HomeMy WebLinkAboutTown City Consolidation Paper 2008Report of the Joint City/Town Study Group 1
on 2
Shared Services and Consolidation 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
November 3, 2008 30
31
Diane V. Bruns 32
Lois E. Chaplin 33
Paul R. Eberts 34
Nathan Fawcett 35
Ellen McCollister 36
Tom Niederkorn (Chair) 37
Peter C. Stein 38
Stuart W. Stein 39
Mary Tomlan 40
41
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
JOINT CITY-TOWN STUDY GROUP 42
43
Dear Mayor Peterson and Supervisor Engman: 44
45
We are pleased to submit the results of the Joint City/Town Study Group on the issue of 46
possible shared municipal services and/or consolidation of the City and Town of Ithaca. It 47
has been an interesting and educational experience working on this challenging 48
assignment. 49
50
From our discussions with city and town personnel responsible for the operation of eight 51
major governmental functions we were encouraged to hear that 1.) there are already 52
examples of successful contractual agreements as well as informal practices to 53
collaborate in the provision of services and equipment; 2.) there are undoubtedly 54
opportunities to increase the current level of sharing and to formalize responsibility for 55
some inter-municipal operations and 3.) there are other opportunities to be explored, and 56
possible efficiencies to be gained, by continued review of staff activities in an attempt to 57
reduce duplication and thereby achieve a higher level of service. Although more analysis 58
is necessary it appears that, in some cases, the increased operational efficiency might also 59
result in a lower level of cost. 60
61
We encourage the legislative bodies in both municipalities to continue to pursue this 62
important sharing/consolidation issue. You should support and possibly reward future 63
staff efforts and activities that might result in greater operational efficiency and 64
effectiveness as well as less duplication of effort and, possibly, less cost including further 65
analysis of the benefits and impediments to full municipal consolidation. 66
67
A positive attitude is vital to such efforts. The public as well as municipal staff members 68
need to know, by actions as well as words, how you and the members of your 69
governments feel about this very important issue. 70
71
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this far-reaching effort. 72
73
Members of the Joint City/Town Study Group 74
75
Diane V. Bruns 76
Lois E. Chaplin 77
Paul R. Eberts 78
Nathan Fawcett 79
Ellen McCollister 80
Tom Niederkorn 81
Peter C. Stein 82
Stuart W. Stein 83
Mary Tomlan 84
Note: Randy Haus, Wendy Skinner and Constance V. Thompson were also nominated for 85
the committee but were unable to participate. 86
87
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
Table of Contents 88
89
I. Introduction 4 90
A. The Joint City/Town Study Group 4 91
B Overview of Study Group Activities 4 92
II. A Brief History of the Political Geography of Tompkins County: 5 93
III Possible Future Courses of Action 6 94
A. Allow Cooperation/Consolidation to Evolve on a Case-by-Case Basis 6 95
B. Consolidation of Services As Directed by Legislative Bodies. 7 96
C Full Consolidation of the City and Town of Ithaca 7 97
IV. Consolidation of Individual Services 8 98
A. Fire Protection 9 99
B. Code Enforcement 10 100
C. Planning 11 101
D. Public Safety 14 102
E. Public Works 14 103
F. Records Management 17 104
G. Recreation 17 105
V. Full Consolidation of the Town and City of Ithaca 18 106
A. Commonly Expressed Arguments For and Against Consolidation 19 107
B. An Analysis of the Major Perceived Benefits and Barriers 19 108
1. The Effect of Consolidation on Property Tax Rates 20 109
a. The "Status Quo" Assumption. 20 110
b. Sales Tax Distribution under Consolidation 21 111
c. Savings due to Increased Efficiency 22 112
` d. Increase in Per Capita State Aid 22 113
e. The Issue of Debt 23 114
2. Identity Politics in the City, Village and Town 24 115
3. Moral and Ethical Considerations 25 116
4. Non-monetary Costs and Benefits 26 117
a. Merging Three Workforces into One 26 118
b. Increased Services for the Town 27 119
c The Contribution of Each Municipality to the 120
Other's Quality of Life 27 121
d. The Future Politics of Greater Ithaca 27 122
VI. Other Approaches to a More Unified Local Government 30 123
A. The Role of County Government 30 124
B. Other Consolidation Avenues 31 125
VII. Recommended Next Steps 31 126
VIII. A Vision of the Future 32 127
Appendix 1. Past Cooperation and Consolidation Efforts 34 128
Appendix 2 NY State Reports on Shared Services and Consolidation 36 129
Appendix 3 Legal Aspects of Consolidation 39 130
Appendix 4 2005 Town, City and Village Budgets 41 131
Appendix 5 Resolutions Establishing the Joint Study Group 46 132
133
134
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
I. Introduction 135
136
A. The Joint City/Town Study Group 137
In May 2006 a resolution to set up a “Joint Study Group” to investigate possible 138
shared services and/or municipal consolidation opportunities between the City of Ithaca 139
and the Town of Ithaca was co-written by members of the City and Town governing 140
bodies and passed by both (see Appendix 5). These 2006 resolutions were the outgrowth 141
of an earlier facilitated meeting of elected officials of Tompkins County and the City and 142
Town of Ithaca held in December 2005. The purpose of this facilitated meeting was to 143
allow elected representatives an opportunity to discuss the positive and negative aspects 144
of shared services in, and possible consolidation of, the Ithaca communities. Pursuant to 145
the 2006 resolutions passed by both City and Town a Joint Study Group was established. 146
147
The Joint Study Group (JSG) first met on December 1, 2006. At that meeting, 148
members discussed and agreed on several specific issues related to its purpose and 149
function as well as the scope of its study. Issues agreed upon included: 150
151
● REPORT: The JSG intends to produce a report for the City and Town of Ithaca, 152
and interested members of the Ithaca community, that is relevant and usable as a 153
guide to potential merging or sharing of services. The JSG sees its primary goal as 154
