HomeMy WebLinkAboutTown City ConsolidationPaper08_Rev20 I Report of the Joint City/Town Study Group
2 on
3 Shared Services and Consolidation
4
5
6
7
8 Village
9
10
11
12
13
14 city
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 Town
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30 November 3, 2008
31
32 Diane V. Bruns
33 Lois E. Chaplin
34 Paul R. Eberts
35 Nathan Fawcett
36 Ellen McCollister
37 Tom Niederkorn (Chair)
38 Peter C. Stein
39 Stuart W. Stein
40 Mary Tomlan
41
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
42 JOINT CITY-TOWN STUDY GROUP
43
44 Dear Mayor Peterson and Supervisor Engman:
45
46 We are pleased to submit the results of the Joint City/Town Study Group on the issue of
47 possible shared municipal services and/or consolidation of the City and Town of Ithaca. It
48 has been an interesting and educational experience working on this challenging
49 assignment.
50
51 From our discussions with city and town personnel responsible for the operation of eight
52 major governmental functions we were encouraged to hear that 1.)there are already
53 examples of successful contractual agreements as well as informal practices to
54 collaborate in the provision of services and equipment; 2.)there are undoubtedly
55 opportunities to increase the current level of sharing and to formalize responsibility for
56 some inter-municipal operations and 3.)there are other opportunities to be explored, and
57 possible efficiencies to be gained, by continued review of staff activities in an attempt to
58 reduce duplication and thereby achieve a higher level of service. Although more analysis
59 is necessary it appears that, in some cases, the increased operational efficiency might also
60 result in a lower level of cost.
61
62 We encourage the legislative bodies in both municipalities to continue to pursue this
63 important sharing/consolidation issue. You should support and possibly reward future
64 staff efforts and activities that might result in greater operational efficiency and
65 effectiveness as well as less duplication of effort and,possibly, less cost including further
66 analysis of the benefits and impediments to full municipal consolidation.
67
68 A positive attitude is vital to such efforts. The public as well as municipal staff members
69 need to know, by actions as well as words, how you and the members of your
70 governments feel about this very important issue.
71
72 Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this far-reaching effort.
73
74 Members of the Joint City/Town Study Group
75
76 Diane V. Bruns
77 Lois E. Chaplin
78 Paul R. Eberts
79 Nathan Fawcett
80 Ellen McCollister
81 Tom Niederkorn
82 Peter C. Stein
83 Stuart W. Stein
84 Mary Tomlan
85 Note: Randy Haus, Wendy Skinner and Constance V. Thompson were also nominated for
86 the committee but were unable to participate.
87
2
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
88 Table of Contents
89
90 L Introduction 4
91 A. The Joint City/Town Study Group 4
92 B Overview of Study Group Activities 4
93 II. A Brief History of the Political Geography of Tompkins County: 5
94 III Possible Future Courses of Action 6
95 A. Allow Cooperation/Consolidation to Evolve on a Case-by-Case Basis 6
96 B. Consolidation of Services As Directed by Legislative Bodies. 7
97 C Full Consolidation of the City and Town of Ithaca 7
98 IV. Consolidation of Individual Services 8
99 A. Fire Protection 9
100 B. Code Enforcement 10
101 C. Planning 11
102 D. Public Safety 14
103 E. Public Works 14
104 F. Records Management 17
105 G. Recreation 17
106 V. Full Consolidation of the Town and City of Ithaca 18
107 A. Commonly Expressed Arguments For and Against Consolidation 19
108 B. An Analysis of the Major Perceived Benefits and Barriers 19
109 1. The Effect of Consolidation on Property Tax Rates 20
110 a. The "Status Quo" Assumption. 20
111 b. Sales Tax Distribution under Consolidation 21
112 c. Savings due to Increased Efficiency 22
113 d. Increase in Per Capita State Aid 22
114 e. The Issue of Debt 23
115 2. Identity Politics in the City, Village and Town 24
116 3. Moral and Ethical Considerations 25
117 4. Non-monetary Costs and Benefits 26
118 a. Merging Three Workforces into One 26
119 b. Increased Services for the Town 27
120 c The Contribution of Each Municipality to the
121 Other's Quality of Life 27
122 d. The Future Politics of Greater Ithaca 27
123 VI. Other Approaches to a More Unified Local Government 30
124 A. The Role of County Government 30
125 B. Other Consolidation Avenues 31
126 VII. Recommended Next Steps 31
127 VIII. A Vision of the Future 32
128 Appendix 1. Past Cooperation and Consolidation Efforts 34
129 Appendix 2 NY State Reports on Shared Services and Consolidation 36
130 Appendix 3 Legal Aspects of Consolidation 39
131 Appendix 4 2005 Town, City and Village Budgets 41
132 Appendix 5 Resolutions Establishing the Joint Study Group 46
133
134
3
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
135 L Introduction
136
137 A. The Joint City/Town Study Group
138 In May 2006 a resolution to set up a"Joint Study Group"to investigate possible
139 shared services and/or municipal consolidation opportunities between the City of Ithaca
140 and the Town of Ithaca was co-written by members of the City and Town governing
141 bodies and passed by both (see Appendix 5). These 2006 resolutions were the outgrowth
142 of an earlier facilitated meeting of elected officials of Tompkins County and the City and
143 Town of Ithaca held in December 2005. The purpose of this facilitated meeting was to
144 allow elected representatives an opportunity to discuss the positive and negative aspects
145 of shared services in, and possible consolidation of, the Ithaca communities. Pursuant to
146 the 2006 resolutions passed by both City and Town a Joint Study Group was established.
147
148 The Joint Study Group (JSG) first met on December 1, 2006. At that meeting,
149 members discussed and agreed on several specific issues related to its purpose and
150 function as well as the scope of its study. Issues agreed upon included:
151
152 • REPORT: The JSG intends to produce a report for the City and Town of Ithaca,
153 and interested members of the Ithaca community, that is relevant and usable as a
154 guide to potential merging or sharing of services. The JSG sees its primary goal as
155 politically neutral fact finding.
156
157 • DEFINITIONS: Within the context of the JSG's work"consolidation" implies a
158 merging of two or more levels of government. "Shared services" are publicly
159 funded community services that are or could be combined or extended to serve the
160 population of more than one municipality. City, Town and Village refer to the
161 City of Ithaca, the Town of Ithaca, and the Village of Cayuga Heights, and Greater
162 Ithaca refers to a new, consolidated municipality comprised of the City, Town and
163 Village.
164
165 • FOCUS: The JSG agreed to explore and report on consolidation of governments
166 but acknowledged that, because this issue is highly politically and emotionally
167 charged, most of the group's effort will focus on the more feasible potential of
168 shared services.
169
170 • HISTORY AND BACKGROUND: The JSG will oversee compilation of
171 documents that trace the history of similar studies and discussions since the
172 1950's, as well as documents and reports that detail existing shared services or
173 government consolidations. (See Appendix 1)
174
175 • RESOURCES: The JSG agreed that fully meeting the charge that has been given
176 is dependent on provision of adequate support services. (It should be noted that
177 study efforts were restricted by the absence of staff assistance to record meetings,
178 assemble basic data and historical efforts, assist in report preparation and similar
179 duties.)
180
4
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
181 B. Overview of Study Group activities.
182
183 Monthly meetings of the JSG were held during 2007 and much of 2008. In
184 addition to reviewing some past local efforts on the issue of consolidation and/or sharing
185 services, the JSG also investigated state legislation and a number of related state staff
186 reports on this issue as well as similar efforts of other communities in the Ithaca
187 region.(See Appendix 2) Using 2005 budget data for the Town, City and Village (See
188 Appendix 5), the JSG made various analyses of the effects of consolidation on property
189 taxes of residents.
190
191 At many of these meetings the detailed functions and operational responsibilities
192 presented by representatives from specific City and Town departments were reviewed.
193 Department heads and major staff members from both the City and Town jointly
194 presented a summary of duties and responsibilities and also responded to JSG questions
195 and comments. Early in 2007, the then mayor of Cayuga Heights declined the JSG's
196 informal invitation to have Village staff participate in the JSG's reviews.
197
198 Responsibilities,programs, organizational structure, operational concerns and
199 suggestions were presented and discussed. Areas and functions about which information
200 was presented were, in order of presentation, Fire Services, Human Resources, Finance,
201 Planning, Parks and Recreation, Records Management and Archives, Code Enforcement
202 and Public Works.
203
204 During the various group discussions there was nothing said to the JSG to indicate
205 strong resistance to the idea of closer City-Town operational alliances. There are already
206 opportunities for sharing services, equipment and information that have been
207 implemented by some departments. Several participants felt the concepts and specifics of
208 additional sharing could be examined.
209
210 IL A Brief History of the Political Geography of Tompkins County:
211
212 Tompkins County came into being in 1817, was significantly expanded in 1822,
213 and then slightly contracted to its current borders in 1854. Within those borders, the
214 county was divided into predominantly agricultural or unsettled towns of roughly equal
215 size. The central town, Ithaca, was set off from Ulysses on March 16, 1821, and the
216 Village of Ithaca incorporated the following April 2. Local government was the province
217 of the towns and the Village of Ithaca. County-wide functions, in particular the court
218 system, were administered collectively by the supervisors of the county's towns. Apart
219 from a few very minor changes, the names and outer borders of the county's nine towns
220 (Caroline, Danby, Dryden, Enfield, Groton, Ithaca, Lansing, Newfield, and Ulysses)were
221 the same in 1854 as they are in 2007. Within those decades, and within the Town of
222 Ithaca, the City of Ithaca has expanded its borders to the east and the north.
223
224 As time went on, as other areas in the County became more densely settled and
225 developed commercial activities, their residents apparently decided that their increasing
226 development gave rise to needs that were not being satisfactorily addressed by town
5
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
227 governments, and incorporated themselves as villages. Between 1857 and 1887, Dryden,
228 Groton, Trumansburg and Freeville were incorporated as villages. The Village of
229 Lansing, a part of the Town of Lansing, was incorporated in 1974.
230
231 In 1888, the Legislature granted a charter to the Village of Ithaca, allowing it to
232 incorporate as a City. This was seen at the time as a major event by area residents, and
233 was greeted with speeches,parades, band concerts, and fireworks, culminating in a 29
234 gun salute.
235
236 The formation, expansion and services of the Village of Cayuga Heights, a part of
237 the Town of Ithaca, is particularly relevant to this study. Cayuga Heights is the only
238 incorporated village in the Town and offers services parallel to those now available in the
239 City and Town of Ithaca. Cayuga Heights voted to incorporate as a village in 1915 with
240 an area of 0.44 square miles and a population of 137. In 1954, in response to the desire
241 of a growing suburban population for suburban amenities,principally water, sewers and
242 sidewalks, that the Town could not supply, it quadrupled its area. In another referendum
243 in the same year, the Village rejected a proposal to be annexed by the City. In 2008,
244 Cayuga Heights is a highly developed suburban community with a small commercial
245 center and almost no land available for development. Furthermore, increased
246 development in the Town has brought water and sewer service to the areas adjacent to the
247 Village of Cayuga Heights, reducing the reasons that originally motivated the split
248 between the Village and the Town. At present, a strong allegiance to local identity and a
249 perception that the Village is more responsive to local service needs persists.
250
251 Three simple metrics and a single picture summarize many of the arguments for
252 and against consolidation. The populations of the City, Town and Village are 29,300,
253 18,200 (including the Village) and 3,300 respectively, their median family incomes are
254 $42,000, $68,000 and $123,000 respectively, and their family poverty rates are 13.5%,
255 4.2%, and 1.5%respectively. The map that appears on the title page of this report shows
256 the immutable geography of the southern end of Cayuga Lake in which the three
257 municipalities are situated.
258
259 III Possible Future Courses of Action.
260
261 A. Encourage Departmental Cooperation/Consolidation Efforts on a Case-by-Case Basis
262
263 Several departments in the Town and the City have already established
264 consolidated or cooperative efforts in similar types of services. In some cases, (e.g., in
265 the public works sector) staff, on their own, have found ways to cooperate, share staff and
266 equipment and otherwise work together to save money and provide efficiencies, without
267 direction by elected officials. In other cases (e.g., the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment
268 Facility), elected officials cooperated to build a new consolidated facility that was a
269 necessity for both of them. In neither of these above examples was consolidation or
270 cooperation pursued for any reason beyond the economies dictated by the particular
271 situation. In our review, we did not find obvious examples of consolidation/cooperation
272 opportunities that promised to save meaningful amounts of money that have been
6
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
273 overlooked. Furthermore, we believe that when such opportunities arise in the future,
274 staff members in Town and City departments will be aware of them, and further
275 cooperation actions will occur naturally.
276
277 While such incremental and natural evolution of service delivery is praiseworthy,
278 there are limits to what it can accomplish. It often is the result of decisions made by line
279 and administrative staff who focus only on their own domains. Such individual decision-
280 making by its nature lacks the broader viewpoint that comes from oversight from the
281 elected public officials. There is also the natural tendency for the director of a
282 department to protect his/her own territory, which often directly conflicts with increasing
283 cooperation and consolidation. Under such circumstances, cooperation and consolidation
284 can only come as a result of pressure applied from the top, i.e. from the elected officials,
285 often during times of fiscal stress.
286
287 Given these circumstances, we see no useful role that we, or any outside review
288 study group, can play in further advancing consolidation or cooperation of a natural and
289 incremental nature.
290
291 This approach, however, does not address overarching issues like comprehensive
292 planning and land use, transportation strategies, environmental protection or adjustments
293 to climate change, among others.
294
295 B. Consolidation of Additional Services As Directed by Legislative Bodies.
296
297 This option assumes that there remain opportunities for further consolidation of
298 services that have not already taken place. Where this has not already taken place,
299 external direction or pressure from the elected officials of both the Town and the City
300 could cause the staff of those departments to work more closely together to achieve
301 efficiencies and cost-savings. Individual Town and City departments could be integrated
302 into a single department, or just be required to work more closely together. Interestingly,
303 the committee's interviews of some department heads indicated a clear willingness to
304 engage in further cooperation, and even integrate their departments with those of other
305 municipalities.
306
307 While recognizing that there would be barriers to overcome before full
308 consolidation of additional services could actually take place, the committee sees this
309 option as viable. More detailed study of any specific service area needs to be
310 undertaken. Such questions as labor contracts, ownership of assets, oversight and
311 direction, etc. can be difficult, although not impossible to handle. The functions that are
312 the most likely candidates for consolidation are listed below in alphabetical order.
313
314 Code Enforcement
315 Fire Protection
316 Planning
317 Public Safety
318 Public Works
7
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
319 Records Management
320 Recreation
321
322 Each of these functions will be discussed in greater length in a subsequent section of this
323 report.
324
325 C. Full Consolidation of the City and the Town of Ithaca.
326
327 The ultimate form of consolidation, of course, is to make the Town and City one
328 governmental entity. Over the years, a number of individuals and groups have made such
329 a recommendation with the general aim of increasing the efficiency of local government.
