those institutions. The promotion of policies that remove barriers
and disincentives for the members of local forms of association to act in personal ways to solve
problems would serve to eliminate many problems before the state becomes involved.
New Jersey spreads health and human services amongst several agencies with the bulk
of expenditures in the Department of Children and Families, the Department of Health and
Senior Services, and the Department of Human Services. This budget suggests a move toward
consolidation of these services into one department. The budget consolidates the department
of Children and Families and Health with Human Services. This makes sense from several
perspectives. The truly needy do not always have internet access or transportation availability
and facilitating their receiving services should be a priority over the budgetary turf wars
and bureaucratic redundancies of multiple agencies. Legislators need to consider where the
taxpayers health and social policy money is being spent. Is it spent on services for the deserving
or FTEs for the bureaucracy? This budget proposes that all savings from consolidation be used
to maintain essential services that will make a difference in the impoverished segment of society.
This budget recognizes Governor Christies reduction in the hospital reimbursement plan known
as Charity Care as the health insurance that over 434,000 have obtained insurance through
NJ Family Careiii but suggests that a phase out of this program may be a more appropriate
approach.
59

The funds are disbursed through a formula instead of as needed basis. However, probably the
more prudent area to review is the concept itself. Charity care or uncompensated care are the
very basis that have allowed non-profit hospitals to obtain their tax free status. The argument
that those hospitals in lower income areas are having to provide more uncompensated care is at
least partially offset by the NJ Family Care expansion. In this day and age of digital transactions
it would seem far more efficient to determine the amount of uncompensated care by month
and ONLY when the level rises above the break-even point. Month to month fluctuations can
be smoothed with a six month moving average with the goal to use taxpayer dollars only when
demonstrated to actually be necessary.
Currently, most legislators are at the mercy of the departments or various lobbyists or advocates
for information about the actual effectiveness of the programs. The outcome data is missing
from almost all the programs performance measurements. Because of the limited scope of this
budget a program by program analysis is not possible but there are policies and procedures that
when put in place will facilitate legislators being able to identify and re-allocate resources on an
informed basis.
The definitions of and income limits for qualifying in each program for qualifying should
be examined on a continuing basis.
Any program that does not have means testing imposed should be a candidate for closure.
Means testing should not be mere lip service but include data cross checks and rechecks
periodically for eligibility.
Legislators should ask for breakdowns in populations that are being served to ensure the
intent they had for the program is reaching those it is intended for.
Ultimately the legislators should demand and receive relevant outcome data on every
program to facilitate allocations of resources to those programs that work.
The Americans for Prosperity Taxpayer Budget maintains the Governors funding levels with the
caveat those programs subject to aggressive pursuit of outcomes should create savings and
administration which is reduced 10% to reflect the consolidation with Children and Families and
Human Services.
i http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/health-spending-per-capita/
ii http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/expenses-per-inpatient-day/
iii State of New Jersey FY 2017 Budget Summary page 16

60

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS BY PROGRAM $ IN THOUSANDS

GOVERNORS BUDGET 2017

AFPS BUDGET 2017

HEALTH & SENIOR SERVICES

Direct State
Services

Grants In Aid

Dedicated

State
Aid

Direct State
Services

Grants In Aid

Dedicated

State
Aid

Vital Statistics

$1,323

$1,323

$6,023

$129,318

$529

$6,023

$129,318

$529

$11,541

$44,881

$11,541

$44,881

$9,892

$9,892

$1,338

$21,651

$1,338

$21,651

$4,598

$4,598

$1,456

$295,290

$1,456

$295,290

$4,460

$4,014

$40,631

$491,140

$529

$40,140

$491,140

$529

Family Health
Services
Public Heath
Protection Services
Laboratory Services
AIDS Services
Health Care Facility Regulation
& Oversight
Health Care Systems Analysis
Administration &
Support Services
TOTALS

61

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS BY PROGRAM $ IN THOUSANDS

GOVERNORS BUDGET 2017

AFPS BUDGET 2017

HUMAN SERVICES

Direct State
Services

Grants In Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

Direct State
Services

Grants In Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital

$92,698

$92,698

Trenton Psychiatric
Hospital

$76,804

$76,804

Ann Klein Forensic

Center

$45,260

$45,260

Ancora Psychiatric
Hospital

$87,751

$87,751

Division of Medical
Assistance & Health

$32,354

$4,052,152

$32,354

$4,052,152

Division of Disability
Services

$1,315

$9,121

$3,734

$1,315

$9,121

$3,734

$36,799

$626,691

$151,938

$36,799

$626,691

$151,938

Green Brook Regional Center

$5,825

$5,825

Vineland Developmental Center

$16,372

$16,372

Woodbine Developmental Center

$31,404

$31,404

New Lisbon Developmental Center

$22,139

$22,139

Hunterdon Developmental Center

$25,836

$25,836

Commission for the

Blind and Visually

$10,556

$10,556

Division of Family
Development

$30,810

$175,863

$237,373

$30,810

$175,863

$237,373

Division of Management & Budget

$36,939

$8,809

$33,245

$8,809

TOTALS

$562,115

$4,967,023

$179,587

$242,027

$558,421

$4,967,023

$179,587

$242,027

Community Programs

62

LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

MISSION
The Department of Labor and Workforce Development (LWD) helps individuals obtain
employment; spearheads efforts to provide a world- class workforce with the skills needed
by the states industries; assists employers in hiring workers and upgrading the skills of their
employees; provides vital income security to workers who are unemployed or unable to work
due to illness, accident or injury; equitably enforces New Jerseys labor laws and standards;
analyzes the states economic, labor market and demographic information; helps individuals
with disabilities succeed in the workplace; promotes labor management harmony; and
protects the health and safety of workers on the job.i

63

What most citizens do not realize is that businesses pay for the administration of the
unemployment services via their Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) Form 940 payments.
But this money flows to Washington and then returns as federal funds creating an illusion
of a largely federal program and legislators seldom spend a great deal of time looking at the
operations of the Department. At Americans for Prosperity, we believe every citizen and
business that funds a government function should expect those tax dollars be well spent.
i New Jersey Governors Budget FY-2017 page D-221

PROGRAM ANALYSIS FOR COST SAVINGS:i

There are a number of programs that are financed through a dedicated assessment on workers
and their employers. Taxing current employees and their employers for the benefit of training
other workers that are not the employees or co-workers of the payers is a redistribution of
wealth program. Making a going concern less profitable is in and of itself questionable enough
to warrant the discontinuation of these programs as a net drain on the economy of New Jersey.
The following are all programs that meet that criteria and this budget discontinues these
programs except for Unemployment Insurance, Temporary Disability Insurance and Workers
Compensation.
The Workforce Development Partnership Fund provides funding for employers to invest in
the occupational and literacy skills of their employees and assists unemployed individuals
in obtaining these critical skills. This fund is financed through a dedicated assessment on
workers and their employers.
The New Jersey Supplemental Workforce Fund for Basic Skills (SWFBS) invests in literacy
and basic skills development of unemployed workers and provides grants to employers
to provide literacy training to their employees. This fund is financed from a portion of
employer and employee tax contributions.
The Civil Service Commission is buried within the Labor and Workforce Development
Department but is actually a government employee service bureau things such as State
of New Jersey Employee Advisory Service provides State employers and employees
confidential counseling referrals and support services for issues related to job- performance,
mental health, substance use and employee well- being.
Each state department should
either be paying for this on an as needed basis or as an assessment much like Workers
Compensation where a history of use requires a bigger payment by the employer.
All state funding is removed by this budget and while these costs may reappear in programs
64

costs two major improvements come from this approach. First programs with a history of
employment issues should burden the cost so citizens begin to see all these sort of hidden costs
that defy transparency. Second any federal funds in those programs will now be paying their
full share of the expense.
New Jersey is one of only five states (and Puerto Rico) to provide workers with compulsory
temporary disability insurance coverage. This program was established in 1948 and the first
benefit check was issued in January 1949. The primary purpose of the Division of Temporary
Disability Insurance is to provide protection against wage loss to persons who meet certain
requirements when an accident or sickness occurs that is not work related. Workers who become
disabled may be eligible for cash benefits under the State Plan or an approved Private Plan.
A third program, Disability During Unemployment, is designed for those who become disabled
during the period they are eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. Also, effective on July
1, 2009, New Jersey provided Family Leave Insurance benefits to covered workers to bond with
newborn or newly adopted children and to care for sick family members.
Each program is independent and all are funded from dedicated taxes paid by employers and
employees. When one sees plans like this two questions come to mind: 1) Why if it is such a
good idea do only five states do it? and 2) Is it any surprise with these sort of costs to business
that New Jersey ranks 50th in the Tax Foundations State Business Tax Climate Index?ii This
budget reduces funding by 10% and begins phase out of this program for both the State and
Private plan.
This budget reduces funding by 10% and begins phase out of the following programs for similar
reasons.
Public Sector Labor Relations provides services through the Public Employment Relations
Commission (C.34:13A-1 et seq.), which establishes policies, rules and regulations
concerning employer- employee relations in the public sector. Also resolves disputes
involving unit determinations, representation, unfair practices and scope of negotiations.
Upon request, provides mediators and fact- finders to help resolve collective negotiation
disputes and designates arbitrators to resolve disputes over collective bargaining rights.
The Public Employment Relations Commission Appeal Board is an administrative body
created by P.L.1979, c.477, and is authorized to review appeals filed by non- member
employees relating to representation fees set by their majority representatives.
Private Sector Labor Relations. Provides services through the State Board of Mediation
(C.34:13A- 4 and C.34:1A- 23), which monitors labor negotiations throughout the state and
conducts separate and joint conferences with labor and management during negotiations
of labor contracts, offers grievance mediation services, resolves disputes by providing
arbitrators at the request of the parties, conducts consent elections to determine matters
of union representation, offers oversight and assistance with local union officers and
delegates elections.
The Division of Appeals and Regulatory Affairs provides advice to other areas within the
Civil Service Commission and other stakeholders on the interpretation and application
of civil service laws and rules; maintains a regulatory framework for the administration
of the civil service system in public employment; provides an equitable and expeditious
dispute resolution process for employees, employers and candidates for employment in
civil service jurisdictions; maintains agendas and schedules of Civil Service Commission
meetings; and prepares and reviews proposed changes to Civil Service rules in the New
Jersey Administrative Code.
65

The functions of these entities is best left to the Fair Labor Relations Board and the court
system or billed to state agencies as needed to cover services provided.

