Public Forum 3

Report
CGR
Public Forum #3 | October 18, 2012
Evaluation of Potential Government Structures / Services
Town and Village of Ossining, NY
Public Forum 3 | Tonight’s Agenda


Call to order
Introductions






Steering Committee
Study Team (CGR)
Recap: Project objectives and process
Report: Summary of options and impacts
Comments & questions
Adjourn
2
Introductions
Steering Committee & CGR
3
Steering Committee | Members

Town of Ossining






Susanne Donnelly (Supervisor)
Eric Blaha (Board Member)
Geoff Harter (Board Member)
Peter Tripodi (Board Member)
Northern Wilcher (Board Member)
Village of Ossining





William Hanauer (Mayor)
Marlene Cheatham (Trustee)
John Codman III (Trustee)
Robert Daraio (Trustee)
Manuel Quezada (Trustee)
4
CGR
Inform & Empower
Project Team | CGR and Research Staff

About CGR



Rochester-based 501c3 organization providing strategic consulting,
information management and implementation support to local
governments across New York State
Expertise in government management, fiscal and economic analysis,
service delivery and efficiency improvement
Project Team


Joseph Stefko, Ph.D.
President & Chief Executive Officer
CGR’s Government Management Team
5
Recap
Project Objectives & Process
6
Project Objectives | “Informing Options”

Building on a strong foundation…


…identify other potential options…


Town and Village work together regularly, have already
implemented a range of shared services, and continue to
explore others
Consider where else collaboration – including possible changes
in governmental structure or shared services – could yield
efficiencies for taxpayers
…and analyze the impact of those options

Assess how varying municipal structures would impact the
community (i.e. taxpayers) as a baseline for determining next
steps in Ossining
7
Project Process | Study Phases
1.
Baseline review
Document existing conditions and “what exists” in order to
build a shared information foundation for moving forward
2.
Identification of options
Identify range of options consistent with State-approved work
plan, and vet alternatives with Steering Committee
3.
Analysis of options
Review budgetary / fiscal impact of structural alternatives, and
provide summary of potential additional shared services
8
Project Process | Recap
Phase 1
Project Initiation
Public Forum #1
Baseline Data Review
COMPLETED
(Oct ‘11)
Phase 2
Review Current State
Baseline Report
Public Forum #2
Phase 3
Identify Options
Analyze Impacts
Draft Options Report
COMPLETED
(Apr ‘12)
Phase 4
Report-out
Final Options Report
Public Forum #3
COMPLETED
(Aug ‘12)
COMPLETED
(Oct ‘12)
9
Next Steps | Moving Forward…

Further Steering Committee consideration
Town and Village boards to use study as a “point of departure”
for discussing next steps

Community discussion
Is / are there option(s) that make sense which the community
wishes to pursue?


If yes, then development of implementation plan(s)
If no, then continuation of existing structures, shared arrangements
10
Report
Summary of Options & Impacts
11
Report | Identifying the Structural Options

Based on the project work plan, the study identified three
basic structural alternatives against which to compare the
status quo
1.
2.
3.
Consolidating the Village of Ossining and Unincorporated
Area as a city
Dissolving the Village of Ossining, expanding the size of the
Unincorporated Area of the Town
Merging the Village of Ossining and Unincorporated Area
as a coterminous town-village
12
Report | Two Notes re: Structural Options

Options do not include dissolving the Town, all else being
equal


State law does not permit village governments to exist
independent of a town government; it permits town
dissolution only as part of annexation into an adjoining
town in the same county (Town Law Article 5A, §79A)
Options do not include restructuring of Briarcliff Manor,
except to the extent that a restructured Town and Village
of Ossining would necessitate changes in VBM
13
Report | Assumptions re: Fiscal Estimates




Current-year budgets
Impacts = What effects would have been this year
Estimates presented using hypothetical typical property
Consistent budgetary fund structure


Creation of districts to account for certain costs (e.g. fire, sewer,
water, garbage, lighting) and Village debt
Shifts in Taxable Assessed Value (TAV)
14
Report | Assumptions re: Fiscal Estimates