330 In any review of this kind, the option of consolidation of governments must be addressed.
331 This approach is very attractive to many, but there are many significant barriers to such a
332 move.
333
334 Full consolidation would require a full, wide ranging analysis of many issues,
335 such as legal constraints and the costs and benefits of consolidation. Furthermore there
336 must be extensive debate by the city and town legislative bodies as well as by the
337 residents of both jurisdictions. A preliminary analysis of the legal issues is presented in
338 Appendix 3, and a first look at the costs and benefits is presented in Section VI below.
339 While a full analysis far exceeds our charge and capabilities, we believe that full
340 consolidation merits a serious examination by stakeholders in both jurisdictions. For our
341 part, we will attempt to advance the discussion by systematically examining what we
342 believe are the most often expressed advantages (i.e., benefits) and disadvantages (i.e.,
343 costs) of consolidation.
344
345 IV. Consolidation of Individual Services
346
347 There are many examples of local services that are provided by partnerships of
348 independent jurisdictions or institutions. TCAT (Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit)
349 was formed as a partnership of the three existing independent transportation systems of
350 Cornell, the City of Ithaca and Tompkins County. The Southern Cayuga Lake
351 Intermunicipal Water Commission (Bolton Point) is a partnership of three Towns
352 (Dryden, Ithaca and Lansing) and two Villages (Cayuga Heights and Lansing) founded to
353 provide water to the residents of the partnership. The Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment
354 Plant(IAWWTP) is a partnership of the City and Town of Ithaca and the Town of
355 Dryden for the purpose of treating the sanitary sewage of these municipalities so that it
356 can safely be discharged into Cayuga Lake.
357
358 Each of these partnerships has a different governing structure to apportion both
359 the expenses and the decision-making powers of the enterprise among the partners in
360 what was seen as an equitable fashion. These three enterprises are widely accepted as
361 successful examples of intermunicipal cooperation and as enduring cornerstones of local
362 government.
363
8
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
364 Given these successes, one might speculate that other specialized-function
365 consolidations will follow in their path. In all three cases, the ultimate benefits of
366 consolidation seem obvious, at least in hindsight. It is hard to fashion an argument that it
367 would have made sense for the Bolton Point or IAWWTP to have built their own parallel
368 water or sewage treatment plants simultaneously, or that it made sense for Tompkins
369 County to have three independent public transportation systems, each with its own routes,
370 equipment and infrastructure.
371
372 On closer analysis, it seems clear that Bolton Point and IAWWTP consolidations
373 are fundamentally different from TCAT. Bolton Point and IAWWTP were both built
374 from scratch, while TCAT combined three existing systems, each with its own
375 equipment, labor unions and routes. While management decisions in all three joint
376 ventures involve both technical and policy questions,policy issues probably play a
377 greater role in TCAT than in Bolton Point and IAWWTP, and governments are probably
378 less inclined to share decision-making power on policy issues than on technical issues.
379 On the other hand, the path to the TCAT consolidation was both driven by demands of
380 regulatory agencies and smoothed by a large influx of federal and state funds.
381
382 It would appear that each case is different, and that there is no generic path to
383 consolidation of services. If one is talking about consolidation of existing organizations,
384 there must be clear demonstrable gains for both sides to compensate for the inevitable
385 loss of control (perceived or real)by one or both parties. Below, we will systematically
386 examine the services we think are the prime candidates for consolidation.
387
388 A. Fire Protection
389
390 The City, Village and Town each have different ways of providing fire protection.
391 The City's fire department(the Ithaca Fire Department) is mostly composed of career
392 firefighters with a small (less than 10% of the total)volunteer component. The Village
393 has a totally volunteer fire department. The Town does not have a fire department of its
394 own; it contracts with both the City and the Village to provide fire protection to its
395 residents.
396
397 In one sense, fire protection services in Greater Ithaca are already consolidated.
398 The Village Fire Department has the responsibility for responding to incidents in the
399 Village and certain parts of the Town, and the Ithaca Fire Department has the
400 responsibility of responding to incidents in the City and the remainder of the Town.
401 However both fire departments provide backup for each other, and may even be first
402 responders for a fire outside of their area of responsibility if the situation demands it.
403
404 However, in other important ways, the fire departments are not consolidated. In
405 the Ithaca Fire Department, volunteers and career firefighters are combined into the same
406 units. The various tasks that firefighters are required to perform require different and
407 skill levels. An area-wide integration of volunteer and career firefighters would make
408 more efficient use of the capabilities of both groups. Furthermore, the relationship
409 between the Town on the one hand, and the City and Village on the other, namely that of
9
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
410 a customer and a vendor, does not seem appropriate for municipalities providing a
411 consolidated service. While the Town does recommend the appointment of some of the
412 Ithaca Fire Department fire commissioners, the role of the commissioners is more
413 advisory than decision-making.
414
415 Since fire protection for Greater Ithaca is provided by two independent
416 departments with intertwined responsibilities, the three municipalities might wish to
417 establish a new structure for providing fire safety that shares both cost and control among
418 the users in an equitable fashion. It is also possible that in the light of the high priority
419 given to maximally efficient use of all resources, a countywide consolidation of providers
420 of fire safety should be examined. We have found no compelling argument that such a
421 consolidation will significantly reduce total costs, but it may well provide an improved
422 area wide level of fire protection.
423
424 B. Code Enforcement
425
426 The Town of Ithaca and the City of Ithaca must adhere to the New York State
427 Uniform Code for fire and safety. The state law was changed last year to require many
428 more triennial fire inspections.
429
430 The Town of Ithaca building code calls for the code enforcement department to be
431 responsible for zoning and building permits,property inspections,property maintenance,
432 excavation and fill, sign permits, and for storm water code enforcement to be the
433 responsibility of the engineering department.. The Town is responsible for inspecting
434 approximately 4500 dwelling units.
435
436 The City of Ithaca building department abides by the same New York State fire
437 and safety codes as does the Town, and must enforce local laws enacted by the City. It
438 too, is responsible for the above-mentioned functions. In practice, however, there are
439 substantial differences in the work of the Town and City code inspectors due to the
440 differences in populations of the Town and the City. The City is much denser than the
441 Town and the ratio of(mostly student)rental properties to single family homes is far
442 greater. There are approximately 10,000 rental properties in the City, which are supposed
443 to be inspected yearly. In contrast, one or two family homes are inspected every five
444 years. In addition, City code enforcement officers are responsible for inspecting Cornell
445 University fraternities and dormitories. Because there are often substantial code
446 violations at rental properties and fraternities, some properties must be inspected
447 numerous times before compliance is achieved. Thus, the City inspectors face a very
448 field-intensive job. The building permit fees do not cover the costs of compliance and
449 inspection. Finally, the board review structure .(e.g., the Board of Zoning Appeals, the
450 Planning and Development Board, etc.) in the City as outlined in City Charter requires
451 the frequent input of the City's building department, also resulting in more work for staff.
452
453 As far as collaborative or consolidation efforts are concerned, staff of both
454 municipalities agreed that there could be opportunities for jointly sponsored training.
455 However, that is such a small component of their jobs that it would neither save much
10
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
456 money nor require that the two entities be consolidated. The respective workloads are
457 larger than existing staff resources can cover fully, so consolidation clearly would not
458 save personnel costs. It might, however,produce some marginal management
459 efficiencies.
460
461 However, the primary opportunity for reorganization and consolidation may be in
462 the area of fire inspections. The recently revised New York State code mandates
463 increased fire inspections. It would be better for the Ithaca Fire Department, which must
464 deal with future fires, to do all the fire inspections in the Town and City rather than for
465 the Town and City inspectors to do it independently. The Ithaca Fire Department will
466 then have first hand knowledge of the conditions it will face if it were required to fight a
467 fire in a given structure.
468
469 It is our understanding that as of the time of this writing, the Town and the City
470 are pursuing an arrangement whereby the Town's fire inspections will be carried out by
471 the Ithaca City Fire Department.
472
473
474 C. Planning
475
476 "In New York State municipalities have extensive authority to cooperate with one
477 another to accomplish their land use objectives. Where villages, towns and cities share
478 natural resources, transportation corridors or economic markets they are authorized to
479 enter into intermunicipal agreements to perform together any municipal function they
480 have power to undertake individually." Well Grounded, John R. Nolan, Professor of
481 Law, Pace University School of Law, White Plains, NY, March 1999.
482
483 In terms of fundamental planning tools such as land use character and
484 development controls, it is clear that New York communities have available extensive
485 legal tools to help guide development and regulate the use of land. State laws related to
486 planning and zoning give communities extensive control over the use and development of
487 land within their boundaries. However, the use of these statutes depends, in most cases,
488 on the desire of the communities to develop, enact and use the planning and
489 implementation measures available to them.
490
491 At present there is a full program of planning and zoning activity existing in the
492 greater Ithaca community. Both City and Town have professional planning staffs to
493 create and implement planning and development programs. The Town Planning
494 Department currently consists of 6 to 7 personnel. An operating budget of$344,276 was
495 authorized for 2007. The City of Ithaca Planning Department consists of 12 personnel,
496 which includes four Ithaca Urban Renewal (NRA)personnel. The budget of the City's
497 Planning Department for 2008 is $843,376. In addition, both City and Town make use of
498 consulting services as necessary. Tompkins County also has an extensive planning
499 program and an active professional planning staff.
500
11
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
501 In addition to the professional staff, both the City and Town have a lay planning
502 board, a zoning board of appeals, a special planning committee comprised of one or more
503 members of the legislative body and one or more lay or legislative-body committees for
504 such issues as housing, conservation and protection of the environment, and similar
505 planning and development-related issues.
506
507 A meeting with planning directors of the City and Town planning departments,
508 and the assistant planning director of the County planning department pointed out that
509 these entities have prepared and enacted a range of planning tools including site plan
510 approval, some form of comprehensive planning including, in the City and Town,
511 detailed and complex subdivision regulations and zoning (land use) controls. The City's
512 comprehensive plan was adopted in 1971 and has been somewhat modified since. The
513 Town plan was adopted in 1993 and has been selectively reviewed several times. Both
514 municipalities are currently in the process of updating their comprehensive plans.
515 Preparation of the existing plans was probably undertaken in the general context of
516 growth issues, future development objectives and control of land use in the broader
517 community. On the other hand, specific attempts to coordinate development concepts,
518 community character and the overall impact of future land use changes beyond municipal
519 boundaries did not play a major role in shaping the adopted Town and City plans.
520
521 The County has only recently become involved in comprehensive planning and
522 has, according to the county planner, focused on those land use issues that transcend of
523 municipal boundaries. The County's plan was adopted in 2004 and is to be reviewed in
524 2009. Cayuga Heights Village has legislative authority to prepare and adopt a
525 comprehensive plan but this has not been undertaken to date. Zoning regulations and site
526 plan review are active components of development in the Village. The Village has no
527 planning staff, and zoning and development permits are coordinated by the Village
528 Engineer/Zoning officer.
529
530 Multi-municipal planning and development issues have been acknowledged in
531 State legislation for cities, towns and villages. Article 5-G of the General Municipal Law
532 establishes statutory authority for communities to "...enter into agreements to undertake
533 comprehensive planning and land use regulation with each other....Furthermore,
534 according to Article 5-G "...any city, town or village may contract with a county to carry
535 out all or a portion of the ministerial functions related to...land use...." The intent of
536 this legislation is to provide the participating governing bodies the opportunity to "...
537 promote intergovernmental cooperation that could result in increased coordination and
538 effectiveness of comprehensive planning and land use regulation, more efficient use of
539 infrastructure and municipal revenues, as well as the enhanced protection of community
540 resources, especially where such resources span municipal boundaries."
541
542 State enabling legislation also empowers cities, towns and villages to create
543 special land use districts which encompass all or a portion of one or more municipalities
544 for the purpose of protecting, enhancing or developing one or more community resources.
545
12
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
546 Both City and Town planning directors stated their belief that additional
547 opportunity for collaboration or sharing of governmental activities and responsibilities
548 existed. They noted that fire protection and sewage disposal are municipal services that
549 are currently shared between the two municipalities. They also suggested that additional
550 consolidation of the area's public water supply seems like an opportunity and that sharing
551 for parks and recreation could be improved. In their view such efforts to coordinate or
552 share services would likely be short of total consolidation of the two municipalities.
553 Fundamental issues such as the nature and extent of future development and the
554 establishment of future land use goals and objectives were also viewed quite differently
555 by both the planning and legislative functions of each government. In addition, the issues
556 of cost vs. control are factors that increasingly stall or completely derail potential
557 collaboration opportunities at both the planning and legislative levels.
558
559 In the 1990s the State Legislature recognized the increasing importance that
560 planning can play in helping municipalities broadly face development issues when it
561 passed enabling legislation giving municipalities authorization to undertake programs for
562 "...protecting the public health, safety and general welfare of its citizens". (Section 272-
563 [1][b] of the Town Law) Using these tools and strategies in a broader collaborative or
564 consolidated format could be helpful in reducing carbon emissions and environmental
565 degradation at the local level, an increasingly important issue that could be addressed by
566 community planning programs at all levels.
567
568 Since both the City and Town are currently beginning efforts to update their
569 comprehensive plans, and expect this work to take several years, a collaborative effort is
570 clearly a unique opportunity to evaluate development goals and long range land use
571 objectives in a comprehensive way and to seriously consider critical environmental issues
572 and concerns. In our meeting with them, the planning directors acknowledged this
573 opportunity but indicated concerns about how this would be accomplished. A combined
574 planning effort would ultimately require and promote mutual agreement on the important
575 tasks of establishing future land use character and development goals and objectives for
576 the Greater Ithaca Area, i.e. the City and Town, or at least some major portions thereof.
577 Agreement on these and other basic issues would be needed, initially at the planning level
578 and, more importantly, at the legislative level. For this comprehensive master planning to
579 be fully effective, it would also need to include the Village of Cayuga Heights.
580
581 Despite the inherent difficulties, the shared long range planning opportunity
582 available at this particular time appears to be unique. It could,perhaps, be started by a
583 coordinated description and shared analysis of existing conditions and trends in the two
584 Ithaca communities. Included in this discussion would be the critically important
585 planning and development programs of Cornell and Ithaca College. Future activities and
586 development programs at both institutions can be expected to have major and long-lasting
587 impacts on many planning issues in the City and Town.
588
589 Implied in the undertaking of a new comprehensive plan in the City and Town is
590 the complicated issue of zoning and the changes that would most likely be necessary to
591 reflect coordinated planning goals and objectives. To the extent that current economic
13
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
592 development, zoning and site planning decisions are skewed by existing municipal
593 taxation boundaries, the results become sub optimal for meeting comprehensive master
594 planning objectives. This issue could be even more difficult and contentious than the
595 more general conclusions and proposals of a coordinated comprehensive plan.
596 Nonetheless, to begin implementation of coordinated development and land use goals for
597 the two communities would surely involve a review and possible modification of the
598 underlying laws, tax revenue protocols and implementation procedures. In an era when
599 the need for nations to work together to solve global problems is increasingly being
600 recognized and taken into account, we believe that municipal governments should
601 commit themselves to make a special effort to jointly fashion an area-wide plan for the
602 future.