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS BY PROGRAM $ IN THOUSANDS

GOVERNORS BUDGET 2017

AFPS BUDGET 2017

Direct State
Services

Grants In Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

Direct State
Services

Grants In Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

$693

$624

State Disability
Insurance Plan

$32,546

$29,291

Private Disability
Insurance Plan

$4,996

$4,496

Workers Compensation

$13,617

$13,617

Special Compensation

$1,933

$1,933

Vocational Rehab
Services

$2,704

$$2,704

Employment Services

$10,015

$10,015

Workplace Standards

$4,391

$4,391

Public Sector Labor Relations

$3,680

$3,680

Private Sector Labor Relations

$491

$491

Tests Dev & Analytics

$17,356

$17,356

Appeals & Regulatory Affairs

$2,046

$2,046

Vocational Rehab
Services

$40,598

$2,196

$40,598

$2,196

Employment &
Training Services

$30,076

$2,196

$40,598

$2,196

$94,468

$70,674

$2,196

$90,645

$67,666

$2,196

LABOR
Administration &
Support Services

TOTALS

i New Jersey Governors Budget FY-2017 page D-221 to page D=242

ii http://taxfoundation.org/article/2016-state-business-tax-climate-index
66

LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY

MISSION
The Department of Law and Public Safety is dedicated to protecting the safety and security of the
people of New Jersey. Under the oversight of the Attorney General, the Department performs
far- reaching and diverse security and legal duties, providing statewide law enforcement and
emergency response services, as well as services and counsel to other State agencies, and
instituting legal actions where appropriate to advance the interests of the State and its citizens.1

67

i New Jersey Governors Budget FY-2017 page D-244

PROGRAM ANALYSIS FOR COST SAVINGS:i

The functions of this Department with 12 divisions and offices, as well as independent
commissions and boards, the Department performs such critical tasks as overseeing the criminal
justice system, protecting citizens civil and consumer rights, promoting highway traffic safety,
and maintaining public confidence in the casino, combative sports, alcoholic beverage, gaming
and racing industries. As head of the Department, the Attorney General serves as the States
chief law enforcement officer and legal adviser, and is responsible for the management and
administration of the Department.
Throughout this report, we have discussed moving or sharing responsibilities that currently exist
in other agencies. We would anticipate those agencies would transfer funding and there would
be a net savings in the transferring agency. However, Public Safety is one of the most important
functions of government and we hold their budget harmless for that reason. That does not
mean efficiencies should not be sought or that reallocations of resources within the Department
should not take place.

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS BY PROGRAM $ IN THOUSANDS

GOVERNORS BUDGET 2017

AFPS BUDGET 2017

LAW & PUBLIC SAFETY

Direct State
Services

Grants In Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

Direct State
Services

Grants In Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

State Police Operations

$265,132

$765

$2,000

$265,132

$765

$2,000

$31,717

$31,717

$438

$438

Criminal Justice
State Medical Examiner

68

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS BY PROGRAM $ IN THOUSANDS (CONTINUED)

GOVERNORS BUDGET 2017

AFPS BUDGET 2017

LAW & PUBLIC SAFETY

Direct State
Services

Grants In Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

Direct State
Services

Grants In Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

Admin & Support

Services

$31,780

$31,780

Office of Highway
Traffic Safety

$598

$598

Election Law Enforcement

$4,510

$6,200

$4,510

$6,200

Review & Enforcement of Ethical

Standards

$1,047

$1,047

Juvenile Community Programs

$26,184

$16,599

$26,184

$16,599

Institutional Control & Supervision

$37,471

$37,471

Institutional Care &

Treatment

$18,013

$18,013

Juvenile Parole &

Transitional Services

$5,776

$5,776

Admin & Support

Services

$15,855

$15,855

Homeland Security
Preparedness

$9,978

$9,978

Admin & Support

Services

$10,302

$10,302

Legal Services

$16,534

$16,534

Consumer Affairs

$7,357

$7,357

Operation of
State Professional
Boards

$17,541

$92

$17,541

$92

Protection of Civil
Rights

$4,327

$3,372

Victims of Crime
Compensation
Office

$3,372

$3,372

Gaming Enforcement

$42,530

$42,530

i New Jersey Governors Budget FY-2017 page D-244 through D-273

69

INTERDEPARTMENTAL ACCOUNTS
MISSION
The Interdepartmental Accounts provide funds for the cost of certain services that are
administered centrally on behalf of all agencies of State government.I
We discussed this troubling issue with this Department in the introductory section of this report.
This Departments existence thwarts attempts to be transparent to the citizens of New Jersey
on how much each service they provide actually costs. Every one of the expenditures on the
following list belongs in a programs expenses, instead of over $4 billion sitting in these accounts.
Legislators and citizens need to demand that they be allocated their appropriate agency and
appear in the expenditures of that agency.
i New Jersey Governors Budget FY-2017 page D-424

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS BY PROGRAM $ IN THOUSANDS

GOVERNORS BUDGET 2017

AFPS BUDGET 2017

INTERDEPARTMENT
ACCOUNTS

Direct State
Services

Grants In Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

Direct State
Services

Grants In Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

Property Rentals

$150,841

$150,841

Insurance & Other

Services

$128,767

$128,767

$2,666,118

$1,035,125

$2,416,118

$1,035,125

Other Interdepartmental Accounts

$12,525

$12,525

Salary Increases &

Other Benefits

$62,700

$62,700

Utilities & Other

Services

$14,093

14,093

Aid to Independet Authorities

$111,747

$111,747

$3,035,044

$1,146,872

$2,785,044

$1,146,872

Employee Benefits

TOTALS

70

MISCELLANEOUS COMMISSIONS
MISSION
Miscellaneous Commissions are agencies with missions that extend beyond a single department
within the State. This summary of Miscellaneous Commissions concerns only those that receive
State funds. In some instances, they may extend to one or more states and were created as an
interstate- federal compact. Compacts take effect upon Congressional approval of identical
state laws in each participating state.
For example, an interstate commission operates in conjunction with executive departments in
several states, with each member state exercising equal power in the decision making process.
Such compacts are necessary, as an action taken by one state frequently has ramifications in
another state. While compacts are created to allow commissions to offer a variety of functions,
such as the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the services of the Miscellaneous
Commissions described here are provided in two distinct areas: science and technical programs
and governmental review. The Delaware River Basin Commission and the Interstate Environmental
Commission are engaged in science and technology programs and governmental review activities
are conducted by the Council on Local Mandates.i

The Americans for Prosperity Taxpayers Budget leaves the Commissions funding levels, but
cautions that an unelected Commission, such as the Interstate Environmental Commission,
must be watched closely to avoid losing the states sovereign control over its natural resources.

i New Jersey Governors Budget FY-2017 page D-420

71

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS BY PROGRAM $ IN THOUSANDS

GOVERNORS BUDGET 2017

AFPS BUDGET 2017

Direct State
Services

Grants In Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

Direct State
Services

Grants In Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

Delware River Basin Commission

$693

$693

Interstate Envrionmental Comm.

$15

$15

Council On Local
Mandates

$68

$68

TOTALS

$776

$776

MISC. COMMISSIONS

MILITARY AND VETERANS

MISSION
The Department of Military and Veterans Affairs (DMAVA) provides operational forces for rapid
civil and military response as well as dedicated, considerate service to New Jerseys veterans,
families and citizens.i

72

If there is any group that deserves the citizens support it is the veterans, and it is also why
legislators need to demand the services provided are efficient and effective. The Americans for
Prosperity Taxpayer Budget leaves all funding in place, but encourages legislators to demand
that the department meet the goals and that veterans who are served are satisfied with the
services.

73

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS BY PROGRAM $ IN THOUSANDS

GOVERNORS BUDGET 2017

AFPS BUDGET 2017

MILITARY & VETERANS

AFFAIRS

Direct State
Services

Grants In Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

Direct State
Services

Grants In Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

Central Operations

$4,240

$4,240

National Guard
Programs Support

$3,807

$2,249

$3,807

$2,249

Veterans Program Support

$7,759

$7,759

Menlo Park Veterans Memorial

Home

$25,992

$25,992

Paramus Veterans Memorial

Home

$24,593

$24,649

Vineland Veterans Memorial

Home

$27,593

$27,593

TOTALS

$90,040

$2,249

$90,040

$2,249

i New Jersey Governors Budget FY-2017 page D-274

JUDICIARY
MISSION
As an independent branch of government, the Judiciary is constitutionally entrusted with the
full and fair resolution of disputes to preserve the rule of law and to protect the rights and
liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States and the State.

74

75

This budget appreciates the important function that the branch of the government provides,
but believes that there are opportunities for savings within the function. For example, two
departments---Public Affairs and Information Services---provide statistical analysis and this
budget reduces their budgets to reflect the consolidation of statistical analysis. In addition,
Public Affairs provide legislative liaison work which this budget believes is a fundamentally
flawed concept and summarily all funding is removed for the liaisons.
There are a number of places where possibly both service and cost to deliver that service can
both be improved. This budget suggests that Probation Services coordinate with Corrections
and Public Safety in order to prevent offenders from slipping through cracks in the system and to
promote efficiencies. There are opportunities for additional cooperation and coordination with
the Department of Human Services in the area of Child Support Enforcement. Legislators need
to monitor collaborations to ascertain whether the maximum amount of funds are reaching the
supporting parent and children the money was intended for instead of overlapping functions in
different departments.

76

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS BY PROGRAM $ IN THOUSANDS

GOVERNORS BUDGET 2017

AFPS BUDGET 2017

Direct State
Services

Grants In Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

Direct State
Services

Grants In Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

$6,891

$6,891

$21,351

$21,351

Civil Courts

$106,982

$106,982

Criminal
Courts

$149,855

$149,855

$118,123

$118,123

$1,598

$1,598

$137,763

$137,763

$8,898

$8,898

$2,953

$18,169

$18,169

$140,507

$140,507

$11,339

$11,339

$724,429

$721,476

JUDICIARY
Supreme
Court
Superior
Court- Appellate Division

Family Courts
Municipal
Courts
Probation Services
Court Reporting
Public Affairs
& Education
Information
Services
Trial Court
Services
Mgmt. & Admin
TOTALS

