440 likes | 582 Views
The Village Dissolution Process Hempstead, New York August 2, 2011 Wade Beltramo N.Y.S. Conference of Mayors General Counsel wade@nycom.org. Village Dissolutions. Union - 1921 La Fargeville -1922 Marlboro - 1922 Eastwood - 1926 Newfield - 1926 Pleasant Valley - 1926
E N D
The Village Dissolution Process Hempstead, New York August 2, 2011 Wade Beltramo N.Y.S. Conference of Mayors General Counsel wade@nycom.org
Village Dissolutions Union - 1921 La Fargeville -1922 Marlboro - 1922 Eastwood - 1926 Newfield - 1926 Pleasant Valley - 1926 Sound Avenue - 1927 Belleville - 1930 Northville - 1930 Jamaica Square - 1931 Henderson - 1933 Old Forge - 1936 North Bangor - 1939 Forestport - 1940 Village of the Landing - 1940 Downsville - 1950 Amchir - 1968 Prattsburg - 1972 Fort Covington – 1975 Pelham - 1975 North Pelham - 1975 Friendship - 1977 Rosendale - 1977 Savannah - 1979 Elizabethtown - 1980 Bloomingdale - 1985 Pine Hill - 1986 Woodhull - 1986 Pine Valley - 1991 Westport - 1992 Ticonderoga - 1993 Fillmore - 1994 Schenevus - 1994 Mooers - 1995 Andes - 2003 Pike - 2009 Limestone - 2010 Perrysburgh - 2011 Randolph - 2011 East Randolph - 2011 Seneca Falls - 2011 Altmar - 2011 Edwards - 2012
Villages Currently orRecently Studying Dissolution Lake George Schuylerville Medina Waddington Port Henry Candor Windsor Albion Ellenville Cobbleskil Lewiston Potsdam Cherry Valley Macedon Speculator Wellsville Corinth Dansville North Collins Allegany Johnson City Alden Camilus Victory
NYCOM’s Position Villages Are Not Merely Multipurpose Taxing Districts Village Are Not a Third Layer of Government Villages Are New York’s Form of Incorporated Cities
NYCOM’s Position Residents Should Have the Ability to Petition to Create & Dissolve Villages Village Boards Should Have the Ability to Initiate Dissolution Neither For Nor Against Dissolving Any Particular Village
General Municipal Law Article 17-A Went Into EffectMarch 21, 2010
Petitions Filed Under the New General Municipal Law Article 17-A
Recent Town Consolidation Activity Towns of Homer & Scott Voted Against Consolidation – November 2011
2011-2012 Budget • Aid for Consolidation and Efficiency Improvements The 2011-12 Budget Contains $79 Million Consolidate & Efficiencies
2011-2012 Budget • Aid for Consolidation and Efficiency Improvements • $35 Million for Citizen Empowerment Tax Credits & Citizens Reorganization Empowerment Grants • Citizen Empowerment Tax Credits – a Bonus Equal to 15% of the Resulting Local Government’s Tax Levy. At Least 70% of Bonus Must Be Used for Direct Relief to Property Taxpayers.
2011-2012 Budget • Aid for Consolidation and Efficiency Improvements • Citizen Empowerment Tax Credits – For the Town of Hempstead will be $300,000 plus $700,000 in Tax Credits to the Residents/Property Owners • Citizen Empowerment Tax Credits –Capped at $1,000,000 for the Town of Hempstead Not Guaranteed in the Future!
2011-2012 Budget • Aid for Consolidation and Efficiency Improvements • Citizens Reorganization Empowerment Grants – Funding Will Be Available for Grants Up to $100,000 for Local Governments to Cover Costs Associated With Studies, Plans & Implementation Efforts Related to Local Government Reorganization Activities.
2011-2012 Budget • Aid for Consolidation and Efficiency Improvements • The Remaining $44 Million Will Be Allocated As Follows: • Local Government Performance & Efficiency Program – $40 Million Will Be Available for Competitive One-Time Awards of Up to $25 Per Capita, Capped At $5 Million for Efficiencies And Performance Improvements.
2011-2012 Budget • Aid for Consolidation and Efficiency Improvements • The Remaining $44 Million Will Be Allocated As Follows: • Local Government Efficiency Grants – Funding of $4 Million Will Continue to Cover Costs Associated With Local Government Efficiency Projects, Such As Planning for and/or Implementing Consolidation, Shared Services. $200,000 Per Muni/ $1 Million Total.