603
604 D. Public Safety
605
606 Four independent police forces belonging to the City of Ithaca, the Village of
607 Cayuga Heights, Cornell University and Ithaca College provide primary police protection
608 to residents of Greater Ithaca. The Tompkins County Sheriff provides primary police
609 protection for the Town of Ithaca outside of the Village of Cayuga Heights, as part of the
610 Sheriffs responsibility to provide primary police protection for those municipalities that
611 do not have a police force of their own. Generally these independent police organizations
612 have provided backup coverage for each other in emergencies.
613
614 The Sheriff is an independent public official, elected by all of the residents of
615 Tompkins County, and makes his or her own decisions about how to distribute the
616 resources the County grants to support the Sheriffs office. As a result, Town government
617 has limited ability to determine where and what kind of public safety protection will be
618 provided to its residents.
619
620 The general perception of Town residents is that drivers respect speed limits and
621 other traffic and parking regulations more in municipalities that have their own police
622 force than those that rely on the Sheriff and state police for enforcement. Periodically,
623 the Town has talked about instituting its own police force, but was always deterred by the
624 considerable anticipated start up costs. If consolidation of Greater Ithaca were to take
625 place, residents of the current Town would expect to enjoy the same level of police
626 presence as City and Village residents currently have.
627
628 Of course a consolidated police force that could provide such protection would
629 have to be greater than the combined City and Village Police forces, and detailed study
630 would be required to estimate accurately the size of the required increase. To get some
631 idea of what would be required, we consulted individuals familiar with public safety
632 administration. According to several knowledgeable sources we consulted, a level of
633 police presence enough to deter speeding and other moving violations throughout the
634 Town would probably require approximately two additional two-shift road patrols.
635
636 E. Public Works
637
14
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
638 Public Works staff from the Town and the City met with the committee in
639 October 2007 to outline the basic responsibilities assumed by their respective
640 departments, and to comment on areas where there might be opportunities for additional
641 cooperation and/or consolidation.
642
643 The Town's Public Works Department includes highways,parks, trails, water and
644 sewer operations, storm water management, buildings and grounds, and some
645 engineering. The City's Board of Public Works advises the City public works
646 department, which is organized into three main divisions: water and sewer, streets and
647 facilities (including a large function for urban forestry) and engineering. In the Town,
648 there are approximately 28 staff dealing with these functions; in the City, 168. Both
649 departments are unionized, and and represented by different unions. In area, the town is
650 responsible for about 50 miles of roadway. The City is responsible for about 70 miles of
651 streets and their sidewalks,plus 33 bridges. Responsibility for the 28 bridges in the
652 Town rests with the County.
653
654 Thus, functionally, the Town and the City public works departments are expected
655 to serve their taxpayers in similar ways in providing for and maintaining infrastructure.
656 Historically, the departments have evolved to duplicate most functions, although there are
657 individual differences in methods of management and in equipment inventory. With the
658 Town encircling the City geographically, and roads not stopping at an artificial Town-
659 City boundary, it is an archaic model that results in two municipalities functioning
660 independently vis-a-vis their public works duties. This seemed evident both to the
661 committee and to staff. In theory, many of the functions could at a minimum be
662 coordinated, and in many cases consolidated. As always, the devil would be in the
663 details. Moreover,public works is another example where there is the ever-present trade-
664 off between increased efficiency and economies of scale and reduced autonomy by the
665 individual municipality. Many taxpayers prefer small, local, minimal government and
666 are averse to what they see as subsidizing infrastructure outside their borders. But with a
667 trend toward regionalism, and borders becoming increasingly an historical artifact,public
668 works is an area that seems prime for review of specific services that could be
669 consolidated or jointly operated,perhaps along the lines of the Tompkins Consolidated
670 Area Transit(TCAT) model. It was interesting that the City superintendent observed that
671 New York State has 3500 municipal public works departments while Massachusetts
672 functions with 1800.
673
674 In the absence of sweeping consolidation, the committee suggests looking closely
675 at the functional areas described below to see where further cooperation or consolidation
676 could occur. In some cases, significant cost-savings due to economies of scale could be
677 achieved in such areas as water or sewer facilities, or snow removal_ In other cases there
678 might not be initial cost savings, but planning and coordination on an area wide basis
679 would be better for all (e.g., location and maintenance of sewer and water lines that
680 reflect desired regional growth patterns.) It is noted that some of the best suggestions for
681 consolidation opportunities might come from the "bottom up", such as having a contest
682 that would enable staff from the various departments to suggest trial models that would
15
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
683 best serve taxpayers. The other mechanism for change would require the respective
684 Town-City boards or councils to approve any change, based on constituency input.
685
686 Equipment and trucks: There are economies of scale in purchasing decisions. The
687 Town and City would have the same peak use problems, for instance, during heavy snow
688 and rainstorms, but often idle equipment inventory could be shared. The committee was
689 told that there are already informal agreements in place whereby municipalities come to
690 each other's aid on a case-by-case basis when one municipality's truck or equipment
691 breaks down or other unusual situations arise. In addition, there is already coordination
692 between the two departments regarding snowplow routes.
693
694 • Water source: The current discussions on water source-- Bolton Point vs. Six Mile
695 Creek-- are complicated from environmental,political and financial standpoints. But if
696 the water issue is looked at as an opportunity for consolidation and uniformity of water
697 quality and supply, there are opportunities for consolidation and economies of scale
698 possible. Failure to think of potable water as an area need can lead to sub-optimal
699 technical decisions, such as the route that Town water mains follow to serve South Hill.
700
701 • Water and sewer infrastructure: There are some inefficiencies and existing duplication
702 of capital infrastructure regarding water and sewer lines, and water tower locations. With
703 population growth patterns moving throughout the county, a regionalist approach would
704 suggest having these decisions coordinated under a single entity. Such an approach
705 would frame the decision the City must make about its water source as finding the safest
706 and most efficient way to supply the future water needs of the Greater Ithaca area.
707
708 • Roads and Bridges: Municipal responsibility for the construction and maintenance of
709 roads and bridges does not seem to reflect current day realities. Both the City and the
710 Town are participating members in the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council
711 (the federally-designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)), which is the
712 conduit for federal and state transportation infrastructure funds. When a road or bridge is
713 first built or undergoes major repairs under this program, the costs are borne
714 predominately by the state and federal governments. Committee members noted, that,
715 absent project funding through the MPO, the City is responsible for the entire cost of
716 building, replacing and maintaining its bridges. However, the County pays for much of
717 the cost of replacement of Town bridges having a span of twenty-five feet or more,
718 usually with a split of approximately County 80%, Town 20%. Following construction or
719 rebuilding, the maintenance costs for Town bridges is shared with the County, with the
720 County responsible for maintenance of the structure, and the Town responsible for
721 maintenance of the floor or wearing surface of the bridge (according to a County
722 resolution in 1946). Designation of the MPO in the `90s brought additional infrastructure
723 funding into the area and has been instrumental in developing a rational system for
724 allocating scarce resources. It may be time to consider consolidating the responsibility for
725 road and bridge improvements under a single authority. Such an approach would conform
726 to the basic fact that while traffic problems may have definite geographic locations, the
727 causes and effects of these problems are shared by the residents of a much broader area.
728
16
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
729 • Storm Water Management: This is a real opportunity for further collaboration and
730 consolidation,particularly because storm water management is a new mandate from the
731 Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC.), that requires all communities to
732 develop new parallel regulation and enforcement capabilities.
733
734 • Transit: The local public transit system has been consolidated via Tompkins
735 Consolidated Area Transit(TCAT). TCAT represents the joining of Ithaca Transit(City),
736 TomTran (County) and Cornell Transit into one unified system providing service
737 throughout Tompkins County and adjoining areas in Schuyler and Tioga Counties.
738 Because TCAT's scope is regional, it has the advantage of having the broader picture in
739 mind when making decisions about routes and service areas. TCAT is not a municipal
740 function even though it provides a public service; it is organized as a not-for-profit
741 corporation reporting to a board of directors. New members of the board are nominated
742 by the City, the County and Cornell University, and confirmed by the TCAT board.
743 Funding of its operational deficit each year is shared equally among these three partners.
744 In addition, Cornell provides significant additional support through its pass programs for
745 staff and students.
746
747 F. Records Management
748 The County, the City and each municipality are required by the state to store vital
749 records of many kinds. In addition, there are other records that, while not required to be
750 kept, nevertheless are historically important. Some municipalities may currently be
751 handling record keeping well, while others are hard-pressed to find the appropriate space
752 and personnel to manage these important records. The main issue is with the storage of
753 relatively inactive records. Many departments keep active records close-by as they often
754 need them in doing their work on a regular basis.
755
756 This issue was brought to the committee by several County staff members: the
757 County Clerk, the County Historian and staff of County Personnel and Administration.
758 They emphasized the current need, and certainly a growing future need, to address the
759 growing burden of record storage by all levels of municipalities in the County.
760
761 In the presentation, it was pointed out that this burden represented both a
762 challenge and an opportunity. The County, City and Town could work together to create
763 a centralized records center that could serve not only these three governmental entities,
764 but also other municipalities that may have the need for such a facility. Combining
765 efforts to create a records center for the entire county to house vital public records and
766 historic documents could be more efficient and less costly than if each municipality
767 attempted to address the problem on it own. It was noted, however, that discussions with
768 all of the County's municipalities, including the Town and the City of Ithaca, about
769 records storage needs have not been held. Therefore, it is not clear whether there will be
770 buy-in from everyone to this concept.
771
772 It was pointed out, also, that a New York State program currently exists that could
773 provide what could be substantial financial assistance for its creation and management.
774 The County and several municipalities already have tapped into that fund for grants.
17
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
775
776 While a records center may not be seen by many as a major service when
777 compared to other critical public services, it is required and is necessary, and will have to
778 be established eventually. This appears to be an opportunity to achieve municipal
779 efficiency. It was suggested that the City-Town committee, working with the County,
780 could assist in moving forward with such a project. In fact, it was learned by the
781 committee that the County currently has taken the first steps to locate and fund such a
782 facility and have it built,probably in the Town of Ithaca. The tentative timetable for
783 construction of such a records building is 2010, which suggests that a timely response to
784 this opportunity is called for.
785
786 G. Recreation
787
788 Until the mid 1990's,public recreational facilities and programming in Greater
789 Ithaca were provided by the State and the City of Ithaca. The State Parks System
790 provides local Greater Ithaca residents ready, convenient access to three major State
791 Parks offering a choice of swimming, camping, hiking, and picnicking opportunities and
792 spectacular view sheds. The City provided local residents access to its lakeside centrally
793 located Stewart Park with picnicking facilities,playgrounds, a carousel and a pavilion
794 available for group functions, Cass Park with its seasonal swimming pool/skating rink,
795 ball fields,pavilion and marina, as well as other parks and facilities. In addition, the
796 Ithaca Youth Bureau has provided extensive recreational programming based principally
797 at the City's recreational facilities for more than half a century.
798
799 Before the 1980's, the City gave area residents equal access to its recreational
800 programs irrespective of their home address. In response to budget pressures, the City
801 instituted a system in the mid 1980's whereby local municipalities could opt to make a
802 designated financial contribution to the City and become "an affiliate", in which case a
803 resident of that municipality could use City recreational facilities and programs on a par
804 with City residents. Several municipalities, including the Town of Ithaca, became
805 "affiliated" with the City in this way. The Town has continued to make regular payments
806 to the City in one form or another to compensate the City for its provision of recreational
807 facilities and activities used by Town residents.
808
809 In recent years, the Recreation Partnership, a joint venture of the City, the County
810 and most of the county's Towns, was formed to provide resources for youth oriented
811 recreational programming for county residents. The funds raised by the Recreation
812 Partnership were largely paid to the City, which provided the programming requested by
813 the Partnership. In addition to its contributions to the Recreation Partnership, the Town
814 has made annual contributions of approximately $100,000 to the City to reimburse the
815 City for the use that Town residents make of the Cass Park facilities in ways other than
816 the programming of the Recreational Partnership.
817
818 In 1997, the Town adopted its Park, Recreation Open Spaces Plaon and embarked
819 on a program to expand the number of parks within its boundaries. It has opened a
820 variety of parks of various kinds, from Tutelo Park, with a regulation baseball field and a
18
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
821 pavilion, to undeveloped neighborhood parks offering an opportunity to walk quietly in a
822 natural setting.
823
824 Recreation in the Town and City is a function that is particularly well suited to
825 cooperative or consolidated efforts of the two municipalities, as residents freely cross
826 municipal boundaries in using parks. However, the obstacles to making it a joint venture
827 are the usual considerations that arise in such issues, namely the degree to which the
828 share of control and benefit to each municipality equals or exceeds its financial
829 contribution. Insistence on a strict cost/benefit accounting can sometimes conflict with
830 win-win arrangements.
831
832 V. Full Consolidation of the City and Town of Ithaca
833
834 Initially, the members of the study group held a wide range of views regarding
835 full consolidation. Some believed that a full study of the issues might well demonstrate
836 that consolidation was possible, desirable and practical, and could in fact lead to that
837 result. Others believed the advantages of consolidation would not be found to be
838 compelling enough to justify following a path that was sure to be long and difficult.
839
840 Despite these differences of opinion, the study group agreed that it was
841 worthwhile to record the results of our analysis, in the hopes that such a record would
842 clarify and delineate the issues that must be examined by whoever wishes to realistically
843 pursue consolidation. As indicated in Section VIII - Recommended Next Steps below, a
844 broader consensus among study group members to recommend pursuing consolidation
845 developed during the course of deliberations, with full recognition of the difficulties
846 involved.
847
848 During the course of our deliberations, individual members of the study group
849 talked with each other about what we thought about consolidation of the City and the
850 Town, what we had heard from friends and acquaintances, and what we believed were the
851 prevailing attitudes amongst citizens. We then assembled a list of core arguments for and
852 against consolidation. We certainly cannot pretend that the list is in any way a scientific
853 survey of the attitudes of citizens of the City and the Town. We present it only as our
854 best guess at what a public opinion survey would reveal, and as a starting point for an
855 analysis of the key issues that lie at the center of any consolidation debate.
856
857 We will start by presenting the key arguments for and against consolidation, then
858 reduce them into four distinct categories, and finally analyze them as best we can.