politically neutral fact finding. 155
156
● DEFINITIONS: Within the context of the JSG’s work “consolidation” implies a 157
merging of two or more levels of government. “Shared services” are publicly 158
funded community services that are or could be combined or extended to serve the 159
population of more than one municipality. City, Town and Village refer to the 160
City of Ithaca, the Town of Ithaca, and the Village of Cayuga Heights, and Greater 161
Ithaca refers to a new, consolidated municipality comprised of the City, Town and 162
Village. 163
164
● FOCUS: The JSG agreed to explore and report on consolidation of governments 165
but acknowledged that, because this issue is highly politically and emotionally 166
charged, most of the group’s effort will focus on the more feasible potential of 167
shared services. 168
169
● HISTORY AND BACKGROUND: The JSG will oversee compilation of 170
documents that trace the history of similar studies and discussions since the 171
1950’s, as well as documents and reports that detail existing shared services or 172
government consolidations. (See Appendix 1) 173
174
● RESOURCES: The JSG agreed that fully meeting the charge that has been given 175
is dependent on provision of adequate support services. (It should be noted that 176
study efforts were restricted by the absence of staff assistance to record meetings, 177
assemble basic data and historical efforts, assist in report preparation and similar 178
duties.) 179
180
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
B. Overview of Study Group activities. 181
182
Monthly meetings of the JSG were held during 2007 and much of 2008. In 183
addition to reviewing some past local efforts on the issue of consolidation and/or sharing 184
services, the JSG also investigated state legislation and a number of related state staff 185
reports on this issue as well as similar efforts of other communities in the Ithaca 186
region.(See Appendix 2) Using 2005 budget data for the Town, City and Village (See 187
Appendix 5), the JSG made various analyses of the effects of consolidation on property 188
taxes of residents. 189
190
At many of these meetings the detailed functions and operational responsibilities 191
presented by representatives from specific City and Town departments were reviewed. 192
Department heads and major staff members from both the City and Town jointly 193
presented a summary of duties and responsibilities and also responded to JSG questions 194
and comments. Early in 2007, the then mayor of Cayuga Heights declined the JSG's 195
informal invitation to have Village staff participate in the JSG's reviews. 196
197
Responsibilities, programs, organizational structure, operational concerns and 198
suggestions were presented and discussed. Areas and functions about which information 199
was presented were, in order of presentation, Fire Services, Human Resources, Finance, 200
Planning, Parks and Recreation, Records Management and Archives, Code Enforcement 201
and Public Works. 202
203
During the various group discussions there was nothing said to the JSG to indicate 204
strong resistance to the idea of closer City-Town operational alliances. There are already 205
opportunities for sharing services, equipment and information that have been 206
implemented by some departments. Several participants felt the concepts and specifics of 207
additional sharing could be examined. 208
209
II. A Brief History of the Political Geography of Tompkins County: 210
211
Tompkins County came into being in 1817, was significantly expanded in 1822, 212
and then slightly contracted to its current borders in 1854. Within those borders, the 213
county was divided into predominantly agricultural or unsettled towns of roughly equal 214
size. The central town, Ithaca, was set off from Ulysses on March 16, 1821, and the 215
Village of Ithaca incorporated the following April 2. Local government was the province 216
of the towns and the Village of Ithaca. County-wide functions, in particular the court 217
system, were administered collectively by the supervisors of the county's towns. Apart 218
from a few very minor changes, the names and outer borders of the county's nine towns 219
(Caroline, Danby, Dryden, Enfield, Groton, Ithaca, Lansing, Newfield, and Ulysses) were 220
the same in 1854 as they are in 2007. Within those decades, and within the Town of 221
Ithaca, the City of Ithaca has expanded its borders to the east and the north. 222
223
As time went on, as other areas in the County became more densely settled and 224
developed commercial activities, their residents apparently decided that their increasing 225
development gave rise to needs that were not being satisfactorily addressed by town 226
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
governments, and incorporated themselves as villages. Between 1857 and 1887, Dryden, 227
Groton, Trumansburg and Freeville were incorporated as villages. The Village of 228
Lansing, a part of the Town of Lansing, was incorporated in 1974. 229
230
In 1888, the Legislature granted a charter to the Village of Ithaca, allowing it to 231
incorporate as a City. This was seen at the time as a major event by area residents, and 232
was greeted with speeches, parades, band concerts, and fireworks, culminating in a 29 233
gun salute. 234
235
The formation, expansion and services of the Village of Cayuga Heights, a part of 236
the Town of Ithaca, is particularly relevant to this study. Cayuga Heights is the only 237
incorporated village in the Town and offers services parallel to those now available in the 238
City and Town of Ithaca. Cayuga Heights voted to incorporate as a village in 1915 with 239
an area of 0.44 square miles and a population of 137. In 1954, in response to the desire 240
of a growing suburban population for suburban amenities, principally water, sewers and 241
sidewalks, that the Town could not supply, it quadrupled its area. In another referendum 242
in the same year, the Village rejected a proposal to be annexed by the City. In 2008, 243
Cayuga Heights is a highly developed suburban community with a small commercial 244
center and almost no land available for development. Furthermore, increased 245
