Believe it or not, New York State has a total of 1,607 general purpose local governments. That’s 57 counties (not counting the 5 boroughs of NYC), 62 cities, 932 towns, and 556 villages. Those figures do not include our state’s 698 school districts, 272 library districts/systems, 123 housing authorities, 117 IDAs, and hundreds of other local government entities-- 4,250 in all. That’s a lot of government.
And it isn’t cheap. Who pays for all that local government across New York State? Mostly local property owners. Villages, towns, cities, counties, and school districts rely heavily on property taxes. However “fees” are an important source of revenue for cities, as is “state aid” for school districts. Counties are turning more and more to “sales taxes.” All of these are paid, at least in part, by the residents already paying the property taxes.
Many government experts believe New York’s municipal structures are outdated. They are not in sync with our current social reality-- where people live, what services they need, and how to fund them. A lot of money goes toward bureaucracy and not to the direct services, causing New York State to have the highest tax burden in the nation.
The Office of the State Comptroller has issued a number of studies over the past few years recommending intermunicipal cooperation, a decrease in administrative inefficiencies and/or sharing services. The Comptroller believes such efforts would be fruitful in lightening the property tax burden, and so do we.
In a 2005 survey, the New York State Senate Local Government Committee found the most common shared services were between town and village highway departments, including sharing equipment. An Oneida County study presented a menu of services that could be shared: code enforcement, computerization, property assessment, electricity purchases, grant applications, health insurance, highway maintenance, equipment and vehicle purchases, insurance, tax collection, and water/sewer services.
The same study recommended the following issues be addressed:
- the shared service must be equal to or better than the existing service;
- the financial benefits must be proven and significant;
- the sharing must be mutually beneficial;
- there must be a back out provision;
- employees should be represented in discussions concerning any agreement.
In 2005, the State started offering incentives for municipalities to share services through its Shared Municipal Services Incentive Grants (SMSIG) program. Essentially, the State funds some of the sharing and the municipalities benefit from the sharing. For 2007-2008, the state has set aside $25 million for this grant program.
Under the grant program the village and Town of Seneca Falls will receive $58,500 to investigate the consolidation of facilities and services. Schuyler County will receive $100,000 to work with the Towns of Dix, Hector, and Watkins Glen to manage record keeping.
What intermunicipal service-sharing might work for Geneva?
We have been offered County engineering and planning services, we see a potential for more cooperative arrangements with the Town of Geneva for water, sewer, and road maintenance. We understand that there have been discussions about a consolidation of assessment services. However, we need to make sure that City employees are protected; that the quality of services for City residents is not diminished, and that the shared services provide a cost savings.
Capraro, as City County liaison to the Town has been discussing these matters with Town Supervisor Mary Luckern, but the response from the Town has been slow, and a broader conversation about intermunicipal cooperation is needed.
4 comments:
Let's face it, the town has never wanted to have much to do with the city. Part of it is money and part social and part is political.
As we all know, there is not a town tax and it took a major push by the State to get to 100% evaluation on the property tax as required by the State. The people of the town don't want their expenses going up any more than they absolutely have to. There has always been the fear that town people would get stuck with city taxes.
There is the illusion of a social difference between the city and the town. The homes in the town are generally owner occupied, there is little rental property, there are the country clubs and the cost of lake property requires a major financial commitment. All of this means that the while the city is generally blue collar, the town is white collar.
There is also the politics. While the city generally votes for Democrats, the city is reliably Republican.
And in the end. The water and sewer agreement ran out four years ago. Why should the town be in a hurry.
Tom,
You raise many important issues here. But if by "let's face it" you mean "let's just accept it", well, we can't agree with that. Capraro serves as liaison to the Town Board and will continue to seek their cooperation on these vital issues.
By "let's face it". I mean that these are the obstacles that have to be overcome. As adults, with the best interest of the community at heart, I think we can.
We agree that a resolution to the issue is possible. But much of it depends on how people define 'community.' We consider the Geneva community to include the city and the town. But right now the city is almost exclusively shouldering the burden for the services that the community enjoys. So long as the residents of the Town allow their Town Board to consider themselves totally independent of the City, then these obstacles become almost insurmountable. We don't consider Town residents to be merely 'tourists' within Geneva. But as long as they receive what amounts to below-cost water and sewer services, unimpeded access to the lakefront, cultural offerings, and the roads and sidewalks that make all of that possible, it's hard to see where the parity is. The city shoulders the burden for the town, and adults with the best interest of the community at heart should come to the table to try and ease that load.
Post a Comment