859
860
861 A. Commonly Expressed Arguments For and Against Full Consolidation
862
863 Arguments For
864 1 Increased efficiency should lower property taxes in the long run
865 2 Residents already self-identify as "Ithacans", not Town or City residents
866 3 Social responsibilities would be shared more fairly
19
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
867 4 Town residents would benefit from increased services
868 5 The quality of life for Town and Village residents is strongly affected by the
869 health of, and services provided by, downtown Ithaca
870 6 Integrated planning will improve responses to challenging issues (e.g.,
871 transportation congestion, climate change, environmental stewardship)
872
873 Arguments Against
874 1 Would result in substantial increases in property taxes for Town residents
875 2 The Town would lose its identity
876 3 The disparate cultures of the Town and City preclude a harmonious union
877 4 Cayuga Heights would never agree to consolidation
878 5 The welfare of Town residents would not be adequately addressed in a joint
879 government
880 6 A merger would create grave problems for the staff
881 7 The effort required is not justified by the potential gain
882 8 In a larger municipality, there will be a loss of control over local service quality
883 and delivery
884
885 Argument 1 in each of the two lists presents the two sides of the same question,
886 namely how would total costs of government and property taxes change if the two
887 municipalities were to consolidate. Argument 2 in the "For" list, and arguments 2 , 3, 4
888 and 8 in the "Against" list all pertain to the identity politics issue for the 47,500 residents
889 of the City and Town. Argument 3 on the "For" list is a moral issue for Town residents.
890 Arguments 4, 5 and 6 in the "For" list and arguments 5 and 6 in the "Against" list are
891 costs and benefits for Town residents that cannot be given a monetary value. Argument 7
892 in the "Against" list is not really an argument. It is simply a prediction of what the
893 conclusion of a full cost-benefit analysis of consolidation will be.
894
895 We will organize our analysis of the issues raised in the consolidation debate
896 along the following four dimensions.
897
898 The effect of consolidation on property tax rates
899 Identity politics in the City, Village and Town
900 Moral and ethical considerations
901 Non-monetary costs and benefits
902
903 B. An Analysis of the Major Perceived Benefits and Barriers
904
905 1. The Effect of Consolidation on Property Tax Rates
906 The first question that most residents pose is straightforward enough, namely; "If
907 the City, Town and Village were to consolidate, how much would my property tax bill
908 change?" Unfortunately, the question is easier to pose than it is to answer. The answer
909 depends strongly on a series of subsidiary questions, such as whether the services
910 delivered to residents would change, whether a consolidated government would be more
911 or less efficient than the current governments independently and whether(and how much)
20
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
912 the sources of public income other than property tax would change and how outstanding
913 debt service payments will be handled.
914
915 In order to make a first estimate of the impact of consolidation on real estate tax
916 bills of City, Town and Village residents, we will assume that the expenditures and
917 revenues of the combined municipality (Greater Ithaca)will be the sum of the current
918 expenditures and revenues of the three separate municipalities. Following that, we will
919 examine the effects on the tax bills of a few modifications to that assumption that we
920 think are reasonable possible projections. The estimates are based on data for the year
921 2005 supplied by the financial officers of the three municipalities (See Appendix 4).
922 From the point of view of a 2009 reader, the data must be taken as illustrative. However,
923 percentage changes in tax rates attributable to consolidation probably have not changed
924 significantly. The data will be presented as the City/Town/Village property tax bill on a
925 $200,000 residence.
926
927 a. The "Status Quo" Assumption.
928 To make this calculation, we assume that every resident in Greater Ithaca will pay
929 the same local tax rate, and that the revenue raised by this tax will equal the sum of the
930 revenues that the City, Town and Village raised from the property tax in 2005. The
931 results are shown in Table 1. In addition, the current City/Town/Village property tax
932 bills, the school and county tax bill, the total property tax and the percentage changes in
933 property tax due to consolidation for each of the three municipalities are shown.
934
935 Table 1
936 Property Tax on a$200,000 Home
937 Status Quo Assumption
938
City Town Village
Current City/Town/Village $2,640 $1,052 $1,528
Greater Ithaca $1,831 $1,831 $1,831
School + County Tax $5,028 $5,028 $5,028
Total City/Town/Village Tax $7,668 $61080 $6,556
Total Greater Ithaca Tax $6,859 $6,859 $6,859
Percent Tax Increase -10.6% 12.8% 4.6%
939
940 We think it is likely that under this scenario, the substantial increase in
941 Town/Village taxes and decrease in City taxes would overshadow all other
942 considerations, and the consolidation would be seen simply as a subsidy of City taxpayers
943 by Town/Village taxpayers. Were this to be the common perception, consolidation
944 would have virtually no chance of becoming a reality.
945
946 b. The Effect of Consolidation on Sales Tax Distribution
947 Sales taxes revenues generated within Tompkins County are divided among New
948 York State, Tompkins County and local governments. The local government share of
949 sales taxes generated within the City goes to the City. The local government share of
950 sales taxes generated outside of the City is divided between the local governments (other
951 than the City)based on their population, irrespective of the jurisdiction in which they are
21
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
952 generated. The County Legislature bears the responsibility of determining how the sales
953 tax revenue is divided between the County and the municipalities.
954
955 Since only a modest number of retail stores are located within the boundaries of
956 the Town and Village, most of the Town and Village's sales tax revenue is generated by
957 sales that take place in the other towns and villages in Tompkins County. Therefore, if
958 the Town, City and Village were to consolidate into the City of Greater Ithaca, and the
959 formula for dividing the sales tax revenue were not changed(i.e., the sales tax revenue
960 actually generated in Greater Ithaca would be credited to Greater Ithaca), a large fraction
961 of the sales tax revenue currently received by the Town and Village would be credited to
962 Greater Ithaca. We estimate that of the Town and Village's current combined sales tax
963 annual revenue of$3.2 million would be reduced to $800,000. The resulting change in
964 real estate tax on a$200,000 home is shown in Table 11.
965
966 Table 2
967 Property Tax on a$200,000 Home
968 Status Quo with Sales Tax Sharing Determined by the Existing Algorithm
969
City Town Village
Current City/Town/Village $2,640 $1,052 $1,528
Greater Ithaca $2,043 $2,043 $2,043
School + County Tax $5,028 $5,028 $5,028
Total City/Town/Village Tax $7,668 $6,080 $6,556
Total Greater Ithaca Tax $7,071 $7,071 $7,071
Percent Tax Increase -7.8% 16.3% 7.9%
970
971 Of course, the County Legislature could certainly decide to allow the Town and
972 Village to take their sales tax with them when they consolidated with the City. In that
973 case, Table 1 would apply. This is a concrete example of how decisions made by higher
974 bodies regarding the allocation of local tax revenue can lead to sub-optimal local land
975 use,planning and transportation strategies.
976
977 c. Savings Due to Increased Efficiency
978 The Study Group talked with the department heads of the major departments in
979 the Town and City. Both municipalities have many of the same departments, including
980 public works,planning, recreation, and budget and finances. While the services these
981 departments perform are in many cases identical, they are not duplicative, since they
982 provide these services to a different group of customers. Some, and possibly the
983 majority, of the savings that might be realized from consolidation, such as the sharing of
984 specialized capital equipment, have already been accomplished by informal agreements
985 between parallel departments in these two municipalities.
986
987 However, it is possible that savings could be achieved by eliminating one of the
988 department heads when two parallel departments are combined. A very rough quick
989 estimate indicates a maximum annual saving of approximately $800,000, including fringe
990 benefits. Such a saving would translate in to a Greater Ithaca tax rate decrease of only
991 $0.35 per $1000 of assessed value.
22
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
992
993 d. Increase in Per Capita State Aid
994 Cities in New York currently receive block grants from the State in an amount
995 roughly proportional to their population. If the City, Town and Village were to
996 consolidate, and the grant aid were increased to reflect the increase in population in the
997 transition from the City of Ithaca to the City of Greater Ithaca, the Greater Ithaca tax rate
998 would decrease by $0.59 per$1000 of assessed value.
999
1000 Of course, there is no guarantee that the State would make such an adjustment.
1001 Indeed, currently that grant is capped. Currently, the enacted budget includes funding for
1002 an increase in state aid of 15% of the combined property tax revenue as an incentive for
1003 municipalities that consolidate, with a ceiling of a $1 million increase. That incentive
1004 would continue annually. Adding that increased state aid would decrease the Greater
1005 Ithaca tax rate by $0.45 per $1000 of assessed value. An alternative provision of law,
1006 which apparently is not funded at present,provides for an increase of 25% in the existing
1007 state aid block grant on an ongoing annual basis when municipalities consolidate, again
1008 capped at$1 million. Moreover, the former governor stated his support for consolidation
1009 of municipalities, and it is conceivable that his successor's support could translate into a
1010 proportional increase in the block grant.
1011
1012 Assuming that the County Legislature will allow the three municipalities to keep
1013 their current sales tax revenues when they consolidate, that the efficiency savings
1014 described above will be realized and that the State will agree to increase the block grant
1015 aid proportional to the increase in the population, Table 3 shows the changes to the real
1016 estate tax on a $200,000 home for the city, the town and the village.
1017
1018 Table 3
1019 Property Tax on a$200,000 Home
1020 Status Quo plus Increased Efficiency and State Aid
1021 as Described Above
City Town Village
Current City/Town/Village $2,640 $1,052 $1,528
Greater Ithaca $1,643 $1,643 $1,643
School + County Tax $5,028 $5,028 $5,028
Total City/Town/Village Tax $7,668 $6,080 $6,556
Total Greater Ithaca Tax $6,671 $6,671 $6,671
Percent Tax Increase -13.0% 9.7% 1.8%
1022
1023
1024 e. The Issue of Debt
1025 A glance at Table 1 shows that the current total property tax on a home in the City
1026 is 150% higher than a comparably priced home in the Town and 75% higher than a
1027 comparably priced home in the Village. Of the many factors that contribute to this
1028 disparity, one deserves special attention. The outstanding debt in the City per dollar of
1029 taxable assessed value is roughly ten times greater than it is in the Town, and eight times
1030 greater than it is in the Village.
23
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
1031
1032 To estimate the effect of the current debt on property tax in a consolidated Greater
1033 Ithaca, we repeated the "Status Quo" calculation, making the following assumption: that
1034 part of the property tax on a$200,000 home in Greater Ithaca that pays for all expenses
1035 except for debt would be the same for all residents. However, residents in that part of
1036 Greater Ithaca that was originally in the City would pay the debt service on the City debt
1037 until it was paid off. Residents in that part of Greater Ithaca that was originally in the
1038 Town or Village would likewise continue to pay the debt service on that Town or Village
1039 debt until it was paid off. Of course, all property owners in Greater Ithaca whose
1040 property had the same assessed value would share equally the debt service on any new
1041 debt. Given the City's history of accumulating large debt, Town residents would have to
1042 be convinced that the governmental structure of Greater Ithaca had sufficient safeguards
1043 against the continuation of this practice. It would also be important for Town and Village
1044 residents to understand the degree to which they use and benefit from the infrastructure in
1045 the City such as bridges and roads that their tax dollars would be help to support in the
1046 future.
1047
1048 Table 4 shows the result of this calculation.
1049
1050 Table 4
1051 Property Tax on a$200,000 Home
1052 Status Quo plus Increased Efficiency and State Aid
1053 and Existing Debt of the Three Municipalities not Pooled
City Town Village
Current City/Town/Village $2,640 $1,052 $1,528
Greater Ithaca $2,233 $1,200 $1,068
School + County Tax $5,028 $5,028 $5,028
Total City/Town/Village Tax $7,668 $6,080 $6,556
Total Greater Ithaca Tax $7,261 $6,228 $6,096
Percent Tax Increase -5.3% 2.4% -7.0%
1054
1055
1056 Table 4 presents a scenario in which the owner of a$200,000 home living in the
1057 City and the Village enjoys a decrease of approximately $400 in his property tax, and the
1058 owner of the same home living in the Town experiences an increase of$150 in his or her
1059 property tax.
1060
1061 2. Identity Politics in the City, Village and Town
1062 By identity politics in the context of this report, we mean the extent to which the
1063 political jurisdiction in which an individual resides is a significant factor in that
1064 individual's self-identification. For example, local election district, State Assembly,
1065 Senate district and Congressional district boundaries change every ten years with little
1066 public comment or concern other than by elected officials and political leaders. On the
1067 other hand, a treaty by which the U.S. and Canada realigned the border between them is
1068 nearly unthinkable. The reason for the difference in the two cases is clear. National
24
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
1069 citizenship is a critical part of most individuals' self-identification, while a legislative
1070 district is not.
1071
1072 Identity politics of this sort has played a leading role in changes in the political
1073 map of the globe in recent times, including the former two Vietnams, the Germanys,
1074 Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. What role it will play in advancing or
1075 retarding the formation of Greater Ithaca remains to be seen.
1076
1077 Based on our experience as long time residents of the area, we make the following
1078 assessment of the prevailing self-identification of area residents. We are unaware of any
1079 existing survey information that speaks to this issue. We believe that Town and City
1080 residents generally identify themselves as coming from "Ithaca". Their children go to the
1081 same middle and high Schools. They share the same post office address and zip code.
1082 Politically, both are solidly Democratic; in the City, by a ratio of 4 tol, and in the Town,
1083 by a ratio of 2.5 to 1. The Town of Ithaca Board and the City Common Council have not
1084 had Republican members for nearly twenty years. Many residents of both jurisdictions
1085 are unaware of the boundary between the two jurisdictions. Residents tend to identify
1086 with neighborhoods with names that cannot be found on many maps such as Fall Creek,
1087 East Hill, Cornell Heights, or West Hill or Taughannock Boulevard, rather than as Town
1088 or City residents. We do not believe that the boundaries between the Town and City
1089 parts of the residential areas are of great concern or interest to residents of these areas.
1090
1091 Over the years, the Town has steadily changed from a mixture of rural and
1092 residential areas to a predominantly residential community. Currently, there are less than
1093 a dozen active farms in the Town. Furthermore, its odd geography (often described as a
1094 doughnut) makes the City's downtown the geographical, commercial, cultural and
1095 entertainment center of the Town. It is no accident that the Town's Town Hall is in the
1096 City. This unique geography and the current concentration in the City of Town residents'
1097 work, social, entertainment and cultural opportunities blurs the distinction between City
1098 and Town in their minds. Furthermore, it is our guess that for City residents, the
1099 geographical distinction that matters most to their self-identification is between
1100 downtown and the suburbs (including the City parts of East, South and West Hills)rather
1101 than the political boundary between the City and the Town.
1102
1103 In contrast to residents of the Town and the City, it is our sense that residents of
1104 the Village identify strongly as citizens of the Village of Cayuga Heights. Cayuga
1105 Heights is widely considered the most prestigious address in the County. The median
1106 family income and the per capita home assessment of the Village is roughly twice that of
1107 the Town. The perception of its residents is that the Village is the most desirable, safest,
1108 best served and best maintained municipality in the County. Our guess, based on
1109 perception, rather than any survey data, is that Village residents would be very reluctant
1110 to lose their Cayuga Heights identity. However, there are alternative strategies for
1111 preserving local geographic identity and some level of local control short of municipal
1112 boundaries that can be pursued (see Section VIII -Recommended Next Steps).
1113
1114 3. Moral and Ethical Considerations
25
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
1115 The problems arising from the structure of local public financing, whereby less
1116 affluent communities often have a greater ratio of financial needs to tax base, is widely
1117 recognized. One example of this phenomenon is a high density, lower income downtown
1118 jurisdiction surrounded by an independent low density, higher income residential
1119 jurisdiction. State aid to needy local jurisdictions and consolidation of jurisdictions are
1120 often proposed as solutions to the problems of financially stressed jurisdictions.