development in the Town has brought water and sewer service to the areas adjacent to the 246
Village of Cayuga Heights, reducing the reasons that originally motivated the split 247
between the Village and the Town. At present, a strong allegiance to local identity and a 248
perception that the Village is more responsive to local service needs persists. 249
250
Three simple metrics and a single picture summarize many of the arguments for 251
and against consolidation. The populations of the City, Town and Village are 29,300, 252
18,200 (including the Village) and 3,300 respectively, their median family incomes are 253
$42,000, $68,000 and $123,000 respectively, and their family poverty rates are 13.5%, 254
4.2%, and 1.5% respectively. The map that appears on the title page of this report shows 255
the immutable geography of the southern end of Cayuga Lake in which the three 256
municipalities are situated. 257
258
III Possible Future Courses of Action. 259
260
A. Encourage Departmental Cooperation/Consolidation Efforts on a Case-by-Case Basis 261
262
Several departments in the Town and the City have already established 263
consolidated or cooperative efforts in similar types of services. In some cases, (e.g., in 264
the public works sector) staff, on their own, have found ways to cooperate, share staff and 265
equipment and otherwise work together to save money and provide efficiencies, without 266
direction by elected officials. In other cases (e.g., the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment 267
Facility), elected officials cooperated to build a new consolidated facility that was a 268
necessity for both of them. In neither of these above examples was consolidation or 269
cooperation pursued for any reason beyond the economies dictated by the particular 270
situation. In our review, we did not find obvious examples of consolidation/cooperation 271
opportunities that promised to save meaningful amounts of money that have been 272
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
overlooked. Furthermore, we believe that when such opportunities arise in the future, 273
staff members in Town and City departments will be aware of them, and further 274
cooperation actions will occur naturally. 275
276
While such incremental and natural evolution of service delivery is praiseworthy, 277
there are limits to what it can accomplish. It often is the result of decisions made by line 278
and administrative staff who focus only on their own domains. Such individual decision- 279
making by its nature lacks the broader viewpoint that comes from oversight from the 280
elected public officials. There is also the natural tendency for the director of a 281
department to protect his/her own territory, which often directly conflicts with increasing 282
cooperation and consolidation. Under such circumstances, cooperation and consolidation 283
can only come as a result of pressure applied from the top, i.e. from the elected officials, 284
often during times of fiscal stress. 285
286
Given these circumstances, we see no useful role that we, or any outside review 287
study group, can play in further advancing consolidation or cooperation of a natural and 288
incremental nature. 289
290
This approach, however, does not address overarching issues like comprehensive 291
planning and land use, transportation strategies, environmental protection or adjustments 292
to climate change, among others. 293
294
B. Consolidation of Additional Services As Directed by Legislative Bodies. 295
296
This option assumes that there remain opportunities for further consolidation of 297
services that have not already taken place. Where this has not already taken place, 298
external direction or pressure from the elected officials of both the Town and the City 299
could cause the staff of those departments to work more closely together to achieve 300
efficiencies and cost-savings. Individual Town and City departments could be integrated 301
into a single department, or just be required to work more closely together. Interestingly, 302
the committee’s interviews of some department heads indicated a clear willingness to 303
engage in further cooperation, and even integrate their departments with those of other 304
municipalities. 305
306
While recognizing that there would be barriers to overcome before full 307
consolidation of additional services could actually take place, the committee sees this 308
option as viable. More detailed study of any specific service area needs to be 309
undertaken. Such questions as labor contracts, ownership of assets, oversight and 310
direction, etc. can be difficult, although not impossible to handle. The functions that are 311
the most likely candidates for consolidation are listed below in alphabetical order. 312
313
Code Enforcement 314
Fire Protection 315
Planning 316
Public Safety 317
Public Works 318
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
Records Management 319
Recreation 320
321
Each of these functions will be discussed in greater length in a subsequent section of this 322
report. 323
324
C. Full Consolidation of the City and the Town of Ithaca. 325
326
The ultimate form of consolidation, of course, is to make the Town and City one 327
governmental entity. Over the years, a number of individuals and groups have made such 328
a recommendation with the general aim of increasing the efficiency of local government. 329
In any review of this kind, the option of consolidation of governments must be addressed. 330
This approach is very attractive to many, but there are many significant barriers to such a 331
move. 332
333
Full consolidation would require a full, wide ranging analysis of many issues, 334
such as legal constraints and the costs and benefits of consolidation. Furthermore there 335
must be extensive debate by the city and town legislative bodies as well as by the 336
residents of both jurisdictions. A preliminary analysis of the legal issues is presented in 337
Appendix 3, and a first look at the costs and benefits is presented in Section VI below. 338
While a full analysis far exceeds our charge and capabilities, we believe that full 339
