Discussion - New Jersey Legislature

Department of Law and Public Safety FY 2017-2018

Discussion Points

1

1. On March 16, 2017, the President of the United States released the “America First” preliminary budget proposal for federal FY 2018. The proposal includes many substantial changes to funding levels of federal agencies and programs. If enacted, many of the changes could affect the finances of and programs operated by the State of New Jersey. The Governor’s FY 2018 Budget Recommendation includes a total appropriation of approximately $1.01 billion to the Department of Law and Public Safety (DLPS). Of that amount, some $209.058 million (nearly 21 percent) represents funds anticipated to be received from the federal government.

� Question: Please identify each source of federal funding included in the Governor’s FY 2018 Budget Recommendation for the DLPS that the department concludes would be reduced or increased by ten percent or more if the President of the United States’ preliminary budget proposal for federal FY 2018 were to be enacted, and the estimated amount of each increase or decrease.

The impact of federal funding changes cannot be calculated until a federal budget is enacted.

� Question: Please evaluate the impacts that these changes would have on

programs operated by the department absent funding adjustments from other sources. How would the clients served by these programs be affected? To what extent would the department’s monitoring, regulatory, and administrative activities, including as measured by performance metrics, be affected? What would be the impact on the department’s workforce?

As previously indicated, until more details are provided as to exactly which programs are being reduced or eliminated, it remains unknown what the overall budgetary impact will be in the federal FY 18 budget.

� Question: What specific new or revised federal mandates or matching

requirements are expected? Were there any federal grants that were not received in FY 2016 or FY 2017 due to a decrease or elimination of a federal grant program that negatively impacted the State?

The Department is not aware of any changes to matching requirements. There were no changes in federal awards in FY 2016 or FY 2017 due to new or revised federal mandates or matching requirements.

2a. Recently U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said he would seek to withhold federal money, including grants that have already been awarded, from local governments that do not cooperate with federal immigration authorities. The U.S. Attorney General does not


Discussion Points (Cont’d)

2

appear to have provided guidance on how the federal government would go about cutting funds to local jurisdictions, or on the criteria used to identify sanctuary jurisdictions.

The Associated Press reported that last year the Office of Justice Programs, in the U.S. Department of Justice, made nearly 3,000 grants nationwide totaling $3.9 billion to cities, counties, states and other local governments.

New Jersey municipalities reported as sanctuary cities by the media include Asbury Park, Camden, East Orange, Jersey City, Linden, New Brunswick, Newark, North Bergen, Plainfield, Trenton and Union City. In addition, Union, Middlesex and Ocean counties have also been mentioned as sanctuary jurisdictions. It appears these are self-designations, not designations made by the federal government. � Question: Has the Department of Law and Public Safety (DLPS) received

guidance from the federal government on the official definition or classification of a sanctuary city or jurisdiction? If so, please elaborate, and please provide a list of any cities or jurisdictions in New Jersey designated as such by the federal government. Has the DLPS received guidance on withholding federal funds from sanctuary cities or jurisdictions which the State receives and spends or distributes? If so, please elaborate, and please provide a list of any federal funding, including amounts, which may be at risk of being withheld, by city or jurisdiction.

Other than Executive Order 13768 from the President of the United States, and the authorities citied in that Executive Order, the Department has not yet received any guidance from the federal government. � Question: Does the Division of State Police participate in federal detention

holds? If so, what are the expenditures associated with participation? How many cases occur annually? Since compliance is permissive, has the division established formal criteria by which it decides whether or not to comply with a request? If so, please summarize those criteria.

The State Police stations have temporary detention cells only. Persons subject to detention for any extended periods are transferred to a county facility. State Police personnel are governed by Attorney General Law Enforcement Directive 2007-3, which requires that all law enforcement officers in New Jersey inquire about a person’s citizenship, nationality and immigration status during the booking process for any indictable crime or driving while intoxicated, and as to such persons, notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement if there is reason to believe that the person may not be lawfully present in the United States. 3. The Governor’s FY 2018 recommended budget anticipates $63 million from Victims Assistance Grants in FY 2017 and FY 2018, and reflects $10.957 million in actual revenue in FY 2016 (p. C-21). According to the Office for Victims of Crime in the Office of Justice



3

Programs, the State was awarded federal Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) Victims Assistance Grants (VAG) in federal fiscal year (FFY) 2014 ($12.416 million), FFY 2015 ($53.992 million), and FFY 2016 ($60.868 million). It appears that the grants have been, or will be expended to reimburse 1) local governments and third party providers for services and 2) the State for the administration of the grants.

The State’s accounting system (NJCFS) reflects the receipt of $52,797,254.54 as the actual FFY 2015 VOCA grant to the State. The closure date of the FFY 2015 VOCA grant is December 31, 2018. Of that grant, $48,759,998.54 is budgeted to reimburse local governments and third party providers for services, $2,699,632 is budgeted for the State administration of the grant, and $1,337,624 is budgeted for the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SANE) program. The SANE program provides funding for trained forensic nurses who focus on the needs and concerns specific to sexual assault victims. The NJCFS reflects the receipt of $11,490,362.32 for the FFY 2014 VOCA funding. The FFY 2014 VOCA grants closure date is December 31, 2017. Of that grant, $10,225,580.82 is budgeted to reimburse local governments and third party providers for services, $620,831 was expended for the State administration of the grant, and $643,950.50 is budgeted for the Victim’s Information and Notification Everyday (VINE) program. The New Jersey VINE Service provides notification to a victim if an offender is in the State’s custody or if an offender is released or transferred. � Question: What is the department’s intention for allocating the nearly

fivefold increase in federal funds for Victim Assistance Grants? Please provide a spending plan for each of the FFY 2014, FFY 2015, and FFY 2016 Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) grants. Please provide a list of the local governments, third party providers, and other recipients of funds from each of the Victims of VOCA grants and the amounts each recipient received or was awarded.

The intended allocation of the increased federal funds for Victim Assistance Grants may be found in the FFY 2016 VOCA spending plan. The Department intends to continue to award grant funding to sub recipients by using both a competitive and formula-based process. Pursuant to statute, non-profit agencies must compete through a competitive process in order to receive federal or state grant funding passed through by the State. See attachments A through E for the VOCA spending plans and a list of sub recipients for FFY 2014 through FFY 2016. 4. The Governor’s FY 2018 budget does not provide the department direct funding for projects recommended by the Commission on Capital Budgeting and Planning Commission (commission) or the other capital requests submitted to the commission by the Department of Law and Public Safety (DLPS) and the Juvenile Justice Commission (JJC).



4

The FY 2018 budget continues to recommend $11 million for Life Safety, Emergency, and IT Projects Statewide and further indicates that $14.6 million is to be made available for Statewide Fire, Life Safety and Renovation Projects from non-State sources (pages D-432 and D-435).

The DLPS requested $2.882 million for two capital projects. These projects include boiler replacements at the New Jersey State Police (NJSP) Troop A Headquarters in Buena Vista for $1.1 million and boiler replacements and morgue renovation in Newark for $1.782 million.

Of the requested amount, $1.1 million was recommended by the commission to replace the boilers at (NJSP) Troop A Headquarters. According to DLPS, the current boilers will be replaced with two high efficiency boilers systems which will provide a savings to the State by both lowering utility costs and by reducing the need for around the clock boiler operators.

The JJC requested $16.935 million for 22 capital projects. This amount would be allocated as follows: $9.4 million for preservation projects including HVAC and roof replacements, critical repairs, and emergency generator upgrades; $6.6 million for construction projects including facility renovations and upgrades; $618,000 for compliance projects; and $337,000 for environmental projects.

Of the amount requested, $1.928 million was recommended by the commission for suicide resistance improvements in secure units ($1.378 million) and to replace the roof of the Lindbergh House ($550,000) which houses the Doves Residential Community Home. � Question: Please provide a list of the capital needs of DLPS, including JJC,

which the department expects will be met in FY 2018 from the referenced funding sources. For the projects not funded from these sources, how does the DLPS and the JJC, respectively, intend to meet the capital needs outlined in their requests to the commission? Please provide a list of completed DLPS and JJC capital projects completed in FY 2016 and FY 2017.

The Commission on Capital Budgeting and Planning has recommended $1.1 million to replace the boilers at State Police Troop A Headquarters. In addition, $1.928 million was recommended by the Commission for the Juvenile Justice Commission (JJC) for suicide resistance improvements in secure units ($1.378 million) and to replace the roof of the Lindbergh House ($550,000) which houses the Doves Residential Community Home. The list of completed JJC capital projects are attached (attachment F). 5. Among its total capital assets, the State has considerable land holdings, valued by the FY 2016 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report at about $5.22 billion (Land and Easements, pg. 26). Land and easements may be held for future use, restricted as to future uses, or not needed for public purposes and available for sale, lease or other disposition.



5

Knowledge about the extent, location, condition and intended use of these properties and property rights does not appear to be readily available.

There could be potentially beneficial uses of some properties, other than those intended by the state agency in control of the properties, depending on the size, location and condition of those properties. � Question: Please list each property under ownership or control of the

department comprising unimproved or vacant land 1 acre or more in size, excluding land comprising all or part of a State park, recreation or wildlife management area, identifying each property by county and municipal location, street address, tax map block and lot number and, if available, Global Positioning System coordinates. Please provide the size of the property, its current use, intended future use within the next five years, and any known or suspected environmental contamination that would impede its future use. Please also describe any deed restrictions affecting current and future use. What are the department’s policies and procedures for determining future uses of its land holdings that further the department’s mission, and for allowing beneficial uses of its land in ways that are outside the department’s traditional mission?

If a Department owned property becomes vacant, an assessment is done to determine if the property can be used by the agency for other departmental purposes. If the property is no longer necessary to the Department in meeting its mission, the Department of the Treasury is notified. Current law establishes the procedure for its disposition.

6. The department annually outsources cases and assignments, retaining outside counsel for various reasons. The department also enters into client service agreements with other departments to handle legal cases through outside counsel. During the FY 2017 budget review process, the department provided documentation that State agencies paid approximately $30 million to outside counsel in calendar year 2015. � Question: Please provide a list of cases and assignments for which outside

counsel was retained, including the amount paid per case for calendar year 2016 and 2017 to date. What percentage of outside counsel costs represents legal fees paid on a contingency basis? Which specific cases involve outside counsel retained on a contingency fee arrangement? Although it is understood that the number and types of cases may vary, what amount is budgeted in FY 2018 for the services of outside counsel?

See the attached reports for the 2016 outside counsel reports (attachment G) and 2017 (through April 2017) outside counsel reports (attachment H).



6

The Department does not track contingency fees paid to outside counsel in our outside counsel billing system, CounselLink. Contingency fees generally result in a one-time payment to counsel at the conclusion of a matter rather than a series of payments for legal services performed during the course of the matter. Additionally, payment to counsel in contingency fee cases generally result from a recovery collected by an entity other than the State. In other words, contingency fee cases are not paid via State revenues. Typically, cases in which we have retained outside counsel on a contingency fee basis have been those involving False Claims Act and Qui Tam matters. We are not able to predict the number of defensive matters that may be brought against the State. Nor are we able to predict which of these possible future matters may require the services of outside counsel. Therefore, no amount has been budgeted in FY 2018 for the services of outside counsel. 7. New Jersey False Claims Act (NJFCA) P.L.2007, c.265 (C.2A:32C-1 et seq.) became effective in 2008. The False Claims Act allows the Attorney General or a private individual to bring a civil action to recover any funds fraudulently obtained and to receive a percentage of any monies collected. Civil penalties are also imposed for each false or fraudulent claim, plus three times the amount of damages which the State sustains, under the circumstances set forth in N.J.S.A. 2A:32C-3. Under the NJFCA, when the Attorney General becomes involved in a False Claims Act case, either by initiating the action or by assuming control of an action previously brought by a plaintiff, the attorney general is awarded reasonable attorney's fees, expenses, and costs. In the Attorney General’s annual report for CY 2016 to the Legislature concerning the New Jersey False Claims Act pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:32C-18, it appears that the State’s net share of the recovery proceeds were $20.241 million: Restitution ($12.234 million) and Penalties and Interest ($8.004 million). � Question: Please provide by fiscal year the amount of NJFCA recoveries, distinguishing restitution and penalties/interest, since the inception of the NJFCA. Please also indicate the number of civil actions per fiscal year in which the Attorney General was involved. In which revenue line item(s) are recovery proceeds included? What criteria does the Attorney General use to determine whether the State should assume control of an action initiated by a private individual? Were there any compensatory damages awarded to other State agencies? If so, please provide the amounts per agency per fiscal year. See attachment I for the AG’s reports to the Legislature concerning the NJFCA (2010-2016). The False Claims Prosecution Fund is listed in Schedule 2, Dedicated Revenues under the Department of Law and Public Safety. The amount cited there reflects actual collections



7

received in the prior fiscal year only. There are no estimated amounts for FY 2017 or 2018. As such, the cited amount collected for FY 2016 is $215,000. Factors that guide the decision of whether or not the State intervenes in a potential False Claims Act matter include the strength of the factual and legal claims, the availability of resources to pursue the matter, and the strength of other matters that may compete for the State’s attention. The State has traditionally been successful at investigating and resolving potential False Claims Act matters prior to litigation. Recovery proceeds from False Claims matters are distributed as per the settlement agreement, of which 10% shall be deposited in the False Claims Prosecution Fund. This fund is used to support ongoing investigation and prosecution of false claims. Please see attachment J for examples of State agencies, authorities and universities that had received compensatory damages within the settlement terms of the False Claims matters. 8. As of July 1, 2016, the operations of the SouthSTAR MedEvac ceased after 28 years of service and an estimated 25,000 missions. NorthSTAR MedEvac continues to provide service. Since 1988, the State funded the air medical services team for trauma situations at little to no cost to those requiring the service. The Department of Health provides medical staffing through contracts with hospitals and the Division of State Police maintains the helicopters and provides the pilots. A $3 surcharge on motor vehicle registrations is statutorily dedicated to MedEvac services and equipment. Budget language allows this funding to also be used for the State Police general aviation program and for other State Police purposes unrelated to MedEvac services. Evaluation data in the FY 2018 Governor’s budget (p. D-252) reports the number of State Police Aviation Bureau inter-hospital and on-scene pickup flights. The total of these flights is projected to decline from 550 in FY 2015 to 240 in FY 2018. � Question: Please provide a spending plan for MedEvac services in FY 2017

and FY 2018, showing the allocation of resources in the New Jersey Emergency Medical Service Helicopter Response Program Fund in each fiscal year between the Department of Health and the Division of State Police. Also, please provide a spending plan for resources from the fund allocated to the State Police general aviation program. What specific activities and functions comprise the general aviation program? How has the scope of these activities changed since the discontinuation of SouthSTAR operations?

The projected spending plan for MedEvac services for FY 2017 and FY 2018 are below:



8

FY 2017 FY 2018 Medevac DSP - Aviation $19.2m $19.2m Medevac DOH $2.5m $2.5m Total Medevac: $21.7m $21.7m

The projected spending plan for the Division of State Police Aviation program is below:

FY 2017 FY 2018 Salary, Cash in lieu and fringe $3.7m $4.1m Materials and Supplies $1.3m $1.3m Services other than Personal $800k $800k Maintenance and Fixed Charges $5.3m $4.9m Helicopter Line of Credit payment $8.1m $8.1m Capital Additions, Improvements and Equipment $18k $18k Total State Police Medevac: $19.2m $19.2m

The Aviation Bureau provides emergency medical evacuation (Medevac) transportation of seriously injured victims of motor vehicle, industrial, and recreational accidents, etc. to trauma centers. It also provides air support for the various commands within the Division of State Police and other law enforcement agencies that request assistance in order to accomplish numerous police, homeland security, and executive protection missions.

The Aviation Bureau is responsible for maintaining its fleet of aircraft in compliance with all applicable Federal Aviation Regulations, airworthiness directives, manufacturer's service bulletins, and Aviation Maintenance Manual procedures, and ensures that all Aviation Bureau maintenance technicians are properly trained and certified to maintain Bureau aircraft in an airworthy condition at all times. The Aviation Bureau ensures that all pilots are properly trained and proficient by complying with Aviation Bureau performance standards as outlined in the Operations Manual, and that all pilots meet F.A.A. experience requirements with regard to night operation, instrument currency, and flight reviews.

Since the suspension of SouthSTAR MedEvac operations, the Aviation South Unit has increased homeland security patrols and law enforcement missions. � Question: What is the current size of the Division of State Police helicopter

fleet? What is age of each helicopter and its projected retirement and replacement date? How many flights occurred in FY 2016, and are projected to occur in FY 2017 and FY 2018, respectively? In each year what proportion of those flights are MedEvac flights and general aviation flights, respectively? Please provide the number of days in FY 2016, and thus far in FY 2017, that each aircraft in the fleet was grounded for maintenance and repair. What was



9

cost of fleet maintenance in FY 2016? What is the estimated annual FY 2017 and FY 2018 maintenance cost? What is the average cost per flight?