77

DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE

MISSION
The mission of the Department of State is to enhance the overall quality of life for New Jersey
residents by advancing and supporting our states economic vitality as well as cultural and
historical programs and civic engagement.I

i New Jersey Governors Budget FY-2017 page D-289

78

PROGRAM ANALYSIS FOR COST SAVINGS:i

There are some programs in this department that fail the test of essential services of government.
While often times these programs fly under the radar because of their small size or type of
revenue source they are prime examples of mission creep.
The states Business Action Center (BAC) is a prime example of exactly that. There are some
useful functions such as The BAC is dedicated to helping new and existing businesses navigate
the regulatory landscape across the state, including directing and supporting everything from
licensing and business permits to various certification processes. On the other hand, there are
some that should not be funded or greatly reduced such as facilitating the implementation of
New Jerseys innovative and varied financial incentive programs; advancing the states global
economic competitiveness; marketing New Jersey as the ideal place to live, work and vacation;
aiding businesses through site selection services; and coordinating and proposing statewide
planning for smart and sustainable future growth. These functions should be eliminated and
focus kept on helping new businesses navigate the bureaucracy that licenses and permits
businesses and this budget eliminates 25% funding for the unnecessary functions and suggests
a complete phase out.
Another program in BAC with a questionable reason to exist is Travel and Tourism. The Division of
Travel and Tourism (N.J.S.A. 52:27H-15 et seq.) provides promotional, informational, educational,
and developmental programs, services, and facilities that are designed to optimize awareness
of New Jerseys standing as a preeminent national and international travel destination. The
Division also endeavors to partner with other entities within the tourism industry to sustain
travel and tourism as a major catalyst for, and contributor to, the states economic growth and
development. The private sector has many businesses that profit off of travel and tourism;
however, to ask citizens or other businesses to subsidize the advertising and promotion of
this business sector is not an appropriate approach to the free market. Government is not
suited to the concept of picking winners and losers in the market which is the net effect of the
department picking which areas they chose to promote. Eliminating these sorts of programs--Travel and Tourism spent $9.0 million last year---will facilitate reducing New Jerseys onerous
income tax rate on all citizens.
In good times, government has historically looked for ways to spend every dollar an uptick in
revenues creates. In their zeal to spend money, legislators and bureaucrats tend to lose track
of the philosophy that government that governs the least governs the best. New Jersey has
some great examples of this in the New Jersey Cultural Trust and the New Jersey State Council
on the Arts.
The Trust was created to match private dollars to State dollars on a 1:1 basis. It provides grants
to qualified organizations for three purposes: building endowments, financing capital projects,
and improving organizational and financial stability. Funding for the Cultural Trust comes from
revenue derived from the state hotel and motel occupancy fee. The New Jersey State Council
on the Arts (NJSCA) lists their mission is to improve the quality of life of New Jersey by
promoting the Arts.
The problem is they are promoting the Councils favored arts with funds appropriated by state and
federal governments and a back door tax on consumers. The total fiscal 2016 recommendation
for the Council was $17.0 million including $405,000 for Direct State Services and $16.4 million
in Grants-In-Aid. The Grants-In-Aid recommendation includes $16 million for Cultural Projects,
which is funded from revenue derived from the state hotel and motel occupancy fee. These are
clearly programs that stray far from the constitutional role of government and should be
79

eliminated. There are private foundations throughout the country that fund the sort of activities
that these programs promote and these functions are better left to the private sector. Not
only should state funds be withdrawn from these programs but the occupancy fee should be
reduced to reflect the elimination.
The largest part of this departments budget is in the higher education institutions. Advocates of
taxpayer subsidized tuition contend that the economic benefits of extending higher education
to the largest number of students are worth the cost to all taxpayers. A comprehensive study of
the claim, Does Spending on Higher Education Drive Economic Growth? 20 Years of Evidence
Reviewedii refutes this claim. Using data from all 50 states spanning more than two decades,
and incorporating lags up to five years, the study found weak and inconsistent correlations
between state funding of higher education and economic growth. Comparing states highereducation appropriations with gross state product reveals that two of the 10 fastest-growing
states from 1981 to 2000, New York and Rhode Island, experienced a real decrease in per capita
higher-education appropriations, while three of the 10 slowest-growing states, Mississippi,
New Mexico, and North Dakota, were among the top 10 in growth of real higher-education
appropriations. From 1991 to 2000, none of the top 10 states in greatest higher-education
appropriations were among the top 10 in economic growth.
There is some evidence that there is also an additional downside to the subsidized tuition
approach. According to a report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, high-subsidy,
low tuition policies can actually have negative effects. Although subsidizing tuition increases
enrollment rates, it reduces student effort, the study found. This follows from the fact that
a high-subsidy, low tuition policy causes an increase in the percentage of less able and less
highly motivated college graduates. Additionally and potentially more important, all students,
even the more highly motivated ones, respond to lower tuition levels by decreasing their effort
levels.iii
Looking at this question from the standpoint of efficiency, there is much to be said in favor of
the policy of reducing the taxpayer subsidy for higher education. Richard Vedder, a professor
of economics at Ohio University points out in his recent book Going Broke by Degree that
American higher education suffers from very low productivity. In contrast to almost every other
industry, per-unit (pupil) costs in education continue rising.
Public colleges and universities dont have to pass the test of the market. Students and
institutions are subsidized by working New Jersey citizens taxes, so the schools can spend
without regards to the outcomes associated with those costs and offer frivolous courses that
provide questionable benefits to the students.
Rather than subsidizing tuition, policymakers should consider charging higher tuitions and
then colleges can choose to discount it for students who cannot otherwise afford to attend if
they can find the means within their budget without asking working families to chip in. New
Jersey should announce that it will gradually raise tuition, but do so in steps so that families
can anticipate the increase costs and plan accordingly. In order to minimize this increase in
tuition and Higher Educations budget, like the budgets of all other state agencies, needs to be
reviewed from top to bottom for unnecessary expenditures . The universities are supposed to
be the repositories of the nations great minds and asking the Higher Education establishment
to lead the way in minimizing costs and maximizing the benefit to New Jerseys students should
be a challenge they should embrace.

80

What effect would raising tuition have on New Jerseys public higher education institutions?
Quite possibly not what the Commission on Higher Education would think. A study by Arwynn
Mattix of the Goldwater Institute pointed out that the University of Michigan provides an
example of how public universities can thrive with less state funding. Under the Vision 2017
plan, U-M sought to become a privately financed public university. In 1965, state appropriations
accounted for 70 percent of U-Ms general revenue. But, by 2003, state appropriations accounted
for less than 10 percent. Meanwhile, U-M has remained one of the nations top ranked universities.
U-M reduced dependence on taxpayer funds by aggressively pursuing private fundraising
campaigns, aligning tuition more closely with costs, and identifying core academic programs
and eliminating others.iii
This budget encourages New Jersey to emulate the University of Michigan model and lowers the
budgeted amount of appropriations across the board for the state colleges and universities by
10% to reflect that change.
It is obvious that New Jersey can afford to raise the tuition with little impact if the various
college assistance funds created for students are any indication---here is a list of just state
funded assistance:
New Jersey Educational Opportunity Fund. Created by law in 1968 (N.J.S.A.18A:71-28 et
seq.), the Educational Opportunity Fund (EOF) supports educationally and economically
disadvantaged students for undergraduate, graduate, and professional study at public
and independent institutions of higher education in New Jersey. Opportunity Grants
are awarded to students during the academic year to assist students in meeting college
expenses such as fees, books, room, board, and transportation that are not covered by
the States Tuition Aid Grants program.
The Martin Luther King Physician-Dentist Scholarship Program (N.J.S.A.18A:72J-et seq.)
provides grants up to the cost of tuition to New Jersey resident medical and dental
students from disadvantaged or minority backgrounds. Grants are limited to students
attending the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey.
The C. Clyde Ferguson Law Scholarship Program (N.J.S.A.18A:71-40.1 et seq.) provides
grants up to the cost of tuition to New Jersey resident law students from disadvantaged
or minority backgrounds. Grants are limited to students attending Rutgers School of
Law-Camden, Rutgers School of Law-Newark, and Seton Hall University School of Law.
Student Assistance Programs. The Higher Education Student Assistance Authority
(HESAA) was created in, but not of, the Department of State by P.L.1999, c.46, effective
April 26, 1999. HESAA is charged with the development of student assistance policy as
well as administering the delivery of the States Tuition Aid Grants programs (TAG), the
New Jersey Student Tuition Assistance Reward Scholarship (NJSTARS) programs and all
other State scholarship programs, the award and payment systems for the Educational
Opportunity Fund (EOF) academic year student grants (the largest component of the
EOF program), issuance and servicing of New Jersey College Loans to Assist State
Students (NJCLASS), administration of the States 529 college savings plan (NJBEST),
and guaranteeing federal student loans under the Federal Family Education Loan Program
(FFELP). Student Assistance Programs include all student financial assistance programs
for eligible residents of the state that are administered under the Executive Director,
Higher Education Student Assistance Authority (HESAA), and associated administrative
costs. Administrative funds cover program operations, including computing, printing,
mailing, research, and personnel costs.

81

 The Veterinary Medical Education Program was established in 1971 based on a decision
by the state not to build its own public school of veterinary medicine. This program
funds contract seats at out-of-state veterinary schools in order to ensure access to New
Jersey residents to veterinary education programs and to provide an adequate supply of
veterinarians in the state.
Tuition Aid Grants (TAG) are awarded under the New Jersey Higher Education Tuition
Aid Act, N.J.S.18A:71-41 et seq., to all eligible New Jersey residents attending New Jersey
postsecondary institutions, including community colleges, State colleges and universities,
independent colleges and universities, and degree granting proprietary institutions.
Award amounts vary depending on the institution attended, and award sizes decrease as
a familys ability to pay increases. Ability to pay is determined by a national need analysis
system adjusted to meet New Jersey needs, and is maintained and administered based
on responses to the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). The TAG program
is a broad-based State student assistance program, which coordinates with federal needbased student aid programs. As such, a TAG grant may be awarded in conjunction with a
federal award, an EOF grant, and/or a State scholarship award.
The Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership (LEAP) program provides federal
matching funds to supplement the Tuition Aid Grants program. This program is funded
nationally at $64 million in the fiscal 2009 federal appropriations statute, which should
result in an allocation to New Jersey of $1.8 million for State fiscal year 2010.
The Part-Time TAG program for county college students was established in fiscal 2004 for
eligible, qualified part-time students enrolled at county colleges. Part-time grant awards
are pro-rated against the full-time grant awards as follows: an eligible student enrolled
with six to eight credits receives up to one-half of the value of a full-time award and an
eligible student with nine to eleven credits receives up to three-quarters of a full-time
award, subject to available appropriations.
The Survivor Tuition Benefits Program, N.J.S.18A:71-77 et seq., pays college tuition for the
surviving spouse or child of a fire fighter, police officer, first aid rescue squad member, or
other law enforcement, civil defense or disaster control worker killed in the line of duty.
Benefits received under this program are equal to the cost of tuition at public institutions or
equal to the highest level of tuition charged at public institutions for recipients attending
eligible independent institutions.
State scholarships are awarded under the Garden State Scholarship Act of 1977,
N.J.S.18A:71-26.1 et seq., to academically meritorious students at participating New Jersey
institutions of higher education. Awards under the Coordinated Garden State Scholarship
Programs, which include the Edward J. Bloustein Distinguished Scholars and Urban
Scholars programs, range up to $1,000 per year. No awards are available for use outside
of New Jersey. Awards are renewable annually up to four years based on continued good
academic standing.
The Part-Time TAG for EOF Students program provides awards to students who are
counseled to attend part time, due to special needs.
Established in fiscal 2004, the Teaching Fellows Program provides for the redemption of
a portion of each participants eligible student loan expenses for each year of full-time
employment as a teacher in a subject area of critical need or in a high-needs district in
the state.