consolidation merits a serious examination by stakeholders in both jurisdictions. For our 340
part, we will attempt to advance the discussion by systematically examining what we 341
believe are the most often expressed advantages (i.e., benefits) and disadvantages (i.e., 342
costs) of consolidation. 343
344
IV. Consolidation of Individual Services 345
346
There are many examples of local services that are provided by partnerships of 347
independent jurisdictions or institutions. TCAT (Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit) 348
was formed as a partnership of the three existing independent transportation systems of 349
Cornell, the City of Ithaca and Tompkins County. The Southern Cayuga Lake 350
Intermunicipal Water Commission (Bolton Point) is a partnership of three Towns 351
(Dryden, Ithaca and Lansing) and two Villages (Cayuga Heights and Lansing) founded to 352
provide water to the residents of the partnership. The Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment 353
Plant (IAWWTP) is a partnership of the City and Town of Ithaca and the Town of 354
Dryden for the purpose of treating the sanitary sewage of these municipalities so that it 355
can safely be discharged into Cayuga Lake. 356
357
Each of these partnerships has a different governing structure to apportion both 358
the expenses and the decision-making powers of the enterprise among the partners in 359
what was seen as an equitable fashion. These three enterprises are widely accepted as 360
successful examples of intermunicipal cooperation and as enduring cornerstones of local 361
government. 362
363
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
Given these successes, one might speculate that other specialized-function 364
consolidations will follow in their path. In all three cases, the ultimate benefits of 365
consolidation seem obvious, at least in hindsight. It is hard to fashion an argument that it 366
would have made sense for the Bolton Point or IAWWTP to have built their own parallel 367
water or sewage treatment plants simultaneously, or that it made sense for Tompkins 368
County to have three independent public transportation systems, each with its own routes, 369
equipment and infrastructure. 370
371
On closer analysis, it seems clear that Bolton Point and IAWWTP consolidations 372
are fundamentally different from TCAT. Bolton Point and IAWWTP were both built 373
from scratch, while TCAT combined three existing systems, each with its own 374
equipment, labor unions and routes. While management decisions in all three joint 375
ventures involve both technical and policy questions, policy issues probably play a 376
greater role in TCAT than in Bolton Point and IAWWTP, and governments are probably 377
less inclined to share decision-making power on policy issues than on technical issues. 378
On the other hand, the path to the TCAT consolidation was both driven by demands of 379
regulatory agencies and smoothed by a large influx of federal and state funds. 380
381
It would appear that each case is different, and that there is no generic path to 382
consolidation of services. If one is talking about consolidation of existing organizations, 383
there must be clear demonstrable gains for both sides to compensate for the inevitable 384
loss of control (perceived or real) by one or both parties. Below, we will systematically 385
examine the services we think are the prime candidates for consolidation. 386
387
A. Fire Protection 388
389
The City, Village and Town each have different ways of providing fire protection. 390
The City's fire department (the Ithaca Fire Department) is mostly composed of career 391
firefighters with a small (less than 10% of the total) volunteer component. The Village 392
has a totally volunteer fire department. The Town does not have a fire department of its 393
own; it contracts with both the City and the Village to provide fire protection to its 394
residents. 395
396
In one sense, fire protection services in Greater Ithaca are already consolidated. 397
The Village Fire Department has the responsibility for responding to incidents in the 398
Village and certain parts of the Town, and the Ithaca Fire Department has the 399
responsibility of responding to incidents in the City and the remainder of the Town. 400
However both fire departments provide backup for each other, and may even be first 401
responders for a fire outside of their area of responsibility if the situation demands it. 402
403
However, in other important ways, the fire departments are not consolidated. In 404
the Ithaca Fire Department, volunteers and career firefighters are combined into the same 405
units. The various tasks that firefighters are required to perform require different and 406
skill levels. An area-wide integration of volunteer and career firefighters would make 407
more efficient use of the capabilities of both groups. Furthermore, the relationship 408
between the Town on the one hand, and the City and Village on the other, namely that of 409
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
a customer and a vendor, does not seem appropriate for municipalities providing a 410
consolidated service. While the Town does recommend the appointment of some of the 411
Ithaca Fire Department fire commissioners, the role of the commissioners is more 412
advisory than decision-making. 413
414
Since fire protection for Greater Ithaca is provided by two independent 415
departments with intertwined responsibilities, the three municipalities might wish to 416
establish a new structure for providing fire safety that shares both cost and control among 417
the users in an equitable fashion. It is also possible that in the light of the high priority 418
given to maximally efficient use of all resources, a countywide consolidation of providers 419
of fire safety should be examined. We have found no compelling argument that such a 420
consolidation will significantly reduce total costs, but it may well provide an improved 421
area wide level of fire protection. 422
423
B. Code Enforcement 424
425
The Town of Ithaca and the City of Ithaca must adhere to the New York State 426
Uniform Code for fire and safety. The state law was changed last year to require many 427