Police services




Town and Village both fund service, but deliver it in different ways
Successor municipality would determine type, level of service
Therefore, a potential range of options and impacts
We model three funding levels




Current Town cost + Current Village cost (high)
Current Village cost (moderate)
Current Town cost (low)
Citizen Empowerment Tax Credit (CETC) incentive


Models presented with and without funding to offer greater
perspective on merits of each alternative
Coterminous model now eligible, but subject to state determination
15
Report | Alternative 1: City Status


Eligible for CETC funding
Would force structural change in Briarcliff Manor




Achievable by NYS act
Elimination of court costs; ability to preempt sales tax
Some savings through single administrative structure


Analysis assumes shift into Mount Pleasant w/ Village otherwise
continuing to exist in current form
One executive, one legislature, etc.
Assume creation of service districts in former Village


Debt, garbage, etc.
May require special state legislation to create districts in city
16
Report | Alternative 1: City Status

At current T+V police cost level with CETC funding:




Unincorporated Area
Village of Ossining
Village of Briarcliff Manor
$635
$44
$179
Key reasons for impact



Higher police spending spreads into fmr. Unincorporated Area
Removal of VBM from Ossining tax base reduces ratables
VBM assumed shifting entirely into Mount Pleasant (but subject to
other alternatives independent of other impacts)
17
Report | Alternative 1: City Status

At current T+V police cost level without CETC funding:




Unincorporated Area
Village of Ossining
Village of Briarcliff Manor
$758
$79
$179
Key reasons for impact



Higher police spending spreads into fmr. Unincorporated Area
Removal of VBM from Ossining tax base reduces ratables
VBM assumed shifting entirely into Mount Pleasant (but subject to
other alternatives independent of other impacts)
18
Report | Alternative 2: Village Dissolution


Eligible for CETC funding
Would not force structural change in Briarcliff Manor





Village of Ossining assets would transfer to Town
Achievable by unilateral action of the Village
Utility gross receipts tax in Village goes away
Some savings through single administrative structure



Analysis assumes VBM remains in Town taxable base
One executive, one legislature, etc.
Assume certain Village-specific admin functions go away
Assume creation of service districts in former Village

Debt, garbage, etc.
19
Report | Alternative 2: Village Dissolution

At current T+V police cost level with CETC funding:




Unincorporated Area
Village of Ossining
Village of Briarcliff Manor
$302
$377
$380
Key reasons for impact



Higher police spending spreads into Unincorporated Area
VBM portion remains in Town of Ossining, mitigating ratables shift
Certain Village of Ossining costs (e.g. data processing, treasurer, etc.)
shift into Unincorporated Area fund
20
Report | Alternative 2: Village Dissolution

At current T+V police cost level without CETC funding:




Unincorporated Area
Village of Ossining
Village of Briarcliff Manor
$378
$301
$456
Key reasons for impact



Higher police spending spreads into Unincorporated Area
VBM portion remains in Town of Ossining, mitigating ratables shift
Certain Village of Ossining costs (e.g. data processing, treasurer, etc.)
shift into Unincorporated Area fund
21
Report | Alternative 3: New Coterminous T-V


Newly eligible for CETC funding **
Would force structural change in Briarcliff Manor



Achievable by NYS act or Village annexation of Unincorp.
Some savings through single administrative structure




Analysis assumes shift into Mount Pleasant w/ Village otherwise
continuing to exist in current form
One executive, one legislature, etc.
As T + V both technically continue, certain add’l costs beyond Alt. 1
Most Town and Village revenue streams eligible to continue
Assume creation of service districts in former Village

Debt, garbage, etc.
22
Report | Alternative 3: New Coterminous T-V

At current T+V police cost level without CETC funding:




Unincorporated Area
Village of Ossining
Village of Briarcliff Manor
$834
$154
$179
Key reasons for impact



Higher police spending spreads into fmr. Unincorporated Area
Removal of VBM from Ossining tax base reduces ratables
VBM assumed shifting entirely into Mount Pleasant (but subject to
other alternatives independent of other impacts)
23
Report | Review of Shared Service Possibilities

Strong foundation of shared services between T + V











Court
DPW project administration
Clerk
Finance and IT
Parks and recreation
Fire and ambulance
Street lighting
Sanitary sewer conveyance
Water
Veteran’s Park
Others (incl. facilities)
24
Report | Review of Shared Service Possibilities

Additional opportunities to potentially enhance
operational efficiency, cost effectiveness or both?