82

 The New Jersey World Trade Center Scholarship Program was signed into law on January
11, 2002. Scholarships for the costs of undergraduate education may be awarded to
dependent children or spouses of New Jersey residents who were killed or are presumed
dead as a result of the September 11 terrorist attacks. In addition, the program funds the
dependent children and spouses of those who died as a result of injuries received in the
attacks or had direct contact with the attack sites and who died as a result of illness
caused by exposure to the attack sites. Scholarship assistance is available for full-time
study in degree granting programs in or out of state.
The Dana Christmas Scholarship for Heroism program awards up to five scholarships
a year to New Jersey residents who have performed acts of heroism prior to age 22.
Awardees must be nominated by a member of the public. Nominations are reviewed by
a selection committee and final award recipients are determined by the HESAA Board
each fall.
New Jersey Student Tuition Assistance Reward Scholarship I (NJ STARS I) covers the cost
of tuition and approved fees, not otherwise covered by other State and/or federal grants
and scholarships, at one of New Jerseys 19 community colleges for eligible New Jersey
high school students. Starting with the graduating class of 2009, graduates who are in
the top 15% of their class, completed a rigorous high school course of study, and achieved
the required score on a placement test to determine college readiness are eligible to
receive the award. Students must take at least 12 college credits per semester and have
five semesters of eligibility. NJ STARS I students who earn their associates degrees with
a 3.25 grade point average (GPA) or better are eligible for NJ STARS II. The scholarships
cover tuition only, except in the case of New Jersey Tuition Aid Grant recipients, at any
New Jersey public four-year college or university. The amount of the award, which varies
depending on the students GPA, is determined after all other State and federal grants
and scholarships are applied to these charges. Non-need based aid students will be
responsible for any fees and remaining tuition balances. The State funds 50% of the NJ
STARS II award, while 50% is provided by the four-year public institution.
Established during fiscal 2006 with initial funding of $3.5 million, the Social Services
Student Loan Redemption Program provides forgiveness of up to $20,000 in student
loans, over four years, to graduates who take qualifying jobs with New Jersey mental
health agencies.
The Physician and Dentist Loan Redemption Program was established within the Higher
Education Student Assistance Authority to provide redemption of a portion of the
eligible student loan expenses of program participants, who are New Jersey residents, for
each year of service in a State designated medically underserved area. Primary care also
includes the practice of general dentistry, as well as professions of nurse-practitioner,
certified nurse-midwife and physician assistant.
The Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Scholarship Act, which was signed into law
on March 27, 2001, awards scholarships to the children of New Jersey law officers who
were killed in the line of duty. These scholarships are for undergraduate study leading
to a baccalaureate degree or associate degree at any public or private institution of
higher education in New Jersey and supplement Survivor Tuition Benefits for funding
awards up to the cost of education. Funding of the program is from the sale of special
law enforcement officer memorial license plates for motor vehicles owned or leased in
the state of New Jersey. The Motor Vehicle Commission is responsible for the sale of the
license plates. HESAA is responsible for the administrative duties of the program.
In fiscal 1998, New Jersey developed a 529 college savings program, the New Jersey
Better Educational Savings Trust (NJBEST), to help families finance the cost of higher
education. Interest earned on NJBEST college savings is New Jersey and federally tax
exempt. In addition, a student who saves the minimum required amounts through NJBEST
and attends college in New Jersey is awarded up to a $1,500 scholarship.
83

 Under the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP), HESAA is responsible for an
array of loan-related services on behalf of the federal government, including providing
public information regarding the loan programs, loan default prevention, primary insurance
on student loan defaults for the lending community, location and pursuit of defaulters,
and collection and remission of defaulted loan repayment amounts from borrowers to the
federal government.
The New Jersey College Loans to Assist State Students (NJCLASS) loan program,
N.J.S.18A:72-34 et seq., supplements aid available for New Jersey undergraduate and
graduate students and out-of-state students attending a New Jersey institution.
There are funds available from New Jersey to attend college even if you are an out of state
student. Many of these scholarships are taxpayer funded and this budget believes those should be
candidates for review and elimination. Private scholarship funds, individual college endowments
and federal loan and scholarship programs provide opportunities for disadvantaged individuals
to attend college without taking money from the working families of New Jersey. Individuals who
attend and graduate from a college or university have a much higher expected lifetime income
level. The eventual elimination of all state sponsored assistance including subsidized tuitions
should be phased in and allow citizens who choose to contribute to charitable organizations
to provide scholarships and other assistance that option if they wish to finance others college
education.
Museum Services Collections are in the areas of fine and decorative arts, cultural history, and
science. Exhibitions are long-term (those with a permanent orientation, like the Planetarium, the
Halls of Natural Science and Cultural History), and short-term (changing exhibits with a focus on
fine and decorative arts). Through school and public programs and publications, interpretation
of the museum environment is accomplished. The Department also supports services provided
by the Newark Museum Association, as well as maintenance of the Old Barracks and the War
Memorial Fund. This budget reduces funding by 25% for this non- essential function and
encourages the museums to seek private funding and charge fees for admission that will allow
for the cessation of all public funding.

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS BY PROGRAM $ IN THOUSANDS

GOVERNORS BUDGET 2017

AFPS BUDGET 2017

Direct State
Services

Grants In Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

Direct State
Services

Grants In Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

Office of the Secretary of higher

Ed.

$1,779

$41,622

$1,779

$41,622

Support of the
Arts

$405

$16,000

Museum Services

$2,242

$1,682

Dev. of Historical
Resources

$289

$2,700

$289

$2,700

Library Services

$5,786

$14,698

$5,786

$14,698

STATE

84

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS BY PROGRAM $ IN THOUSANDS (CONTINUED)

GOVERNORS BUDGET 2017

AFPS BUDGET 2017

Direct State
Services

Grants In Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

Direct State
Services

Grants In Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

Office of the Secretary of State

$3,392

$3,025

$3,392

$3,025

Business Action
Center

$13,552

$3,415

$967

$967

Election Mgmt &

Coordination

$3,814

$7,030

$3,814

$7,030

Higher Education
Student Assistance Authority

$422,496

$422,496

Rutgers, State
University - New
Brunswick

$325,922

293,330

Agricultural Experiment Station

$20,931

$18,838

Rutgers, State
University - Camden

$16,501

$14,851

Rutgers, State
University - Newark

$30,630

$27,567

NJ Institute of
Tech.

$35,440

$31,896

Thomas A. Edison
State University

$3,292

$2,963

Rowan University

$85,383

$76,845

NJ City University

$24,154

$21,739

STATE

State Archives

85

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS BY PROGRAM $ IN THOUSANDS (CONTINUED)

GOVERNORS BUDGET 2017

AFPS BUDGET 2017

Direct State
Services

Grants In Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

Direct State
Services

Grants In Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

Kean University

$30,469

$27,422

William Paterson
University of NJ

$30,357

$27,321

Montclair State
University

$35,859

$32,273

The College of NJ

$27,177

$24,459

Ramapo College
of NJ

$14,953

$13,458

Stockton University

$18,391

$16,552

University Hospital

$43,841

$43,841

$32,227

$1,229,143

$21,728

$21,123

$1,143,197

$21,728

STATE

TOTALS

i New Jersey Governors Budget FY-2017 page D-289 through D-342

ii http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/AboutUs/ArticleView.aspx?id=288
iii http://goldwaterinstitute.org/AboutUs/ArticleView.aspx?id=1502

86

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MISSION
The primary mission of the New Jersey Department of Transportation (DOT) is to provide a
safe, reliable and efficient multimodal transportation network - one that serves the mobility
needs of residents, commerce and visitors in a manner that promotes economic development
and ensures environmental responsibility. The DOTs mission statement is, Improving lives by
improving transportation.i
The Department is organized into five major programs. Maintenance and Operations maintains
the states roads and bridges, ensures the safe and efficient movement of traffic and disseminates
real- time traffic information. Transportation Systems Improvements, which includes Capital
Program Management and Capital Investment, Planning and Grant Administration, is responsible
for the development and delivery of the projects that comprise the Capital Program. Multimodal
Services coordinates with various modal constituencies, including the non- highway, non- transit
capital programs such as aeronautics, ports and rail freight, and administers the Departments
regulatory programs. These areas are supported by Administration and Financial Services as
well as Physical Plant (Facilities) in areas such as human resources, information safety,
budget, accounting, procurement and the maintenance of the Departments facilities.

87

88

The introductory section of this budget discussed in some detail the situation regarding New
Jerseys infrastructure and we refer the reader back to that section. However, if citizens want
to understand why this budget has suggested that just giving more money to the current
managements approach via a gas tax increases will have little impact on actually fixing the
infrastructure issues, the following two sentences from the FY-2017 Governors Budget sum it
up. The fiscal year 2017 budget for the Department of Transportation totals $1.520 billion, an
increase of $143.3 million or 10.4% over the fiscal 2016 adjusted appropriation of $1.377 billion.
Primarily, the increase represents growth to support Transportation Trust Fund Authority debt
service costs and New Jersey Transit operations.1
The Department built up huge debt amounts while being cited by the Reason Foundations 21st
Annual Report on the Performance of State Highway Systems as having the third worst state
highway system in the country, while expanding the Transit operations which is obviously a cash
flow alligator. It would be a grave error to increase the tax burden on New Jerseys citizens by
just giving billions more dollars to the very management whose approach has operated without
accountability and with such poor results. The Americans for Prosperity Taxpayer Budget does
not reduce the funding for the Department, which is held constant with these suggestions for
legislators to attach to the funding:
1. Full transparency on costs broken down to the elements of cost in things like cost per
mile of re-pavement.
2. Freeze those functions like the Transit Authority at current operational levels and focus
funds on infrastructure.
3. Re-allocate or privatize functions within the Department to focus more funding on actual
infrastructure maintenance.
4. Reform everything from the bid process to the construction requirements to mirror those
states that have successful lower cost builds.
5. Prioritize with a transparent process the decisions to allocate resources and timing of all
new builds and maintenance.
6. Reward local and private industry participation in projects that reduce the cost to the
state by giving them advantages in the process in item 5.

89

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS BY PROGRAM $ IN THOUSANDS (CONTINUED)

GOVERNORS BUDGET 2017

AFPS BUDGET 2017

TRANSPORTATION

Direct State
Services

Grants In Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

Direct State
Services

Grants In Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

Maintenance &
Operations

$38,056

$38,056

$5,486

$5,486

Transportation
Systems Mgmt.