more triennial fire inspections. 428
429
The Town of Ithaca building code calls for the code enforcement department to be 430
responsible for zoning and building permits, property inspections, property maintenance, 431
excavation and fill, sign permits, and for storm water code enforcement to be the 432
responsibility of the engineering department.. The Town is responsible for inspecting 433
approximately 4500 dwelling units. 434
435
The City of Ithaca building department abides by the same New York State fire 436
and safety codes as does the Town, and must enforce local laws enacted by the City. It 437
too, is responsible for the above-mentioned functions. In practice, however, there are 438
substantial differences in the work of the Town and City code inspectors due to the 439
differences in populations of the Town and the City. The City is much denser than the 440
Town and the ratio of (mostly student) rental properties to single family homes is far 441
greater. There are approximately 10,000 rental properties in the City, which are supposed 442
to be inspected yearly. In contrast, one or two family homes are inspected every five 443
years. In addition, City code enforcement officers are responsible for inspecting Cornell 444
University fraternities and dormitories. Because there are often substantial code 445
violations at rental properties and fraternities, some properties must be inspected 446
numerous times before compliance is achieved. Thus, the City inspectors face a very 447
field-intensive job. The building permit fees do not cover the costs of compliance and 448
inspection. Finally, the board review structure .(e.g., the Board of Zoning Appeals, the 449
Planning and Development Board, etc.) in the City as outlined in City Charter requires 450
the frequent input of the City's building department, also resulting in more work for staff. 451
452
As far as collaborative or consolidation efforts are concerned, staff of both 453
municipalities agreed that there could be opportunities for jointly sponsored training. 454
However, that is such a small component of their jobs that it would neither save much 455
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
money nor require that the two entities be consolidated. The respective workloads are 456
larger than existing staff resources can cover fully, so consolidation clearly would not 457
save personnel costs. It might, however, produce some marginal management 458
efficiencies. 459
460
However, the primary opportunity for reorganization and consolidation may be in 461
the area of fire inspections. The recently revised New York State code mandates 462
increased fire inspections. It would be better for the Ithaca Fire Department, which must 463
deal with future fires, to do all the fire inspections in the Town and City rather than for 464
the Town and City inspectors to do it independently. The Ithaca Fire Department will 465
then have first hand knowledge of the conditions it will face if it were required to fight a 466
fire in a given structure. 467
468
It is our understanding that as of the time of this writing, the Town and the City 469
are pursuing an arrangement whereby the Town's fire inspections will be carried out by 470
the Ithaca City Fire Department. 471
472
473
C. Planning 474
475
“In New York State municipalities have extensive authority to cooperate with one 476
another to accomplish their land use objectives. Where villages, towns and cities share 477
natural resources, transportation corridors or economic markets they are authorized to 478
enter into intermunicipal agreements to perform together any municipal function they 479
have power to undertake individually.” Well Grounded, John R. Nolan, Professor of 480
Law, Pace University School of Law, White Plains, NY, March 1999. 481
482
In terms of fundamental planning tools such as land use character and 483
development controls, it is clear that New York communities have available extensive 484
legal tools to help guide development and regulate the use of land. State laws related to 485
planning and zoning give communities extensive control over the use and development of 486
land within their boundaries. However, the use of these statutes depends, in most cases, 487
on the desire of the communities to develop, enact and use the planning and 488
implementation measures available to them. 489
490
At present there is a full program of planning and zoning activity existing in the 491
greater Ithaca community. Both City and Town have professional planning staffs to 492
create and implement planning and development programs. The Town Planning 493
Department currently consists of 6 to 7 personnel. An operating budget of $344,276 was 494
authorized for 2007. The City of Ithaca Planning Department consists of 12 personnel, 495
which includes four Ithaca Urban Renewal (IURA) personnel. The budget of the City's 496
Planning Department for 2008 is $843,376. In addition, both City and Town make use of 497
consulting services as necessary. Tompkins County also has an extensive planning 498
program and an active professional planning staff. 499
500
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
In addition to the professional staff, both the City and Town have a lay planning 501
board, a zoning board of appeals, a special planning committee comprised of one or more 502
members of the legislative body and one or more lay or legislative-body committees for 503
such issues as housing, conservation and protection of the environment, and similar 504
planning and development-related issues. 505
506
A meeting with planning directors of the City and Town planning departments, 507
and the assistant planning director of the County planning department pointed out that 508
these entities have prepared and enacted a range of planning tools including site plan 509
approval, some form of comprehensive planning including, in the City and Town, 510
detailed and complex subdivision regulations and zoning (land use) controls. The City’s 511
comprehensive plan was adopted in 1971 and has been somewhat modified since. The 512
Town plan was adopted in 1993 and has been selectively reviewed several times. Both 513