1121
1122 Consolidation can be seen as an appropriate step when the jurisdictions are
1123 contiguous, when the two jurisdictions share some measure of self-identification and
1124 when a convincing argument can be made that the more affluent jurisdiction derives an
1125 important benefit by its proximity to the less affluent jurisdiction. Even without a legal
1126 obligation to do so, residents of the more affluent jurisdiction may feel a moral obligation
1127 to take an action that may not be in their own financial interests.
1128
1129 In this particular consolidation, it is the citizens of the Village and the Town that
1130 must decide whether or not they agree with, and if they do, wish to respond to the moral
1131 and ethical dimensions of consolidation. No matter how this particular consolidation is
1132 structured, it will likely entail some additional property taxes for the residents of what is
1133 now the Town and Village to meet the mutual needs and benefits for the residents of
1134 Greater Ithaca. It would, in addition, likely entail some increase in service levels for
1135 residents of the Town (e.g.,public safety) and possibly the Village as well. Many of
1136 these residents think of themselves as socially conscious individuals and support
1137 progressive causes and solutions. Whether those inclinations will play a role in their
1138 willingness to support consolidation can only be known when the idea enters the local
1139 public debate.
1140
1141 4. Non-monetary Costs and Benefits
1142 In the end, it is our conclusion that the decision whether or not to consolidate will
1143 depend on voters' assessments of a series of issues that do not have a direct or even
1144 predictable effect on their pocketbooks. One of these issues involves all three
1145 jurisdictions, and the others relate primarily to the Town and Village. We will discuss
1146 these four issues separately.
1147
1148 a. Merging Three Municipal Workforces into One
1149 Whether the sector is private, educational or public, one can expect to find that
1150 any proposal for a major organizational change will result in a volley of protests and
1151 arguments for preserving the status quo. The intensity of the protests tends to be
1152 proportional to the degree to which the protester is directly affected by the change, and no
1153 one is more affected by a change in an organization than those who derive their living
1154 from it. Staff who are content with their workplace, their bosses and their fellow workers
1155 have good reason to be wary of change. Mergers are often justified by savings or
1156 increased efficiency, which often means staff reductions or changes in responsibilities.
1157 The difficulties are compounded when the workforces of the merging organizations are
1158 represented by different labor unions.
1159
26
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
1160 We have no particular insight into the magnitude of this problem as it affects the
1161 consolidation of Greater Ithaca. We note that successful corporate mergers are
1162 commonplace throughout the nation. However, staff objections to consolidation is
1163 probably a greater obstacle to a successful merger in the public than in the private sector,
1164 since the municipal workforce has easier access and probably will attract greater support
1165 from the local residents than the workforce of a corporation can expect from corporate
1166 stockholders.
1167
1168 In the course of its deliberations, the study group talked with the department
1169 heads of the Public Works Departments of the Town and the City, and asked them
1170 whether they thought that staff objections would be a substantial obstacle to consolidation
1171 if the government of both municipalities came to the conclusion that it was in the best
1172 interests of the residents to pursue that course. They both felt that if that were to happen,
1173 the staff of their departments (which constitute a large part of the staff of both
1174 municipalities)would be happy to try to work constructively with each other to carry out
1175 the wishes of the public, and that they do not anticipate serious problems. We also note
1176 that the consolidation of the transportation systems of the City, the County and Cornell to
1177 form TCAT was achieved over the initial objections of the three different unions that
1178 were involved.
1179
1180 b. Increased Services for the Town
1181 With the exception of police protection for Town residents, nearly all of the
1182 services provided by the City, the Town or the Village are provided by each of the three
1183 jurisdictions. Police protection for Town residents is provided by the County Sheriffs
1184 office, which is independent of Town government. There is considerable anecdotal
1185 evidence that Town residents (outside of the Village) have been frustrated by the Town's
1186 inability to deploy a police presence to reduce speeding, illegal parking and other such
1187 problems. On occasion, the Town has considered establishing its own police force to
1188 carry out such activities, but found that the expense of building from scratch even a small
1189 police force was too great.
1190
1191 It is possible that the existing infrastructure of the City and Village police
1192 departments could be expanded at a modest cost to cover the police needs of the Town
1193 outside of the Village borders. If that turned out to be feasible, increased public safety
1194 might come to be seen by Town residents as an important tangible benefit of
1195 consolidation.
1196
1197 c. The Contribution of Each Municipality to the Other's Quality of Life
1198 When Town residents travel far from home and proudly describe their hometown
1199 as "a special place in upstate New York called Ithaca", what exactly do they have in
1200 mind? What's "special" about Ithaca compared to similarly sized upstate New York
1201 towns?
1202
1203 There is certainly no one answer to this question. Some will describe the setting -
1204 the three hills overlooking Cayuga Lake. Others will describe the spectacular vistas
1205 greeting visitors approaching Ithaca from the four points of the compass. But many will
27
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
1206 point to the quiet, suburban residential area that can boast the above settings yet is only a
1207 stone's throw from a nationally admired university, a smaller but very prominent college
1208 and a downtown center with cultural, culinary and entertainment opportunities that can
1209 compete with much larger metropolitan areas.
1210
1211 The state of downtown Ithaca has an important impact on the quality of life for
1212 those residents of the Town whose view of their hometown coincides with the latter
1213 description. For those residents, the chance to help define and take responsibility for the
1214 character and quality of their downtown may be viewed as a positive outcome of
1215 consolidation. Additional benefits might include the chance to participate in such
1216 looming future issues as transportation congestion, climate change, environmental
1217 stewardship and the interface of Cornell and Ithaca College with the community
1218
1219 The Town makes its contribution to City residents' quality of life in a
1220 complimentary fashion. With just a few miles of driving or biking, City residents will
1221 find in the Town working farms with livestock and roadside stands,preserved unique
1222 natural areas, cross country ski trails,peaceful recreational areas, a network of trails and
1223 parks and woods open to the public, and incomparable views in all seasons.
1224
1225 Taken as a whole, Greater Ithaca, the colored area on this report's cover page,
1226 provides a broader range of quality life experiences than the vast majority of other
1227 American municipalities can offer.
1228
1229 d. The Future Politics of Greater Ithaca
1230 At some level, consolidation involves complementary trade-offs for residents of
1231 the City and the Town. From the point of view of City residents, the downtown would
1232 receive additional resources from Town residents at a cost of their losing some measure
1233 of control over all decisions regarding the downtown. From the point of view of Town
1234 residents, they will acquire some level of control over decisions regarding the downtown,
1235 but at the cost of providing some level of financial support in exchange for that control.
1236 If consolidation is to be viable and acceptable to all parties, each must be aware of the
1237 nature of the potential gains, the trade-offs and the safeguards, and accept them willingly
1238 or not.
1239
1240 The Town and the City have some history of having agreed to similar bargains in
1241 the case of fire protection and the wastewater treatment plant. However these two
1242 examples have not given rise to deal-breaking policy disputes. Consolidation, on the
1243 other hand, makes all issues that face the City and the Town joint issues. In such a
1244 situation, each side must carefully consider how differing needs will fare under a
1245 combined government.
1246
1247 Both Town and City residents will surely note that the ratio of the population, and
1248 therefore the potential voting strength, of the City to that of the Town is roughly 5 to 3.
1249 In the U.S. Senate, such a ratio would correspond to a division of 62 to 38. In a binary
1250 legislature (i.e., two parties or two distinct interest groups), the majority group has the
1251 ability to ignore the views and concerns of the minority group. Indeed, we have heard
28
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
1252 concerns expressed by Town residents that consolidation would lead to a legislature that
1253 would simply use Town resources to fund City projects and address City needs. If a
1254 majority of Town residents do not believe that their concerns will be addressed in the
1255 Greater Ithaca governing body, consolidation will simply never happen.
1256
1257 The quick answer to the concern of Town residents is, as we have discussed
1258 above, that the boundaries between City and Town are artificial, often invisible to
1259 residents and will disappear with consolidation. In a consolidated government, the
1260 residential areas of the City adjacent to the Town will find more in common with the
1261 suburban parts of the Town than they do with downtown. However, in any elected
1262 government, what matters is the self-identification of the legislators, not the self-
1263 identification of the residents. Before examining the implications of this statement, it
1264 makes sense to contemplate the future governing structure of Greater Ithaca.
1265
1266 The elected mayor of the City is its chief executive officer, and as such,prepares
1267 its budget. In addition, the mayor is a member of, chairs and appoints the committees of
1268 the Common Council, the City's legislative branch. The City is divided into five wards,
1269 each of which elects two members of the Council. The Town of Ithaca governing body is
1270 the Town Board, which exercises the executive and legislative functions of Town
1271 government. The Town Board consists of six Town Board members and a Supervisor, all
1272 elected at large. The Supervisor chairs the Town Board, appoints its committees, and
1273 prepares the annual budget, which is considered, amended and approved by the Town
1274 Board. In recent years, the Town Board has annually chosen to delegate its managerial
1275 responsibilities to the Supervisor.
1276
1277 If the City and the Town decide to consolidate, they must decide whether the new
1278 municipality will organize as a Town or a City. The conventional wisdom is that a city is
1279 allowed more flexibility in establishing the details of its governing structure, and that
1280 cities are more likely than towns to receive state and federal aid. Towns may choose to
1281 have Town Boards as large as they please, and may choose to have them represent
1282 subsections of the Town (i.e., wards)rather than the Town as a whole. Likewise, cities
1283 may choose to elect their Council members at large or by wards. While it is certainly true
1284 that most cities are larger than most towns, there are striking exceptions to this rule. The
1285 Town of Hempstead, New York has a greater population than the cities of Boston, Seattle
1286 or San Francisco. Either form of government could probably work for Greater Ithaca.
1287 What is more important is the politics of the consolidated municipality.
1288
1289 When redistricting takes place, legislators strive to have "their" new districts
1290 correspond as much as possible to their old districts. Currently, in addition to the city
1291 mayor and town supervisor there are ten elected City Council members and six elected
1292 Town Board members. The 16 legislators representing the City and Town are consistent
1293 with the 5 to 3 ratio of population of the two jurisdictions. Traditionally, legislators
1294 identify themselves with their legislative districts, and strongly prefer redistricting
1295 solutions that preserve their districts. A division of Greater Ithaca into 8 wards, five in
1296 the city and three in the town, would maintain the districts of all city legislators and
29
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
1297 create favorable districts for all of the six town board members, and likely appeal to
1298 current office holders.
1299
1300 Unfortunately, current legislators bring with them their self-identification with
1301 City or Town, and would be likely to reinforce the fears of current Town representatives
1302 that their concerns would not receive a sympathetic hearing from a 16 member Council
1303 dominated by ten representatives answerable to solely City constituents. One possibility
1304 might be to elect all legislators at large. However, it is conceivable that such a system
1305 might make the problem worse by inducing the Town legislators to run as a block and
1306 concentrate their efforts on the parts of Greater Ithaca that were in the old Town, and
1307 vice-versa for City legislators. It is possible that such an election would produce a
1308 winner-take-all outcome, resulting in a legislature that was composed mostly of either
1309 Town or City legislators, depending on which jurisdiction had a greater voter turnout.
1310
1311 The decision about how to design and apportion the governing council of Greater
1312 Ithaca, be it a Town or a City, is very fundamental and crucial, and must be an important
1313 part of future study and deliberation if consolidation is pursued.
1314
1315 VL Other Approaches to a More Unified Local Government
1316
1317 A. The Role of County Government
1318
1319 While this report deals with issues of consolidation of services between the City
1320 and Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County government could play a role in this discussion in
1321 the future. In recent decades, county government has become stronger and more
1322 involved in providing local services as the state has become more urbanized, with the
1323 balance between rural and urban populations shifting towards urban areas away from the
1324 surrounding rural towns. In this process, some services provided by local municipalities
1325 have been taken over by county governments, and the state legislature, which regulates
1326 the powers of local municipalities have encouraged this transition. A bit of governmental
1327 history in Tompkins County helps illustrate this trend.
1328
1329 Originally, Tompkins County was governed by a Board of Supervisors. Town
1330 Supervisors carried out dual responsibilities as both the leaders of town governments and
1331 members of the county legislature. Many rural, low population counties in New York
1332 still retain this form of government. Initially, Tompkins County offered relatively few
1333 services. It had a sheriff s department, and a major concern was caring for the poor. A
1334 County Home was established in the early nineteenth century and continued to exist until
1335 quite recently. In the early twentieth century, the County Board of Supervisors
1336 established a Highway Department, and in mid-twentieth century, it established the
1337 Public Health and the Welfare (renamed Social Services) departments. Other services
1338 came along rapidly in the mid and late twentieth century as the county population grew.
1339
1340 A major change in governmental structure took place in 1970 when the Board of
1341 Supervisors was replaced by the Board of Representatives (renamed recently as the
1342 County Legislature). That year, the County became what is known as a charter county.
30
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
1343 According to state law, a charter county is permitted to exercise more control (otherwise
1344 known as home-rule) over the scope of its operations. Charter counties are seen by their
1345 supporters as being better suited to address the wider range of public services demanded
1346 by those living in cities and urbanized towns. The Tompkins County Board of
1347 Supervisors in 1970 saw the need to adopt a different governmental structure that could
1348 respond more effectively to the demands caused by the rapid increase of population in
1349 Tompkins County following the end of World War II, and the rapid growth of Cornell
1350 University and Ithaca College.
1351
1352 Since 1970, with this new form of government, the County was better able to
1353 assume some of the functions of the City and the towns, relieving them of the costs and
1354 responsibilities. A few examples of this realignment of services are instructive; they
1355 point to a possible continuation of the movement of some local services to the County,
1356 reinforcing the suggestion that future discussions of consolidation of public services
1357 would benefit by bringing the County into the picture.
1358
1359 One of the first actions taken by the County on January 1, 1970 was to establish a
1360 county-wide property assessment office. Interestingly, Tompkins County is still only one
1361 of two counties in the state to have done so. This consolidation of the assessment
1362 services has provided a uniform system and has saved our local governments time and
1363 money. Many other New York counties look to Tompkins as a leader in assessment
1364 practices, and some have expressed wonderment that the county was able to accomplish
1365 this major feat of consolidation in the face of the power often wielded by local assessors.
1366
1367 Another important consolidation of local services was in the area of solid waste.
1368 Until approximately twenty years ago, our towns and the city each had their own garbage
1369 dump. As environmental issues became more prominent, the State required that these
1370 dumps be upgraded or closed. This would be a very costly process for the local
1371 municipalities, especially for the rural towns with small populations and limited budgets.
1372 With state financial and professional assistance (together with a mandate), the County
1373 took over this responsibility, relieving the municipalities of that financial burden. Solid
1374 waste removal, together with the expanded services for recycling, has now become a
1375 major and costly responsibility of Tompkins County government. Nevertheless, this
1376 consolidation was a better way of dealing with solid waste, rather than having each
1377 municipality manage its own dump and recycling center.