Multimodal Services

$902

$902

Admin & Support

Services

$744

$744

Railroad & Bus

Operations

$160,856

$17,523

$160,856

$17,523

Transportation
Trust Fund Authority

$123,351

$123,351

$45,188

$160,856

$140,874

$45,188

$160,856

$140,874

Physical Plant &

Support Services

TOTALS

i Governors Budget Book 2017 D-343

90

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

MISSION
The mission of the Department of the Treasury is to formulate and manage the States budget,
generate and collect revenues, disburse the appropriations used to operate New Jersey State
government, manage the States physical and financial assets and provide statewide support
services to State and local government agencies as well as to the citizens of New Jersey.i

i New Jersey Governors Budget FY-2017 page D-363

91

PROGRAM ANALYSIS FOR COST SAVINGS:i

Economic Development Programs are managed by the New Jersey Economic Development
Authority (EDA) which is an independent State agency that aims to strengthen New Jerseys
economy by retaining and growing businesses through the financial support the EDA provides
to those businesses and communities. This budget recommends a reduction of 25% immediately
and a gradual phase out of the program as those obligations currently under contract are met
and no new ones issued.
Higher Education Support to Independent Institutions through the College and University
Assistance Act (N.J.S.A.18A:72B-15 et seq.) provides for financial assistance to 14 eligible New
Jersey independent colleges and universities. This assistance, which is based on the number
of New Jersey students enrolled at these institutions, helps to ensure that this valuable sector
of the States system of higher education will continue to provide educational opportunities
for New Jersey citizens. Direct aid also is provided in support of specific programs at selected
independent institutions. This budget believes a better way to allocate the funding for this
program AND higher education in general is to provide a voucher that a prospective student
could use at his/her educational choice. However, as noted in the section on higher education
this budget believes that the necessity of this credit will disappear as public higher education
institutions raise tuition to cover all their costs and they approach the private sectors costs.
This budget lowers the amount of funding by 10% for FY-2011.
The New Jersey system of community colleges
was established by statute in 1962
(N.J.S.A.18A:64A-1 et seq.). The first county colleges were opened four years later in Atlantic,
Cumberland, Middlesex, and Ocean counties. Today there are 19 institutions: one community
college in each of 17 counties, a bi-county college serving Somerset and Hunterdon counties,
and a bi-county college serving Atlantic and Cape May counties. The state aid is appropriated
for county college operational costs and is distributed among the institutions by the state in
consultation with the Council of County Colleges. The distribution is based on a formula that
includes foundation aid, enrollment funding, and access funding. Aid in amounts not to exceed
one-half of project costs may also be provided for capital projects under P.L.1971, Chapter 12. In
addition, some fringe benefit costs of certain county college employees are paid by the state. This
budget reduces appropriations to the county colleges by 10% to reflect the current economic
climate but also encourages the local counties to shoulder more of the burden in addition to
raising tuition to reflect the costs of operation.
92

Miscellaneous Higher Education Programs includes programs that assist New Jerseys institutions
of higher education. The Higher Education Equipment Leasing Fund (ELF) Act (P.L.1993, c.136)
established a $100 million fund to finance the purchase of scientific, engineering, technical,
computer, communications, and instructional Equipment. The original ELF bonds were retired
in 2000, and issuance of a second $100 million in bonds was authorized in 2001. The State pays
three-quarters of the debt service on Equipment Leasing Fund bonds, and the colleges pay the
remaining share. The Higher Education Facilities Trust Fund Act (P.L.1993, c.375) established
a $220 million fund to finance the construction, renovation or improvement of instructional,
laboratory, communication, and research facilities. The State pays the entire cost of debt
service on Higher Education Facilities Trust Fund bonds. The Higher Education Technology
Infrastructure Fund Act (P.L.1997, c.238) provided $55 million in support for technology needs
and complements the States other facility and equipment bond funds. The State pays the entire
cost of debt service on Higher Education Technology Infrastructure Fund bonds. The $550
million Higher Education Capital Improvement Fund (P.L.1999, c.217) is designed to address
the issues of renewal, renovation, improvement, expansion, construction, and reconstruction of
facilities and technology infrastructure. The State pays two-thirds of the debt service for public
institutions and one-half of the debt service for independent institutions.
The Educational Facilities Authority (EFA) issues bonds to finance projects under these four
programs, with the debt service supported by annual State appropriations. The Dormitory
Safety Trust Fund (P.L.2000, c.56) provided loans to eligible public or private secondary schools,
military schools or boarding schools, and public or private institutions of higher education to
install automatic fire suppression systems. Funds for the trust were provided from the issuance
of $90 million in State bonds. In addition, funding is provided for the New Jersey Marine
Sciences Consortium, which was established in, but not of the Department of the Treasury
under P.L.2007, c. 206. The Consortium, whose members include a majority of New Jerseys
institutions of higher education, supports educational, promotional, and research activities in the
marine sciences. This is a prime example of how government obfuscates the true cost of their
services. Each of these funds should have the expense attached to the institution that benefits
so that taxpayers can make informed decisions about what is the proper level of funding for
any function of government. This budget suspends any further borrowing from these funds until
such time as they can be assigned to their respective institutions.
Public Broadcasting Services is another program that this budget targets for elimination. The
New Jersey Public Broadcasting Authority was created (N.J.S.A. 48:231 et seq.) to establish and
operate noncommercial educational television and radio broadcasting stations and to operate
one or more public broadcasting telecommunications networks. The Authority is empowered
to apply for, receive, and hold authorizations and licenses from the Federal Communications
Commission. This budget believes the licenses, bandwidth and other physical assets should be
sold at bid to private broadcasters. Not only would the state recognize immediate revenues
from the sale but also the operating expenditures which were nearly $2.1 million the last year
actual numbers are available.
Executive Branch economic development entities that receive State appropriations include
the New Jersey Economic Development Authority (NJEDA), the Office of Economic Growth,
and the Fort Monmouth Economic Revitalization Planning Authority. The Taxpayers Budget
believes that the concept of supporting industries at the exclusion of others is a flawed concept.
The free market provides seed or venture capital to firms all the time. Clearly, there is no reason
to believe that government bureaucrats are better or even as good at identifying profitable
investments for seed capital as the market is. Venture capitalists and small business entrepreneurs
are experts in identifying potentially profitable investments; the people who are most successful
at it are the ones that find and produce the best products.
93

Unlike government bureaucrats, these people also have a great incentive to be right. If they are,
they make lots of money; if they are not, they lose money. These people have the knowledge
and the incentive to fund profitable opportunities. The government bureaucrat is selected for
different reasons, without a natural-selection mechanism for weeding out those who make bad
investment decisions. The argument can be made that projects which only are viable with the
states incentives or tax credits programs are either bad investments that should not be funded,
or are projects that the market would have funded anyway if they are good investments. The most
important difference between private investors and bureaucrats is that the venture capitalist and
small business entrepreneurs risk their own money not the taxpayers. The best economic growth
policy a state can have is a low tax environment without unnecessary government regulation.
The AFP budget proposes that all these programs be considered for closure.
The Board of Public Utilities controls, through its rate approval process, the charges paid by the
public for gas, electric, water, sewer, and telephone services. A uniform system of accounts and
quarterly and annual financial statements and reports are required for disclosure and to permit
intelligent public participation in the process. This budget reduces their operating budget by
10%.
Regulation of Cable Television assists local jurisdictions in preparing legislation, franchise,
and consent agreements; regulates operating and competitive practices to assure reasonable
uniformity, reliability, economy, and quality of cable television services; cooperates with other
states and the federal government in promoting and coordinating beneficial uses of cable
television through balanced programming, including local and educational services.
The author of this budget believes leaving the local issues to the cities or towns is appropriate
both fiscally and legislatively and removes all funding for that endeavor. The concept of balanced
programming is subjective and not an appropriate use of state dollars and the funding for this
is removed and any fee income derived should either be included in general revenue or the fee
suspended.
Energy Assistance Programs administers the Lifeline Credit Program which provides combined
gas and electric utility credits of up to $225 a year to New Jersey residents who are eligible for
Pharmaceutical Assistance to the Aged and Disabled, Supplemental Security Income, Medicaid
only, or Lifeline only. The Tenants Assistance Rebate Program provides a cash payment of up
to $225 a year to tenants who would be eligible for the Lifeline Credit Program except for the
fact that they do not pay their own utility bills. Persons receiving Supplemental Security Income
(SSI) who are eligible for this program receive monthly utility supplements totaling $225 a year
included in their SSI checks. This budget leaves the funding intact for this program, but as in all
assistance programs insists that participants be monitored to ensure only the truly needy are
included.
Regulatory Support Services, provides economic analysis of conditions affecting regulated
utilities to the Board of Public Utilities and its technical divisions, and conducts audits of regulated
utilities. This budget reduces their operating budget by 10%.
Administration and Support Services exercises general policy and administrative control
over program operations. The primary responsibilities of the Division are to provide human
resource management, including personnel requirements, employee relations support, broad
based facility support, administration of the Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action program,
training, dissemination of public information concerning Board activities, and nursing services.
Consistent with the rest of this budget support and administration is asked to take a 25% cut in
budget to focus resources on services and programs.
94

Employee Relations and Collective Negotiations pursuant to Executive Orders No. 4, 1970
and No. 33, 1995, staff assistance is provided to the Governor and decisions are implemented
concerning employee relations. Through the Governors Employee Relations Policy Council,
assistance in the development of overall policy and execution of policies is provided. Negotiations
with unions and other representatives of State employees are conducted. Agencies are assisted
and advised concerning employee relations activities. These charges for services should be
borne within the individual agencies that require services and the separation of budgetary
expenditures obfuscates transparency. This budget removes all funding for this program and
requires departments to absorb the costs of this function in their operating budget.
Office of Management and Budget pursuant to NJSA 52:27B-2,33, the Office of Management
and Budget coordinates the annual agency-based planning process, identifies and projects
trends affecting the demand for services, analyzes the allocation of available financial and
human resources, and evaluates strategic and long-term issues. The Office of Management and
Budget evaluates budget requests from State departments and formulates the annual budget
submitted by the Governor to the Legislature. On an ongoing basis, the Office of Management
and Budget reviews State agency responses to proposed legislation to ensure that fiscal
policy concerns are taken into account. To ensure that programs and resources are properly
coordinated among agencies serving the same clients, the Office of Management and Budget
analyzes programs that cross departmental boundaries, to avoiding unnecessary duplication of
effort. As a resource to the Capital Planning Commission, the Office of Management and Budget
evaluates and prioritizes capital construction projects and the financing of capital facilities. The
Financial Reporting and Accounting section of the Office of Management and Budget provides
for the receipt, processing, recording, reconciling, and reporting of all financial data of the
States various funds in accordance with existing statutes and generally accepted accounting
principles. That office also reviews all financial transactions for propriety and prepares official
State monthly and annual fiscal reports, and assures that State employees are paid accurately
and on a timely basis.
This budget recognizes the necessity of most of the programs, but as with all administrative
and support agencies, it reduces their budget by 25%. The Office of Management and Budget
should lead the way in showing other programs how to downsize while retaining operational
output levels.
Taxation Services and Administration pursuant to NJSA 54:1-2, services include general
administration, payment and accounting records, issuance of liceses, and administration of
local property and public utility functions. Specific functions performed include auditing
tax returns and taxpaying entities; performing office and field audits; preparing tax refunds,
certificates of tax lien search and certificates of tax lien release; holding taxpayer hearings and
conferences; providing revenue analysis, research, and statistics for tax administration. Provides
services involving bankruptcies, judgments, bulk sales, liens, levies, seizures, proclamations, and
reinstatements; investigates tax-related matters having criminal and/or civil potential; renders
taxpayer service to the public. This budget reduces their operating budget by 10%.
Administration of State Lottery pursuant to NJSA 5:9-1, the Division conducts daily and weekly
lotteries, the entire net proceeds according to the agency are used for State institutions and
State Aid to education. The key word here is net since it represents what is left over after
operating costs and prize money. This budget suggests that the legislature find the state with
the lowest costs a similar lottery operation and benchmark this program against that state to
judge the true efficiency of this program. The administration costs should also be netted out of
the program and this budget removes it from state taxpayer funding.
95