The New Jersey State Police Aviation Bureau manages and operates a fleet of eight (8) helicopters:

� Five (5) Agusta AW139s, � Two (2) Bell 206 LongRangers, and � One (1) OH-58 Military Surplus helicopter (similar to the Bell 206 JetRanger)

Tail

Number Type Registration

Year Retirement

Date Uses

N1NJ AW139 2011

See Below

*

MedEvac, homeland security,

law enforcement, executive protection, search and

rescue, training

N3NJ AW139 2012 N5NJ AW139 2011 N7NJ AW139 2011 N9NJ AW139 2011 N2NJ Bell 206L3 1985 homeland security,

law enforcement, training

N4NJ** OH–58A 1970 N6NJ Bell 206L4 1995

*There is no ultimate end life for helicopters as the dynamic components installed on the aircraft can be substantially renewed through overhaul or replacement, when necessary, throughout the life of the helicopter. Helicopters can also be upgraded with newer components and avionics, etc. When maintenance costs begin to rise and replacement parts become extremely difficult to acquire, a determination is made that there is no longer a cost benefit to maintain. The AW139 helicopters replaced the aging Sikorsky fleet which had an average age of 23 years. An examination of maintenance requirements for major components of this fleet yields a projected replacement date for the AW139 aircrafts of approximately 2025-2027. ** N4NJ is a military surplus aircraft. It must be operated under ‘Public Use’ guidelines as prescribed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Department of Defense (DoD). It has is no resale value and must be returned to the DoD if we choose not to maintain and/or operate it. The Aviation Bureau has changed the method for capturing flight data from FY 2016 to FY 2017. For the years prior to FY 2017, the Bureau used a web based program called AVISTAR which counted each mission as a flight. Flights with multiple missions were counted multiple times. In FY 2017, the Bureau switched to a web based service called Digital Airware (DAW). DAW captures each flight one time, regardless of the number of missions conducted during each flight. Therefore, the reduction in flight statistics for missions/flights from FY 2016 to



10

FY 2017 that follows can be attributed to a change in the flight tracking systems at the Division, rather than a true reduction in flights. Missions / Flights Flight Hours

FY 2016 Actual

7,010 missions

1,780 hours

FY 2017 Projected

2,900 flights

1,800 hours

FY 2018 Projected

3,000 flights

1,900 hours

Total

Missions / Flights

MedEvac Assignments

homeland security, port security,

general police, searches, protection

FY 2016 Actual 7,010 missions

456

6,554

FY2017 YTD / Projected

2,176 / 2,900 flights

178 / 212

1,998 / 2,688

FY18 Projected 3,000 flights

215

2,785

Estimated # of days an aircraft is grounded for maintenance or repairs AW139s Bell 206s OH-58

1NJ 3NJ 5NJ 7NJ 9NJ 2NJ 6NJ 4NJ

FY 16

84

84

90

107

56

56

61

72

FY17 YTD

46

22

110

45

60

50

71

89

*Above estimated figures do not include weekends and holidays.



11

Aircraft Maintenance Costs

FY 2016 Actual $5.2 million

FY 2017 Actual $4.9 million

FY 2018 Projected $4.5 million The average cost per flight hour for the AW139s is $2,500 and $500 per flight hour for the Bell aircraft. 9a. The Division of State Police (DSP) has many duties and missions to fulfill: forensic services, air ambulance, marine and highway safety, homeland security, and general police protection services, to name only a few.

A DSP media release stated that the 156th State Police Recruit Class commenced on August 17, 2015 with 200 recruits and graduated 134 troopers on January 29, 2016. According to reports, the 156th graduating class included 32 combat veterans and more than 34 percent of the graduates were minorities.

The department’s responses to FY 2017 OLS discussion points indicated that the DSP expected 200 recruits in the 157th class to start the academy on January 9, 2017 and graduate on June 23, 2017. In addition, the selection process for the 158th class was scheduled to commence with an open application period in January 2017. Following the physical qualification test and written examination in the spring of 2017, the 158th DSP Recruit Class is scheduled to commence in January 2018 and graduate in June 2018. Budget evaluation data (p. D-253) projects a graduation goal for each class of 130 recruits, 260 total graduates, by the end of this fiscal year.

The FY 2018 Governor’s recommended budget proposes funding for the recruitment of a new DSP Recruit Class, the159th (p. D-253). According to the Governor’s FY 2018 Budget Summary, $500,000 will be expended to support recruitment of the class. The 159th recruit class will be the ninth new class since 2010.

The department’s responses to the FY 2017 budget questions indicated that there were 141 troopers eligible to retire by the end of FY 2015, with none eligible in FY 2016 and 2017, and 74 eligible in FY 2018.

� Question: Please provide an update on the 157th and 158th recruit classes.

How many persons applied for each recruit class? How many qualified applicants resigned their commission due to the lapse in time between applying and the class commencing? What is the current projected commencement and graduation dates for the 157th and 158th recruit classes, respectively? What is the enrollment target for each class? Were there sufficient applicants to fill the 157th recruit class? When will the DSP recruit selection process begin for the 158th recruit class? What are the current projected commencement and graduation dates for the 159th recruit class?



12

The 157th class commenced in January 2017 with 191 recruits and will graduate on June 23, 2017. As of April 12, 2017, there are 153 recruits remaining in the class, of which approximately 42% are minority.

The 157th Recruit Class was the second of two classes that made up the 156th Selection Process. The 156th Selection Process commenced with an open application period on April 21, 2014. A total of 10,339 applicants were qualified to proceed to the Physical Qualification Test (PQT). After the PQT and written examination, a total of 2,434 applicants were eligible for selection to the 156th and 157th background investigation processes. There were 143 applicants that withdrew from the 156th/157th selection process for various reasons. The State Police does not maintain statistics on the reasons qualified applicants withdraw or resign in the time between applying and commencement of the class.

The Recruit and Selection Process for the upcoming 158th and 159th classes commenced with an open application period on February 13, 2017. This recent recruitment effort yielded 8,005 applicants who completed the on-line NJSP Initial Application. Of those, 7,113 applicants qualified to participate in the PQT; however, only 5,857 scheduled themselves to take the PQT. Of the scheduled participants, 4,007 attended the PQT; 3,026 passed and 981 failed. The pool of eligible candidates is approximately 42% diverse: 22% Hispanic, 11% African American, 3% Asian, 2% Two or More Races, 4% declined to report their race, and small identifying percentages of American Indian or Alaskan and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islanders. The pool is 94% male, 5% female, with 1% declining to identify their gender.

The 158th class will begin in approximately January 2018 and graduate in June 2018. The 159th class is projected to commence in January 2019 and graduate June 2019. The target enrollment for each class is 200 recruits.

Question: Please provide a breakout of DSP staffing allocations, by division and unit, and also indicate the number of civilian staff in each division or unit. Please provide an update on the number of troopers eligible for retirement in the next 10 years, by year. For the period between 2015 and 2018, please state, by year, the number of troopers who were eligible to retire, the number who actually retired, and the length of time that elapsed between retirement eligibility and actual retirement for each retiree. How do past and future retirements affect the minority ratios? Please provide a statistical overview by gender and ethnicity within the DSP as of the close of FY 2016. How has each of the recent DSP recruit classes contributed to the minority membership of the DSP?

Please see attachment K chart showing the breakout of DSP staffing allocations by division and unit.



13

Below is the number of Enlisted that are eligible for retirement in the next ten (10) years, based on twenty five years of service:

DSP 10 year retirement eligibility

Fiscal Year

Eligible to retire Notes

FY 2017 52 *FY 2018 61FY 2019 0 **FY 2020 172FY 2021 76FY 2022 0 **FY 2023 103FY 2024 131FY 2025 0 **FY 2026 153FY 2027 202

*Projected eligibility through the end of FY 2017

**There were no graduating State Police recruit classes that occurred 25 years prior. Therefore, the projected eligible Enlisted to retire in these years, based on enrollment date is zero. However, this chart does not reflect Enlisted that may delay their retirement date past the year of eligibility or Enlisted that may retire with less than twenty five years of service.

The below chart shows the number of Enlisted that were eligible to retire, actual retirements and the elapsed years between eligibility and actual retirement:

DSP Enlisted staff eligibility

Fiscal Year

Number of Enlisted

Eligible for Retirement

Fiscal Year Eligible Enlisted

Retirements

Elapsed Years

Between Elig. And

Retirement2015 237 85 2.12016 139 57 3.32017 74 27 4.3

In an effort to continue to increase the minority population within the State Police, the Division has concentrated efforts on minority recruitment. The last 3 recruit classes (the 154th, the 155th and the 156th classes) yielded minority ratio graduation rates of 30%, 20% and 33%, respectively.



14

Please see attached chart (attachment L) showing the overview of gender and ethnicity within the DSP as of the close of FY 2016.

9b. APP.com reported that according to payroll data New Jersey State government’s overtime bill totaled $193 million in 2015. One impact on public safety agency budgets that results from understaffing is upward pressure on overtime costs. Although, occurrences that increase staffing requirements like severe weather and terrorist related incidents are hard to plan, recruitment of new officers on a regular basis would appear to assist overtime cost management. � Question: Please provide the annual amount of overtime the DSP paid to

staff, separated by civilian and enlisted, in fiscal years 2012-2016. How is it determined which staff members are permitted to work overtime? Are there any restrictions or limits on working overtime by trooper, hours, or cost?

DSP Enlisted & Civilian Overtime History

FY 2012 - FY 2016

BFY Enlisted Civilian Total

2012 $18,002,484 $4,250,877 $22,253,361

2013* $30,316,180 $5,078,345 $35,394,525

2014 $25,258,895 $5,278,423 $30,537,318

2015 $21,632,487 $4,699,852 $26,332,339

2016 $22,151,154 $4,455,620 $26,606,774 Enlisted overtime includes regular and supplemental overtime payments. All Enlisted supplemental overtime is billable. * In FY 2013, DSP received reimbursement funding from FEMA and CDBG for overtime details related to Superstorm Sandy. Overtime hours and compensation are governed by contractual agreements between the respective associations and the State of New Jersey. All non-station personnel will be scheduled with respect to the operational needs of their respective units in accordance with provisions set forth in S.O.P. C26. 10. The department’s responses to the FY 2017 OLS budget questions indicated that the Division of State Police (DSP) purchased 302 vehicle s in FY 2017 through a three-year line of credit and in FY 2016, 306 vehicles were purchased.



15

The language provision in the FY 2018 Governor’s budget (p. D-257) provides funds, from the “New Jersey Emergency Medical Service Helicopter Response Act” (C.39:3-8.2), not to exceed $8.105 million for State Police vehicles. � Question: How many vehicles, marked and unmarked, make up the Division

of State Police fleet. Please explain the DSP policy for assignment of vehicles to enlisted members and civilian staff. Please explain the guidelines for use of a State Police vehicle, including marked and unmarked vehicles, for commutation purposes. How does the DSP determine when to retire a vehicle? How many vehicles were retired annually from FY 2012 to FY 2016? How does DSP determine when to retire a vehicle and what is the process to retire a vehicle from the fleet? How many State Police vehicles will be purchased in FY 2018? How many are expected to be retired?

The Division of State Police (DSP) currently has 2,485 vehicles within their fleet. Of those, 691 are marked, 1,533 are unmarked, and 261 are undercover. DSP vehicles are officially assigned to sections and troops, not to individuals. The emergency nature of State Police operations requires personnel to be available for duty at all times and therefore vehicles are assigned as appropriate to meet this requirement. When it occurs, civilian use of vehicles is provided based on the individual’s functional duties.

The assignment of marked versus unmarked vehicles is based on the core responsibility of the Enlisted member. The majority of marked cars are operated by troopers in a patrol function and in some instances, regulatory functions such as Commercial Carrier, Motor Coach Inspections, etc. Generally, unmarked vehicles are used for undercover operations. Replacement is based on those vehicles determined to be in worst condition or those that require a high number of repairs. Vehicles are replaced when new vehicles are received. The process to retire a vehicle involves removing all police equipment and markings from the vehicles and sending them to the Department of Treasury, Purchase and Property Distribution Center for auctioning.

During 2012 through 2016, State Police retired 1,282 vehicles from the fleet.

The FY 2018 preliminary vehicle purchase plan includes the purchase of approximately 300 vehicles, while retiring a similar number of vehicles. 11. Section 1033 of the “National Defense Authorization Act of 1997” (Pub.L.104-201) authorizes the Secretary of Defense of transfer, without charge, Department of Defense (DOD) property to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies that the secretary determines is suitable for use in law enforcement activities, including counterdrug, counterterrorism, and border security activities and is excess to DOD needs. This program, informally known as the “1033 Program,” is administered by the Defense Logistics Agency



16

(DLA). Law enforcement agencies whose primary function is the enforcement of applicable federal, state, and local laws as defined by DLA regulations and whose compensated officers have powers of arrest and apprehension are eligible to enroll in the 1033 Program through their State Coordinator. In New Jersey, local law enforcement agency applications to join the 1033 Program are submitted to the DLA through the Office of Emergency Management in the Division of State Police. State and local enforcement agencies may obtain two types of equipment through the 1033 Program: controlled property and non-controlled property. Controlled property consists of items, such as weapons and armored vehicles, initially designed for military use, which also has significant utility for state and local law enforcement operations. Non-controlled property is property without military attributes, such as commercial vehicles, office furniture and tool kits. Law enforcement agency requests to acquire property through the 1033 Program are screened by the State Coordinator and then submitted to the DLA. Controlled property is provided to local law enforcement agencies as a conditional loan – the DLA retains title to the controlled property and it must be returned to the DOD at the end of its useful life. Property obtained through the 1033 Program must be placed into use within one year of receipt, unless the condition of the property renders it unusable, in which case it must be returned to the DOD. On January 16, 2015, President Obama issued Executive Order No. 13688, “Federal Support for Local Law Enforcement Acquisition.” Section 2 of the Executive Order established the “Law Enforcement Equipment Working Group (“working group”). The working group was charged, in part, with recommending whether local civilian government (non-police) entities should review and authorize a law enforcement agency request to acquire “controlled property.” In May 2015 working group recommended that in addition to the application requirements of individual federal acquisition programs, law enforcement agencies must submit evidence of civilian governing body review and approval of, or concurrence in, the acquisition of requested controlled property. The working group recommendations defined a “governing body” as the institution or organization that has direct budgetary oversight or financial control over the requesting law enforcement agency. Evidence of the governing body’s approval or concurrence should be explicit. However, the working group recommendations also provided that if a law enforcement agency can provide evidence that the governing body was given a reasonable opportunity to review a controlled property acquisition request, but failed to affirmatively approve or disapprove the request, the governing body’s inaction constituted evidence of approval. Subsection b. of section 2 of P.L.2015, c.23 (C.40A:5-30.2) requires the acquisition of any property by a county or municipal law enforcement agency to be approved by a resolution adopted by a majority of the full membership of the governing body of a local unit. An article published on www.nj.com on February 20,2017 reported that according to the New Jersey State Police, only the acquisition of “high-profile items – such as MRAPs or aircraft” is required to be approved by a resolution adopted by a local governing body adopted within 30 days of receiving the piece of equipment.



17

The New Jersey State Police also indicated that the resolution enrolling a municipality in the program, which must also be approved by the governing body, often contains language allowing departments to order smaller ticket items without additional resolutions. In response to an OLS request for information, the DLA has clarified the civilian governing body review requirement as follows: (1) law enforcement agencies appointed chief executives must receive civilian governing body approval prior to requesting excess property listed by the DOD as controlled equipment; and (2) law enforcement agencies with elected chief executives are required to notify the civilian governing body 30 days prior to requesting excess property listed by the DOD as controlled equipment. � Question: Please outline the process that must be followed by a county or

municipal law enforcement agency to acquire controlled property through the 1033 Program. Has the Division of State Police issued guidance to these agencies regarding the civilian governing body review requirement? Does this guidance require local law enforcement agencies to receive governing body approval prior to submitting the request to the State Coordinator in accordance with P.L.2015, c.23? If not, please reconcile any differences between the current process and the requirements of P.L.2015, c.23 and the clarification provided by the Defense Logistics Agency.

Every county or municipal law enforcement agency seeking to participate in the 1033 Program must obtain a resolution from a majority of the full membership of the governing body of the county or municipality authorizing participation in the Program. Local law enforcement agencies apply to participate in the 1033 Program by filing an application through the State Coordinator (who is a member of the State Police). Once approved by the State Coordinator, the application must be approved by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO). After approval by DLA, the law enforcement agency must enter into a memorandum of agreement with the State Coordinator, known as the State Plan of Operation, in which they agree to comply with the terms and conditions of the 1033 Program.

To acquire controlled property through the 1033 Program, the law enforcement agency must submit a request through the State Coordinator. The State Coordinator screens the request and submits approved requests to the DLA. Prior to requesting property through the Program, all participating law enforcement agencies must obtain permission to requisition property in accordance with N.J.S.A. 40A:5-30.2.b. Participating law enforcement agencies must certify compliance with N.J.S.A. 40A:5-30.2 by submitting a statement of compliance, affirming that the local governing body has adopted the resolutions required by law.

In addition to the resolutions required by State law, additional layers of review and approval by DLA is required for the requisition of certain types of controlled property, designated



18

Executive Order Controlled Property, based on the Working Group Report and Recommendations established by Executive Order 13688. When this type of property is requested by a municipal or county law enforcement agency, the DLA requires additional information, including:

o Number of full/PT sworn officers in the agency making the request; o Intended use of the resource and impact of the resource on the requesting

jurisdiction; o Positive impact of the resource on any other jurisdiction beyond the requesting

agency; o Whether the requesting agency is located within an office of national drug

control policy designated High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA); o Whether the requesting agency is involved by mutual agreement with multi-

agency associations/task forces of a counterdrug/counterterrorism nature; o The population of the requesting agency’s jurisdiction; o The type of facility that will be used to store and secure the resource; o Certification that the agency has a Training Plan/Safety Standards which covers

the use of the requested equipment including required annual training protocols, operational and tactical training, scenario-based training, and record-keeping requirements;

o Whether the requesting agency currently has any controlled equipment; o The type of controlled equipment requested including quantity, size, and

capability; o Whether a grant or request for any controlled equipment has been approved by

DOJ,DHS, or any other federal agency; o Whether any prior application for controlled equipment had been denied by any

federal agency; o Whether the agency has the funds to support the operation of the resource

requested; o Certification that the requesting agency has received their civilian governing

body’s review and approval or concurrence of the agency’s acquisition of the requested controlled equipment;

o If the requested equipment is an aircraft, the number of certified pilots, the certifications held, whether the agency has other aircraft, and the estimated number of hours and missions per year.