Tax Collection
Public Works, Streets and Highways
Building and Inspections
Planning and Zoning
25
Report | Shared Tax Collection Potential

Potential opportunities







Substantially similar in process, function
Degree of inherent overlap (e.g. V properties also T properties)
Extent of overlapping tax liens between T and V
Complementary elements of workload schedule / calendar
Already some precedent for shared approach
Software systems compatible re: tax bill printing
Potential challenges


T Receiver’s Office and V Treasurer’s Office different in key respects
V Treasurer’s Office also handles water billing, which T does not
26
Report | Shared Tax Collection Potential

Summary


Optional Model 1 (via CGR)





Potential benefits, but more likely to be operational than financial
Merge tax collection into Town, retain financial admin in Village
Precedent for model in other communities (e.g. Rye)
Leverage overlap in liens
Leverage Town’s overlapping jurisdiction on Village properties
Optional Model 2 (via Village)


Merge all finance functions into Village
Larger department that might offer greater staffing flexibility during
peak collection periods
27
Report | Shared Public Works Potential

Potential opportunities







Substantially similar in function
Precedent for sharing DPW-related (e.g. project admin, fuel pumps)
Recent exploration of shared department feasibility
Larger employee pool could yield greater flexibility to deploy staff
Coordination of capital purchases may permit certain cost deferrals
Could alleviate space / storage constraints in Town Highway facility
Potential challenges





Governance
Loss of “dual first-response”?
Service differentials and cost apportionment (incl. equipment)
Facility modifications
Collective bargaining and compensation differentials
28
Report | Shared Public Works Potential

Summary




Potential benefits, both operational and financial
Given scale differences between V and T, any shared operation would
most appropriately be placed at the Village Dept of Public Works,
with the Town contracting for services via IMA
Original Village proposal (2011) estimated $242k savings
CGR identifies potential $200k savings from unified administration,
with the retention of the full remaining Town Highway workforce
29
Report | Shared Bldgs / Inspections Potential

Potential opportunities






Substantially similar in process, function
Operational efficiency in combining permit application, processing
Savings may be realized by merging admin support functions
T inspector is part-time; shared approach may yield f/t coverage
Co-location of offices in same building would minimize confusion
Potential challenges

Code enforcement of municipal ordinances can vary across localities,
because of ordinance differences and focus on certain issues
30
Report | Shared Bldgs / Inspections Potential

Summary





Potential benefits, both operational and modest financial
Given scale differences between V and T, any shared operation would
most appropriately be placed at the Village Building Department, with
the Town contracting for services via IMA
Original Village proposal (2011) estimated $60k savings
CGR’s analysis finds that savings estimate reasonable, resulting from
the reduction of a p/t admin support title and the repurposing of
another support title to a different role
Shared arrangement need not be all-encompassing, but could focus
on specific common functions (e.g. permit processing)

Could allow for certain efficiencies while preserving both municipalities’
administration of code enforcement within their territory
31
Report | Shared Planning / Zoning Potential

Potential opportunities




Substantially similar in function
Operational efficiency in combining common services, processes
As T utilizes consultant-based approach, a shared model may offer
more consistent coverage and daily capacity
Potential challenges


Presence of different development densities, community
characteristics and planning visions can complicate shared planning
and zoning arrangements
Absent a unified governance structure (i.e. single planning board
serving entire area), a shared department may be in the position of
serving “two masters”
32
Report | Shared Planning / Zoning Potential

Summary




Potential for modest financial benefit, and greater coordination for
community-wide planning and development
Given that V has a standalone Planning Department, any shared
operation would most appropriately be placed there
Original Village proposal (2011) estimated $59k savings
CGR finds potential savings of $35k from in-housing a portion of the
contracted-out services (though savings could reach Village estimate
if out-sourced services were completely eliminated)
33
Public Comment
Q&A
34

similar documents