Administration of State Revenues pursuant to Executive Reorganization Plan 001-97, the Division
oversees and coordinates collection and processing of revenues arising from State taxation,
motor vehicle licensing and regulation, and environmental protection laws and regulations.
Centrally manages the collection and processing of revenues related to Unemployment Insurance,
Temporary Disability, Workers Compensation, and Special Compensation and other employer
filings. Centrally manages the collection and processing of delinquencies owed to the State by
motorists, taxpayers, professional license holders, and violators of State statute and regulation.
This budget reduces their operating budget by 10%.
Management of State Investments pursuant to NJSA 52:18A-79, activities involve investment
and reinvestment of State funds, including the various State pension funds, the State Disability
Benefits Fund, the General Investment Fund, and the State of New Jersey Cash Management
Fund, together with the control of principal proceeds and interest receipts. Detailed reports
of operations are published monthly and an annual report is presented to the Governor and
Legislature. Investment functions are provided to other State agencies involving investment
accounts. Beginning in fiscal year 2008, this program is funded directly from investment funds.
While this program has no direct cost to taxpayers this budget believes all costs of operation
and returns on investment should be benchmarked against the private sector. Should this
benchmarking reveal high costs and/or low returns in comparison over a period of time the state
should consider privatizing this function.
Administration of Casino Gambling pursuant to NJSA 5:12-1, the Casino Control Commission is
responsible for the regulation of legalized casino gambling in New Jersey including the licensure
of facilities, employees, and ancillary industries. In addition, the Commission is responsible for
the collection of all license fees and taxes imposed by the Casino Control Act. It promulgates
regulations and carries on a continuous study of existing and developing methods to control the
casino gaming and casino service industries, prevents the material involvement of undesirable
persons in casino gaming, conducts hearings pertaining to civil violations of the Act or its
regulations, and levies and collects all penalties appropriate thereto. While this program has no
direct cost to taxpayers this budget believes all costs of operation and returns on investment
should be benchmarked against the private sector. Should this benchmarking reveal high costs
and/or low returns in comparison over a period of time the state should consider privatizing this
function.
Garden State Preservation Trust has a statutory responsibility to oversee New Jerseys progress
in achieving its land preservation goals, conducts related education and outreach, and reviews
and recommends open space, farmland, and historic preservation projects submitted respectively
by the Department of Environmental Protections Green Acres Program, the State Agriculture
Development Committee and the New Jersey Historic Trust. While it may have a statutory
responsibility this trust does not need to be funded by working families dollars in pursuit of
policies that fly directly in the face of free market principles. Farm land and open space have
their own intrinsic values but taxpayers should not be subsidizing land that could be converted
to much more profitable usage. The more profitable the usage of land the more property tax,
income tax and associated revenues will flow to New Jerseys coffers. This budget removes all
funding for this flawed program and suggests the Trust begin soliciting private donations to
maintain operations.

96

Purchasing and Inventory Management pursuant to NJSA 52:18A-3, the Division of Purchase
and Property administers a centralized statewide purchasing system, including the setting of
purchasing standards and specifications; makes available contracts for products and services
to school districts, municipalities, and other political subdivisions through the cooperative
purchasing program; contracts major lease/purchase arrangements through the Master Lease
Program; maintains a centralized distribution center to permit bulk purchases for all State
departments; performs testing and inspection functions; supervises the disposition of State
surplus property. This is another example of how costs of programs are made less transparent
by centralizing functions. While this budget supports the concept of taking advantage of the
economies of scale those programs utilizing this system should be billed for all services. This
program should possibly be bid out to a private entity to provide these functions and in the
absence of privatization they should bill agencies for services. In the interim this budget removes
all funding for this function and absorbs the programs in the agencys budgets who utilize the
services. The AFP budget shows the amount less 10% in the Treasury only for inclusion in total
spending.
Property Management and Construction - Construction Management Services pursuant to
NJSA 52:18A, the Division supervises all architectural, engineering design and construction of
new facilities, as well as the renovation and rehabilitation of existing facilities; provides technical
advice and assistance to all State agencies in preliminary planning, programming, design, layout,
and cost estimating; administers construction and professional service contracts associated with
building programs; provides for field supervision on State construction projects; ensures that
all building programs are completed in accordance with predetermined goals and objectives.
This is another example of how costs of programs are made less transparent by centralizing
functions.
While this budget supports the concept of taking advantage of the economies of scale those
programs utilizing this system should be billed for all services. This program should possibly be
bid out to a private entity to provide these functions and in the absence of privatization they
should bill agencies for services. In the interim this budget removes all funding for this function
and absorbs the programs in the agencys budgets who utilize the services. The Taxpayer Budget
shows the amount less 10% in the Treasury, only for inclusion in total spending.
Risk Management operates to reduce the adverse impact of catastrophic pure loss on State
operations and budgets through a combination of risk management and loss prevention
techniques. Administers claims against the State and its employees under Title 59, Tort Claims Act,
R.S. 34 Workers Compensation statute and various federal statutes and laws. Risk Management
also administers claims on behalf of the State against others responsible for damage to the
State, its employees and property. This is another example of how costs of programs are made
less transparent by centralizing functions. While this budget supports the concept of taking
advantage of the economies of scale those programs utilizing this system should be billed for all
services. This program should possibly be bid out to a private entity to provide these functions
and in the absence of privatization they should bill agencies for services. In the interim this
budget removes all funding for this function and absorbs the programs in the agencys budgets
who utilize the services. The AFP budget shows the amount less 10% in the Treasury only for
inclusion in total spending.
The Office of Information Technology is an area the government is not very good at. The
expertise and the salaries that go with that expertise do not fit in the government compensation
packages. This budget leaves their funding intact, but suggests outsourcing all technology
through the individual agencies, who have disparate requirements for their services.
97

Adjudication of Administrative Appeals pursuant to C.52:14F-1 et seq. and C.52:14B-10, full-time

administrative law judges hold hearings and render decisions to the various agency heads for
their acceptance, rejection, or modification within 45 days, or a lesser period where prescribed
by law.
General and Administrative Services provides support to judicial administration and
administrative procedures by maintaining the case management data base and office automation
systems. Budgeting, accounting, purchasing, property maintenance, personnel, and payroll are
other services provided by this division. This budget reduces their operating budget by 10%.
The Office of Emergency Telecommunication Services supports Enhanced 911 Public Safety
Answering Points throughout the State of New Jersey.
A County Board of Taxation (R.S.54:3-1) is established in each county. Each board consists
of five members, except in the first-class counties of Bergen, Essex, Hudson, and Union, the
second-class county of Middlesex, and the fifth-class counties of Monmouth and Ocean, where
there are seven members. The board hears appeals of taxpayers from local tax assessments,
certifies tax duplicates to the collectors, determines local tax rates, prepares county abstracts
of ratables, promulgates equalization tables, supervises the activities of assessors, and does
related work in the enforcement of local property tax laws. This budget leaves this functions
budget at FY-2016 levels.
Locally Provided Assistance includes State funds provided for the South Jersey Port Corporation
Property Tax and Debt Service Reserve Funds (P.L.1968, c.60), for county-based solid waste debt
assistance, and for the Highlands Protection Fund. The South Jersey Port Corporation Property
Tax Reserve Fund was established to make payments-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT) to compensate
counties and municipalities for any loss of tax revenue due to the Corporations acquisition
of property. The South Jersey Port Corporation Debt Service Reserve Fund was established
to ensure the maintenance of the maximum debt service reserve requirement for any debt
obligations issued by the Corporation. The Solid Waste Management program subsidizes debt
service payments made by counties and county authorities for environmental investments
incurred pursuant to the Solid Waste Management Act and the Solid Waste Utility Control Act.
The Homestead Rebate Program has been eliminated. Tax credit funding for disabled veterans
and seniors has been maintained.
Reimbursement of Senior/Disabled Citizens and Veterans Tax Deductions the State provides
each municipality a direct payment in reimbursement of amounts deducted from the local
property tax bills of senior citizens, disabled citizens and veterans. Based on certifications made
annually by county boards of taxation, and confirmed by the Director of the Division of Taxation,
payments for the total amount due are made to municipalities on November 1 of each year.
Eligible veterans and disabled and senior citizens will receive a $250 tax deduction; both of
these deductions are paid from the Property Tax Relief Fund.
The Consolidated Police and Firemens Pension Fund was established in 1952 (R.S.43:16-1 et
seq.) to place 212 local police and firemen pension funds on an actuarial basis. The liabilities
of these local funds were shared, with two-thirds absorbed by the participating municipalities
and one-third by the State. The municipalities share of the liabilities was satisfied in January
1983. The Funds Board of Commissioners, which is not currently active, consists of two police
representatives, two fire representatives, the State Treasurer, and four persons appointed by
98