1378
1379 For similar reasons, the County has become involved, or considered becoming
1380 involved in other functions. For example, the County now builds all the bridges and
1381 much of their repairs in all of the County's towns (but not the City), even though they are
1382 not on County roads. Also, discussions have been ongoing for a number of years about
1383 moving youth services entirely to County government, and to have much of the cost of
1384 those programs included in the County budget. In these discussions, issues of sharing of
1385 costs and control are at stake, as can be expected when towns are asked to give up
1386 services to another governmental organization.
1387
1388 B. Other Consolidation Avenues
31
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
1389
1390 Additionally, there are other consolidations that have occurred recently that have
1391 been based on consortiums of other local organizations and governments. Examples
1392 include the Metropolitan Planning Organization, a regional transportation planning
1393 group, TCAT, a regional public transportation network, governed by a consortium of the
1394 City, County and Cornell representatives, the County Library governed by its own Board
1395 of Trustees, and Bolton Point a water system operated by a consortium of towns. In the
1396 mid twentieth century, local school systems in NY were consolidated into a structure that
1397 transcends municipal boundaries and is governed by a separately elected school board.
1398 Thus there are several forms of governmental structure that could be employed when
1399 looking at consolidation of services. This trend toward the upward movement of services
1400 to larger organizational structures could provide some savings and improved efficiencies
1401 for the County's municipalities.
1402
1403 VII Recommended Next Steps
1404
1405 In general, the committee believes that consolidation of the two municipalities
1406 makes sense conceptually, and that the idea should be pursued. The committee
1407 recognizes that there will always likely be substantial barriers to the consolidation of two
1408 municipalities, and that it will not take place without building a strong consensus in both
1409 municipalities that consolidation makes sense. Therefore, the committee suggests the
1410 following courses of action.
1411
1412 The first and most urgent cooperative venture should be to establish a close
1413 relationship between the parallel efforts in the Town and City to revise their
1414 comprehensive plans. This relationship should be much more than an exchange of
1415 information. One of the major potential gains of consolidation is that Greater Ithaca
1416 would look more broadly at future planning, and establish a plan based on a common
1417 vision. If the two municipalities cannot agree on a common vision, it is unlikely that
1418 consolidation will ever come to pass. If they can, then some of the barriers to
1419 consolidation (e.g., fears that the two entities will have very different plans and priorities
1420 for their common resources) may be greatly diminished. Comprehensive planning is a
1421 rare event in both municipalities, and the two municipalities should not squander this
1422 fortuitous congruence of timing.
1423
1424 The City and the Town should establish a joint committee of legislators (including
1425 legislators from the Village of Cayuga Heights)to adopt a broad policy position to be
1426 adopted by the municipalities to consolidate over time, regardless of how long that may
1427 take. Such a policy should include the following items:
1428
1429 • An exploration, in greater depth, of the step-by-step consolidation of specific
1430 services, as identified in Section V of this report. Special note should be taken of
1431 the need to participate quite soon in the County's efforts to build a new public
1432 records center.
1433
32
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
1434 • The establishment of joint City/Town neighborhood associations in border
1435 areas such as South Hill, East Hill, West Hill and Cornell Heights/Cayuga Heights
1436 so that the City and Town could address the concerns of their residents in a
1437 coordinated way.
1438
1439 e Detailed studies of the legal and financial aspects of consolidation undertaken
1440 by professionals. Particular attention should be paid to the possibility of the
1441 Village maintaining some measure of independence in a consolidated
1442 municipality. Examples of consolidation successes and failures in other
1443 communities should be thoroughly studied. Funds for this should be sought from
1444 the state government, which has a program for this purpose (see Appendix 2). As
1445 noted above, no funds and no staff were available to the committee to prepare this
1446 report. These in-depth studies should look at both individual public services as
1447 well as the larger picture of total consolidation. The City and Town might jointly
1448 approach Cornell and Ithaca College to make use of any expertise and help they
1449 could offer,
1450
1451 • The municipal parties should enlist the help of local media, political parties,
1452 civic associations (e.g., Chamber of Commerce, League of Women Voters,
1453 Service Clubs, religious organizations)to foster broad based Town, City-and
1454 Village wide public discussion of shared services and consolidation.
1455
1456 VIII. A Vision of the Future
1457
1458 At its initial meetings in December 2006, the Joint Study Group carefully read the
1459 documents in Appendix 5 in an effort to understand our charge. We were asked "to
1460 examine, among others, the pros and cons of both shared services and possible
1461 consolidation." While we were not specifically asked to draw any conclusions from our
1462 examination, we were not prohibited from doing so. However, early in the process, we
1463 all agreed that for various reasons, we should not make a recommendation regarding
1464 whether or not the Town and City should consolidate.
1465
1466 During the almost two years of regular discussion and deliberation, we found that
1467 our initial skepticism about the feasibility and possible benefits of consolidation slowly
1468 evolved into a unanimous belief that its rewards were potentially substantial and that for
1469 national as well as local reasons this moment was unique and the opportunity it presents
1470 must not be allowed to slip by. In this spirit, we offer below in narrative form our view
1471 of what benefits consolidation might mean to future citizens of Greater Ithaca.
1472
1473 An energized Greater Ithaca would pioneer new and innovative ways to
1474 determine, establish and carry out area goals, hold down the expenses of providing public
1475 services and at the same time provide mechanisms that give neighborhoods the
1476 opportunity to bring forward their problems in the expectation that they would be
1477 addressed. Consolidation,joint authorities, neighborhood councils, and shared services
1478 are the tools most often mentioned, but a general recognition that solving the problems of
1479 a new century requires new tools will likely generate other more efficient institutions.
33
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
1480
1481 A unified Greater Ithaca would find ways to coordinate its planning and economic
1482 development efforts to achieve area goals and work as a single partner with Cornell and
1483 Ithaca College to ensure the economic vitality of the area while preserving the quality of
1484 life of all its neighborhoods. It would join with other area governments and institutions
1485 to capitalize on the diverse strengths of the area from its high tech potential to its growing
1486 wine industry, to solve its diverse problems from a lack of affordable housing to a
1487 deteriorating infrastructure, and last but not least, to develop sustainable, socially
1488 conscious and environmentally sensitive policies for the future.
1489
1490 In short, Greater Ithaca could lead the way in the long sought transformation of
1491 upstate New York.
1492
1493
1494
34
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
1495 Appendix 1
1496
1497 Past Cooperation and Consolidation Efforts
1498
1499 While the work of this City-Town Joint Study Group should be viewed as unique in its
1500 particular combination of time,place and circumstances, it is not without precedent in the
1501 municipal lives of the City and the Town of Ithaca. A modest review of local newspaper
1502 coverage and public meeting minutes dating back sixty years has revealed a number of
1503 concerted efforts toward intermunicipal cooperation and consolidation involving the City,
1504 the Town and, in some instances, the Village of Cayuga Heights. Also evident in past
1505 decades are successful initiatives within even broader geographic spheres, such as the
1506 Tompkins County Board of Supervisors' approval in mid-1946 of the consolidation of
1507 City and County health offices into a County health district, or the April 1956 vote by
1508 forty-two suburban school districts in favor of consolidation with the Ithaca City School
1509 District.
1510
1511 Among the various efforts involving the City and the Town of Ithaca, the most salient
1512 were two which produced substantial documents of their work the Greater Ithaca Fact-
1513 Finding Committee, formed in 1947, whose report was released in March 1953, and the
1514 Greater Ithaca Regional Planning Board, created in 1957, whose plan of the Ithaca urban
1515 area was published in 1959. During the 1950s and 1960s, still other joint committees
1516 composed of elected officials and community leaders explored ways to make a reality of
1517 the prediction that was captured in a July 15, 1963 Ithaca Journal headline—"Unified
1518 Area Government `Inevitable' Here." To understand the work and significance of each
1519 of these efforts would require further investigation in order to identify the conditions that
1520 led up to each initiative, its chief proponents and participants, the vehicle (board,
1521 commission, committee) charged with each study and the resources made available to it,
1522 and the findings, recommendations and outcomes of each.
1523
1524 Greater Ithaca Fact-Finding Committee
1525 "The Invisible Wall; Shall It Come Down?" queried the headline of the Ithaca Journal
1526 editorial as it quoted a local official who had noted that"`there has been too much of this
1527 business of setting the people of the City against the people of the Town [of Ithaca] and
1528 the Village [of Cayuga Heights], or vice versa on the basis of prejudice coupled with
1529 incomplete or erroneous facts."' The date was February 11, 1947, and a committee, to be
1530 named the Greater Ithaca Fact-Finding Committee, was embarking on its work, seeking
1531 to gather facts and balance advantages and disadvantages in order to ascertain whether
1532 Ithaca"can be made a better community, a more attractive community, a more
1533 progressive community, through a consolidation of the separate political units inside and
1534 outside of the Invisible Wall" of the corporation boundary. This initiative was set in
1535 motion by City Mayor Arthur N. Gibb, following conversations with the Town of Ithaca
1536 Supervisor, Harry N. Gordon.
1537
1538 While many of the observations recorded in this 1947 editorial have parallels today, its
1539 language that describes "the possible expansion of the city's boundaries" gives a clue to
1540 the City's relationship to the other municipalities as one of a"have" to "have-nots" in
35
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
1541 terms of water and sewer systems, fire and police protection, garbage collection, and the
1542 like. Appropriately, the charge to the new committee was to present information on the
1543 cost of providing such services to outlying areas.
1544
1545 The final, approximately 350-page report of the Greater Ithaca Fact-Finding Committee,
1546 delayed by an initial lack of resources, was dated December 1952 and made public on
1547 March 23, 1953. Remaining close to its "fact-finding"mission rather than specifically
1548 promoting or discouraging annexation, the committee concluded that"[its] estimates
1549 indicate that it is possible to devise arrangements under which the cost to taxpayers
1550 during the next several years is not likely to differ greatly regardless of whether urban
1551 services are provided for areas adjacent to the City by annexation or by the use of special
1552 town districts and other devices." (Ithaca Journal,Mar.23, 1953)
1553
1554 Interlude
1555 About a month following the release of the report, the heads of the three participating
1556 municipalities agreed to establish a four-member committee to study the matter of
1557 annexation with greater specificity in order to provide recommendations and information
1558 pertaining to particular areas of the Town and Village; five such study areas were
1559 identified as candidates for early attention. The committee was expected to engage
1560 Cayuga Heights engineer Carl Crandall for technical studies, and to have additional input
1561 from City Superintendent of Public Works Francis J. Laverty. (Ithaca Journal,Apr.27, 1953)
1562
1563 Although details of the new committee's work have not yet been ascertained, it is clear
1564 that interest in intermunicipal opportunities and issues remained current. In an October 7,
1565 1953, speech to the Ithaca Rotary Club, Superintendent Laverty called for "a
1566 comprehensive master plan for the Greater Ithaca area," one that would address
1567 "clusters" of problems or needs traffic, water and sewer facilities, indoor and outdoor
1568 recreation, etc.through joint initiatives by the City and either the County or the Town.
1569 He cited two different means of coordinating efforts by the consolidation of
1570 governmental units, or by "closer cooperation between groups with similar functions."
1571 Noting, for example, that there were twelve governmental agencies concerned with
1572 highway construction in Tompkins County, Laverty proposed the pooling of all publicly
1573 owned equipment, with its administration under county supervision. (Ithaca Journal,Oct. 8,
1574 1953)
1575
1576 Meanwhile, various annexation proposals continued to be explored, with one of the more
1577 dramatic involving the Village of Cayuga Heights, fueled by a Tompkins County Board
1578 of Health assessment of sewerage conditions in the village. When the proposed
1579 annexation was rejected in late 1954 by an informal poll in which 744 of the village's
1580 potential 900 voters participated, Cayuga Heights trustees responded by adopting
1581 resolutions "committing the villagers to construction of their own sewage disposal plant
1582 and establishment of a fire department." (Ithaca Journal,Jan. 5, 1955)
1583
1584 The idea of a broad-based planning effort was given form and made public in August
1585 1955 by "a committee of interested citizens which has been meeting frequently for the
1586 last two years," at least three of whose members had participated in earlier initiatives.
1587 Behind this proposal for a Citizens Regional Planning Council of Tompkins County was
36
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
1588 the belief that the community's limited resources of time and money could be best
1589 employed by physical and social planning efforts that emphasized cooperation and
1590 prioritization. A letter of introduction and an outline of the proposed council's goals and
1591 membership were distributed to some 400 community leaders, from whom comments
1592 were solicited. (Ithaca Journal,Aug. 8, 1955)
1593
1594 Greater Ithaca Regional Planning Board
1595 Though no direct link has yet been identified between the 1955 proposal and the
1596 subsequent establishment of a regional planning board, it seems likely that that they are
1597 connected. Following preliminary approvals by the respective municipal bodies in Fall
1598 and Winter 1956, the City of Ithaca Common Council on February 6, 1957 approved an
1599 agreement between the City and Town of Ithaca and the Village of Cayuga Heights to
1600 create the Greater Ithaca Regional Planning Board. Four members were to be from the
1601 City, two from the Town and one from the Village. Funds totaling $7,000 for the board's
1602 operations in 1957 were committed by the respective municipalities, in proportion to their
1603 membership. (Common Council Minutes,Regular Meeting)
1604
1605 The broad goals and specific efforts of this board may be understood in its 1959
1606 publication,Ithaca Urban Area:A General Plan that resulted from a comprehensive
1607 general plan study undertaken in 1958, with consultants Community Planning Associates,
1608 Inc. of West Trenton, New Jersey, Thomas Niederkorn, Resident Planner. This general
1609 plan set forth desirable principles, objectives and standards for the physical development
1610 of the region, and recommended particular actions based on its studies of land use,
1611 physical facilities,population distribution, and projected growth rates. It was presented
1612 as "a dynamic `Living Platform' from which action on specific problems can be
1613 programed [sic]."
1614
1615 The Greater Ithaca Regional Planning Board remained active during the 1960s, having
1616 expanded its membership beyond the original three municipalities, and being called upon
1617 by various of the governing bodies and their elected officials. Still other committees were
1618 formed, as local interests expanded into regional ones. In 1960, Village of Cayuga
1619 Heights Mayor Frederick G. Marcham was reported to have described"his ideal
1620 governmental situation" being a"'composite structure of government"' including the
1621 Village, City and Town, and perhaps even the county. In 1963, Ithaca Mayor John Ryan
1622 changed the name of the City's special Annexation Committee to include the word
1623 "Consolidation," and the Greater Ithaca Study Committee worked alongside the Regional
1624 Planning Board on a number of issues.
1625
1626 Woven throughout the local news of these times were reports of requests for extensions
1627 of water and sewer services, as residential and commercial development sought to expand
1628 beyond the immediate urbanized area. Understanding these requests and their disposition
1629 of seems essential in understanding the historical context of intermunicipal initiatives. In
1630 addition, alongside the reports of efforts toward cooperation and consolidation were
1631 concerns about population decline in the City and costs. The City proceeded to approve
1632 and adopt its own "General Plan" in May 1970; in the plan, as published in 1971, the
1633 Epilogue noted that"while the General Plan is limited directly by the governmental
37
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
1634 boundaries of the city, the plan must also estimate the impact of trends of growth and
1635 development in the area external to the city and vice versa." After presenting some of the
1636 areas in which broader perspectives were required, it acknowledged the importance of
1637 intergovernmental cooperation and of planning and programming organized action by
1638 private and public agencies at all levels.