municipalities are currently in the process of updating their comprehensive plans. 514
Preparation of the existing plans was probably undertaken in the general context of 515
growth issues, future development objectives and control of land use in the broader 516
community. On the other hand, specific attempts to coordinate development concepts, 517
community character and the overall impact of future land use changes beyond municipal 518
boundaries did not play a major role in shaping the adopted Town and City plans. 519
520
The County has only recently become involved in comprehensive planning and 521
has, according to the county planner, focused on those land use issues that transcend of 522
municipal boundaries. The County’s plan was adopted in 2004 and is to be reviewed in 523
2009. Cayuga Heights Village has legislative authority to prepare and adopt a 524
comprehensive plan but this has not been undertaken to date. Zoning regulations and site 525
plan review are active components of development in the Village. The Village has no 526
planning staff, and zoning and development permits are coordinated by the Village 527
Engineer/Zoning officer. 528
529
Multi-municipal planning and development issues have been acknowledged in 530
State legislation for cities, towns and villages. Article 5-G of the General Municipal Law 531
establishes statutory authority for communities to “...enter into agreements to undertake 532
comprehensive planning and land use regulation with each other….Furthermore, 533
according to Article 5-G “…any city, town or village may contract with a county to carry 534
out all or a portion of the ministerial functions related to…land use….” The intent of 535
this legislation is to provide the participating governing bodies the opportunity to “… 536
promote intergovernmental cooperation that could result in increased coordination and 537
effectiveness of comprehensive planning and land use regulation, more efficient use of 538
infrastructure and municipal revenues, as well as the enhanced protection of community 539
resources, especially where such resources span municipal boundaries.” 540
541
State enabling legislation also empowers cities, towns and villages to create 542
special land use districts which encompass all or a portion of one or more municipalities 543
for the purpose of protecting, enhancing or developing one or more community resources. 544
545
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
Both City and Town planning directors stated their belief that additional 546
opportunity for collaboration or sharing of governmental activities and responsibilities 547
existed. They noted that fire protection and sewage disposal are municipal services that 548
are currently shared between the two municipalities. They also suggested that additional 549
consolidation of the area’s public water supply seems like an opportunity and that sharing 550
for parks and recreation could be improved. In their view such efforts to coordinate or 551
share services would likely be short of total consolidation of the two municipalities. 552
Fundamental issues such as the nature and extent of future development and the 553
establishment of future land use goals and objectives were also viewed quite differently 554
by both the planning and legislative functions of each government. In addition, the issues 555
of cost vs. control are factors that increasingly stall or completely derail potential 556
collaboration opportunities at both the planning and legislative levels. 557
558
In the 1990s the State Legislature recognized the increasing importance that 559
planning can play in helping municipalities broadly face development issues when it 560
passed enabling legislation giving municipalities authorization to undertake programs for 561
”…protecting the public health, safety and general welfare of its citizens". (Section 272-562
[1][b] of the Town Law) Using these tools and strategies in a broader collaborative or 563
consolidated format could be helpful in reducing carbon emissions and environmental 564
degradation at the local level, an increasingly important issue that could be addressed by 565
community planning programs at all levels. 566
567
Since both the City and Town are currently beginning efforts to update their 568
comprehensive plans, and expect this work to take several years, a collaborative effort is 569
clearly a unique opportunity to evaluate development goals and long range land use 570
objectives in a comprehensive way and to seriously consider critical environmental issues 571
and concerns. In our meeting with them, the planning directors acknowledged this 572
opportunity but indicated concerns about how this would be accomplished. A combined 573
planning effort would ultimately require and promote mutual agreement on the important 574
tasks of establishing future land use character and development goals and objectives for 575
the Greater Ithaca Area, i.e. the City and Town, or at least some major portions thereof. 576
Agreement on these and other basic issues would be needed, initially at the planning level 577
and, more importantly, at the legislative level. For this comprehensive master planning to 578
be fully effective, it would also need to include the Village of Cayuga Heights. 579
580
Despite the inherent difficulties, the shared long range planning opportunity 581
available at this particular time appears to be unique. It could, perhaps, be started by a 582
coordinated description and shared analysis of existing conditions and trends in the two 583
Ithaca communities. Included in this discussion would be the critically important 584
planning and development programs of Cornell and Ithaca College. Future activities and 585
development programs at both institutions can be expected to have major and long-lasting 586
impacts on many planning issues in the City and Town. 587
588
Implied in the undertaking of a new comprehensive plan in the City and Town is 589
the complicated issue of zoning and the changes that would most likely be necessary to 590
reflect coordinated planning goals and objectives. To the extent that current economic 591
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