the Governor. This is a closed pension fund with no active members and 719 retirees and
beneficiaries.
Administration and Support Services pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:27B-8, the Office of the State
Treasurer develops and exercises general policy and administrative control over the operations
of the divisions and offices of the Department. The Administrative Division, the Fiscal Section,
the Human Resources Section, and the Office of Treasury Technology provide fiscal, personnel,
and other facilitating services for the Department of the Treasury. Beginning in fiscal year 2008,
the Division of Minority and Women Business Development was transferred from the Office of
Economic Growth to the Department of the Treasury. The Division is charged with enhancing
opportunities for minority and women-owned businesses in New Jerseys purchasing and
procurement processes.
Beginning in fiscal 2008, administration for the Municipal Rehabilitation and Economic
Recovery Act, P.L.2002, c.43, was transferred from the Department of Community Affairs to the
Department of the Treasury Division of Administration. The Federal Liaison Office represents
the Governor and assists State agencies in negotiating with federal agencies for approval of
grants and entitlements, in order to maximize New Jerseys share of total federal grant funds.
It also maintains liaison with Congress, on behalf of the Governor and New Jersey government,
in connection with proposed and pending federal legislation affecting the State and provides
updated information on such matters to State agencies. Consistent with the rest of this budget
support and administration is asked to take a 25% cut in budget to focus resources on services
and programs.
Appellate Services to Indigents provides that every adult and juvenile found guilty after trial
is permitted a direct appeal from that conviction or adjudication. Most of the referrals to the
Appellate section come from trial regions. In addition, direct applications are received for
services at the appellate level. The Appellate section files notices of appeal within a court
mandated time period, orders transcripts, and assigns an attorney who then reviews the
transcript, interviews defendants, files motions, and does the research necessary to identify
the problems raised in the transcript. Representation is provided in both State and federal
courts. Trial Services to Indigents and Special Programs represents those indigent defendants
who have been charged with indictable offenses and those indigent juveniles whose cases
have been assigned to the formal calendar.
Public Defender staff (attorneys, investigators, and clerical) activity begins with this assignment.
The court assignment is received and, after indigence review, the case is opened, interviews
are scheduled, and an investigation is initiated. The assigned attorney prepares the case and
enters into the necessary negotiations, trial, and sentencing proceedings. The enactment
of Megans Law requires the Public Defender to represent indigent offenders in notification
hearings. The Intensive Supervision program, operated by the Administrative Office of the
Courts, is supported by Public Defender staff at probation violation hearings. The Office
of Law Guardian provides representation to all children who are the subject of a civil child
abuse and neglect complaint filed pursuant to N.J.S.A.9:6-8.21 et seq. and in termination of
parental rights proceedings filed pursuant to N.J.S.A.30:4C-15 et seq. The Office of Parental
Representation provides representation to indigent parents charged with a civil child abuse
and neglect complaint filed pursuant to N.J.S.A.9:6-8.21 et seq., and in termination of parental
rights proceedings filed pursuant to N.J.S.A.30:4c-15 et seq. This budget leaves their funding
intact at FY-2016 levels.
i New Jersey Governors Budget FY-2017 page D-363 through D-416
99

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS BY PROGRAM $ IN THOUSANDS

GOVERNORS BUDGET 2017

AFPS BUDGET 2017

TREASURY

Direct State
Services

Grants In Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

Direct State
Services

Grants In Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

Utility Regulation

$6,034

$5,431

$1,903

$1,903

$1,865

$1,865

$3,904

$3,514

Admin & Support Services

$12,961

$9,721

Employee Relations & Collective Negotiations

$953

Office of Mgmt
& Budget

$13,756

$10,317

Office of State
Comptroller

$9,072

$9,072

Taxation Services & Admin

$106,940

$96,246

$13,271

$31,847

$28,662

Mgmt of State
Investments

$1,287

$1,287

Garden State
Preservation
Trust

$278

Regulation of
Cable Television
Energy Assistance Programs
Regulatory
Support Services

Administration
of State Lottery
Administration
of State Revenues & Enterprise Services

100

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS BY PROGRAM $ IN THOUSANDS (CONTINUED)

GOVERNORS BUDGET 2017

AFPS BUDGET 2017

Direct State
Services

Grants In Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

Direct State
Services

Grants In Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

$9,057

$8,151

$2,175

$19,379

$17,441

$3,538

$3,184

$78,066

$70,259

$4,272

$4,272

$19,379

$17,441

$10,906

$9,815

$10,861

$10,861

$768

$768

Rate Counsel

$6,968

$6,968

Trial Services
to Indigents

$70,208

$70,208

Mental Health
Advocacy

$4,836

$4,836

TREASURY
Purchasing
& Inventory
Mgmt
Public Broadcasting Services
Property
Mgmt & Construction
Risk Mgmt
Office of Information Technology
Adjudication
of Admin Appeals
Emergency
Telecommunication Services
Administration
& Support Services
Appellate Services to Indigents
Corrections
Ombudsperson

101

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS BY PROGRAM $ IN THOUSANDS (CONTINUED)

GOVERNORS BUDGET 2017

AFPS BUDGET 2017

Direct State
Services

Grants In Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

Direct State
Services

Grants In Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

$406

$406

Office of Law
Guardian

$20,500

$20,500

Office of Parental
Representation

$16,768

$16,768

Elder Advocacy

$1,927

$1,927

Administration &
Support Services

$2,482

$2,234

Administration of
Casino Gambling

$7,738

Support to Independent Institutions

$12,237

$11,013

Misc. Higher Education Programs

$101,772

$91,595

Economic Development

$40,641

$30,481

Energy Assistance Programs

$65,785

$65,785

Civil Legal Services for the Poor

$16,018

$16,018

Homestead Exemptions

$527,400

$527,400

Aid to County
Colleges

$204,054

$204,054

TREASURY
Dispute Settlement

102

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS BY PROGRAM $ IN THOUSANDS (CONTINUED)

GOVERNORS BUDGET 2017

AFPS BUDGET 2017

Direct State
Services

Grants In Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

Direct State
Services

Grants In Aid

Dedicated

State Aid

County Boards
of Taxation

$1,903

$1,903

Locally Provided
Assistance

$32,155

$32,155

Police & Firemens Retirement System

$575

$575

Senior & Disabled Citizens &

Veterans Property Tax Deduction

$62,100

$62,100

Police & Firemens Retirement System

$162,560

$162,560

$481,210

$236,453

$963,852

$34,633

$430,638

$214,892

$956,114

$34,633

TREASURY

TOTALS

103

104

THE MODEL BUDGET IN ITS ENTIRETY

Governor's Budget 2017

Legislature

Direct State Services

$
11,700
$
18,217
$
32,146
$
15,573

Grants in Aid
$
$
$
$
-

$
$
$
$

Dedicated
-

$
$
$
$

State Aid
-

Totals

77,636

Personal Services

$
$

5,724
185

$
$

$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

125
65
10
95
133
356
43
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Totals

6,736

Animal Disease Control

Plant Pest and Disease Control
Agricultural and Natural Resources

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

1,274
1,633
533
343
687
2,080
969

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

6,818
-

7,519

6,818

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

21,484
5,200
3,680
2,322
22,996
4,159
4,172

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Totals

64,013

Housing Code Enforcement

Housing Services

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

8,555
3,150
12,783
426
7,622
100
4,512
652
2,872

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

919
25,160
8,571
990
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

40,672

35,640

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

186,490
1,919
1,889
8,201
6,181
3,775
46,674

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

439,021
363,472
62,386
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

255,129

864,879

Senate
General Assembly

Brian Stack Intern Program

Allowance to the Governor of Funds
Materials and Supplies
Services Other Than Personal
Maintenance and Fixed

Agriculture

AFP's Budget 2017

Totals
Banking
Actuarial Services

Bureau of Fraud Deterrence

Pinelands Development Credit Bank

Direct State Services

$
11,700
$
18,217
$
32,146
$
15,573

Grants in Aid
$
$
$
$
-

$
$
$
$

Dedicated
-

$
$
$
$

State Aid
-

77,636

$
$

$
$

5,724
185

$
$

$
$

$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

125
65
10
95
133
356
43
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

6,736

$
$
$

$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

5,613
3
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

1,026
1,633
533
343
515
1,560
678

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

6,818
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

5,616
-

5,616

6,289

6,818

5,616

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

19,336
4,680
3,680
8,853
3,743
4,172

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

44,464

744,915
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

1,600
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

7,700
2,835
11,505
383
6,860
100
4,512
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

919
25,160
8,571
990
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

744,915
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

1,600
-

744,915

1,600

33,894

35,640

744,915

1,600

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

186,490
1,919
1,889
8,201
6,181
3,775
46,674

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

417,070
345,298
62,386
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

255,129

824,754

Community

Codes and Standards

Uniform Fire Code
Community Resources
Local Government Services
Historic Trust
Totals
Children and
Families
Childrens System of Care
Family and Community Partnerships

Safety and Security Services

Total

105

Corrections

Institutional Control and Supervision

Institutional Care and Treatment
Institutional Program Support
Detention and rehabilitation Administration and Support Services
Parole
State Parole Board
Parole Administration and Support Services
Totals

Education

Student Transportation
Facilities Planning and School Building Aid
School Finance
Marie H. Katzenbach School for the Deaf
General Vocational Education
Standards, Assessments and Curriculum
Grants Management
Teacher and Leader Effectiveness
Service to Local Districts
Innovation
Early Childhood Education
School Improvement
Learning Supports and Specialized Services
Data, Research Evaluation and Reporting
Office of Fiscal Accountability and Compliance
Administration and Support Services
Miscellaneous Grants--In--Aid
General Formula Aid
Nonpublic School Aid
Miscellaneous Grants--In--Aid
Adult and Continuing Education
Special Education
Facilities Planning and School Building Aid
General Vocational Education
Teachers Pension and Annuity Assistance

Environmental

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

492,544
248,712
38,889
68,023
45,937
12,788
3,795
18,868

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

72,979
35,882
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

22,500
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

492,544
248,712
38,889
68,023
45,937
12,788
3,795
18,868

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

72,979
35,882
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

929,556

108,861

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

215
1,458
3,736
6,590
981
28,637
694
5,694
5,201
2,510
1,738
2,916
1,223
840
3,291
13,450
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

1,620
2,000
30
-

79,174

Forest Resource Management

Parks Management
Hunters and Anglers License Fund
Shellfish and Marine Fisheries Management
Wildlife Management
Natural Resources Engineering
Palisades Interstate Park Commission
Environmental Management- CBT Dedication
Water Supply
Water Monitoring and Resource Management
Land Use Regulation
Division of Science, Research and Environmental Health
New Jersey Geological Survey
- CBT Dedication
Environmental Policy and Planning
Publicly- Funded Site Remediation and Response
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Remediation Management
Radiation Protection
Air Pollution Control
Water Pollution Control
Public Wastewater Facilities
Clean Waters
Regulatory and Governmental Affairs
Administration and Support Services
Air Pollution Control
Pesticide Control
Water Pollution Control
Land Use Regulation
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

8,864.00
14,766.00
15,315.00
2,282.00
364.00
1,281.00
3,007.00
19,972.00
8,288.00
10,366.00
13,159.00
250.00
5,027.00
9,606.00
4,983.00
33,494.00
5,984.00
14,851.00
7,845.00
2,633.00
1,790.00
19,629.00
4,550.00
2,199.00
6,185.00
2,792.00
5,850.00

Totals

225,332.00

22,500

929,556

108,861

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

193,091
1,004,792
103,717
7,674,909
935,650
3,250,776

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

3,933
86,503
3,978
50,000
4,860
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

215
1,458
3,736
6,590
981
28,637
694
5,694
5,201
2,510
1,738
2,916
1,223
840
3,291
13,450
20,000
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

1,620
2,000
30
-

3,650

13,162,935

149,274

99,174

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

2,025.00
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

6,310.00
2,700.00
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

7,977.60
13,289.40
13,783.50
2,053.80
364.00
1,281.00
1,280.10
14,979.00
8,287.10
10,365.10
13,158.10
249.10
5,026.10
9,605.10
4,982.10
33,493.10
5,983.10
14,850.10
7,844.10
2,632.10
19,628.15
4,095.00
1,979.10
5,566.50
2,512.80
5,265.00