Only after the DLA review and approval process will a requesting agency be put on the list to acquire any requested Executive Order Controlled Property. Once the property is identified



19

and available, the approved law enforcement agency must accept or decline the property within a certain time period. The State Coordinator has advised all participating law enforcement agencies of the requirements of N.J.S.A. 40A:5-30.2 and Federal Working Group Recommendation for evidence of the governing body’s approval. The guidance does require local law enforcement agencies to receive governing body approval prior to submitting the request to the State Coordinator. However, upon review, it was determined that further clarification is necessary to ensure that the resolutions adopted prior to acquisition provide such authorization with appropriate specificity. This will be reflected in a revised State Plan of Operation and through the dissemination of specific guidance in the form of a model resolution. 12a. In FY 2016 the department commenced a $4 million statewide body worn camera (BWC) initiative to fully equip all New Jersey State Police troopers in the field with the devices. A grant program to provide funding for local police departments to acquire BWCs on a voluntary basis was also instituted. To be eligible a local applicant had to employ permanent, regular police officers.

In response to an OLS inquiry in FY 2017, the department reported that a total of 176 local, county and campus police agencies received funding to purchase over 5,000 BWCs. The Attorney General was able to provide funding for every eligible applicant that requested funds, with a funding cap per BWC of the greater of actual costs or $500.

� Question: Have there been additional requests for State grants for BWCs?

Please explain if there are plans to provide grants for additional BWCs to current grant recipients or local, county and campus police agencies that had not previously applied. In addition to the 176 local, county and campus police agencies which received grants, how many more New Jersey local, county and campus police agencies have acquired and employ BWCs without State funding? Does the State require notice, or have a registration procedure for local, county and campus police agencies prior to their employment of BWCs? What is the estimated annual cost of keeping all State Troopers equipped with BWCs?

In September 2016, the Attorney General announced the availability of $550,000 under the federal Justice Assistance Grant program for additional local, county and campus police agencies to purchase BWCs. Under this program, funding was offered to 37 county and municipal law enforcement agencies to purchase approximately 1,132 BWC cameras with the same funding cap of $500 per BWC package purchased.



20

As of February 2017, approximately 30 local and campus police departments have purchased BWCs without State funding offered through the Office of the Attorney General. New Jersey law enforcement agencies must comply with the July 28, 2015, AG Directive 2015-1, Law Enforcement Directive Regarding Police Body Worn Cameras (BWCs) and Stored BWC Recordings before deploying BWCs. Estimated annual costs are $700,000. 12b. The Attorney General issued Directive No. 2015-1 regarding police body worn cameras. Specifically, Section 8 of the directive requires the storage of body camera recordings for a period at least 90 days. � Question: What is the annual cost of data storage and retention for the

Division for State Police? Is the department providing any financial assistance to local, county, and campus police agencies to offset the costs of data storage and retention? Has there been any change in the requirements regarding the secure disposal of the digital images and records retention?

The DSP BWC program is in an expanded pilot phase. Existing assets are being utilized at no additional cost to DSP. The Department does not provide financial assistance to local, county, or campus police agencies for the costs of data storage or retention. The retention period for BWC footage is outlined in Attorney General Law Enforcement Directive No. 2015 – 1 which states: Police department policies shall specify a retention period for BWC recordings. The period shall be no less than 90 days, with the following additional retention periods:

1.) When a BWC recording pertains to a criminal investigation or prosecution, it shall be treated as evidence and kept in accordance with the retention period for evidence in a criminal prosecution.

2.) When a BWC records an arrest that did not result in prosecution or records the use of police force, the recording shall be kept until the expiration of the statute of limitations for filing a civil complaint against the officer and/or agency.

3.) When a BWC records an incident that is the subject of an internal affairs complaint, the recording shall be kept pending final resolution of the internal affairs investigation and any resulting administrative action.



21

13. On July 18, 2016, the Republican National Convention kicked off in Cleveland, Ohio. Weeks prior there had been several attacks on police officers in Dallas, Texas and Baton Rouge, Louisiana which raised concerns ahead of the convention.

In response to a request from the State of Ohio, troopers from the New Jersey State Police were sent to the Cleveland area to assist in maintaining the peace. The request was received through the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC), a mutual aid agreement. According to a Division of State Police press release, 26 troopers were deployed. � Question: Please describe in detail the support provided by the Department

of Law and Public Safety to the state of Ohio during the Cleveland Republican Convention. How many members of the Division of State Police, including troopers, were deployed? What were the dates of the deployments? What was the cost of this mission to the State of New Jersey? If reimbursement was received, how much was received and from whom?

There were twenty-six State Police troopers deployed to Cleveland Ohio from July 16, 2016 through July 22, 2016 to support the Cleveland Police Department with ensuring the safety of visitors, participants, dignitaries and protestors. Specifically, the Troopers assisted with security, crowd control and general policing duties. The cost of the mission was $151,652, all of which was fully reimbursed by the State of Ohio. 14a. Criminal Justice Reform authorized by the Constitution and implemented under P.L. 2014, c.31 became fully operational Statewide on January 1, 2017. The program provides for pretrial detention of certain criminal defendants; establishes non-monetary bail alternatives for release; and authorizes the Judiciary to revise fees.

Under the program, defendants must undergo a risk assessment to determine their risk of re-offending. This assessment would determine which defendants could be released pending trial. Under the statute, defendants are guaranteed a speedy trial, and if the prosecutor does not adhere to this time frame the defendant will be released from jail. The Governor’s FY 2018 budget (p. D-243) indicates that “in response to the mandated measures outlined in the Bail Reform and Speedy Trial Act” the Division of State Police would require increased funding for the Office of Forensic Sciences.

The Office of Forensic Sciences (OFS) is a section within the New Jersey State Police Investigation Branch. It consists of four physical laboratory locations across the state of New Jersey. These laboratories are located in Hamilton (Mercer), Hammonton, Sea Girt and Little Falls and provide testing and analysis for drugs, toxicology, and arson (the central lab in Hamilton also performs testing for arson, trace evidence, and forensic serology) The Office also operates a DNA laboratory in Hamilton. The four regional crime laboratories and the DNA laboratory are internationally accredited under ISO 17025 standards by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors-Lab Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB). In addition to the regional laboratories mentioned above the OFS also maintains a Forensic Anthropology Laboratory and a Breath Testing Unit.



22

Budget evaluation data (p. D-251) report the number of laboratory cases received growing from 40,265 in FY 2015 to 45,984, 49,800 and 50,000 in FY 2016, FY 2017 and FY 2018 respectively, and number of cases completed at 40,566 in FY 2015, 37,598 in FY 2016, 36,800 in FY 2017 and 41,000 in FY 2018. Regarding DNA analysis, budget evaluation data (p. D-252) show cases received growing from 4,934 in FY 2015 to 5,338 in FY 2016, then declining to 5,200 in both FY 2017 and FY 2018. The data further report completed DNA cases of 5,147 in FY 2015, 4,788 in FY 2016 and 5,100 in both FY 2017 and FY 2018. In both types of cases the data suggest a growing backlog of uncompleted cases. The FY 2018 budget reduces appropriations related to enhancing the DNA lab from $1.6 million to $1.1 million. Other information indicates a $3.2 million increase in FY 2018 appropriations from general resources to OFS for bail reform-related costs, and an intention to increase motor vehicle fines dedicated to the DNA forensic lab fund to generate an additional $3.7 million. The FY 2018 budget thus appears to provide a net increase of $6.4 million to the OFS. � Question: What is the total FY 2017 appropriation, from both budgeted

appropriations and appropriated off-budget revenues, for the Office of Forensic Sciences? What is the recommended appropriation to the OFA for FY 2018 from all State sources? For what specific purposes, e.g., additional staff, equipment, will additional funding be allocated? What specific additional costs are the direct results of implementing P.L. 2014, c.31? What additional costs are being incurred in FY 2017, and from sources will the OFA meet those costs?

The total appropriation from both budgeted and appropriated off-budgeted revenues for the Office of Forensic Science (OFS) in FY 2017 $19.3 million. This includes NJ DNA Forensic Lab revenue, Enhanced DNA Testing (Special Purpose), DNA Laboratory Enhancement (Special Purpose), Central Lab Operations accounts and State Police salary accounts. The recommended OFS appropriation in FY 2018 for all State resources is $22.5 million. This increase includes $3.2 million in growth funding for salary and equipment to address additional testing requests, backlogs as well as needs related to Bail Reform.

Equipment Needs Item Quantity Cost Total

Gas Chromatograph Mass Spectrometer 4 $100,000 $400,000

Annual Maintenance Spectrometer 4 $5,000 $20,000 Scale/Balance 10 $4,000 $40,000 Computers/Laptop 10 $1,500 $15,000 Microscopes 10 $2,500 $25,000 Total: $500,000



23

OFS will continue to monitor and analyze the costs associated with the Statewide implementation of P.L. 2014, c.31. � Question: Please identify any other anticipated costs to the department,

including by not limited to the Division of State Police associated with implementing the requirements of P.L. 2014, c.31. What difficulties does the department anticipate in adhering to the speedy trial aspect of the new Criminal Justice Reform law? What obstacles, if any, has the department encountered thus far? Is the department providing any financial resources to support the county prosecutors? And if so, what is the policy for determining the amount of assistance any county receives? What sources of funding are being used for this assistance?

The Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ) does not anticipate that it will incur any significant costs associated with implementing the requirements of P.L. 2014, c.31. The focus of DCJ, has been on the reallocation of resources to ensure compliance with the mandates of Criminal Justice Reform. On an immediate basis, there is a need for equipment to facilitate participation in Virtual Court proceedings and undertake complaint screening requirements by Deputy Attorneys General. DCJ does not anticipate any significant difficulties complying with the speedy indictment/trial requirements of Criminal Justice Reform. In a large percentage of prosecutions handled by the Division, criminal proceedings commence with an indictment by the State Grand Jury. Further, because it has had an Escalating Plea Policy in place for some time now, the Division is well-positioned to manage its caseload through disposition either by plea agreement or trial. The Department does not provide financial resources to support county prosecutors. 14b. In addition, due to the rise of case submissions to the Office of Forensic Sciences and the resultant backlog, a request was granted in 2016 by the Civil Service Commission for approval for individuals with the titles of Forensic Scientist 1 and 2 in the Division of State Police, to receive cash compensation at 1.5 times the regular rate for hours worked between 35 and 40 until April 30, 2017. � Question: Has the requested increase in hours for forensic scientists

equated to a decrease in the backlog? If not, please provide an overview of how the department plans to decrease the backlog. Please provide an estimate of overtime expenditures for forensic staff for FY 2017.



24

While the overtime has not yet decreased the backlog due to the huge increase in drug submissions to all four (4) regional laboratories, the rate of backlog growth has significantly subsided. In the first quarter of CY 2017, the OFS has received 10,837 cases which projects out to 43,348 for the entire CY 2017. In CY 2016, the laboratory system received 38,688 cases, which was a 21% increase over CY 2015 (setting a then-record for cases received in one year, which OFS is on pace to break this year). In March 2017, 4,008 cases were submitted to the system, an unprecedented all-time high for one month. In the same month, the laboratory system completed 3,230 cases. The number of completed cases was approximately 1,000 more cases completed per month than the 2016 average of cases completed per month. However, due to the increased number of cases submitted, the backlog increased by 738 cases. The projected overtime for FY 2017 for forensic staff is estimated at $665,000. OFS has received approval to hire 40 new scientists with a majority earmarked to work in the drug units of each laboratory. They will have to be trained and certified before their efforts have a positive impact on reducing the backlog. 15. Law enforcement may currently confiscate money or property used in the commission of a crime or property acquired from the proceeds of a crime from an individual or business suspected of committing an illegal act. As forfeiture is legal action against property, the individual or business may be required by the court to forfeit the confiscated money or property related to the violation to a prosecuting law enforcement agency (federal, State, or local). The money derived from the property and cash forfeited are considered forfeiture funds. In February Governor Christie vetoed Senate Bill No. 2267 of 2016 which would have required county and state prosecutors to publish information about how they use civil courts to seize property from criminal investigations. The bill was meant to provide transparency about the practice in New Jersey; however, the Governor stated that such public disclosure would unnecessarily "hamper ongoing law enforcement operations" and "jeopardize" public safety. In reviewing State statutes, State appropriations acts, and guidance from Standard Operating Procedures (SOP’s) issued by the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General, it appears that forfeiture money may not be used to pay for salaries or other fixed costs. In New Jersey, forfeiture funds have been used for various law enforcement purposes including, but not limited to, gun buyback programs, body camera grant programs, upgrading case management computer systems, and law enforcement training.

The department’s responses to the FY 2017 OLS budget questions indicated that FY 2016 forfeiture allocations supported funding for Division of State Police (DSP) capital improvements, new license plate readers, and a new breathalyzer system, as well as other



25

smaller equipment, and information technology needs. The department noted that DSP also uses the funds for confidential, undercover, and witness protection needs. The FY 2018 Governor’s recommended budget anticipates $3.25 million in revenues from forfeitures in FY 2017 and FY 2018 (pages C-5 and C-13). � Question: Please provide an accounting of State forfeiture proceeds for the

last two completed fiscal years, FY 2015 and FY 2016, including: opening balance, amounts received by type of asset seized, the purposes for which funds were allocated and the amounts allocated, and year-end closing balance. What are the spending plans for forfeiture funds for FY 2017 and FY 2018, respectively?

Forfeiture funds are prioritized for law enforcement purposes as needs arise and based upon the availability of funds. The State Forfeiture Administration Program Standard Operating Procedures prohibit the commitment of funds before they are received. Forfeiture funds also support the Division of State Police (DSP), and the Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ) confidential, undercover and witness protection needs, as well as DCJ equipment and law enforcement training and supports both the Computer Crimes and Electronic Surveillance Units. Please see attachment M regarding forfeiture spending for FY 15 and FY 16. 16. Although more recent 2017 news accounts detail increased violence and shootings in some of the State's major cities, CY 2016 crime statistics reflect a decrease in overall crime in Newark. From CY 2015 to CY 2016, of nine crime categories tracked internally by the Newark police department, only aggravated assaults showed an increase. According to department statistics, the total number of homicides, shootings, robberies, and other violent crimes committed decreased. Media reports cited Newark department officials who claimed that that the overall crime rate in Newark is the lowest since 1967.

State aid of $2 million from the Property Tax Relief Fund, which was appropriated to coordinate efforts in suppressing crime in Essex County, has been recommended for eliminated from the FY 2018 proposed budget. � Question: Please provide an overview of how the appropriation for Essex

Crime Prevention has been expended since its FY 2015 inception. In which communities have the grant funds been utilized? Please explain why the funding is been eliminated. Is there any intent to sustain this funding through another source? Are federal or other funds being expended for the same purpose in addition to this appropriation?

The appropriation, earmarked for crime suppression within Essex County, has been allocated to both the Essex County Sheriff’s Department and the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office. The



26

Essex County Sheriff’s Department has used the funding to pay necessary overtime expenditures related to criminal investigation and crime suppression throughout the County. The Essex County Prosecutor’s Office has utilized the remainder to partially fund necessary overtime expenditures of two County-wide taskforces, the Homicide Task Force and the Narcotics Task Force. The Essex County Prosecutor’s Office intends to maintain both The Homicide Task Force and the Narcotics Taskforce as it continues to seek alternative revenue sources to support the necessary overtime expenditures. 17. On March 21, 2017, the Christie Administration announced a $1 million statewide grant for nonprofit and religious institutions in nine counties to improve security: Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester, Mercer, Salem, and Warren. According to a press release issued by the Governor’s office, the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security will oversee the grants to eligible nonprofit organizations. Eligible nonprofit organizations are those organizations described under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which have been determined by the New Jersey Director of Homeland Security and Preparedness (OSHP) to be at high risk of terrorist attack and are located in the aforementioned nine counties. Approved applicants will be eligible for an award not to exceed $50,000 and matching funds are not required to receive the grant.

The State grant reportedly will reimburse awardees for allowable costs for the acquisition and installation of security equipment, such as physical security enhancement equipment and inspection and screening systems, specifically to prevent and protect against terrorism. Nonprofit organizations in New Jersey’s other 12 counties already are eligible to receive similar security funding through the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Nonprofit Security Grant Program, which OHSP also administers, as these counties are in the federal Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) designated urban areas.

� Question: Please provide the status of the implementation of the grant

program by OSHP. Please provide the criteria the OHSP will use to award grants to nonprofit and religious institutions. What sources of funding are being utilized for this initiative? How long will the OSHP continue to offer these grants? Unlike the federal USAI Nonprofit security grant program, will this grant support employment of short-term security costs for personnel for special events or religious observances and holidays?

OHSP announced the SECUR-NJ Notice of Available Funding in March 2017. An Applicant Workshop for eligible non-profit organizations will occur on April 19, 2017. Applications are due May 24, 2017 and awards are expected on or before July 7, 2017.



27

A scoring process will be employed that leverages “risk” (threat/vulnerability/consequence) identified by the applicants, as well as an assessment of the impact of the security/target hardening proposals. Scoring teams, consisting of security experts, will evaluate and rank the applications. The funding source for the program is OHSP State Aid. Successful applicants are limited to specific equipment purchases based on an authorized equipment list. Personnel costs are ineligible. SECUR-NJ is a reimbursement program where recipients are required to front all approved expenses. 18. Ransomware is a type of malicious software or malware designed to block access to a computer system until a sum of money is paid. Although ransomware is usually aimed at individuals, it has been reaching hospitals, colleges, TV stations, state and local governments, and even police departments.

Recent media reports cite a string of attacks on police departments. The Cockrell Hill, Texas police department lost eight years’ of digital evidence after a ransomware attack on its computer systems December of 2016. The department refused to pay the requested ransom. The FBI’s Cybercrimes unit and the police department’s IT support staff determined that the best way to scrub all remnants of the virus was to wipe the server of all affected files. They destroyed all Microsoft Office documents, bodycam video, certain photos, certain in-car video, and some police department surveillance video dating back as early as 2009. The Tewksbury, Massachusetts police department paid $500 to free up town files that had been encrypted by the ransomware, which locks down hard drives until the owners pay the requested sum of money. In November 2013, a Swansea, Massachusetts, police department paid $750 for a decryption key after the department was attacked. The police departments suffered the same type of attacks in Durham, New Hampshire and Collinsville, Alabama.

