Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

CGR Public Forum #3 | October 18, 2012 Evaluation of Potential Government Structures / Services Town and Village of Ossining, NY.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "CGR Public Forum #3 | October 18, 2012 Evaluation of Potential Government Structures / Services Town and Village of Ossining, NY."— Presentation transcript:

1 CGR Public Forum #3 | October 18, 2012 Evaluation of Potential Government Structures / Services Town and Village of Ossining, NY

2 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

3 Introductions Steering Committee & CGR 3

4 Inform & Empower CGR 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

5 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

6 Recap Project Objectives & Process 6

7 Project Objectives | “Informing Options”  Building on a strong foundation…  Town and Village work together regularly, have already implemented a range of shared services, and continue to explore others  …identify other potential options…  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

8 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

9 Project Process | Recap 9 Phase 1 Project Initiation Public Forum #1 Baseline Data Review COMPLETED (Oct ‘11) Phase 2 Review Current State Baseline Report Public Forum #2 COMPLETED (Apr ‘12) Phase 3 Identify Options Analyze Impacts Draft Options Report COMPLETED (Aug ‘12) Phase 4 Report-out Final Options Report Public Forum #3 COMPLETED (Oct ‘12)

10 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

11 Report Summary of Options & Impacts 11

12 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. Consolidating the Village of Ossining and Unincorporated Area as a city 2. Dissolving the Village of Ossining, expanding the size of the Unincorporated Area of the Town 3. Merging the Village of Ossining and Unincorporated Area as a coterminous town-village 12

13 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

14 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

15 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

16 Report | Alternative 1: City Status  Eligible for CETC funding  Would force structural change in Briarcliff Manor  Analysis assumes shift into Mount Pleasant w/ Village otherwise continuing to exist in current form  Achievable by NYS act  Elimination of court costs; ability to preempt sales tax  Some savings through single administrative structure  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

17 Report | Alternative 1: City Status  At current T+V police cost level with CETC funding:  Unincorporated Area$635  Village of Ossining $44  Village of Briarcliff Manor$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

18 Report | Alternative 1: City Status  At current T+V police cost level without CETC funding:  Unincorporated Area$758  Village of Ossining $79  Village of Briarcliff Manor$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

19 Report | Alternative 2: Village Dissolution  Eligible for CETC funding  Would not force structural change in Briarcliff Manor  Analysis assumes VBM remains in Town taxable base  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  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

20 Report | Alternative 2: Village Dissolution  At current T+V police cost level with CETC funding:  Unincorporated Area$302  Village of Ossining $377  Village of Briarcliff Manor$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

21 Report | Alternative 2: Village Dissolution  At current T+V police cost level without CETC funding:  Unincorporated Area$378  Village of Ossining $301  Village of Briarcliff Manor$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

22 Report | Alternative 3: New Coterminous T-V  Newly eligible for CETC funding **  Would force structural change in Briarcliff Manor  Analysis assumes shift into Mount Pleasant w/ Village otherwise continuing to exist in current form  Achievable by NYS act or Village annexation of Unincorp.  Some savings through single administrative structure  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

23 Report | Alternative 3: New Coterminous T-V  At current T+V police cost level without CETC funding:  Unincorporated Area$834  Village of Ossining $154  Village of Briarcliff Manor$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

24 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

25 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

26 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

27 Report | Shared Tax Collection Potential  Summary  Potential benefits, but more likely to be operational than financial  Optional Model 1 (via CGR)  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

28 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

29 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

30 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

31 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

32 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

33 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

34 Public Comment Q&A 34


Download ppt "CGR Public Forum #3 | October 18, 2012 Evaluation of Potential Government Structures / Services Town and Village of Ossining, NY."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google