development, zoning and site planning decisions are skewed by existing municipal 592
taxation boundaries, the results become sub optimal for meeting comprehensive master 593
planning objectives. This issue could be even more difficult and contentious than the 594
more general conclusions and proposals of a coordinated comprehensive plan. 595
Nonetheless, to begin implementation of coordinated development and land use goals for 596
the two communities would surely involve a review and possible modification of the 597
underlying laws, tax revenue protocols and implementation procedures. In an era when 598
the need for nations to work together to solve global problems is increasingly being 599
recognized and taken into account, we believe that municipal governments should 600
commit themselves to make a special effort to jointly fashion an area-wide plan for the 601
future. 602
603
D. Public Safety 604
605
Four independent police forces belonging to the City of Ithaca, the Village of 606
Cayuga Heights, Cornell University and Ithaca College provide primary police protection 607
to residents of Greater Ithaca. The Tompkins County Sheriff provides primary police 608
protection for the Town of Ithaca outside of the Village of Cayuga Heights, as part of the 609
Sheriff's responsibility to provide primary police protection for those municipalities that 610
do not have a police force of their own. Generally these independent police organizations 611
have provided backup coverage for each other in emergencies. 612
613
The Sheriff is an independent public official, elected by all of the residents of 614
Tompkins County, and makes his or her own decisions about how to distribute the 615
resources the County grants to support the Sheriff's office. As a result, Town government 616
has limited ability to determine where and what kind of public safety protection will be 617
provided to its residents. 618
619
The general perception of Town residents is that drivers respect speed limits and 620
other traffic and parking regulations more in municipalities that have their own police 621
force than those that rely on the Sheriff and state police for enforcement. Periodically, 622
the Town has talked about instituting its own police force, but was always deterred by the 623
considerable anticipated start up costs. If consolidation of Greater Ithaca were to take 624
place, residents of the current Town would expect to enjoy the same level of police 625
presence as City and Village residents currently have. 626
627
Of course a consolidated police force that could provide such protection would 628
have to be greater than the combined City and Village Police forces, and detailed study 629
would be required to estimate accurately the size of the required increase. To get some 630
idea of what would be required, we consulted individuals familiar with public safety 631
administration. According to several knowledgeable sources we consulted, a level of 632
police presence enough to deter speeding and other moving violations throughout the 633
Town would probably require approximately two additional two-shift road patrols. 634
635
E. Public Works 636
637
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
Public Works staff from the Town and the City met with the committee in 638
October 2007 to outline the basic responsibilities assumed by their respective 639
departments, and to comment on areas where there might be opportunities for additional 640
cooperation and/or consolidation. 641
642
The Town's Public Works Department includes highways, parks, trails, water and 643
sewer operations, storm water management, buildings and grounds, and some 644
engineering. The City’s Board of Public Works advises the City public works 645
department, which is organized into three main divisions: water and sewer, streets and 646
facilities (including a large function for urban forestry) and engineering. In the Town, 647
there are approximately 28 staff dealing with these functions; in the City, 168. Both 648
departments are unionized, and and represented by different unions. In area, the town is 649
responsible for about 50 miles of roadway. The City is responsible for about 70 miles of 650
streets and their sidewalks, plus 33 bridges. Responsibility for the 28 bridges in the 651
Town rests with the County. 652
653
Thus, functionally, the Town and the City public works departments are expected 654
to serve their taxpayers in similar ways in providing for and maintaining infrastructure. 655
Historically, the departments have evolved to duplicate most functions, although there are 656
individual differences in methods of management and in equipment inventory. With the 657
Town encircling the City geographically, and roads not stopping at an artificial Town-658
City boundary, it is an archaic model that results in two municipalities functioning 659
independently vis-à-vis their public works duties. This seemed evident both to the 660
committee and to staff. In theory, many of the functions could at a minimum be 661
coordinated, and in many cases consolidated. As always, the devil would be in the 662
details. Moreover, public works is another example where there is the ever-present trade-663
off between increased efficiency and economies of scale and reduced autonomy by the 664
individual municipality. Many taxpayers prefer small, local, minimal government and 665
are averse to what they see as subsidizing infrastructure outside their borders. But with a 666
trend toward regionalism, and borders becoming increasingly an historical artifact, public 667
works is an area that seems prime for review of specific services that could be 668
consolidated or jointly operated, perhaps along the lines of the Tompkins Consolidated 669
Area Transit (TCAT) model. It was interesting that the City superintendent observed that 670
New York State has 3500 municipal public works departments while Massachusetts 671
functions with 1800. 672
673
In the absence of sweeping consolidation, the committee suggests looking closely 674
at the functional areas described below to see where further cooperation or consolidation 675
could occur. In some cases, significant cost-savings due to economies of scale could be 676