In early March of 2017, the computer network of the Pennsylvania Senate Democratic Caucus remained inaccessible after a cyber-attack locked lawmakers out of their own computer systems.

A recent Government Technology article stated that although public-sector problems with ransomware had been not as apparent, with 35 states and local governments reporting problems in 2014, the FBI warned that the problem was on the rise. It is forecasted that ransomware attacks will double in CY 2017. � Question: Please provide an overview of how the Office of Information

Technology, the Department of Law and Public Safety, and the NJ Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness are working together to protect and prepare our police departments and local governments Statewide, as well as State departments and agencies, from ransomware attacks. How many incidents of malware attacks on New Jersey public agencies have been documented in 2015, 2016, and 2017 to date? How many of those affected law enforcement agencies? What were the worst impacts of these attacks? Have directives been issued to ensure that digital evidence is being backed up and



28

protected to prevent loss? Does the State have the financial resources and manpower to combat this threat? Please explain.

The New Jersey Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Cell (NJCCIC) acts as the State's one-stop shop for cybersecurity information sharing, threat analysis, and incident reporting. Located at the Regional Operations Intelligence Center (ROIC), the NJCCIC brings together NJ Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness (OHSP) analysts, Office of Information Technology (OIT) engineers, and Department of Law and Public Safety law enforcement personnel, specifically the NJ State Police (NJSP) to promote Statewide awareness of local cyber threats and the widespread adoption of best practices. Members of the NJCCIC work in concert to defend the networks and systems of the Executive Branch of NJ State Government and to increase the digital resilience of all of NJ against cyber attacks. Protection and Preparation In order to protect and prepare State, Local, and Federal government organizations including police departments from ransomware and other cyber threats the NJCCIC shares cybersecurity alerts, advisories, weekly bulletins, and other information via direct email communications, social media outlets, and its website, http://www.cyber.nj.gov. The NJCCIC, has published several intelligence products including Ransomware: Lucrative Cyber Crime Tactics Rapidly Evolving (July 2015) in an effort to warn both the public and private sectors of the growing threat of crypto-ransomware used in cyber extortion schemes. The product includes an analytic assessment, a threat overview, an explanation of how ransomware infections occur, mitigation strategies, along with an initial list of 11 known active variants targeting numerous sectors and platforms. Following the release of that product, the NJCCIC posted a Ransomware Threat Profile on its website to make its ransomware information publicly available and accessible to all site visitors. This threat profile is actively maintained and now contains information about 153 known ransomware variants, including infection and distribution methods, key features, and publicly available decryption tools. Additional information about the growing ransomware threat has been included in subsequent NJCCIC intelligence products including Ransomware: An Enduring Risk to Organizations and Individuals (February 2016) and Ransomware: Poised to Cause More Disturbance, Losses in 2017 (March 2017). Information contained in these products has been included in numerous NJCCIC training presentations and briefings, and recently, the NJCCIC developed a ransomware-specific awareness and training program designed to give both end users and information technology professionals a thorough understanding of ransomware while providing actionable mitigation strategies that are effective in preventing and containing an infection. The NJCCIC is also currently developing a Ransomware online training program.



29

OHSP and OIT work with Executive Branch Departments and Agencies to implement layered security controls intended to mitigate the risks of infection from ransomware or other forms of malware, as well as to defend against other cyber threats. With email being the primary attack vector for ransomware, OHSP has deployed and maintains email filtering technologies that block approximately 80% of the four (4) million inbound email messages to NJ State Government addresses on a daily basis. The remaining 20% of inbound emails are deemed to pose no cybersecurity threat and are delivered to their intended recipients. The Departments and Agencies across the Executive Branch use web-filtering technologies to block malware from entering the network from employees browsing the web. Anti-virus/anti-malware software is installed on servers, desktop, and laptop computers. Additionally, OHSP has implemented intrusion detection and prevention systems to further monitor and block attacks against Executive Branch networks and systems. All Executive Branch personnel must complete annual security awareness training that includes training on detecting suspicious email, proper cyber hygiene, and incident reporting. Further, Executive Branch Departments and Agencies are required by policy to back up critical systems and data. Combined, these administrative and technical controls provide the Executive Branch of NJ State Government with the means to mitigate the risk of a ransomware infection. Incident Response The NJCCIC works in tandem with the NJSP Cyber Crimes Unit to provide assistance to victims who have reported ransomware incidents, assisting with variant identification, providing information about potential attack vectors, distribution methods and, in a few cases, decryption of encrypted files. Should forensic evidence need to be preserved for a criminal investigation the NJSP will collect the evidence and conduct the investigation. In 2016, the first ransomware reports were made to the NJCCIC. In 2016, 61% of the cyber incidents reported to the NJCCIC involved ransomware. To date in 2017, the NJCCIC has received sixteen (16) reports of ransomware incidents, eight (8) of which involved victims within the New Jersey law enforcement and government sectors. Five (5) victims in 2017 and two (2) in 2016 resorted to paying the ransom due to either a lack of viable data backups or the fact that backups were impacted by the ransomware variant. However, many incident outcomes are unknown, as the initial point of contact did not provide any further information beyond the initial incident report. We estimate that many ransomware incidents go unreported. Ransomware Growth In 2015, there were 11 known variants of ransomware and today there are over 150. While the primary attack vector is still phishing emails, new methods of infection are under development including malicious website downloads, and more recently, brute force intrusions that installs ransomware directly on the compromised systems. The growth of ransomware will continue to accelerate because of the anonymity and profitability of its



30

execution. The use of bitcoin payments and even hosted ransomware service sites provides a level of separation between the criminal and the crime that will keep ransomware attacks viable. As criminals seek to maximize their profits, we can expect to see advancements that increase the spread and virulence of ransomware campaigns. NJ State and Local government organizations, Federal and International authorities, as well as private industry will need to work together to combat ransomware. The NJCCIC currently works with organizations around the world to identify new ransomware variants and to develop and make accessible decryption tools. However, ransomware is only one of many threats with which NJ needs to be concerned. Over the past several years there have been dramatic increases in network intrusions, data breaches, and during the most recent presidential election season, attacks against election systems. As the world continues to become more and more connected and an Internet of Things (IoT) is realized, NJ will need to continue to dedicate resources to ensure that the State is digitally resilient to cyber-attacks. 19. The Governor’s FY 2018 Recommended Budget included the addition of the following language for the Juvenile Justice Commission (JJC) regarding revenue proceeds from kiosks (p. D-265):

Notwithstanding the provisions of any law or regulation to the contrary, amounts collected by the Juvenile Justice Commission as commissions in connection with the provision of services for residents at resident kiosks, including automated banking, video visitation, electronic mail, and related services, and any unexpended balance at the end of the preceding fiscal year in that account are appropriated to offset departmental costs associated with the provision of such services and other materials and services that directly benefit the resident population, subject to the approval of the Director of the Division of Budget and Accounting.

As noted in the FY 2015-2016 OLS Analysis of the Department of Corrections (DOC),

the State entered into a contract with JPay Inc. on February 12, 2013 for the provision of inmate money and kiosk services. DOC installed kiosks in correctional facilities starting in January 2015. The kiosks provide inmates with access to an electronic grievance and remedy form, their inmate trust account balance, a secured email system through JPay’s closed system, music and eBooks purchases, and MP3 player purchases. DOC noted that there would be no fee charged for the grievance and remedy system or for the inmate to check the Inmate Trust account balance; however, the inmates would be charged for the purchase of e-stamps for email and for the purchase of an MP3 player and any music they load onto the MP3 Player.



31

� Question: What is the plan for the JJC kiosk placement? Will the kiosks be available for both secure and day facilities? When will these services be delivered to the JJC facilities? What services will be offered? What will the fees be for each of the services? What revenues are projected for FY 2018? Did the JJC study DOCs experience with kiosks before deciding to offer them in JJC facilities? If so, what will be the differences and similarities between the JJC kiosk services and those provided to inmates at the DOC facilities?

JJC residents in both secure and residential facilities will have access to the JPay kiosk system. The JJC is in the process of scheduling site visits at all its facilities to determine the best placement for the JPay kiosks. The resident population at the facilities, in addition to other factors such as facility configuration and staffing, will dictate the number of kiosks that will be installed. A delivery date cannot be provided at this time. JJC preliminarily plans to offer the below services in a “phased” approach:

Phase 1 - Grievance filing, E-mail services, Music, and E-books; Phase 2 – Debits, Collection of Payment/Fines, and Games; and Phase 3 – Educational Book (Online/Classwork).

Anticipated fees are as follows:

1) In-bound e-mails - $0.40 (up to 12 lines of text or 1,000 characters); 2) Out-bound e-mails - $0.40; (up to 12 lines of text or 1,000 characters); 3) E-Books – Varying costs (from $2.99 - $25.00); 4) Songs – Varying costs (from $1.99 - $4.99) if made available; and 5) Games - Varying costs (from $2.99 - $25.00) if made available;

The JJC has studied the Department of Correction’s (DOC) experience with kiosks and met with the appropriate DOC staff at New Jersey State Prison (NJSP) to examine the possibility of implementing the JPay system at all JJC facilities. 20. The FY 2018 Governor’s recommended budget continues budget language (p. D-275), to permit the Attorney General to reallocate up to $7 million from the unexpended appropriation balances of State professional boards, advisory boards, and committees to other departmental purposes. The FY 2016 budget authorized the reallocation of $35.5 million for similar purposes. In response to an OLS inquiry in FY 2017, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) indicated that the entire $35.5 million reduction in unexpended balances was not yet complete and that the Attorney General’s Office would work with the Division of Consumer Affairs to determine which boards would be affected in FY 2016 and FY 2017.



32

The FY 2015 budget provided the original language authorizing the Attorney General to reallocate up to $50 million in unexpended balances from State professional boards, advisory boards, and committees to offset budget reductions to the Division of State Police ($25 million) and Criminal Justice ($25 million).

According to the OMB, in 2015 the following boards were the source of $50 million in FY 2015 transfers, or approximately 50 percent of the projected FY 2015 unexpended balances:

�� !�� #��!��&+�� <�=��<��!�Advisory Committee: $1.6 million ��#� <�� >�� ? �+��@<��+!�#�X��!�Z�� >�� ?+��>�� [��#++��>�� Z<��+�� \�� Board of Accountancy: $1 million ��&� ��]��^�� =<�� !��\__`___

� Question: Please list each board and committee from which balances were

transferred in FY 2016, the amount transferred, and the percentage of total available resources transferred. Please provide the same actual or estimated information for FY 2017 and FY 2018.

In FY 2016, the unexpended balances for the following Professional Boards were reallocated:

� Board of Accountancy: $475,000 � Board of HVAC: $1,620,000 � Board of Dentistry: $1,200,000 � Board of Architects: $950,000 � Board of Professional Engineers: $600,000 � Board of Medical Examiners: $10,500,000 � Board of Nursing: $8,000,000 � Board of Optometry: $300,000 � Board of Pharmacy: $505,000 � Board of Veterinary Medicine: $700,000 � Board of Court Reporting: $100,000 � Board of Ophthalmic Dispensers: $1,150,000 � Board of Professional Planners: $700,000



33

� Board of Psychological Examiners: $850,000 � Board of Master Plumbers: $1,200,000 � Board of Marriage & Family Therapy: $1,500,000 � Board of Chiropractic Examiners: $500,000 � Board of Physical Therapy: $1,200,000 � Board of Audiology: $550,000 � Board of Real Estate Appraisers: $1,250,000 � Board of Respiratory Care: $500,000 � Board of Social Workers: $250,000 � Board of Occupational Therapy: $700,000 � Board of Polysomnography: $200,000

FY 2017 anticipates the reallocation of the projected unexpended balances for the following Professional Boards:

� Board of Medical Examiners: $4,500,000 � Board of Nursing: $1,500,000 � Board of Pharmacy: $400,000 � Board of Physical Therapy: $200,000 � Board of Social Workers: $400,000

The transfer to occur in FY 2018 will be determined after the completion of the transfer in FY 2017 and the end of the fiscal year. 21. A chiropractic assistant license, administered by the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners, was established pursuant to P.L.2015, c.283. In order to qualify for licensure initially, a person must pay applicable fees, complete an education program, pass a competency exam, and complete practical clinical training. This law became effective on July 17, 2016 and allows a license to be issued biennially.

The department’s responses to the FY 2017 OLS budget questions indicated the Board anticipated the number of chiropractic assistants to apply for licensure would be approximately 100-150. Expected startup costs included Division of Law fees in the amount of $6,000 necessary for new regulations, as well as technology costs of approximately $18,000 to set up the licensing system for online applications and license issuance. At the time of the questions, the Board was evaluating rates and fees. � Question: Please describe in detail the initial costs of administering the

program (e.g., new regulations, technology). How is staff allocated to support this license program? How many people have applied for licensure as a chiropractic assistant and how many people were issued a license? What fees,



34

and at what rates, is the board imposing for licensing chiropractic assistants? What are the board’s projections for future licensure revenues and administrative expenditures?

Given the small amount of expected licensees, at this time, there would not be an additional allocation necessary for more staff. The Board has voted to propose regulations to implement the law. Licenses will not be issued to chiropractic assistants until the regulations are formally proposed and adopted. At this time, the regulations are undergoing Departmental review. Once approved, the regulations, including a fee structure, will be published in the NJ Register for public comment. 22. In the FY 2016 Budget, an appropriation of $250,000 was allocated to the Board of Nursing to process the home health aide application backlog. In response to a FY 2017 discussion point question, the Division of Consumer Affairs noted that additional temporary and full-time employees were hired, which improved efficiencies in the board’s application review process reducing application waiting times. Also, as part of the board’s new process, instead of sending a deficiency notice by letter, staff calls or emails an applicant or third party to address the deficiency more promptly. The division previously indicated that 40 percent of applications were missing documentation or information. � Question: Please list, by month, the number of pending applications and

work permits issued in 2015, 2016, and 2017 YTD. How successful has staff been at collecting the necessary documentation and processing an application, and within what time frame?

As part of the Board’s new process, Board staff will make a phone call or send an email to an applicant (or third party) that has a deficient application in order to address the deficiency as promptly as possible. If the staff does not receive the addition document(s) requested, a deficiency letter is always sent to the applicant. As a result, there are at least two attempts to communicate with the applicant (and/or third party) to correct the deficiency. Additionally, close to 75 percent of all home health aide applications are received with some missing documentation or information, not 40 percent as indicated above. The initial phone call/email by Board staff has had the effect of reducing that percentage to approximately 50 percent that are still deficient in some way, necessitating the sending of a deficiency letter and additional expenditures of board resources. This outreach occurs within the first 24-28 hours of review. Applications that are received without deficiencies, or corrected via initial outreach as described above, are processed, on average, in approximately 10-14 days. Those



35

applications that require a deficiency letter to be sent to the applicant require more time to complete due to several factors outside the control of the Board. Specifically, the applicant must obtain the necessary information and send it back before staff is able to proceed in processing the application. As a result, time frames of processing deficient applications vary on a case-by-case basis due to differences in response time from each applicant to correct deficiencies Please see attached chart (attachment N) which includes the work permits issued by month and work permits pending from 2015 to present. 23. Certified Home Health Aides (CHHAs) work under the direction of registered professional nurses to provide health-related or personal care services in the homes of clients who are elderly, sick, or disabled. According to the department, in the last decade the number of CHHAs certified to work in the state has increased from 26,618 to 43,506. As the number of vulnerable clients receiving home-based care and services grows, the potential for abuse and other patient-related crimes increases.

On December 22, 2016, the Division of Consumer Affairs unveiled its “Safe Care Cam” program. The program makes surveillance cameras available free for 30 days to people who are under the care of CHHAs. The program is designed to help deter and sanction or punish aides who engage in that behavior.

� Question: How many certified home health aides have had their licenses

suspended since the “Safe Care Cam” program’s inception in FY 2017? How does the number of CHHAs disciplined in FY 2017 compare with prior years? What feedback has the division received from stakeholders since the program started? How long will the division offer the program? What funds have been expended to support the program? How many clients have participated in the program to date?

There have been 62 home health aides disciplined thus far in 2017. In 2016, there were a total of 306 disciplinary actions taken by the Board of Nursing against home health aides, which is a significant increase over the 205 disciplinary actions taken in 2015. The feedback the Division has received has been overwhelmingly positive from consumers who have participated in the Safe Care Cam program. The Division will continue to offer the program for the foreseeable future. The Division is considering expanding the program to include institutionalized settings (i.e., assisted living facilities, nursing homes). The cost of the program to date has been approximately $12,500 to purchase equipment necessary for this initiative. Two (2) staff members provide part-time phone and administrative support to consumers.



36

24a. The Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) administers the manufacture, distribution, and sale of alcoholic beverages, and imposes certain statutory and regulatory fees. It appears that the division established an online licensing system, POSSE, which went live in 2015 for State issued licenses. � Question: Please provide an overview of the capabilities and limitations of

the new online licensing system. Are there updates planned for the POSSE system? What feedback has the division received from licensees using the POSSE system? Specifically for limited breweries, plenary and farm wineries, and craft distilleries, can the application process be completed entirely the through the division’s website? If not, does the division have plans to make the streamlined application process possible?

The Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) will be conducting the third license renewal season using the online system POSSE. The system allows for automated renewal notifications and a streamlined process for the user to renew. The Wholesale/State Issued licensees can also apply for and renew all of their licenses and permits online. All brand registrations and renewals are conducted online. POSSE maintains a municipal portal that enables each town to view the same data as ABC, approve applications, and submit to the ABC. The licensees also have a portal where they can view all of their licenses and permits at any time. Payment is accepted by both credit card and e-check. ABC will continue to research and design enhancements to further provide a user friendly and effective system. ABC is designing an additional public portal for Chiefs of Police to have an active role in its system similar to the municipal clerks. Certain event type permits require their approval. ABC will be implementing a process that specifically deals with this interaction which will broaden our communication with the law enforcement community. One limitation would be the inability for online applications for Retail licenses. ABC chose not to make this application available on-line given the potential for confusion by the public.

Most of the feedback received has been positive. Licensees appreciate the ease of the system and the functions that have been implemented. The change did result in some confusion and resistance, however attributable to individuals less experienced with web based products or computers in general.

The application process for the State-issued licenses such as breweries, wineries, and distilleries can be done entirely online with the exception of fingerprinting. The applicant is provided a list of requirements and the ability to upload any documentation that they may have at the time of applying. Only two items were made mandatory; Corporate Structure documentation and Premise Information. Other supporting documentation or information is not mandatory because we want to establish a connection with the applicant as soon as



37

possible. This provides ABC with the ability to guide the applicant in supplying the appropriate documentation, and there is a specific enhancement for these types of applications. Currently, once the applicant has submitted its application, it is not able to submit any additional documents through the system and must send it in separately. The enhancement will open the access to the applicant to continue to submit missed documents that are requested and we will be able to track the application status at any time. 24b. The recent growth in the popularity of craft beer, wines, and distilled spirits reflects the public’s thirst for local, unique beverages, and New Jerseyans have responded by establishing and supporting limited breweries, plenary and farm wineries, and craft distilleries. In order to brew or manufacturer these craft beverages commercially (and not as a home brewer), a person must have a manufacturer’s license pursuant to R.S.33:1-10. The enactment of P.L.2012, c.47 revised the law governing brewery licenses, resulting in a proliferation of limited brewery license (craft breweries) applicants and increased production of beer. One of the revisions reduced the State license fee, which enabled more amateur or enthusiast brewers to consider commercially brewing. � Question: Please explain the application process for limited breweries,

plenary and farm wineries, and craft distilleries. What documentation is required to accompany the applications for limited breweries, plenary and farm wineries, and craft distilleries? By type of license, how many applications for limited breweries, plenary and farm wineries, and craft distilleries were received in FY 2017 and how many were approved, rejected, or are pending? What is the average time frame for issuance of a license from the initial application for limited breweries, plenary and farm wineries, and craft distilleries, respectively? Of the applications for limited breweries, plenary and farm wineries, and craft distilleries received by the ABC, what percentage required amendments or corrections? What are ABCs procedures regarding deficient applications?

Limited breweries, plenary and farm wineries, and craft distilleries are all manufacturing licenses. All manufacturing licenses have the same application requirements. The documentation required includes: NJABC Application, Federal TTB Permit, NJ Beverage Tax Bond, Affidavit of Qualification, Affidavit of Publication, Certificate of Formation or Incorporation, NJ Business Registrations, Lease or Deed to represent possessory interest, site plan and/or photos of the proposed licensed premise, banking information and/or tax documents to reflect the capital investors and the source of funding. These documents are listed on line and some examples are provided to the applicant. The Division also sends notices of applications to mayors and police chiefs. Fingerprinting is conducted on all primary investors. The statistics of applications received since July 1, 2016:



38

o Craft Distilleries: 14 applications since Oct. 6, 2016; Two approved; some pending have been issued Temporary Permits to begin operating.

o Farm Wineries: Two applications since Dec. 16, 2016; both pending. One

applicant did not receive approval from the Pinelands Commission.

o Limited Breweries: 16 applications; One approved; Many pending have been issued Temporary Permits to begin operating; ABC is waiting for additional documentation from each of these applicants.

o Plenary Wineries: Three applications since Sept. 16, 2016: 1 approved.

No manufacturing applications have been denied. The average time frame for issuance is between four weeks to six months. There is a shorter wait at the State level for applicants that have received all of their approvals from the municipality and the federal government. Some of these manufacturing applications are received prior to the applicant acquiring its federal TTB Permit, municipal ordinance approvals or even Certificate of Occupancies. Of all applications submitted to ABC, 100% require additional information or amended information. Upon completion of application reviews, a list of the deficiencies is sent to the applicant.

ATTACHMENT A

FFY 2014 VOCA Spending Plan

Competitive Victim Assistance GI-ants (VAGs) $ 2,126,481County Prosecutor's Victim Witness Advocacy Offices $ 4,679,633CoLu~ty Prosecutors SART/FNE Programs $ 926,272DCJ State Pay To SART/FNEs $ 3,010,905DCJ Victim Information &Notification Everyday (V.LN.E.) $ 643,950Womanspace $ 40,727Atlantic County Women's Center -Hwnan Trafficking Initiative $ 280,000Program Administration $ 620,831Unallocated Balance $ 87,835

Total 2014 VOCA Allocation $ 12,416,634

FFY 2015 VOCA Spending PlanAllocation Of Funds

Duration Period: 10/1/14 - 9/30/18

Programs Allocation SummaryUpdated a-7-t 7

Competitive Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $21,250,238.00 (1/I /16 - 12/31/17) - Yr.l $10,625,119 -Awarded. Yr. 2 $10,625,119 - In award rocess

County Prosecutor's Victim Witness Advocacy Offices -Continuation $3,687,616.00 CY 2016 -Various start and end dates. Most of the subgrants have been awarded.

County Prosecutor's Victim Witness Advocacy Offices -Extension/Interim $397,047.00 Amount needed to take all counties to an end date of 6/30/17. Applications recently emailed tocounties and not due back to this office for 8 weeks.

County Prosecutor's Victim Witness Advocacy Offices -Supplemental $6,868,585.00 X10/1/16 - 3/31/18) Original allocation $8.4M and each county could apply for up to $400K. Allap lications have been received and are being reviewed by the Analyst.

County Prosecutor's Victim Witness Advocacy Offices $7,500,000.00(7/1/17 - 6/30/18) -All 21 counties will now operate on a 7/1 - 6/30 grant cyc►e. Funding wasincreased to include recurring costs from the continuation and supplemental programs and to allowfor new budget items, including but not limited to hiring municipal court advocates.

County Prosecutors SART/FNE Programs $1,797,530.00 (10/1/16 - 9/30/17) -All applications have been received and are being reviewed by the Analyst.

DCJ State Pay Program To SART/FNEs $1,195,412.00 (10/1/IS - 9/30116) Awarded

DCJ State Pay Program To SART/FNEs $1,337,624.00 (10/1/16-9/30J17) DCJ Project

DCJ Victim Information &Notification Everyday (V.I.N.E.} $330,000.00 (7/1/17-6/30/18) DCJ Project

Womanspace Hotline $150,000.00 (1/1/17-12/31/17) Application has been emailed to agency and due back mid Feb.

Atlantic County Women's Center -Human Trafficking Initiative $1,000,000.00 (7/1/16-12/31/17) -Awarded

DHS - Division' On Aging -Office Of the Public Guardian For Elderly Adults $400,000.00 (3/1/17 - 2/28/18) -Application to be emailed to subrecipients on 1/27/17

Rutgers University -College Sexual Assault Initiative $2,500,000.00 (4/1/17 - 6/30/18) -Application to be emailed to subrecipient on 1/27/17

Rutgers NJ State Victim Assistance Academy $250,000.00 (09/1/17 - 08/31/18) Prior funding under the VOCA Training @ $150K

DCJ -Regional State Victim Witness Advocacy Program $750,000.00 New initiative to be developed. Allocation subject to change

JJC Programs $1,500,000.00 New initiative to be developed. Allocation subject to change

Program Adminstration Division on Women (Vision 21) $500,000.00 Vision 21 initiative currently being developed. Allocation subject to change

Program Administration (Vision 21) $875,000.00 Vision 21 initiative currently being developed. Allocation subject to change

Program Administration $1,324,600.00 NA

A vailable/Unallocated Balance ~379,OI5.00 AvailablelUnczllocated Balance

Total Allocation

NOTES5%Maximum Allowable For Administration And TrainingMax allowable for training (1°/o of Award) and included in the Adm amountActual Administration And Training Funds

Funding to L&PS programs cannot exceed 10% of Total AwardActual funding to L&PS projects

X53,992,667.00

$2,699,633.35

$2,699,600.00

$5,399,266.70$5,113,036.00

yy

y

FFY 2016 VOCA Spending PlanAllocation Of Funds

Duration Period: 10/1/2015 - 9/30/2019

Programs Allocation Summary

Competitive Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $36,000,000.00 (10/1/17 - 9/30/19) 2yrs. - @.$300K Approx 120 applicants

County Prosecutor's Victim Witness Advocacy Offices $7,500,000.00 (7/1/18-6/30/19) Continuation funding. Amount may be revised depending on lst yr. performance

County Prosecutors SART/FNE Programs $1,800,000.00 (10/1/17 - 9/30/18) Continuation funding

DC.I -State Pay Program To SART/FNEs $2,600,000.00 (10/1/17 - 9/30/19 - $1.3M per yr.) DCJ Project -Continuation funding

DCJ Victim Information &Notification Everyday (V.I.N.E.) $330,040:00 (7/1/17-6/30/18) DCJ Project -Continuation funding

Womanspace Hotline $150,000.00 (1/1/18 -12/30/18) Continuarion funding

Atlantic County Women's Center -Human Trafficking Initiative $1,000,000.00 (1/1/18 - 6/30/19) Continuation funding. Amount may be revised depending on 1st yr. performanceRutgers University -College Sexual Assault Initiative $2,500,000.00 Continuation funding. New initiative under FFY 2015 VOCA

DHS -Division On Aging -Office Of the Public Guardian For Elderly Adults $400,400.00 Continuation funding

Rutgers NJ State Victim Assistance Academy $250,000.00 (9/1/18 - 8/31/19) Prior funding under the VOCA Training @ $150K

Domestic Violence Response Teams (DVRTs) $1,455,699.00 Formerly under VAWA and increased under VAWA. Continuation under VOCA 5/1/18-6/30/19

DOW - CS V As $2,100,000.00 New initiative. Funding to DOW for 21 County CS VAs @ $ l 00KRegional DCJ -State Victim Witness Advocacy Program $739,026.00 DCJ Project -Continuation funding. New program under FFY 2015 VOCAJJC Programs $1,000,000.00 New initiative to begin under FFY 2015 VOCA

Program Administration (Vision 21) $875,000.00 Vision 21 initiative currently being developed. Allocation subject to changeProgram Administration $2,168,406.00

Total Allocation I $60,868,131.00 I.

yNOTESS%Maximum Allowable For Administration And Training $3,043,406.55 ~Max allowable for training (1% of Award) and included in the Adm amount x

Actual Administration And Training Funds $3,043,406.00

C~JFunding to L&PS programs cannot exceed 10% of Total Award $6,086,813.10 yActual funding to L&PS projects $3,930, 000.00 ~

FY 2014 VOCA - Subrecipients

Subgrant No Subrecipeint Proiect Title Amount14VAG-1 CASA o Cumberland, Gloucester, Salem Counties Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $51,26014VAG-2 CASA o Cumberland, Gloucester, Salem Counties Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $54,12414VAG-3 CASA o Morris &Sussex Counties Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $47,96014VAG-4 JS o MetroWest/Rachel Coalition Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $41,25014VAG-5 Center or amily Services Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $55,00014VAG-6 LBICC Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $25,98814VAG-7 The Camden Center or Law and Social Justice Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $53,55814VAG-8 A Place or Us -Atlantic County Womens Center Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $55,00014VAG-9 Catholic Charities Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $55,00014VAG-10 DASI -Domestic Abuse &Sexual Assault Intervention Services Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $55,00014VAG-11 Essex County amily Justice Center Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $55,00014VAG-12 JS o MetroWest/Rachel Coalition Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $55,00014VAG-13 Partners or Women and Justice Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $55,00014VAG-14 Partners or Women and Justice Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $55,00014VAG-15 Prevention Education, Inc. (t/a PEI Kids) Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $53,46714VAG-16 180 Turning Lives Around, Inc. Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $55,00014VAG-17 SAE in Hunterdon, Inc. Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $55,00014VAG-18 YWCA Bergen County Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $55,00014VAG-19 "A Place or Us" Atlantic County Women's Center Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $55,00014VAG-20 Center or amily Services Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $55,00014VAG-21 Center or amily Services Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $55,00014VAG-22 Center or amily Services Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $55,00014VAG-23 Center or amily Services Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $55,00014VAG-24 DASI -Domestic Abuse &Sexual Assault Intervention Services Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $55,00014VAG-25 Rutgers School oLaw -Camden Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $55,00014VAG-26 A Partnership or Change (APC) Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $42,10014VAG-27 CarePoint Health oundation, Inc. Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $54,99214VAG-28 CASA o Cumberland, Gloucester and Salem Counties, Inc. Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $52,37214VAG-29 Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) o Monmouth County, Inc. Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $54,99814VAG-30 amily Service Bureau o Newark Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $55,00014VAG-31 Resource Center o Somerset Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $53,646

yy

yd

1


Subgrant No Subrecipeint14VAG-32 CASA o New Jersey, Inc.14VAG-33 Legal Services o New Jersey14VAG-34 Manavi, Inc.14VAG-35 New Jersey Association on Correction14VAG-36 Jewish amily Service &Children's Center o Cliton/Passaic14VAG-37 New Jersey Association on Correction14VAG-3 8 Central Jersey Legal Services14VAG-39 Alternatives to Domestic Violence, Division o BCDHS14VAG-40 Legal Services o Northwest Jersey, Inc.14VAG-41 Shelter Our Sisters(split between 13 and 14)V-1-14 Atlantic CountyV-2-14 Bergen CountyV-3-14 Burlington CountyV-4-14 Camden CountyV-5-14 Cape May CountyV-6-14 Cumberland CountyV-7-14 Essex CountyV-8-14 Gloucester CountyV-9-14 Hudson CountyV-10-14 Hunterdon CountyV-11-14 Mercer CountyV-12-14 Middlesex CountyV-13 -14 Monmouth CountyV-14-14 Morris CountyV-15-14 Ocean CountyV-16-14 Passaic CountyV-17-14 Salem CountyV-18-14 Somerset CountyV-19-14 Sussex CountyV-20-14 Union CountyV-21-14 Warren CountyV-1-14 ATLANTIC COUNTY

Proiect Title AmountVictim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $50,887Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $54,600Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $55,000Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $55,000Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $55,000Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $55,000Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $55,000Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $55,000Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $55,000Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $5,279Victim Witness Advocacy Oice -Continuation $332,305Victim Witness Advocacy Oice -Continuation $162,062Victim Witness Advocacy Oice -Continuation $218,958Victim Witness Advocacy Oice -Continuation $354,493Victim Witness Advocacy Oice -Continuation $133,917Victim Witness Advocacy Oice -Continuation $179,785Victim Witness Advocacy Oice -Continuation $534,788Victim Witness Advocacy Oice -Continuation $191,448Victim Witness Advocacy Oice -Continuation $384,286Victim Witness Advocacy Oice -Continuation $82,461Victim Witness Advocacy Oice -Continuation $154,893Victim Witness Advocacy Oice -Continuation $253,858Victim Witness Advocacy Oice -Continuation $267,590Victim Witness Advocacy Oice -Continuation $150,414Victim Witness Advocacy Oice -Continuation $271,123Victim Witness Advocacy Oice -Continuation $234,626Victim Witness Advocacy Oice -Continuation $168,909Victim Witness Advocacy Oice -Continuation $112,764Victim Witness Advocacy Oice -Continuation $96,962Victim Witness Advocacy Oice -Continuation $297,265Victim Witness Advocacy Oice -Continuation $96,726SART/NE Program $75,767

2


Sub~rant No SubreciaeintV-2-14 BERGEN COUNTYV-3-14 BURLINGTON COUNTYV-4-14 CAMDEN COUNTYV-5-14 CAPE MAY COUNTYV-6-14 CUMBERLAND COUNTYV-7-14 ESSEX COUNTYV-8-14 GLOUCESTER COUNTYV-9-14 HUDSON COUNTYV-10-14 HUNTERDON COUNTYV-11-14 MERCER COUNTYV-12-14 MIDDLESEX COUNTYV -13 -14 MONMOUTH COUNTYV-14-14 MORRIS COUNTYV-15-14 OCEAN COUNTYV-16-14 PASSAIC COUNTYV-17-14 SALEM COUNTYV-18-14 SOMERSET COUNTYV-19-14 SUSSEX COUNTYV-20-14 UNION COUNTYV-21-14 WARREN COUNTYVS-45-14 ATLANTIC COUNTYVS-46-14 BERGEN COUNTYV S-47-14 BURLINGTON COUNTYVS-48-14 CAMDEN COUNTYV S-49-14 CAPE MAY COUNTYV S-50-14 CUMBERLAND COUNTYVS-51-14 ESSEX COUNTYVS-52-14 GLOUCESTER COUNTYVS-53-14 HUDSON COUNTYV S-54-14 HUNTERDON COUNTYVS-55-14 MERCER COUNTYVS-56-14 MIDDLESEX COUNTY

Proiect Title AmountSART/NE Program $66,310SART/NE Program $74,075SART/NE Program $95,925SARTlNE Program $45,522SART/NE Program $68,325SART/NE Program $84,632SART/NE Program $71,775SART/NE Program $64,393SART/NE Program $53,166SART/NE Program $74,071SART/NE Program $71,775SART/NE Program $79,825SART/NE Program $63,667SART/NE Program $47,603SART/NE Program $60,988SART/NE Program $26,790SART/NE Program $56,570SART/NE Program $52,309SART/NE Program $68,394SART/NE Program $56,825SART/NE Program $90,242SART/NE Program $80,406SART/NE Program $86,554SART/NE Program $107,456SART/NE Program $48,511SART/NE Program $72,719SART/NE Program $106,619SART/NE Program $84,095SART/NE Program $67,554SART/NE Program $61,840SART/NE Program $87,783SART/NE Program $84,094