2,025.00

9,010.00

210,530.15

106

22,500
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

22,500

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

193,091
1,004,792
103,717
7,674,909
935,650
2,750,776

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

3,933
86,503
3,978
50,000
4,860
-

3,650

12,662,935

149,274

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

2,025.00
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

6,310.00
2,700.00
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

2,025.00

9,010.00

Health And Senior

Services

Labor

Human Services

Law and Public

Safety

Vital Statistics
Family Health Services
Public Health Protection Services
Laboratory Services
AIDS Services
Health Care Facility Regulation and Oversight
Health Care Systems Analysis
Administration and Support Services

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

1,323
6,023
11,541
9,892
1,338
4,598
1,456
4,460

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

129,318
44,881
21,651
295,290
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

529
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

1,323
6,023
11,541
9,892
1,338
4,598
1,456
4,014

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

129,318
44,881
21,651
295,290
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

529
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Totals

40,631

491,140

529

40,185

491,140

529

Administration and Support Services

State Disability Insurance Plan
Private Disability Insurance Plan
Workers Compensation
Special Compensation
Vocational Rehabilitation Services
Employment Services
Employment and Training Services
Workplace Standards
Public Sector Labor Relations
Private Sector Labor Relations
Test Development and Analytics
Appeals and Regulatory Affairs
Vocational Rehabilitation Services
Employment and Training Services

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

693
32,546
4,996
13,617
1,933
2,704
10,015
4,391
3,680
491
17,356
2,046
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

40,598
30,076

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

2,196
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

624
29,291
4,496
13,617
1,933
2,704
10,015
4,391
3,680
491
17,356
2,046
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

40,598
27,068

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

2,196
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Totals

94,468

70,674

2,196

90,645

67,666

2,196

Division of Mental Health and Addiction Services

Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital
Trenton Psychiatric Hospital
Ann Klein Forensic Center
Ancora Psychiatric Hospital
Division of Medical Assistance and Health
Division of Aging Services
Division of Disability Services
Community Programs
Green Brook Regional Center
Vineland Developmental Center
Woodbine Developmental Center
New Lisbon Developmental Center
Hunterdon Developmental Center
Division of Deaf and Hard of Hearing
Commission for the Blind and Visually
Division of Family Development
Division of Management and Budget

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

14,756
92,698
76,804
45,260
87,751
32,354
9,253
1,315
36,799
5,825
16,372
31,404
22,139
25,836
1,042
10,556
30,810
36,939

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

442,460
4,052,152
94,387
9,121
626,691
3,552
175,863
8,809

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

105,214
26,413
3,734
151,938
51,903
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

4,654
237,719
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

14,756
92,698
76,804
45,260
87,751
32,354
9,253
1,315
36,799
5,825
16,372
31,404
22,139
25,836
10,556
30,810
33,245

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

442,460
4,052,152
94,387
9,121
626,691
3,552
175,863
8,809

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

105,214
26,413
3,734
151,938
51,903
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

4,654
237,719
-

Totals

577,913

5,413,035

339,202

242,373

573,177

5,413,035

339,202

242,373

State Police Operations

Criminal Justice
State Medical Examiner
Administration and Support Services
Office of Highway Traffic Safety
Election Law Enforcement
Review and Enforcement of Ethical
Standards
Juvenile Community Programs
Institutional Control and Supervision
Institutional Care and Treatment
Juvenile Parole and Transitional Services
Administration and Support Services
Homeland Security and Preparedness
Administration and Support Services
Legal Services
Consumer Affairs
Operation of State Professional Boards
Protection of Civil Rights
Victims of Crime Compensation Office
Gaming Enforcement

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

265,132
31,717
438
31,780
598
4,510
1,047
26,184
37,471
18,013
5,776
15,855
9,978
10,302
16,534
7,357
17,541
4,327
3,372
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

765
6,200
16,599
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

2,000
92
42,530

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

265,132
31,717
438
31,780
598
4,510
1,047
26,184
37,471
18,013
5,776
15,855
9,978
10,302
16,534
7,357
17,541
4,327
3,372
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

765
6,200
16,599
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

2,000
92
42,530

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

507,932

23,564

44,622

507,932

23,564

44,622

107

State

Judiciary

Military and
Veterans' Affairs

Transportation

Interdepartmental
Acounts

Office of the Secretary of Higher Education

Support of the Arts
Museum Services
Development of Historical Resources
Library Services
Office of the Secretary of State
Business Action Center
State Archives
Election Management and Coordination
Higher Education Student Assistance Authority
Rutgers, The State University - New Brunswick
Agricultural Experiment Station
Rutgers, The State University - Camden
Rutgers, The State University - Newark
New Jersey Institute of Technology
Thomas A. Edison State University
Rowan University
New Jersey City University
Kean University
William Paterson University of New Jersey
Montclair State University
The College of New Jersey
Ramapo College of New Jersey
Stockton University
University Hospital

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

1,779
405
2,242
289
5,286
3,392
13,553
967
3,814
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

41,622
16,000
2,700
3,025
422,496
325,922
20,931
16,501
30,630
35,440
3,292
85,383
24,154
30,469
30,357
35,859
27,177
14,953
18,391
43,841

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

7,975
7,030
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

1,779
1,682
289
5,286
3,392
3,415
967
3,814
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

41,622
2,700
3,025
422,496
293,330
18,838
14,851
27,567
31,896
2,963
76,845
21,739
27,422
27,321
32,273
24,459
13,458
16,552
43,841

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

7,975
7,030
-

Totals

31,727

1,229,143

15,005

20,623

1,143,197

15,005

Supreme Court
Superior Court- Appellate Division
Civil Courts
Criminal Courts
Family Courts
Municipal Courts
Probation Services
Court Reporting
Public Affairs and Education
Information Services
Trial Court Services
Management and Administration

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

6,891
21,351
106,982
149,855
118,123
1,598
137,763
8,898
2,953
18,169
140,507
11,339

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

6,891
21,351
106,982
149,855
118,123
1,598
137,763
8,898
18,169
140,507
11,339

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Totals

724,429

721,476

Central Operations
National Guard Programs Support
Veterans Program Support
Menlo Park Veterans Memorial Home
Paramus Veterans Memorial Home
Vineland Veterans Memorial Home

$
$
$
$
$
$

4,240
3,807
7,759
25,992
24,649
27,593

Totals

Maintenance and Operations

Physical Plant and Support Services
Transportation Systems Management
Multimodal Services
Administration and Support Services
Railroad and Bus Operations
Transportation Trust Fund Authority

$
$
$
$
$
$

2,414
-

$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$

4,240
3,807
7,759
25,992
24,649
27,593

94,040

2,414

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

38,056
5,486
902
744
-

$
$
$
$
$
$

160,856

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

17,523
123,351

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Totals

45,188

160,856

140,874

Property Rentals
Insurance and Other Services
Employee Benefits
Other Interdepartmental Accounts
Salary Increases and Other Benefits
Utilities and Other Services
Aid to Independent Authorities

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

150,841
128,767
2,666,118
12,525
62,700
14,093
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

1,035,125
111,747

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Totals

3,035,044

1,146,872

108

$
$
$
$
$
$

2,414
-

$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$

94,040

2,414

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

38,056
5,486
902
744
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

160,856
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

17,523
123,351

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

45,188

160,856

140,874

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

150,841
128,767
2,416,118
12,525
62,700
14,093
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

1,035,125
111,747

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

2,785,044

1,146,872

Treasury

Miscellaneous
Commissions

Utility Regulation
Regulation of Cable Television
Energy Assistance Programs
Regulatory Support Services
Administration and Support Services
Employee Relations and Collective Negotiations
Office of Management and Budget
Office of the State Comptroller
Taxation Services and Administration
Administration of State Lottery
Administration of State Revenues and Enterprise Services
Management of State Investments
Garden State Preservation Trust
Purchasing and Inventory Managemen t
Public Broadcasting Services
Property Management and Construction -Property Management Services
Risk Management
Office of Information Technology
Adjudication of Administrative Appeals
Emergency Telecommunication Services
Administration and Support Services
Appellate Services to Indigents
Corrections Ombudsperson
Rate Counsel
Trial Services to Indigents
Mental Health Advocacy
Dispute Settlement
Office of Law Guardian
Office of Parental Representation
Elder Advocacy
Administration and Support Services
Administration of Casino Gambling
Support to Independent Institutions
Miscellaneous Higher Education Programs
Economic Development
Energy Assistance Programs
Civil Legal Services for the Poor
Homestead Exemptions
Aid to County Colleges
County Boards of Taxation
Locally Provided Assistance
Police and Firemens Retirement System
Senior and Disabled Citizens and Veterans Property Tax Deductions
Police and Firemens Retirement System

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

6,034
1,903
1,865
3,904
12,961
953
13,756
9,072
106,940
13,271
31,847
1,287
278
9,057
2,175
19,379
3,538
78,066
4,272
14,022
10,906
10,861
768
6,968
70,208
4,836
406
20,500
16,768
1,927
2,482
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

12,237
101,772
40,641
65,785
16,018
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

7,738
527,400
204,054
62,100
162,560

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

1,903
32,155
575
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

5,431
1,903
1,865
3,514
9,721
10,317
9,072
96,246
28,662
1,287
8,151
17,441
3,184
70,259
4,272
14,022
9,815
10,861
768
6,968
70,208
4,836
406
20,500
16,768
1,927
2,234
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

11,013
91,595
30,481
65,785
16,018
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

527,400
204,054
62,100
162,560

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

1,903
32,155
575
-

Totals

481,210

236,453

963,852

34,633

430,638

214,892

956,114

34,633

Delaware River Basin Commission

Interstate Environmental Commission
Council On Local Mandates

$
$
$

693
15
68

$
$
$

$
$
$

$
$
$

$
$
$

693
15
68

$
$
$

$
$
$

$
$
$

Totals

776

776

Grand Totals

Direct State Services

$
7,319,125

Grants in Aid
9,796,024

Dedicated
15,430,635

State Aid
448,501

Direct State Services

$
6,973,133

Grants in Aid
150,639

Dedicated
507,738

State Aid
-

Reconciliation

32,994,285

Capital Construction
Department of Environmental Protection
Transportation Trust Fund Authority
Interdepartmental Accounts

$
$
$

107,034
1,173,480
213,059

Debt Service
Treasury
Department of Environmental Protection

$
$

290,122
50,712

34,828,692

34,828,692

2017 Governor's Budget

Differences Between Budgets
Savings in the AFP Budget
EITC Savings

$
Direct State Services
$
345,992
$
105,000

Total Savings from All Sources

1,109,370

109

Grants in Aid
9,645,385

Dedicated
14,922,897

State Aid
448,501

AMERICANSFORPROSPERITY.ORG
110