CGR

Public Forum #3 | October 18, 2012

Evaluation of Potential Government Structures / ServicesTown 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

IntroductionsSteering Committee & CGR

3

Inform & EmpowerCGR

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

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

RecapProject Objectives & Process

6

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

Project Process | Study Phases

1. Baseline reviewDocument existing conditions and “what exists” in order to build a shared information foundation for moving forward

2. Identification of optionsIdentify range of options consistent with State-approved work plan, and vet alternatives with Steering Committee

3. Analysis of optionsReview budgetary / fiscal impact of structural alternatives, and provide summary of potential additional shared services

8

Project Process | Recap

9

Phase 1Project InitiationPublic Forum #1

Baseline Data Review

COMPLETED(Oct ‘11)

Phase 2Review Current State

Baseline ReportPublic Forum #2

COMPLETED(Apr ‘12)

Phase 3Identify OptionsAnalyze Impacts

Draft Options Report

COMPLETED(Aug ‘12)

Phase 4Report-out

Final Options ReportPublic Forum #3

COMPLETED(Oct ‘12)

Next Steps | Moving Forward…

Further Steering Committee considerationTown and Village boards to use study as a “point of departure” for discussing next steps

Community discussionIs / 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

ReportSummary 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. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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

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

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 CommentQ&A

34