1639
1640
1641
38
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
1642 Appendix 2
1643
1644 New York State Commissions, Reports, Funding Opportunities and
1645 Fiscal Incentives Related to Local Government Efficiency, Shared
1646 Services and Consolidations
1647
1648 The State of New York has long been interested in fostering local
1649 government efficiency, shared or consolidated services and, where warranted,
1650 municipal consolidations.
1651
1652 Most recently, in April 2007 Governor Eliot Spitzer established the New
1653 York State Commission on Local Government Efficiency and Competitiveness. That
1654 Commission issued its final report in April 2008. The report along with the briefs and
1655 studies that accompany it may be found on the web at
1656 ham://www.nyslocal „og v.or.,/�report Da ,p. Of particular relevance to these Ithaca City
1657 and Town study considerations is a consultant's report to the Commission that assessed
1658 opportunities for shared services and consolidations between three upstate city/town
1659 configurations: Oneonta, Norwich, and Cortland. The consultant's findings at points bear
1660 striking similarity to these Joint Study Group conclusions. The Commission report
1661 concludes, as have earlier efforts, that New York State suffers from the burden of an
1662 antiquated local government structure, with nearly 5.000 local entities. The report
1663 recommends modernization through change initiated at the local level that will
1664 streamline municipal jurisdictions and increase shared services, without sacrificing local
1665 identify.
1666 In recent decades several earlier commissions have addressed local
1667 government reform. These have included: the Commission on Local
1668 Government Reform (Governor Pataki, 2002-2004); Commission on the
1669 Consolidation of Local Governments (Governor Cuomo, 1990-1993); the Local
1670 Government Restructuring Project (Riley Commission, Rockefeller Institute,
1671 1990-1992); and the School District Organizational Change Study (Regents/State
1672 Education Department, 1992-1995). All have supported the need for increased
1673 shared services and consolidations to improve effectiveness and efficiency.
1674
1675 The Division of Local Government Services and Economic Development
1676 within the Office of the State Comptroller has issued a number of reports over the years
1677 that focus on the need for local government reforms. Significant reports include: Local
1678 Government Management Guide, Intermunicipal Cooperation, November 2003;
1679 Intermunicipal Cooperation and Consolidation, 2003; and Outdated Municipal Structures,
1680 Cities, Towns, and Villages — 18th Century Designations for 21st Century Communities,
1681 October 2006. Copies of these reports may be accessed on the web at
1682 hqp://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov//pubs/listresearch2.htm.
1683
1684 The Division of Local Government in the New York State Department of
1685 State also has prepared a guideline for considering Consolidations for Towns and
1686 Villages, which can be accessed on the web at
39
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
1687 hqp://www.dos.state.ny.us/less/publications.htm, along with relevant statutes and
1688 legislation governing municipal organization. The Department also maintains the State's
1689 Shared Municipal Services Incentive (SMSI) Grant Program, which provides:
1690
1691 • Cities and towns, among other municipal entities, may apply for grants of up to
1692 $200,000 per municipality for consolidations, mergers, cooperative agreements
1693 and shared services between two or more municipalities;
1694 • Priority in the selection of awards will be given to applications that plan or study
1695 consolidations, mergers, and dissolutions; implement shared highway services
1696 projects; and develop countywide shared service plans, among other criteria.
1697 • Annual grant application deadlines are usually in December and awards
1698 announced the following May;
1699 • More information is available on the Department of State website at:
1700 http://www.dos.state.ny.us/lgss/smsi/index.html
1701
1702 State government also supports a Local Government Efficiency Grant
1703 Program (LGEG), which provides:
1704
1705 • Two or more municipalities may apply for competitive grants for Efficiency
1706 Implementation activities that can achieve savings;
1707 • Grants can be used to cover transitional personnel costs to implement new joint
1708 functions, among other applications;
1709 • Grant amounts will be up to $200,000 per municipality, with a total amount not to
1710 exceed $1 million;
1711 • General Planning Grants for groups of municipalities to study shared services
1712 will be awarded on a competitive basis in amounts up to $25,000 for two
1713 municipalities,plus $1,000 for each additional partner, with a$35,000 maximum;
1714 • High Priority Planning Grants targeted to specific types of studies are available
1715 on a non-competitive basis; groups of municipalities may receive funding to study
1716 sharing or consolidating services countywide or on a multi-county or regional
1717 basis; single municipalities may get grants for charter revision studies that include
1718 functional consolidation or service sharing; amounts will vary by category, not to
1719 exceed $50,000.
1720
1721 As recommended by the Joint City/ Town Study Group, a successor body
1722 should be charged with studying in detail the feasibility and desirability of consolidating
1723 the City and Town of Ithaca municipalities into a Greater Ithaca municipality and, if not a
1724 full political consolidation, then consolidation of services or shared services including
1725 such functions as comprehensive planning. That study and planning activity would be
1726 eligible for state support through the General or the High Priority Planning Grants
1727 identified above and, if significant savings were identified, and Efficiency
1728 Implementation Grant. If consolidation of municipalities or services were ultimately
1729 approved, then state support of up to $200,000 per municipality might, on a competitive
1730 basis, be available to implement the consolidation.
1731
40
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
1732 In addition, the State Budget funds specific Consolidation Incentives for
1733 municipalities that achieve consolidation. These include:
1734
1735 • An increase in Aid and Incentives for Municipalities (AIM or "revenue
1736 sharing") equal to 15% of the combined property tax levy of the
1737 consolidating municipalities; this incentive funding continues annually and
1738 is capped at $1 million annually; OR
1739 • A 25% increase in the AIM of the consolidating municipalities. This
1740 incentive funding continues annually and is capped at $1 million annually;
1741 OR
1742 • $250,000 the first year after the consolidation, phased down in equal parts
1743 over the following four years ($200,000 in the second year, $150,000 in the
1744 third year, etc.) This is capped at 25% of the combined property tax levy of
1745 the consolidating municipalities.
1746
1747 This program is administered by the New York State Division of the Budget,
1748 and more information is available on the DOB website at:
1749 http://www.budget.state.ny.us/localities/local/alm.html. Additional modeling
1750 is required to confirm the level of additional ongoing state revenue sharing that
1751 would be available to a Greater Ithaca municipality.
1752
1753
1754 Complementing these financial supports and incentives, State Government
1755 will also be providing enhanced technical assistance and information on best practices.
1756 Technical assistance might include legal guidance, financial modeling, procedural advice,
1757 data sharing, results from case studies, and liaison with other municipalities studying or
1758 pursuing consolidation.
1759
41
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
1760 Appendix 3
1761 Legal Aspects of Consolidation
1762
1763 Like many other aspects of New York State government, the powers of, and
1764 relationships among, the state's municipal corporations are covered by a number of
1765 separate and at times confusing statutory regulations. While not intended to be in any
1766 way comprehensive, the purpose of this Appendix is to point out some of the legal
1767 questions that might arise in any proposed consolidation of the City and the Town of
1768 Ithaca. Municipal corporations, including cities and towns, are created by the state, and
1769 the state accordingly may prescribe the manner in which municipal corporations are
1770 created, made larger or smaller, or dissolved, with or without the consent of the citizens
1771 of the larger area out of which the municipal corporation has been created.
1772
1773 One of the major differences between towns and cities is that towns, like counties,
1774 are mere subdivisions of the state; they are organized in order to exercise, in a convenient
1775 manner,portions of the state's political power. Cities and villages, on the other hand, are
1776 created by charter and have a number of private and proprietary powers other than
1777 carrying out the duties of government. This distinction has eroded somewhat over time,
1778 as New York's towns have begun to assume proprietary and quasi-proprietary duties of
1779 their own, but it is still an important one. However, under New York law, both cities and
1780 towns have an inherent right to local self-government that is considered to have existed
1781 even before the adoption of the state Constitution; for this reason, the New York State
1782 Constitution itself contains a bill of rights of local governments.
1783
1784 There appear to be no legal barriers to the consolidation of services between a city
1785 and a town. Under the Constitution, local governments may provide, cooperatively or
1786 jointly, or through contract, "any facility, service, activity or undertaking which each
1787 participating local government has the power to provide separately" and to apportion the
1788 sharing of expenses between or among the local governments affected. The actual
1789 consolidation of local governments into one governmental entity is a different matter.
1790
1791 Under the Municipal Annexation Law, a local government may annex territory
1792 belonging to another local government,provided that the majority of the inhabitants of
1793 that territory agree and that the governing board of each of the involved local
1794 governments consents to the annexation. If this consent is not given, the State
1795 Legislature may direct that the Supreme Court(New York's lowest court of general
1796 jurisdiction) determine whether the annexation would be in the overall public interest.
1797 However, by the explicit provisions of the Municipal Annexation Law, the term
1798 "annexation" does not mean or include "consolidation."
1799
1800 Under the Town Law, two or more towns in the same county may consolidate by
1801 a vote of the majority of the voters in each of the towns, in a vote on a ballot proposition
1802 for consolidation submitted by the boards of the towns at either a general or special
1803 election. Consolidation of a city and a town, however, is not so simple.
1804
42
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
1805 As noted, the State Legislature has the power to consolidate municipal
1806 corporations without receiving the consent of those municipal corporations. When the
1807 Home Rule Amendment was added to the State Constitution in 1923, the question
1808 quickly arose whether the amendment limited that particular power of the Legislature.
1809 The Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, answered that it did not. The Court
1810 held that increasing or decreasing the size of an existing city is not within the "property,
1811 affairs or government matters" covered by Home Rule; instead, it remains an incident of
1812 the "legislative power to create and abolish municipal corporations and to define their
1813 boundaries," because this is a matter of state concern, extending beyond the limits of the
1814 affected city.i
1815
1816 Although our research has not yet uncovered any case specifically addressing this
1817 question, it appears that a city and a town that wish to consolidate may not do so in the
1818 manner that would be available to two towns. In order to consolidate a city and a town, a
1819 special law must be passed by the Legislature. An existing city that would be affected by
1820 such a special law can present its objections to the Legislature before the special law is
1821 enacted, but the decision itself is up to the Legislature.
i See City of New York v. the Village of Lawrence(250 NY 429 [1929]).
43
OND Cl)
r �
OD O
Cl) O
✓ O � r OD
N c0 M
c0 M — OD
OD O N M
M CD N CD
N
N
O
0
O
co
N
O
V
O N
N V
�y M (C
F—i O O
U � �
Qz O O — O M In O
c0 c0 M O
O N OD N M �
C O { to 00 ( { {
MEA
>C cz
.:4
u N
V7 U) N N O O O OD V In �
0 N � M O_ N (D ao
N O CO O O V) M 00
ER ER V)
C14 C14
V ER ER V ER
U)
OD O N c0 OD
In O � O � M
� � I' LO - O
M O OD � O
I� CY N M — to
M N M
N
U a > V
O a)
N L
_ U) N
V! V N cB U)
i Q +J L N
W m (n Y '� �° is U)
O > � V
K `� m o > LL �
W p O >N '� � .� >� .� L W O
(0 (0 � C U m � C
0 � o O a) z a) C) Q a,)-
-aco
a� O .o o U
a� L 0
Q �
N M d' V� 1�0 l-- CO C1 O
N N N N N N N N M
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
7t
v
Cl)
O
O
Cl)
V)
O IT OD (O Ch M O O CY
N — I- OD LO LO — ch OD O
O '1' OD (fl N N (O I� OD N
LO N M O N LO (D O eh
Lf) — O O N N — ch
M — N (O (O V — N (fl
0n v
ao rn
O
In M
O
Cl) O
V
V)
CD
� V
Lr O
V �:
O
V)
I� O N O O N O OD N Il- M O O O m � N O O O O O
N O (O O '1 — '1 O N I� O OD O OD S M O lq'
O LO - OD (O OD N ch O (O OO - O — - (O M OD ch — M ch
O N OD (O O — ch r— O O N O LO O N O O LO LO OD O O
(O M N — I-- LO O OD O LO O VY O O O CY VY N M (O OD
N ka (a cl M CY lu� r M Lf OD { { - { { { {
ka ka ka ka
Cl)
(D
O
N
O)
M
N_
O Cl)
O
Ld
LO C14
O V) V)
N
GD CA
cz N O � � � ODOD CF) Ocz 'T (D OD N N N N O
cz lq I� L M (O (O A M M O O O I�
N CY LO M B O LO LO O O M O O
Q OD O O O O LO (D OD � ch N — OD OD
(fl NCY OD O I- ch N O � � � M �
r-- _ _ cN cN ka
O
ka ka ka ka
w
a�
> `-
a�
U)
E
0 0 o
Q U o > ca
W (o C: > .o C� Cf) m o
m
06 m > m o o ca C: o (00) —Cf) m
c�a m o °� y is E o C5 � ca o 0
c 3 c C� U L ca > � N �- o U
CL
Z m 0 m c Y C�
> QQUUU- ELN = Of O0U) 0-
� w
7t
Cl)
O)
M
N
MN Ch O N (O Il- O N O N O
OD (O (O In O O CY O O OD O CY M
M O (C cl OD lq (O Cl OO OO O OO
N O O � � — O 4• r— M M r—
(O N O M M M (O OD O M — M M
V — (O (O (fl 6cy (fl VY N VY V — (fl
V
rn
M
O
LO
V)
N O LO O N OD � LO O M O O N O N N M (O O Il- r- O � N
(O {f} OD — t eh Ih OD (O el' I-- � M � N O O OD O ch LO M
N OD OD (O O O O O Cl' (O v v O N — r- O O M O O I�
N O - - N O — ch OD OD M m N M M — m M OD (O O (O O
N LO — O N M I' M LO Ch (O CY (O - - M O N OD — M T N
Il- OD LO � � M N A V) V) N (fl M O (O O N O VY V — N
M M O - M M N
r
r
r
N_
N
GD �
O Ch 0 0 0 - O IT Il- O O O
cz cz OD �
r— lq lq O N O � r- O O O V
Q M I' � O Ch M Ch OD Il- (D � O OD
O N M O — V) O N Il- N M M
S" N VY O (O M M O IT V) {
O
m E
u
�
? O> E Q
m
Cf) � o o ° a)
Cf) m OCl) (D
N � 'C >,
a) > N LL N N N `- a) a) U N C
(D a) E E N C' Q- a)
'L X X p L > p C (0 X O p
O LLJ > CL
� � � p a) — a) H O a) N O C v
CL
"M r °� Q o m c m Y > cn U) O O (� cn � = c c _ m
_ _ _ m _
� a) M L 6 O � ca ca �- 0 � ca a)
C) O U CD C- U) IL � C > C� D O O c5 o -71 (n E
CD
Q �
7t
N
(D
M
M
V)
N O M O O
O N O M N O M
N � � — M O �
N Nto ch
M M
{fl {fl — N
Y Y 69. 6cy
O
N
O)
N_
V
O O OD In OD tV
OD N N cc)
O
M O OD O
N (3) to
Lr N LO
M (f}
O
O C14 M
O N O
O O 00
OLO
M �
N M
OO O N
M — N
6cy 6cy 6cy
Y Y
� M
O) �
_ O
Cl)
O cl
N_ V
N
00 CA
cz cz O N O r- - OOD M N O O O
cz O 00 OD O eh I-- M OD Lo O O
OQ � M to OD to to OD O to O � O OD to — to M 6cy
r-- LO Cf)M O OND N ch ch LO — CO
O
Y Yto to N 'U� vi
w a,
co
cn
o cn
J
cn N N
co
� N 75 � co
O O N O
= N X O L
O Co V O cn
O N N
O ++ cn LL LL = W'
cn E Q iz N L L O , N O O p
L t- a)
cn
0Q x a)co x W m �' m
= co � W � U' U) U- XU' E E � �
O L O O co =3 =3 =3 N
W H H Z Zcn
0 Q
++ N N
O U
M
GD
1832 Appendix 5
1833
1834 Resolutions of the Town of Ithaca Board and City of Ithaca Council
1835
1836 Establishing the Joint City/Town Study Group
1837
1838 on Shared Services and Consolidation
1839
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
1840 May 3, 2006 —Regular Common Council Meeting—
1841
1842 GOVERNANCE & INTERMUNICIPAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE:
1843 A Resolution to set up a ioint study group to investigate possible shared services and
1844 possible consolidation between the City of Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca.