Each Village Dissolution Is Unique & Must be Considered on a Case-By-Case Basis The Services Villages Provide Varies From Village to Village The Services Towns Provide Varies From Town to Town Different Economic & Demographic Characteristics
Dissolution Studies – Sources of Cost/Tax Savings Efficiencies - Economies of Scale Discontinuing Services Restructuring Services Elimination of Elected Officials Increased Aid from the State Village Residents No Longer Paying Town Taxes for Services They Do Not Receive
Village Dissolution Is a Town Issue! • How New York State Law Imposes Town Tax Determines Tax Savings for Village Residents • Town Determines How Services Are Going to Be Provided Should the Village Dissolve
The Town Budget Four Parts • General Fund • Town-Wide • Town Outside of Village • Highway • Town-Wide • Town Outside of Village
General Municipal Law Article 17-A • Key Provisions • Consolidation Part • Governing Board Initiated • Electorate Initiated • Dissolution Part • Governing Board Initiated • Electorate Initiated • County Initiation
General Municipal Law Article 17-A • Consolidation • Not Likely to Occur Because of Systemic Obstacles • Requires Coordination of Multiple Interest Groups • Leveling Up – Unless Efficiencies Achieved Are Sufficient, Someone’s Taxes Are Likely to Increase
General Municipal Law Article 17-A • DissolutionTermination of the Existence of a Local Government Entity • Towns Are Excluded • What About Districts? Not Practical • Used Only to Dissolve Villages
General Municipal Law Article 17-A • DissolutionMethods for Initiating • Governing Body Resolution, Subject to a Referendum • Elector Initiative
General Municipal Law Article 17-A • Elector Initiated Dissolution • Petition • 10 % of Electors In the Village to be Dissolved or 5,000 Signatures, Whichever Is Less • Village of Hempstead Registered Voters – 26,053 • 2,605 Signatures Required to Initiate Process
General Municipal Law Article 17-A • Elector Initiated Dissolution • Petition • Issues During Circulating a Petition • “It Is Just to Study Dissolution” • “You Are Going to Save Everything You Are Paying In Village Taxes” • “The Town Will Provide All of the Services the Village is Providing Now”
General Municipal Law Article 17-A • Elector Initiated Dissolution • Referendum • If Petition is Filed, Trustees Enact Resolution Calling for Referendum • Held 60 to 90 Days from Resolution Vote Likely to be Uninformed & Consequently Very Divisive • If it Fails, No Dissolution for 4 Years • If it Passes, Then Must Develop Dissolution Plan
General Municipal Law Article 17-A • Elector Initiated Dissolution • Developing Dissolution Plan • Board Must Meet within 30 Days of Vote Approving Dissolution • 180 Days to Prepare a Plan Time Period is Impractical • Study Committee & Consultant Not Referenced in the Act, but Generally Necessary
General Municipal Law Article 17-A • Elector Initiated Dissolution • Developing Dissolution Plan j) Terms for Disposing of Village’s Assets & Liabilities & Indebtedness, Including Levying & Collecting of Taxes & Assessments Necessary to Pay Off Any Liability or Indebtedness; h) Any Agreements Entered Into With the Town(s) in Which the Village is Situated In Order to Carry Out the Dissolution; i) Manner & Means Municipal Services Will Continue to be Provided Following theVillage’s Dissolution; d) Any Plan for Transferring or Eliminating Positions of Public Employees
General Municipal Law Article 17-A • Elector Initiated Dissolution • Plan Goes Into Effect, Even if Democratically Elected Board Recommends Against It,Unless • Petition Is Filed No Later Than 45 Days After Dissolution Plan Is Approved
General Municipal Law Article 17-A • Elector Initiated Dissolution • Plan Goes Into Effect, Even if Democratically Elected Board Recommends Against It,Unless • Petition Must Contain Signatures of at Least 25 % or 15,000 of Village’s Electors, Whichever Is Less This is a HUGE hurdle Dissolution by Default
Main Issue Affecting Cost Savings Service Continuity • Town-Wide Function; • Continued but Limited to & Financed by Area Less Than the Entire Town (District); or • Terminated as a Governmental Activity
Main Issue Affecting Cost Savings Service Continuity Scenario A Scenario B Garbage Collection Town-Wide Garbage Collection Town Special District Covering Existing Village Boundaries Scenario C Garbage Collection Discontinue Refuse Collection, Residents Have to Contract with Private Hauler TOWN-WIDE Highway Maintenance Justice Court Elected Officials Some Administration
Main Issue Affecting Cost Savings Service Continuity Scenario A Garbage District Scenario A2 Scenario A1 Street Lighting Special District Street Lighting Town-Wide Sidewalk Scenarios Sidewalk Scenarios Scenario A3 Street Lighting Discontinue TOWN-WIDE Highway Maintenance Justice Court Elected Officials Some Administration Sidewalk Scenarios
Main Issue Affecting Cost Savings Potential Scenarios Garbage District Lighting Town-Wide Sidewalks Town-Wide Sidewalks District Sidewalks Eliminated Garbage District Lighting District Sidewalks Town-Wide Sidewalks District Sidewalks Eliminated Garbage District Lighting Eliminated Sidewalks Town-Wide Sidewalks District Sidewalks Eliminated
Dissolution Issues • Continuation/Discontinuance of Services • Disposition of Village Property • Village Debt Obligations
April 5th June 10th October 8th May 11th September 8th May 20th May 1st August 8th
Dissolution Studies – Sources of Cost/Tax Savings Efficiencies - Economies of Scale Discontinuing Services Restructuring Services Elimination of Elected Officials Increased Aid from the State Village Residents No Longer Paying Town Taxes for Services They Do Not Receive
General Municipal Law Article 17-A • NYCOM’s Recommended Changes to the Act – A.1274/S.1824 • Mandatory Referendum on Dissolution and Consolidation Plans • Clarify Petition Signature Process • Lengthen Time Frames for Conducting Study • Prevent Duplication of Governing Body Initiated & Electorate Initiated Proceedings
General Municipal Law Article 17-A • NYCOM’s Recommended Changes to the Act – A.1274/S.1824 • Have Study Committee Study Dissolution, Develop Plan, & Recommend for or Against Dissolution
General Municipal Law Article 17-A • NYCOM’s Recommended Changes to the Act – A.1274/S.1824 • Require Vote to be Held at Normally Scheduled Election • For County Initiated Consolidation or Dissolution, Require Majority Vote in Each Local Government Separately for Any Activity