3

Subgrant NoVS-57-14VS-58-14VS-59-14V 5-60-14VS-61-14VS-62-14VS-63-14VS-64-14VS-65-14V-66-14VINE-14 AVINE-14 BVS 43-14V44-14


SubrecipeintMONMOUTH COUNTYMORRIS COUNTYOCEAN COUNTYPASSAIC COUNTYSALEM COUNTYSOMERSET COUNTYSUSSEX COUNTYUNION COUNTYWARREN COUNTYWOMANSPACEDivision O Criminal JusticeDivision Of Criminal JusticeDivision Of Criminal JusticeAtlantic County Women's Center

Total Awarded To Subrecipients

Program Administration

Unallocated Balance

Total FY 2014 Award

4

Proiect TitleSART/NE ProgramSART/NE ProgramSART/NE ProgramSART/NE ProgramSART/NE ProgramSART/NE ProgramSART/NE ProgramSART/NE ProgramSART/NE ProgramHotlineV.I.N.E.V.I.N.E.State Pay To SART/FNEsHuman Trafficking Initiative

Adminsitration

Amount$92,268$68,110$86,554$87,783$59,346$68,110$56,263$87,783$68,110$40,727

$321,975$321,975$926,272$280,000

$11, 707, 969

$620,831

$87,834

$12,416,634

FFY 2015 VOCASubrecipient Programs Awarded or In award Process

Sub~rant No. SubreciuientVAG-O 1-15 "A Place for Us" Atlantic County Women's CenterVAG-02-15 "A Place for Us" Atlantic County Women's CenterVAG-03-15 180 Turning Lives Around, Inc.VAG-04-15 180 Turning Lives Around, Inc.VAG-OS-15 A Partnership for Change (APFC)

Alternatives to Domestic Violence, Division of BergenVAG-06-15 County Dept. of Human Services (ADVBCDHS)VAG-07-15 Bergen County Court Appointed Special Advocates, Inc.VAG-08-15 CarePoint Health FoundationVAG,09-15 CASA for Children of Essex County, Inc.VAG-10-15 CASA of Camden CountyVAG-11-15 CASA of New JerseyVAG-12-15 Catholic Charities, Diocese of TrentonVAG-13 -15 Catholic Charities, Providence House, Burlington CountyVAG-14-15 Catholic Charities, Providence House, Burlington CountyVAG-15-15 Catholic Charities, Providence House, Ocean CountyVAG-16-15 Catholic Charities, Providence House, Ocean CountyVAG-17-15 Center for Family Services, Inc.VAG-18-15 Center for Family Services, Inc.VAG-19-15 Center for Family Services, Inc.VAG-20-15 Center for Family Services, Inc.VAG-21-15 Center for Family Services, Inc.VAG-22-15 Center for Family Services, Inc.VAG-23-15 tenter for Hope and Safety, Inc.VAG-24-15 Center for Hope and Safety, Inc.VAG-25-15 Central Jersey Legal ServicesVAG-26-15 Coalition Against Rape and Abuse, Inc.VAG-27-15 Contact Burlington CountyVAG-28-15 Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) of Mercer

County, Inc.VAG-29-15 Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) of Mercer

County, Inc.VAG-30-15 Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) of Morris and

Sussex CountiesVAG-31-15 Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) of Morris and

Sussex Counties

Proiect Title AmountVictim Assistance Grants {VAGs) $110,000Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $300,000Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $300,000Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $300,000Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $15 8,210

Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $180,3 54Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $110,000Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $183,886Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $220,000Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs} $105,382Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $113,214Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $255,250Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $217,848Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $210,864Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $217,464Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $210,632Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $190,412Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $189,600Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $203,026Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $184,220Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $129,310Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $181,124Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $300,000Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $167,408Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $300,000Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $127,900Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $96,000

Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $189,218




Page 1 of 6

Notes

yyn

y


Sub~rant No. SubrecinientCourt Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) of UnionVAG-32-15 County, Inc.

VAG-33-15 Court Appointed Special Advocates of Atlantic and CapeMay Counties

VAG-34-15 Court Appointed Special Advocates of Atlantic and CapeMay CountiesCourt Appointed Special Advocates of Cumberland,VAG-35-15 Gloucester &Salem Counties, Inc.

VAG-36-15 Court Appointed Special Advocates of Cumberland,Gloucester &Salem Counties, Inc.Court Appointed Special Advocates of Cumberland,VAG-37-15Gloucester &Salem Counties, Inc.

VAG-3 8-15 Court Appointed Special Advocates of Monmouth CountyVAG-39-15 Court Appointed Special Advocates of Ocean County

VAG-40-15 Court Appointed Special Advocates of Somerset,Hunterdon, and Warren (CASA SHAW)Court Appointed Special Advocates of Somerset,VAG-41-15 Hunterdon, and Warren (CASA SHAW)Court Appointed Special Advocates of Somerset,VAG-42-15Hunterdon, and Warren (CASA SHAW)

VAG-43-15 DASI: Domestic Abuse &Sexual Assault InterventionServices

VAG-44-15 Deirdre O'Brien Child AdvocacyCenter, Inc.Domestic Abuse &Sexual Assault Crisis Center of WarrenVAG-45-15County

VAG-46-15 Essex County Family Justice CenterVAG-47-15 Essex-Newark Legal ServicesVAG-48-15 Family Service Bureau of NewarkVAG-49-15 Family Service Bureau of NewarkVAG-50-15 Hispanic Family Center of Southern NJ, Inc.

VAG-51-15 Hudson County Court Appointed Special Advocates(CASA)

VAG-52-15 Jersey Battered Women's Service, Inc.VAG-53-15 Jersey Battered Women's Service, Inc.

VAG-54-15 Jewish Family Service &Children's Center of Clifton-Passaic, Inc.

VAG-55-15 Jewish Family Service of MetroWest/Rachel Coalition

Proiect Title Amount Notes







Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $211,906Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $101,128







Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $300,000Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $128,536Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $170,000Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $150,000Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $111,276

Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $116,414Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $294,406Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $297,094



Page 2 of 6


Subgrant No. Subrecipient Project TitleVAG-56-15 Jewish Family Service of MetroWest/Rachel Coalition Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs)VAG-57-15 La Casa de Don Pedro, Inc. Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs)VAG-58-15 Legal Services of New Jersey Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs)VAG-59-15 Legal Services of Northwest Jersey Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs)

VAG-60-15 Long Beach Island Community Center, Inc. {LBICC, Inc.)

VAG-61-15 Manavi, Inc.VAG-62-15 Mercy Center Corporation

National Center for Civic Innovation /Newark CommunityVAG-63-15 SolutionNew Jersey Association on Correction - (NJAC) CamdenVAG-64-15 County Women's Center

VAG-65-15 New Jersey Association on Correction - (NJAC) PassaicCounty Women's Center

VAG-66-15 New Jersey Coalition to End Domestic ViolenceVAG-67-15 New Jersey Crime Victims' Law CenterVAG-68-15 Northeast New Jersey Legal ServicesVAG-69-15 Northeast New Jersey Legal ServicesVAG-70-15 Northeast New Jersey Legal ServicesVAG-71-15 Partners for Women and JusticeVAG-72-15 Partners for Women and JusticeVAG-73-15 Partners for Women and JusticeVAG-74-15 Passaic County CASA for ChildrenVAG-75-15 Prevention Education Inc. t/a PEI KidsVAG-76-15 Resource Center of Somerset, Inc.VAG-77-15 Resource Center of Somerset, Inc.VAG-78-15 Resource Center of Somerset, Inc.VACJ-79-15 Resource Center of Somerset, Inc.VAG-80-15 Rutgers LawVAG-81-15 Rutgers Law SchoolVAG-82-15 SAFE in Hunterdon, Inc.VAG-83-15 Salem County Women's ServicesVAG-84-15 Salem County Women's ServicesVAG-85-15 Servicios Latinos de Burlington County, Inc. (SELBUC)

Sussex County Children's Advocacy Center, Inc. /a Ginnie'sVAG-86-15House Children's Advocacy Center

VAG-87-15 The Camden Center for Law and Social Justice

Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs)Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs)Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs)

Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs)

Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs)

Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs)Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs)Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs)Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs)Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs)Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs)Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs)Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs)Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs)Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs)Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs)Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs)Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs)Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs)Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs)Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs)Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs)Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs)Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs)Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs)Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs)

Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs)Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs)

Page 3 of 6

Amount$287,228$300,000$300,000$300,000

$81,922

$300,000$300,000

$246,460

$199,248

$209,454

$228,110$120,120$220,000$220,000$220,000$228,764$147,800$249,766$300,000$13 8,448$300,000$300,000$300,000$300,000$300,000$300,000$236,000$126,240$106,000$250,000

$265,348

$255,124

Notes


Subgrant No. Subrecipient Proiect Title AmountVAG-88-15 The Camden Center for Law and Social Justice Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $246,624VAG-89-15 Wafa House, Inc. Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $300,000VAG-90-15 Womanspace, Inc. Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $300,000VAG-91-15 Womanspace, Inc. Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $143,724VAG-92-15 Womanspace, Inc. Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $300,000VAG-93-15 Women Aware Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $240,000VAG-94-15 Wynona's House Child Advocacy Center Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $300,000VAG-95-15 YWCA Bergen County Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $298,670VAG-96-15 YWCA Eastern Union County Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $244,988VAG-97-15 YWCA Eastern Union County Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $242,788VAG-98-15 YWCA Eastern Union County Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $229,772VAG-99-15 Zufall Health Center, Inc. Victim Assistance Grants (VAGs) $84,450V-1-15 Atlantic County Victim Witness Advocacy Office -Continuation $3 86,125V-2-15 Bergen County Victim Witness Advocacy Office -Continuation $210,427V-3-15 Burlington County Victim Witness Advocacy Office -Continuation $238,706V-4-15 Camden County Victim Witness Advocacy Office -Continuation $420,657V-5-15 Cape May County Victim Witness Advocacy Office -Continuation $266,343V-6-1 S Cumberland County Victim Witness Advocacy Office -Continuation $210,626V-8-1S Gloucester County Victim Witness Advocacy Office -Continuation $219,715V-10-15 Hunterdon County Victim Witness Advocacy Office -Continuation $104,109V-11-15 Mercer County Victim Witness Advocacy Office -Continuation $240,116V-12-15 Middlesex County Victim Witness Advocacy Office -Continuation $402,654V-14-15 Morris County Victim Witness Advocacy Office -Continuation $188,400V-15-15 Ocean County Victim Witness Advocacy Office -Continuation $398,399V-16-15 Passaic County Victim Witness Advocacy Office -Continuation $352,758* V-18-15 Somerset County Victim Witness Advocacy Office -Continuation $13 0,112V-19-15 Sussex County Victim Witness Advocacy Office -Continuation $127,676V-21-15 Warren County Victim Witness Advocacy Office -Continuation $187,840VCS-44-15 Atlantic County Victim Witness Advocacy Office -Supplemental $385,867VCS-45-15 Bergen County Victim Witness Advocacy Office -Supplemental $97,284VCS-46-15 Burlington County _ Victim Witness Advocacy Office -Supplemental $156,487VCS-47-15 Camden County Victim Witness Advocacy Office -Supplemental $347,720VCS-48-15 Cape May County Victim Witness Advocacy Office -Supplemental $398,334VCS-49-15 Cumberland County Victim Witness Advocacy Office -Supplemental $400,000VCS-50-15 Essex County Victim Witness Advocacy Office -Supplemental $400,000VCS-51-15 Gloucester County Victim Witness Advocacy Office -Supplemental $320,843VCS-52-15 Hudson County Victim Witness Advocacy Office -Supplemental $296,408

Notes

Page 4 of 6


Subgrant No. Subrecipient Project Title Amount NotesVCS-53-15 Hunterdon County Victim Witness Advocacy Office -Supplemental $400,000VCS-54-15 Mercer County Victim Witness Advocacy Office -Supplemental $400,000VCS-55-15 Middlesex County Victim Witness Advocacy Office -Supplemental $400,000VCS-56-15 Monmouth County Victim Witness Advocacy Office -Supplemental $400,000VCS-57-15 Morris County Victim Witness Advocacy Office -Supplemental $276,800VCS-58-15 Ocean County Victim Witness Advocacy Office -Supplemental $189,151VCS-59-15 Passaic County Victim Witness Advocacy Office -Supplemental $400,000VCS-60-15 Salem County Victim Witness Advocacy Office -Supplemental $200,073VCS-61-15 Somerset County Victim Witness Advocacy Office -Supplemental $199,622VCS-62-15 Sussex County Victim Witness Advocacy Office -Supplemental $400,000VCS-63-15 Union County Victim Witness Advocacy Office -Supplemental $400,000VCS-64-15 Warren County Victim Witness Advocacy Office -Supplemental $400,000DCJ Division Of Criminal Justice State Pay To SART/FNEs $2,533,036VHT 65-15 Atlantic County Women's Center Human Trafficking Initiative $1,000,000V-66-15 Division On A in Office Of the Public Guardian

g gVictim Assistance For Elderly Incapacitated Victims of $400,000 In awardCrime process

V-84-15 Rutgers University College Sexual Assault Initiative $2,500,000In awardprocess

V-83-15 Womanspace Hotline $150 000In awardprocess

V 5-23-15 Atlantic County SART/FNE Program $93,262VS-24-15 Bergen County SART/FNE Program $86,149VS-25-15 Burlington County SART/FNE Program $88,749VS-26-15 Camden County SART/FNE Program $112,611VS-27-15 Cape May County SART/FNE Program $72,000VS-28-15 Cumberland County SART/FNE Program $85,920VS-29-15 Essex County SART/FNE Program $112,764VS-30-15 Gloucester County SART/FNE Program $87,832V 5-31-15 Hudson County SART/FNE Program $73,147VS-32-15 Hunterdon County SART/FNE Program $72,000VS-33-15 Mercer County SART/FNE Program $93,721VS-34-15 Middlesex County' SART/FNE Program $87,755VS-35-15 Monmouth County SART/FNE Program $97,239VS-36-15 Morris County SART/FNE Program $72,000VS-37-15 Ocean County SART/FNE Program $86,990VS-38-15 Passaic County SART/FNE Program $95,250VS-39-15 Salem County ~ SART/FNE Program $72,000

Page 5 of 6


Sub~rant No. SubrecipientV 5-40-15 Somerset CountyV S-41-15 Sussex CountyVS-42-15 Union CountyVS-43-15 Warren County

Total Awarded or in Award Process

NA Program Adminstration Division on Women (Vision 21)NA Program Administration (Vision 21)NA Program Administration

Total Program Administration

Amount Awarded Or In Award ProcessTotal Program Administration

Total

Balance To Be Awarded

Federal Award Amount

Proiect TitleSART/FNE ProgramSART/FNE ProgramSART/FNE ProgramSART/FNE Program

Page 6 of 6

Amount$72,000$72,000$92,114$72,000

X40, 584, 029

$500,000$875,000

$1,324,600~2, 699, 600

$40,584,029$2,699,600

$43,283,629

,$10, 709, 038

$53,992,667

Notes

ATTACHMENT

JJC CAPITAL FUNDED PROJECTS COMPLETED IN FY16 AND FY17

Project Description Location Cost FY Completed

Roof Replacements Chapel & HU #11 NJTS $891,800 2016

Canopy Roof Replacement Vineland Prep $625,658 2016

Roof Truse Structural Repair Ocean RCH $9,800 2016

Fire Safety HU #8 NJTS $592,778 2016

Phase II Heating Upgrade NJTS $4,000,000 2016

NJTS HU# 12 Fire Safety Project NJTS/HU# 12 $592,778 2017Second Means of Egress Community

House NJTS $368,000 2017Personal Duress Alarm

Campus Wide JMSF-Hayes $594,753 2017

Roof & HVAC Replacement BMU NJTS $1,973,251 2017

Phase III Heat NJTS $7,491,062 2017

ATTACHMENT G

CY 2016 Outside Counsel Costs by Firm

Law Firm Office Approved AmountAnthony J. Apicelli, Jr., LLC, Hamilton $11,202.34Apruzzese, McDermott, Mastro &Murphy, PC, Liberty Corner, $686,651.60ARCHER & GREINER, HADDONFIELD $162,055.62Arseneault, Whipple, Fassett & Azzarello#, Chatham $5,246.80Baker Botts L.L.P., Houston $603,282.08Ballard Spahr LLP -Baltimore $384,811.74Birchmeier and Powell LLC Tuckahoe $1,845.00Bracewell LLP $17,136.00Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP, Denver $4,556.00Buonadonna &Benson, Vineland $907.15CAPEHART & SCATCHARD,P.A., MOUNT LAUREL $117,929.11CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO $107,048.22Cherry Hill - MDWCG Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin $618,208.68Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC, West Orange $529,874.12Cole, Schott, Meisel, Forman &Leonard PA, Hackensack $3,655.00Covington &Burling, Washington $123,911.55DeCotiis, Fitzpatrick &Cole, LLP, Teaneck $707,162.35Dilworth Paxson LLP, Philadelphia $_10,973.84Drake Law Firm, P.C., Absecon $321,579.42Drinker Biddle &Reath LLP, Philadelphia $469,687.00Dughi, Hewit & Domalewski, P.C. $625,360.46Dvorak &Associates, LLC, New Brunswick $5,586.12Eckert Seamans Cherin &Mellott, LLC, Pittsburgh ~ $321,733.81Farkas &Donohue, LLC $614,575.82Florio Perrucci Steinhardt &Fader LLC, Phillipsburg $202,735.91Garrity and Knisely, Boston $96,145.00Gebhardt &Kiefer, P.C., Clinton $36,097.75Genova Burns LLC, Newark $945.00Germano Law LLC, Montclair $18,292.00Gibbons P.C., Newark $2,605,277.81Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles $1,478,174.54GluckWalrath LLP, Trenton $38,262.06Gordon &Gordon, P.C., Springfield $167,633.12Gray Miler. Persh LLC, Washington $53,212.36Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith &Davis LLP, Woodbridge $724,397.70Greenberg Dauber Epstein &Tucker, Newark $592,532.00Greenberg Traurig PA, Miami ~ $49,192.00HAWKINS DELAFIELD &WOOD LLP, NEW YORK $55,175.08HILL WALLACK, Princeton $955,150.94Hohn~& Scheuerle, LLC $456,311.93Ice Miller LLP $110,476.70Jackson Gilmour &Dobbs, PC, Houston $64,882.26Jackson Lewis P.C. -White Plains NY $74,192.44Joel M. Miklacki, Passaic $8,849.35John J. Curley LLC, Jersey City $130,007.15Kaplan, Kirsch &Rockwell -Denver $22,299.14Kasowitz, Benson, Torres &Friedman LLP, New York $230,935.33Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Chicago $46,920.00Kenneth Vercammen, Esq.- njlaws, Edison $29,508.15King &Spalding LLP, Atlanta $562,039.20Kissane Associates, St. Albans $5,137.75Krovatin Klingeman LLC, Newark $986.00