1845 By Alderperson Berry: Seconded by Alderperson Tomlan
1846 WHEREAS, over the last several decades there has been much local and national
1847 discussion over the advantages and disadvantages of shared services or consolidation of
1848 governments, and
1849
1850 WHEREAS, several successful partnerships have emerged in local municipalities during
1851 that time, such as the Ithaca Area Waste Water Treatment Plant, youth and recreation
1852 services,joint city/town fire services, and the Bolton Point Water System, and
1853
1854 WHEREAS, the benefits of cost sharing/consolidation have been enumerated by the
1855 New York State comptroller as reported in the booklets Local Government Management
1856 Guide: Intermunicipal Cooperation and Intermunicipal Cooperation and Consolidation:
1857 Exploring Opportunities for Savings and Improved Service Delivery, and
1858
1859 WHEREAS, recent state reports illustrate the difficulties that New York State
1860 municipalities have been facing especially in the last 5 years including rising pension
1861 costs and health insurance, and
1862
1863 WHEREAS, the Mayor of the City of Ithaca and the Supervisor of the Town of Ithaca
1864 have recently held meetings including an intermunicipal forum facilitated by Interface of
1865 the Community Dispute Resolution Center, and
1866
1867 WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council and the Town of Ithaca Board are
1868 desirous of further examination of the mutual benefits between the two municipalities
1869 that could improve services, create efficiencies, and benefit citizens, now therefore be it
1870
1871 RESOLVED, That a study group on intermunicipal cooperation and consolidation be
1872 created forthwith to examine, among others, the legal and regulatory aspects of shared
1873 services and possible consolidation, the pros and cons for both shared services and
1874 consolidation, the financial opportunities and liabilities of consolidation or shared
1875 services, an analysis of the property and sales tax scenario for a single jurisdiction, the
1876 concept of a new jurisdiction, a unified comprehensive plan, and be it further
1877
1878 RESOLVED, That an analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats be
1879 provided for each topic area, and be it further
1880
1881 RESOLVED, That the study group be composed of 8 members, mutually agreed upon
1882 by the town of Ithaca Board and the City of Ithaca Common Council, with
1883 representatives having knowledge of finance, law,planning,public works,police, or
1884 organizational culture,plus one elected official liaison from each jurisdiction (making 10
1885 members), such study group and its chair to be nominated by a town/city joint
1886 nomination committee comprised of the mayor, supervisor, one Common Council
1887 member and one town board member, and be it further
1888
50
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
1889 RESOLVED, That the city council and the town board identify and work toward
1890 obtaining financial assistance such as grants from appropriate agencies including the
1891 State comptroller's office, and be it further
1892
1893 RESOLVED, That each municipality agree to provide staff assistance to the study group,
1894 including participation from each municipality's historian, and be it further
1895
1896 RESOLVED, That the study group report at least quarterly or as needed to the Common
1897 Council and Town Board at a joint meeting for periodic updates and consideration of
1898 possible amendments or additional directives, with ample opportunity for public input,
1899 and be it further
1900
1901 RESOLVED, That a final report will be presented to the Common Council and the Town
1902 Board for their deliberation on future policy, based on the above topics, in approximately
1903 12 months from the study group's first meeting.
1904
1905 Mayor Peterson stated that this Resolution was co-written with members of the Town of
1906 Ithaca Governing body.
1907
1908 A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
1909 Carried Unanimously
1910
51
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
1911 October 4, 2006 Regular Common Council Meeting
1912
1913 INDIVIDUAL MEMBER—FILED RESOLUTIONS:
1914 Resolution to Approve A Joint Study Group to Investigate Possible Shared
1915 Services and Possible Consolidation between the City of Ithaca and the Town of
1916 Ithaca
1917 By Alderperson Tomlan: Seconded by Alderperson Cogan
1918 WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council and the Town of Ithaca Board, desiring
1919 to examine the mutual benefits that could be achieved through possible shared services
1920 and possible consolidation measures, have agreed by votes at their respective meetings of
1921 May 3, 2006, and May 8, 2006, to pursue such investigation through the establishment of
1922 a joint study group, and
1923 WHEREAS, the Common Council voted unanimously to create such a study group to
1924 investigate, among others, the legal and regulatory aspects of shared services and possible
1925 consolidation, the pros and cons of both shared services and consolidation, the financial
1926 opportunities and liabilities of consolidation or shared services, an analysis of the
1927 property and sales tax scenario for a single jurisdiction, the concept of a new jurisdiction,
1928 and a unified comprehensive plan, and to provide an analysis of the strengths,
1929 weaknesses, opportunities, and threats for each topic area, and
1930
1931 WHEREAS, the Common Council voted that the study group would be composed of
1932 eight"at-large"members, mutually agreed upon by the City of Ithaca Common Council
1933 and the Town of Ithaca Board, with these representatives having knowledge of finance,
1934 law,planning,public works,police, or organizational culture,plus one elected official
1935 liaison from each jurisdiction, making a total of ten members, and
1936
1937 WHEREAS, the Common Council directed that such study group and its chair be
1938 nominated by a joint City-Town nomination committee consisting of the Mayor, the
1939 Supervisor, one Common Council member, and one Town Board member, and
1940
1941 WHEREAS, the nomination committee, consisting of Mayor Carolyn K. Peterson,
1942 Supervisor Cathy Valentino, Alderperson Mary Tomlan, and Councilor Peter Stein, has
1943 met three times, beginning June 26, 2006, and
1944
1945 WHEREAS, the nominating committee has agreed to put forward the names of eight"at-
1946 large" study group members, all of whom have agreed to serve, being Lois E. Chaplin,
1947 Paul R. Eberts, Nathan Fawcett, Randy Haus, Tom Niederkorn, Wendy Skinner, Stuart
1948 W. Stein, and Constance V. Thompson, with Wendy Skinner nominated and agreed to
1949 serve as chair, and
1950
1951 WHEREAS, Mayor Peterson has nominated Mary Tomlan to serve as the elected official
1952 liaison from the Common Council; and
1953
1954 WHEREAS, each municipality has agreed to provide staff assistance to the study group,
1955 including participation from each municipality's historian; now, therefore, be it
1956
1957 RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca concurs in the naming of
1958 the above-cited individuals to the joint City-Town study group.
1959
52
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
1960 Nominees to City of Ithaca-Town of Ithaca joint study group
1961 Lois E. Chaplin, Extension Associate, Department of Biological and
1962 Environmental Engineering, Cornell University; Bicycle and Pedestrian Specialist,
1963 Cornell Local Roads Program
1964 Paul R. Eberts, Professor, Department of Development Sociology, and Director of
1965 Graduate Studies for the Field of Community and Rural Development, Cornell University
1966 Nathan Fawcett, Special Assistant to the Provost for State-Related Issues, Cornell
1967 University; Tompkins Public Library Treasurer and Trustee; formerly served with New
1968 York State Division of Budget
1969 Randy Haus, Trumansburg Police Department; former Deputy Police Chief, City
1970 of Ithaca; former Tompkins County Undersheriff
1971 Tom Niederkorn, Principal, Planning & Environmental Research Consultants;
1972 former City of Ithaca Planning Director
1973 Wendy Skinner, Marketing and Communications Manager, Tompkins
1974 Consolidated Area Transit; active in Sustainable Tompkins; former Tompkins County
1975 Public Information Officer
1976 Stuart W. Stein, former Member and Chair, Tompkins County Board of
1977 Representatives; Professor Emeritus, Department of City and Regional Planning, Cornell
1978 University
1979 Constance V. Thompson, Manager, Recruitment and Diversity Recruitment,
1980 Recruitment and Employment Center, Cornell University; Steering Committee Member,
1981 Alliance for Community Empowerment(ACE)
1982
1983 A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
1984 Carried Unanimously (7-0)
1985
53
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
1986 March 7, 2007 Regular Common Council Meeting
1987
1988 Approval of Substitute Members to the Joint Study Group formed to Investigate
1989 possible Shared Services and possible Consolidation between the City of Ithaca and
1990 the Town of Ithaca -Resolution
1991 By Alderperson Coles: Seconded by Alderperson Tomlan
1992 WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council and the Town of Ithaca Board, desiring
1993 to examine the mutual benefits that could be achieved through possible shared services
1994 and possible consolidation measures, agreed by votes at their respective meetings of May
1995 3, 2006, and May 8, 2006, to pursue such investigation through the establishment of a
1996 joint study group, and
1997
1998 WHEREAS, the Common Council voted unanimously to create such a study group to
1999 investigate, among others, the legal and regulatory aspects of shared services and possible
2000 consolidation, the pros and cons of both shared services and consolidation, the financial
2001 opportunities and liabilities of consolidation or shared services, an analysis of the
2002 property and sales tax scenario for a single jurisdiction, the concept of a new jurisdiction,
2003 and a unified comprehensive plan, and to provide an analysis of the strengths,
2004 weaknesses, opportunities, and threats for each topic area, and
2005
2006 WHEREAS, the Common Council voted that the study group would be composed of
2007 eight"at-large"members, mutually agreed upon by the City of Ithaca Common Council
2008 and the Town of Ithaca Board, with these representatives having knowledge of finance,
2009 law,planning,public works,police, or organizational culture,plus one elected official
2010 liaison from each jurisdiction, making a total of ten members, and
2011
2012 WHEREAS, the Common Council directed that such study group and its chair be
2013 nominated by a joint City-Town nomination committee consisting of the Mayor, the
2014 Supervisor, one Common Council member, and one Town Board member, and
2015
2016 WHEREAS, the nomination committee, consisting of Mayor Carolyn K. Peterson,
2017 Supervisor Cathy Valentino, Alderperson Mary Tomlan, and Councilor Peter Stein,put
2018 forward the names of eight"at-large" study group members, and
2019
2020 WHEREAS, the Common Council and the Town Board voted at their respective
2021 meetings of October 4, 2006, and October 14, 2006, to name those eight persons as study
2022 group members, being Lois E. Chaplin, Paul R. Eberts, Nathan Fawcett, Randy Haus,
2023 Tom Niederkorn, Wendy Skinner, Stuart W. Stein, and Constance V. Thompson, and
2024
2025 WHEREAS, two of those members, Randy Haus and Wendy Skinner, have since found
2026 that they are unable to serve, and
2027
2028 WHEREAS, the nominating committee has agreed to put forward the names of Ellen
2029 McCollister and Diane Bruns as study group members; now, therefore, be it
2030
2031 RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca concurs in the naming of
2032 Ellen McCollister and Diane Bruns to the City-Town joint study group.
2033
2034 A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows:
54
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
2035
2036 Ayes (8) Coles, Seger, Berry, Clairborne, Tomlan, Gelinas, Townsend, Cogan
2037 Nays (0)
2038 Carried(8-0)
2039 Alderperson Zumoff absent from
2040 vote
2041
2042
55
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
2043 BUDGET MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD
2044 THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2006
2045
2046
2047 TB RESOLUTION NO. 2006-199: Approving a Joint Study Group to Investigate
2048 Possible Shared Services and Possible Consolidation between the City of Ithaca and
2049 the Town of Ithaca
2050
2051 WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council and the Town of Ithaca
2052 Town Board, desiring to examine the mutual benefits that could be achieved
2053 through possible shared services and possible consolidation measures, have
2054 agreed by votes at their respective meetings of May 3, 2006 and May 8, 2006, to
2055 pursue such investigation through the establishment of a joint study group, and
2056
2057 WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca voted in favor of
2058 creating a study group to examine, among others,
2059 • the legal and regulatory aspects of shared services and possible
2060 consolidation
2061 • the pros and cons for both shared services and possible consolidation
2062 • the financial opportunities and liabilities of consolidation or shared
2063 services
2064 • an analysis of the property and sales tax scenarios for a single jurisdiction
2065 • the concept of a new jurisdiction
2066 • a unified comprehensive plan
2067
2068 WHEREAS, the Town Board voted that the study group would be
2069 composed of eight members, mutually agreed upon by the City of Ithaca
2070 Common Council and the Ithaca Town Board, with representatives having
2071 knowledge of finance, law, planning, public works, police, or organizational
2072 culture, including one elected official liaison from each jurisdiction, making ten
2073 members, and
2074
2075 WHEREAS, the Town Board directed that such a study group and its chair be
2076 nominated by a joint City-Town nomination committee consisting of the Mayor, the
2077 Supervisor, one Common Council member, and one Town Board member, and
2078
2079 WHEREAS, the nominating committee, consisting of Mayor Peterson, Supervisor
2080 Valentino, Alderperson Tomlan, and Councilman Stein, has met three times, beginning
2081 June 26, 2006, and
2082
2083 WHEREAS, the nominating committee has agreed to put forward the names of
2084 eight study groups members, all of whom have agreed to serve, being Lois E. Chaplin,
2085 Paul R. Eberts, Nathan Fawcett, Randy Haus, Tom Niederkorn, Wendy Skinner, Stuart
2086 W. Stein, and Constance V. Thompson, with Wendy Skinner nominated and agreed to
2087 serve as chair, and
2088
2089 WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca has nominated Peter Stein to
2090 serve as the elected liaison from the Town Board; now, therefore, be it
56
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
2091
2092 RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca concurs in the naming
2093 of the above-cited individuals to the joint City-Town study group.
2094
2095
2096 MOVED: Supervisor Valentino
2097
2098 SECONDED: Councilman Stein
2099
2100 VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman,
2101 aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye.
2102 Motion carried.
2103
57