CGR Public Forum #3 | October 18, 2012 Evaluation of Potential Government Structures / Services Town and Village of Ossining, NY Public Forum 3 | Tonights 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 CGRs 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 $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 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 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 $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 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 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 addl 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 $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 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 Veterans 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 Receivers Office and V Treasurers Office different in key respects V Treasurers 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 Towns 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
CGRs 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
Ayam Petelur Telur Grading PRODUK PEMASARAN WHOLE EGG PENYIMPANAN Basic Emulsion Theory Homogenous mixture of oil and water stabilized by an emulsifier Two classifications Macroemulsions- thermodynamically unstable Microemulsions- thermodynamically stable Interfacial tension Net interaction between dispersed phase Addition of van...
Global Sources of Epidemiological Data. Lack of standardized data on a global level. Global Tobacco Surveillance System—1999+ Collaborative effort among WHO, United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Canadian Public Health Association
Negligence is failure to perform a duty with requisite standard care. Plaintiff must demonstrate: There is a There must be a There must be There must be a Haig v. Bamford Canadian case for Third Party Liability * Gordon T....
3.30 Box (a) represents 1.0 mL of a solution of particles at a given concentration. Which of the boxes (b)-(d) represents 1.0 mL of the solution that results after (a) has been diluted by doubling the volume of its solvent?...
Verdana MS Pゴシック Arial Wingdings Times New Roman Watermark 1_Watermark Concentration, units & dimensions Examples of Environmental Fluid Mechanics Projects Environmental Fluid Mechanics Transport in the Hydrosphere Concentrations Hydromechanics Point Pollution Sources Non-Point Pollution Sources Storm Water Runoff Accidents Water...
Luke 23. Pilate, Herod, Barabbas, Simon Cyrenean, Crucifixion. Luke 24. Resurrection, Emmaus Road. Luke - Christ as Savior. Thanks for viewing the chapter content of Luke in. Picture format. This is the end of the book of Luke. and of...
Turner Interview Process. ... Phil Haak, Juval Lowey, Damien Edwards. Research Constantly | 4. I Wish I Learned To Research Constantly. You must stay up to date in software development if you want to advance professionally. Things change fast.
Ready to download the document? Go ahead and hit continue!