Kutak Rock LLP, Omaha $35,809.44Law Office of Brian J. Levine $53,531.33Law Office of Dolores Rocco Kulp, Philadelphia $217,266.16Law Office of Lorane L. Posner, Newark $2,430.00Law Office of William P. Flahive, L.L.C., Lambertville $260,364.37Law Offices of Thomas H.E. Hallett $19,024.56LeClair Ryan, Richmond $222,046.07Lenox, Socey, Formidoni, Brown, Giordano, Cooley &Casey, LLC, LawrE $355,035.87Locke Lord LLP (EAPD), Boston $39,271.20Lowenstein Sandler LLP, Roseland $815,510.80Lukas, Nace, Gutierrez &Sachs, LLP, McLean $38,297.00Lum, Drasco & Positan, LLC, Roseland $77,718.04Lynch &Lynch, Garden City $24,270.00M. Jeremy Ostow, Esq., South Orange $287,922.15MacNeill, O'Neill & Riveles, LLC, Cedar Knolls $71,490.78Marino, Tortorella &Boyle, P.C., Chatham $81,826.66Mauro Savo Camerino Grant &Schalk, Somerville $63,807.32Mayer Brown LLP, US Offices $34,841.50McCarter &English, LLP, Newark New Jersey $2,940.00McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney &Carpenter LLP, Morristown NJ $2,211,785.37McGivney & Kluger, PC, Florharri Park $61,463.20McKool Smith, Dallas $787,622.72McManimon, Scotland &Baumann, L.L.C., Roseland $97,725.65Methfessel & Werbel $5,851.99Michael A. Armstrong &Associates, LLC, Willingboro $41,520.14Michael J. Lunga, Esq., LLC, Florham Park $474,736.93Morgan Melhuish Abrutyn, Livingston $287,857.73Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Jason & Anello P.C., New York $3,060.00Nixon Peabody LLP, San Francisco $491,572.04OBERMAYER REBMANN MAXWELL & HIPPEL LLP, PHILADELPHIA $339,347.96Orlovsky, Moody, Schaaff &Conlon, LLC, West Long Branch $258,482.83Pashman Stein, Hackensack $104,366.39Post, Polak, Goodsell & Strauchler, PA, Roseland $423,383.94Reynolds &Horn, P.C., Marlton $154,511.35Riker, Danzig, Scherer, Hyland & Perretti LLP, Morristown $124,042.79Roseland MDWCG Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin $279,727.51Ruprecht, Hart Weeks & Ricciardulli, LLP $1,235,181.33Rutter &Roy, LLP, Freehold $403,935.41Saiber, LLC, Florham Park $288,746.80Saul Ewing, LLP Harrisburg $286,962.13Schenck, Price, Smith &King, LLP, Florham Park $193,382.81Shimberg and Friel, P.C., Cherry Hill $10,178.68Sills Cummis &Gross P.C., Newark $716,697.38Skadden Arps (all offices) $875,472.80Stahl & DeLaurentis, P.C., Runnemede $61,290.08Strasser &Associates, P.C., Paramus $27,325.91Volpe and Koenig, PC, Princeton $81,969.49WALDER HAYDEN, P.A., ROSELAND $1,054.00Warner Norcross &Judd LLP, Grand Rapids $51,000.92Whipple Azzarello, LLC, Morristown $24,116.32Wilentz, Goldman &Spitzer, P.A., Woodbridge $50,328.70Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman &Dicker LLP -New York $25,021.57Total $28,453,874.62

ATTACHMENT H

CY 2017 Appvd Amounts by Firm YTD

Law Firm Office Approved AmountALOIA LAW FIRM, Bloomfield $4,479.00Anthony J. Apicelli, Jr., LLC, Hamilton $4,470.36Apruzzese, McDermott, Mastro &Murphy, PC, Liberty Corner, $3,008.52ARCHER & GREINER, HADDONFIELD $40,872.57Baker Botts L.L.P., Houston $60,288.00Ballard Spahr LLP -Baltimore $93,519.34Biancamano Law, LLC, Chatham $4,624.00Birchmeier and Powell LLC Tuckahoe $3,562.50Buonadonna &Benson, Vineland $1,014.88CAPEHART & SCATCHARD,P.A., MOUNT LAUREL $8,364.14CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO $17,720.00Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC, West Orange $610,188.11DeCotiis, Fitzpatrick, Cole & Giblin, LLP $320,414.51Dilworth Paxson LLP, Philadelphia $880.00Drake Law Firm, P.C., Absecon $28,187.00Drinker Biddle &Reath LLP, Philadelphia $65,783.00Dughi, Hewit & Domalewski, P.C. $132,133.74Dvorak &Associates, LLC, New Brunswick $4,814.85Eckert Seamans Cherin &Mellott, LLC, Pittsburgh $46,650.76Farkas &Donohue, LLC $170,722.27Florio Perrucci Steinhardt &Fader LLC, Phillipsburg $70,946.09Garrity and Knisely, Boston $11,377.50Gebhardt &Kiefer, P.C., Clinton $10,661.80Gibbons P.C., Newark $192,889.22Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles $53,872.33Gordon &Gordon, P.C., Springfield $23,099.98Gray Miller Persh LLC, Washington - $11,415.50Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith &Davis LLP, Woodbridge $125,906.40Greenberg Dauber Epstein &Tucker, Newark $92,192.79HAWKINS DELAFIELD &WOOD LLP, NEW YORK $25,007.36HILL WALLACK, Princeton $191,011.62Hohn & Scheuerle, LLC $68,286.24Ice Miller LLP $33,890.40Jackson Gilmour &Dobbs, PC, Houston $8,640.00John J. Cur(ey LLC, Jersey City $37,171.72Joseph M. Wenzel, Attorney at Law, LLC, Clifton $3,525.00Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, New York $154,220.90Kenneth Vercammen, Esq.- njlaws, Edison $7,322.50King &Spalding LLP, Atlanta $158,074.40Law Office of Brian J. Levine $9,699.85Law Office of Dolores Rocco Kulp, Philadelphia $19,469.44Law Office of William P. Flahive, L.L.C., Lambertville $90,396.80LeClair Ryan, Richmond $71,855.84Lenox, Socey, Formidoni, Brown, Giordano, Cooley &Casey, LL $70,653.22Lowenstein Sandler LLP, Roseland $5,280.16Lukas, LaFuria, Gutierrez &Sachs, LLP, McLean $3,708.00Lum, Drasco & Positan, LLC, Roseland $18,099.80Lynch &Lynch, Garden City. $111,685.90M. Jeremy Ostow, Esq., South Orange $112,585.36MacNeill, O'Neill & Riveles, LLC, Cedar Knolls $3,620.00McCarter &English, LLP, Newark New Jersey $3,815.08McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney &Carpenter LLP, Morristown NJ $160,518.23

McGivney & Kluger, PC, Florham Park $31,339.53

McKool Smith, Dallas $709,929.69

McManimon, Scotland &Baumann, L.L.C., Roseland $748.50

Michael J. Lunga, Esq., LLC, Florham Park $117,583.53

Montgomery, McCracken, Walker and Rhoads, LLP, Philadelphi $244,899.50

Morgan Melhuish Abrutyn, Livingston X82,252.45

Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Jason & Anello P.C., New York $204.00

Mount Laurel- MDWCG Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & $213,564.23

Nixon Peabody LLP, San Francisco $13,515.00

OBERMAYER REBMANN MAXWELL & HIPPEL LLP, PHILADE $79,661.31

Orlovsky, Moody, Schaaff &Conlon, LLC, West Long Branch $87,191.92

Pashman Stein, Hackensack $60,602.11

Pearlman &Miranda, LLC, Bloomfield $4,890.08

Post, Polak, Goodsell & 5trauchler, PA, Roseland $140.00

Reynolds &Horn, P.C., Marlton $13,448.71

Riker, Danzig, Scherer, Hyland & Perretti LLP, Morristown $60,927.64

Roseland MDWCG Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goc~

$27,917.78

Ruprecht, Hart Weeks & Ricciardulli, LLP $379,914.28

Rutter &Roy, LLP, Freehold $154,139.31

Saiber, LLC, Florham Park $19,391. r 0

Saul Ewing, LLP Harrisburg $182,268.57

Savo, Schalk, Gillespie, O'Grodnick &Fisher $10,428.50

Schenck, Price, Smith &King, LLP, Florham Park $129,370.38

Sills Cummis &Gross P.C., Newark $12,902.00

Stahl & DeLaurentis, P.C., Runnemede $16,060.14

Strasser &Associates, P.C., Paramus $6,699.15

Volpe and Koenig, PC, Princeton $11,320.00

Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman &Dicker LLP -New York $34,521.00

Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP, Madison $3,220.00

TOTAL $6,291,647.99

ATTACHMENT I

Attorney General's Report To The LegislaturePursuant To N.J.S.A. 2A:32C-18

Concerning The New Jersey False Claims Act

Calendar Year 2010

a. The number of cases the Attorney General filed 0

b. The number of cases private individuals filed 138 and for those no longer under seal

(1) The state or federal court in which those cases were filed and the number ineach court: State 0 Federal 138'

(2) The State Program or agency involved in each case:Medicaid 137 Other 7z

(3} The number of cases filed by private individuals who previously had filed anaction based on the same or similar transactions or allegations under the federalFalse Claims Act or fihe False Claims Act of another state.

8 cases by 4 individuals

c. The amount recovered under the NJ FCA in settlement;Damages $ 0Penalties $ 0Litigation Costs $ 0

(7) The cases where the state received a recovery:Defendant CJ/Settlement Date NJ Restitution NJ Penalties &

InterestNJ State Share

Novartis ('TOBI) 200806050 10/1/10 $646,517.84 $670,887.53 $1,317,405.37AstraZeneca (Seroquel) 200700950 9/29/10 $2,187,585.06 $2,231,734,36 $4,419,319.42Intermunne, Inc. 200607422 8/4/10 $198,654.90 $24,115.45 $222,770.35Alpharma (Kadian & Flector) 200804551 7/6/1.0 $38,881.76 $41,481.01 $80,362.77Omnicare 200908131 5/4/10 $488,512.17 $416,758.79 $905,270.96Ivax Pharmaceuticals 200908132 5/4/10 $96,556.07 $34,315.88 $130,871.95Aventis Pharmaceuticals 5/10/10 PAAD/SG $1,303,157.00 $0.00 $1,303,157.00Aventis 200904735 11/09 4/30/10 $1,032,638.67 $10,503.21 $1,043,141.88Otsuka America 200907079 2/8/10 $17,238.42 $27,978.66 $45,217.08Medtronic Sofamor Danek 200906181 1/19/10(12/21) $26,799.24 $33,118.53 $59,917.77Totals $6,036,541.13 $3,490,893.42 $9,527,434.553

(2) The separate amounts of funds recovered for:Damages $ 6,036,541.13Penalty $ 3,490,893.42Litigation Costs $ 0

(3) The percentage of the recovery and the amount awarded to the private personwho brought the action:

Percentage of the recovery 0 %4Amount $ 0

1. The following provides a breakdown, where such information was readily available, of the federal jurisdiction in which the caseswere filed: New Jersey - 18; New York - 6; Texas - 5; Pennsylvania - 4; California - 2; Florida - 2; Georgia - 2; Maryland - 2; RhodeIsland - 1; Virginia - 1.

2. In one case, a county, rather than the state, was the alleged victim, so there was no False Claims Act jurisdiction; two casesinvolved allegations of tax fraud, and the New Jersey False Claims Act jurisdiction does not extend to tax fraud, N.J.S.A. 2A:32C-2;in one case, the federal government was the alleged victim; and in three cases there was no violation of the False Claims Actbecause the alleged victim was a private person.

3. These case were filed under the New Jersey False Claims Act but the conduct establishing liability occurred prior to the Actspassage, so the matter was not settled under the Act.

4. These cases were filed under the New Jersey False Claims Act but the conduct establishing Ilabi(ity occurred prior to the Act'spassage. Because the New Jersey False Claims Act was not in effect at the time of the conduct establishing liability, the relatorwas not provided with any share of the State of New Jersey's recovery.

Attorney General's Report To The LegislatureConcerning The New Jersey False Claims Act

Pursuant To N.J.S.A. 2A:32C-18

Calendar Year 2011

a. The number of cases the Attorney General filed 0

b. The number of case private individuals filed 91 ,and for those no longer under seal:

(1) The state or federal court in which those cases were filed and _the number in eachcourt: State 0 Federal 22

(2) The State program or agency involved in each case: Medicaid - 21 Other - 1

(3) Number of cases filed by private individuals who had previously filed a FalseClaims Act case: 0

c. The amount recovered under the NJFCA in settlement;Damages $ 1,142,958.88Penalties $ 1,888,245.86Litigation Costs $ 0

(1) The cases where the state received a recovery:

Name Settlement NJ State Share Rel Relator Fee State Share Net NJ RestitutionRec. Date (inc. relator fee) % calc

(calc)

Ortho-McNeil (Topomax) 1/4/2011 $ 705,476.32 $ - $ 705,476.32 $ 229,144.38

GlaxoSm ithKline- 1 /4/201 1 $3,464,663.19 $ - $3,464,663.19 $1,707,698.63PuertoRicoForest Labs 2/3/201 1 $1,000,249.85 $ - $1,000,249.85 $ 453,901.56

Novartis (Trileptal) 1/31/2011 $2,326,851.36 17 $ 3,294.23 $2,323,557.13 $ 796,374.60

Allergan (Botox) 3/14/2011 $ 558,080.35 18 $35,292.26 $ 522,788.09 $ 255,559.41

KOS 2/17/2011 $ 88,617.75 $ - $ 88,617.75 $ 50,252.17

Schwarz Pharma Inc. 4/6/2011 $1,132,872.94 $ - $1,132,872.94 $ 803,243.69

Serono Laboratories (Rebif) 5/19/201 1 $ 210,097.98 $ - $ 210,097.98 $ 81,728.00

Novo Nordisk 7/20/201 1 $ 1,295.79 $ - $ 1,295.79 $ 374.69

Elan 10/3/201 1 $ 961,802.59 $ - $ 961,802.59 $ 312,699.23

Eisai 10/3/201 1 $ 1 11,745.96 18 $ 3,309.32 $ 108,436.64 $ 53,489.72

UCB, Inc. (Keppra) 11/4/2011 $ 257,276.85 $ - $ 257,276.85 $ 114,544.67

Pfizer (Detrol) 12/9/201 1 $ 82,854.43 23 $ 6,431.55 $ 6,422.88 $ 37,535.15

Totals $10,901,885.36 $ 48,327.36 $10,853,558.00 $ 4,896,545.90

(2) The separate amounts of funds recovered for:Damages $ 4,896,545.90Penalty $ 5,957,012.10Litigation Costs $ 0

(3) The percentage of the recovery and the amount awarded to the private personwho brought the action:%age of recovery Varied per action; see (1) above for specific percentagesAmount $ 48,327,36

Note: New Jersey has participated in 13 cases filed under the New Jersey False Claims Act, but under the terms of the settlements in nine ofthose cases the offending conduct occurred prior to the passage of the New Jersey False Claims Act so no share of the State of NewJersey's recovery was provided to the relator.

Attorney General's Report To The Legislature ConcerningThe New Jersey False Claims ActPursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:32C-18

Calendar Year 2012 -Medicaid &Non Medicaid Combined

a. The number of cases the Attorney General filed 0 .

b. The number of cases private individuals filed 89 and for those no longer under seal:

(1) The state or federal court in which those cases were filed and the number in each court: State 3 Federal 5

(2) The State Program or agency involved in each case: Medicaid - 4 Other - 4

(3) Number of cases filed by private individual who had previously filed a False Claims Act case 1 .

The amount recovered under the NJFCA in settlement:Damages $ 24,432,772.70Penalties $ 15,842,250.65Litigation Costs $ -

(1) The cases where the state received a recovery settlement:

Name Settlement Received NJ State Share (inc. Reiacor Relator Fee State Share Net NJ Restitution NJ Penalties &Interestrelator fee

Maxim Healthcare Services " 1/19/2012 $ 2,907,258.25 2 $ 44,187.59 $ 2,863,070.66 $ 2,706,808.97 $ 156,261.69Woodhaven Lumber &Millwork 3/29/2012 $ 130,000.00 20 *~ $ 26,000.00 $ 104,000.00 $ - $ 104,000.00Merck Sharp Dohme-Vioxx 5/14/2012 $ 6,212,678.10 0 $ - $ 6,212,678.10 $ 2,103,910.80 $ 4,108,767.30KV Pharmaceutical *' 5/16/2012 $ 379,277.69 0 $ - $ 379,277.69 $ 342,614.70 $ 36,662.99Dava Pharmaceutical `* 6/18/2012 $ 53,458.35 0 $ - $ 53,458.35 $ 46,972.78 $ 6,485.57Medtronic 6/15/2012 $ 25,308.81 17k $ 1,911.58 $ 23,397.23 $ 11,392.53 $ 12,004.70Sodexo 6/15/2012 $ 124,000.00 0"`* $ - $ 124,000.00 $ 124,000.00 $ -Morris E. Antebi, MD 7/30/2012 $ 4,208.10 30 $ 1,942.20 $ 2,265.90 $ 2,265.90 $ -McKesson 8/10/2012 $ 7,075,546.22 1~ $ 74,860.59 $ 7,000,685.63 $ 6,931,277.90 $ 69,407.73GlaxoSmithKline et al 8/22/2012 $ 22,605,568.92 1' $ 246,839.16 $ 22,358,729.76 $ 10,868,469.69 $ 11,490,260.07Bioscrip Inc. 9/26/2012 $ 25,801.10 0 $ - $ 25,801.10 $ 12,786.57 $ 13,014.53Abbott 10/3/2012 $ 7,511,048.81 2* $ 139,093.82 $ 7,371,954.99 $ 3,577,967.05 $ 3,793,987.94Boehringer-Ingeiheim 11/13/2012 $ 431,326.74 1* $ 4,407.56 $ 426,919.18 $ 210,590.66 $ 216,328.52Totais ,. ~. :;-$' .. .;47~485;481:09~. .:` $1~.~>-..53;242:50. ~..~~~._.~46~946238.59»;;$ ~';26:939057155~ $ 20,OQ7181.04 . ,

(2) The separate amounts of funds recovered for:Damages $ 24,956,378.98 **"Penalty $ 19,867,208.32 '**Litigation Costs $

(3) The percentage of the recovery and the amount awarded to the private person who brought the action:Percentage of the recovery -varied per action; see aboveAmount: $ 539,242.50Note: New Jersey participated in 13 cases, 8 of which were filed under the New Jesey False Claims Act; in the 4 other cases the relator did not receive any share of N.J.'srecovery because New Jersey was not named in the complaint, and in 1 case the state conducted an investigation and reached a settlement but no complaint was filed.

" Relator percent of covered conduct unknown. Amount shown is a calculated percentage of NJ Restitution.*' Indicated companies are paying in installments."' Amounts recovered reflect cases paid in full plus the amounts of installment payments received on indicated cases.**" This was a State Investigation with no relator, and the State did not file a complaint:

Attorney General's Report To The Legislature ConcerningThe New Jersey False Claims ActPursuant to N.J.S,A. 2A:32C-18

Calendar Year 2013 -Non-Medicaid as reported by Government &Healthcare Fraud Section DOL



(1) The state or federal court in which those cases were filed and the number in each court: State _ Federal 1



c. The amount recovered under the NJFCA in settlement:Damages $ -Penaities $Litigation Costs 0


Name Settlement Received NJ State Share (inc. Relator Relator Fee State Share Net NJ Restitution NJ Penalties &Interestrelator fee

Totals ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - $

(2) The separate amounts of funds recovered for:Damages $ -Penalties $Litigation Costs 0

:~::~.

(3) The percentage of the recovery and the amount awarded to the private person who brought the action:Percentage of the recovery -varied per action; see aboveAmount: $ -








c. The amount recovered under the NJFCA in settlement:Damages $ 14,000.00Penalties 0Litigation Costs 0


Name Settlement Received NJ State Share (inc. Relator Relator Fee State Share Net NJ Restitution NJ Penalties &Interestrelator fee

Carrasquillo v. 10/3/2014 $ 20,000.00 20 ""` $ 6,000.00 $ 14,000.00 $ 14,000.00Totals ~ _ 20,000.00 ~ _6,000.00__ ~ _ _-- 14,OQ0.00 ~ _ 14,OOd.QO _ ~ ~~ x_~.

(2) The separate amounts of funds recovered for:Damages $ 14,000.00Penalties $ -Litigation Costs 0

(3) The percentage of the recovery and the amount awarded to the private person who brought the action:Percentage of the recovery -varied per action; see aboveAmount: $ 6,000.00








c. The amount recovered under the NJFCA in settlement:Damages $ 1,845,207.00Penalties $ 460,653.80Litigation Costs 0


Name Settlement Received NJ State Share finc. Relator Relator Fee State Share Net NJ Restitution NJ Penalties &Interestrelator fee

U.S. ex rel. Fulk v. United Parcel Services 5/4/2015 $ 740,000.00 17 $ 125,800.00 $ 614,200.00 $ 614,200.00Hr.. ew;.,:~.y~~;.....v. . ,y ..:~f',qg' '.,,ARM'# ~+X' ~y":• ey"...,. .':: ,a,,,.. . i

ra i,. ~ ~;y,... cx~ JX:•- ~4.U:S: ex.rel. DA ast~cfa v~>Aifiled~Denta.~~ ~~ _; _:_ _ . _ . _..,,.. ~ 9 _~ . .~_ ~ ,:.__ ~ -_ ~..~ ~~n~,.~~~. ~~ .~,x.~. «s. r'.i."', Yi€~.. . ,..:. . ,.~ +~K ~ y"':~~ib12 ~..:k,~ w ~~ ~~~. ~. n, w.ri-~.x. . 7~ X017~ ~ ..~~.,~ ~.

~ '?C.~:~ NL ~~~ ~. 'W~ F~~, ~. .~~......... ....-, -~4 rtg. '~2„'~~~ !6"'.. .S x9 ~ p'~~~ - ~ ~ ..

^ '"̂ A;€~ 11 ~#~~3~ ~_U.S. ex rel. Perez v. Stericycle 10/1/2015 $ 355,076.00 25 $ 88,769.00 $ 266,307.00 $ 266,307.00N.J. ex rel. Hayling v. Correctional Medical Svc. 10/26/2015 $ 500,000.00 80 $ 400,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00U.S. ex rel. Washtington v. Educ. Mgmt. Corp. 11/1/2015 $ 71,429.00 0 $ - $ 71,429.00 $ 71,429.00U.S. ex rel. Vaziri v. Accutest Laboratories 12/1/2015 $ 2,000,000.00 20 $ 296,984.00 $ 1,703,016.00 $ 783,016.00 $ 920,000.00~Totais ~ _ :%~..~ _:.,$~ ~.. ~ W ~3~758045:OQr~_~~ °~ .,. a.~~>.937,~8~.~O~.:a~.,~` 2,82t?;8608t?.. ~. ~ ~'1~:845,207~~ $ ~ ~975;653.8~

Payments being made in installments

(2) The separate amounts of funds recovered for:Damages $ 1,845,207.00Penalties $ 975,653.80Litigation Costs 0



Calendar Year 2016 -Non-Medicaid as reported by Government & Healthcare Fraud Section DOL





(3) Number of cases filed by private~individual who had previously filed a False Claims Act case 0 .

c. The amount recovered under the NJFCA in settlement:Damages $ 30,592.11Penalties $ 302,359.89Litigation Costs $ 30,000.00


Name Settlement Received NJ State Share (inc. Reiacor Relator Fee State Share Net NJ Restitution NJ Penalties &Interestrelator fee % NJ Liti ation Cost

N.J. ex rel. Seprotech Systems v. Metra Industries 9/21/2016 $ 50,000.00 6% $ 3,000.00 $ 47,000.00 $ - $ 17,000.00 $ 30,000.00U.S. ex rel. Martin v. Para-Pus Translations Inc. " 12/15/2016 $ 405,066.67 22% $ 89,114.67 $ 315,952.00 $ 30,592.11 $ 285,359.89 $ -Totals ~ 455,066.67 $ 92,1.14.67 .$ 362,952.00 ~ 34,592.11 $ 302;359:89 [^$ 30.000:00. .' Payments being made in installments -First payment of $182,832.00 in December 2016. There will be quarterly payments for five years of $6,656.00.

(2) The separate amounts of funds recovered for:Damages $ 30,592.11Penalties $ 302,359.89Litigation Costs ~ $ 30,000.00


ATTACHMENT J

Division of LawExamples of False Claim Settlements to State entities

Us ex rel D'Agostino v Allied Dental UPA — 2015 settlement total was $166,540, and of that$51,000 went to the Unclaimed Property Fund and $10,254 went to the Treasury for the StateHealth Benefits Plan.

US ex rel. Perez v. Stericycle — 2015 settlement total was $589,111, of that amount $234,035were recoveries on behalf of local entities pursuant to the N) Consumer Fraud Act. Of the Statebalance, several state agencies received distributions as follows (and the balance after paymentto relators and the FCA Fund, went to the General Fund):

NJ DOC: AC Wagner Youth Correctional Facility $ 207.72NJ DOC: Riverfront State Prison (Closed) $ 19.52NJ DOC: Bayside State Prison/Ancora U $ 123.55NJ DHS: G W HAGEDORN CENTER FOR GERIAT $ 68.00NJ DHS: NORTH JERSEY DEVELOPMENTAL CEN $ 653.35NJ DHS: WOODBRIDGE DEVELOPMENTAL CENTE $ 9.56NJ DMAVA: PARAMUS VET MEMORIAL HOME $ 4.50Montclair St University $ 2,568.13Kean University of NJ $ 3,670.22New Jersey Transit $ 17,584.66New Jersey City University $ 20.58UMDNJ $ 63.00Passaic Valley Sewerage $ 43.56Ramapo College-Psychology $ 86.40

US ex rel. Washington v. Educ. Mgmt Corp. — 2015 settlement total was $71,429, all but the10% for the FCA Fund went to New Jersey Higher Education Student Assistance Authority(HESAA)

U.S. ex rel. Vaziri v. Accutest Laboratories - 2015 settlement total was $2,000,000, of thatamount several State agencies were paid out as follows:

NJ DEP $904,782.59NJ DOT $87,975.55NJ Turnpike Auth. $13,638.29NJ Dept. of Mil &Vet Affairs $11,208.22NJ Transit $25,716.86NJ Treasury / DPMC $481,720.99NJ Dept. of Corrections $2,970.78NJ School Development Authority $12,294.76

NJ State Police $9,984.74

NJIT $639.54

TCNJ $3,670.25

US ex rel. Martin v. Para-Plus Translations — 2016 settlement total was $400,000, $30,592to the Department of Children and Families, 10% to the FCA fund.

Division Recapitul~~tion ATTACHMENT K

W ~ ~ zoo ~' '~ ~~ o o ~ ~ ~

Hw

Hw

a ~ p z C~.7

a Q Az Az°o w0

ozoH

Hw z

°Hvoao

z0W

~ F F~,W

HW H

z~ W ~ `~ ~ VH

7~,G=, rn v~ ~ Z~ v~ A A V E-" v~

vaW V H V w

F O

H

~ a

Z

CG OE-~

W Z zF"'

WF"

vii W~

W~

~ ~ WW

H v~pF

~ ~WFd,,,

w °~ ~~ Fes„

~ a°Z d

ocs~

0U

0A

0W

0 o a~

Wz

° ~~H H

ON ~

O V2H~.~~.~a

E-~ ~ E-• ~, a p w„ V E'" o O o 0 0 ~, ~ c~ ~ Zw W w a ~

~W~ ~ ~~ H H H a a ~ w

Zz~

~, ~ a a~Ca

~.,.~W

xU

aw

AW ~

AW ~~

y" ~'

~p"

~F

W ~~~

~,z

~~

O~

~ ~ H F W WAW ~

C7,.a Z A W "~ V

~v~ W

~wO

wO

q AW

•-•~"

WE"

O ~ ~W

z W~

Ww~

wV

wU

WxE-+

xE"

~~

~ W

O

d

O O w w O A V̀"x o o

Ow w

~"wH

~w

~w zw

~ ~ ~ ~o

Colonel 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Lt. Colonel 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 5

Major 0 0 4 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19

Captain 0 1 11 3 0 1 0 0 1 2 3 3 2 0 5 5 4 3 5 3 5. 57

Lieutenant ~ 0 0 22 11 2 3 1 1 _5 15 15 13 9 3 23 24 16 11 16 S 20 218Sgt. First Class 5 1 11 1 2 4 0 0 11 14 13 18 13 4 0 0 17 3 17 13 33 180

Det. Sgt. First Class 0 0 14 13 0 2 0 0 1 4 4 3 3 0 28 31 2 0 3 0 1 109Sergeant 1 0 13 5 2 5 0 0 0 37 38 36 25 20 1 0 21 9 33 6 53 305

Det. Sergeant 0 0 15 16 0 5 0 0 6 11 14 7 7 0 46 43 2. 0 1 0 2 175Staff Sergeant 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 35 32 15 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 139

Detective I 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 4 4 7 6 6 0 51 40 0 0 3 0 6 130Detective II 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 7 2 2 7 0 12 15 0 0 0 0 1 50Detective 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 8TrooperI 0 0 14 1 0 3 0 0 1 . 3Q 60 26 31 44 2 1 16 1 2 4 101 337Trooper II 0 0 5 1 0 3 0 0 3 37 48 19 31 38 2 9 8 2 0 3 28 237Trooper 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 182 195 162 61 39 2 4 2 1 0 0 6 657

Enlisted Totals 6 3 113 52 8 34 2 2 34 377 435 332 212 160 175 173 89 31 81 38 270 2,627

Civilian Totals 0 4 28 7 4 164 1 2 S S 11 208 3 0 42 10 197 144 334 160 37 1,372

Grand Totals 6 7 141 59 12 198 3 4 42 385 446 540 215 160 217 183 286 175 415 198 307 3,999

7-Apr-17

ATTACHMENT L

NJ Department of Law and Public SafetyDivision of State Police -Enlisted Staff

At the close of FY 2016

o~.~.~ ._~.__ ~ ,.~ 4.~.~~.~.~_ ~~:~.,: ~.._...a~.~~ .____e.~ _.t j ( £

2 ~ 1__-~... . ._ ..~~....,_. .~...~.~___~..~. .,w,

3 . 9~

.,,.~ ~....

12 55 163 305 2 2 2;145` 2,684

ATTACHMENT M

Forfeiture Balances, AGLEFA, FY 15 - FY 16

FY 15 Beginning Balance:

FY 15 Initiatives:Fugitive Safe Surrender InitiativeAnti-Violence SummitTide Tag Essex CountyEssex County Prosecutor -Mental Health Diversion

Ocean County Prosecutor -Mental Health Diversion

Community Planning and AdvocacyNORWESCAPYOUTHBUILD NewarkBoys &Girls Club of VinelandTrenton SuppressionBrick City SynergyRobin's NestEssex County Crime SuppressionLaw Enforcement TrainingDCJ, Confidential FundsDCJ, Surveillance and Other EquipmentDCJ Law Enforcement Replacement VehiclesDCJ, Cyber CrimesDCJ, Records and InformationDSP Confidential PurposesDSP Community OutreachDSP ROTC ConsultantDSP Ballistics GlassDSP XP MigrationDepartment of HealthGeneral Fund RevenueSub-Total Obligations

FY 15 AGLEFA Forfeiture Revenue

$11,095,129.43

$28,866.03$2,774.50

$29,417.32$75,000.00$75,000.00

$100,000.00$100,000.00$125,000.00$125,000.00$220,000.00$100, 000.00$100,000.00

$2,000,000.00$8,750.00

$510,000.00$290,523.00$329,703.21$173,169.00$162,664.00$878,294.35

$800.00$110,000.00$650,000.00

$1,022,000.00$65,118.79

$1,000,000.00$8,282,080.20

$2,730,926.81

FY 15 Ending Balance: $5,543,976.04

FY 16 Beginning Balance: $5,543,975.92

FY 16 Initiatives:DCJ, Body Cameras $2,500,000.00

DCJ, Confidential Funds $300,000.00

DCJ, Confidential Purposes $450,000.00

DSP ROtC Consultant $110,000.00

DSP Ballistics Glass $350,000.00

DSP Holding Cells $50,000.00

DSP DRBA Bridge License Plate Readers $181,155.00

DSP Witness Protection $200,000.00

DSP Confidential Purposes $900,000.00

Department of Health $93,827.34

General Fund Revenue $1,000,000.00

Sub-Total Obligations $6,134,982.34

FY 16 AGLEFA Forfeiture Revenue $2,316,742.42

FY 16 Ending Balance: $1,725,736.00

ATTACHMENT N

Division of Consumer AffairsWork Permits Issued 2015 —Present

HHA 120 Day Temp Work 369 2015/01PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 581 2015/02PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 783 2015/03PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 800 2015/04PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 647 2015/05PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 868 2015/06PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 616 2015/07PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 611 2015/08PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 589 2015/09PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 560 2015/10PermitHHA-120 Day Temp Work 570 2015/11PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 612 2015/12Permit .

HHA 120 Day Temp Work 471 2016/01PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 430 2016/02PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 724 2016/03PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 612 2016/04PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 944 2016/05PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 842 2016/06PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 614 2016/07PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 534 2016/08PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 597 2016/09Permit

HHA 120 Day Temp Work 686 2016/10PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 795 2016/11PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 703 2016/12PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 599 2017/01PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 543 2017/02Permit

Work Permits Still Pending 2015 —Present (these are individuals that are still pending —generally,individuals pending for more than a few months are not actively seeking certification)

HHA 120 Day Temp Work 32 2015/01Permit Still pendingHHA 120 Day Temp Work 38 2015/02PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 55 2015/03PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 43 2015/04PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 72 2015/05PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 46 2015/06PermitHHA 12'0 Day Temp Work 35 2015/07PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 28 2015/08PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 27 2015/09PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 28 2015/10PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 25 2015/11PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 18 2015/12Permit

HHA 120 Day Temp Work 15 2016/01PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 22 2016/02PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 52 2016/03Permit

HHA 120 Day Temp Work 30 2016/04PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 33 2016/05PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 29 2016/06PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 58 2016/07PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 36 2016/08PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 50 2016/09PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 42 2016/10PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 65 2016/11PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 35 2016/12PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 22 2017/01PermitHHA 120 Day Temp Work 48 2017/02Permit

Date post:	19-Oct-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Discussion - New Jersey Legislature

Documents