achieved in such areas as water or sewer facilities, or snow removal. In other cases there 677
might not be initial cost savings, but planning and coordination on an area wide basis 678
would be better for all (e.g., location and maintenance of sewer and water lines that 679
reflect desired regional growth patterns.) It is noted that some of the best suggestions for 680
consolidation opportunities might come from the “bottom up”, such as having a contest 681
that would enable staff from the various departments to suggest trial models that would 682
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
best serve taxpayers. The other mechanism for change would require the respective 683
Town-City boards or councils to approve any change, based on constituency input. 684
685
• Equipment and trucks: There are economies of scale in purchasing decisions. The 686
Town and City would have the same peak use problems, for instance, during heavy snow 687
and rainstorms, but often idle equipment inventory could be shared. The committee was 688
told that there are already informal agreements in place whereby municipalities come to 689
each other’s aid on a case-by-case basis when one municipality's truck or equipment 690
breaks down or other unusual situations arise. In addition, there is already coordination 691
between the two departments regarding snowplow routes. 692
693
• Water source: The current discussions on water source-- Bolton Point vs. Six Mile 694
Creek-- are complicated from environmental, political and financial standpoints. But if 695
the water issue is looked at as an opportunity for consolidation and uniformity of water 696
quality and supply, there are opportunities for consolidation and economies of scale 697
possible. Failure to think of potable water as an area need can lead to sub-optimal 698
technical decisions, such as the route that Town water mains follow to serve South Hill. 699
700
• Water and sewer infrastructure: There are some inefficiencies and existing duplication 701
of capital infrastructure regarding water and sewer lines, and water tower locations. With 702
population growth patterns moving throughout the county, a regionalist approach would 703
suggest having these decisions coordinated under a single entity. Such an approach 704
would frame the decision the City must make about its water source as finding the safest 705
and most efficient way to supply the future water needs of the Greater Ithaca area. 706
707
• Roads and Bridges: Municipal responsibility for the construction and maintenance of 708
roads and bridges does not seem to reflect current day realities. Both the City and the 709
Town are participating members in the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council 710
(the federally-designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)), which is the 711
conduit for federal and state transportation infrastructure funds. When a road or bridge is 712
first built or undergoes major repairs under this program, the costs are borne 713
predominately by the state and federal governments. Committee members noted, that, 714
absent project funding through the MPO, the City is responsible for the entire cost of 715
building, replacing and maintaining its bridges. However, the County pays for much of 716
the cost of replacement of Town bridges having a span of twenty-five feet or more, 717
usually with a split of approximately County 80%, Town 20%. Following construction or 718
rebuilding, the maintenance costs for Town bridges is shared with the County, with the 719
County responsible for maintenance of the structure, and the Town responsible for 720
maintenance of the floor or wearing surface of the bridge (according to a County 721
resolution in 1946). Designation of the MPO in the ‘90s brought additional infrastructure 722
funding into the area and has been instrumental in developing a rational system for 723
allocating scarce resources. It may be time to consider consolidating the responsibility for 724
road and bridge improvements under a single authority. Such an approach would conform 725
to the basic fact that while traffic problems may have definite geographic locations, the 726
causes and effects of these problems are shared by the residents of a much broader area. 727
728
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
• Storm Water Management: This is a real opportunity for further collaboration and 729
consolidation, particularly because storm water management is a new mandate from the 730
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC.), that requires all communities to 731
develop new parallel regulation and enforcement capabilities. 732
733
• Transit: The local public transit system has been consolidated via Tompkins 734
Consolidated Area Transit (TCAT). TCAT represents the joining of Ithaca Transit (City), 735
TomTran (County) and Cornell Transit into one unified system providing service 736
throughout Tompkins County and adjoining areas in Schuyler and Tioga Counties. 737
Because TCAT’s scope is regional, it has the advantage of having the broader picture in 738
mind when making decisions about routes and service areas. TCAT is not a municipal 739
function even though it provides a public service; it is organized as a not-for-profit 740
corporation reporting to a board of directors. New members of the board are nominated 741
by the City, the County and Cornell University, and confirmed by the TCAT board. 742
Funding of its operational deficit each year is shared equally among these three partners. 743
In addition, Cornell provides significant additional support through its pass programs for 744
staff and students. 745
746
F. Records Management 747
The County, the City and each municipality are required by the state to store vital 748
records of many kinds. In addition, there are other records that, while not required to be 749
kept, nevertheless are historically important. Some municipalities may currently be 750
handling record keeping well, while others are hard-pressed to find the appropriate space 751
and personnel to manage these important records. The main issue is with the storage of 752
relatively inactive records. Many departments keep active records close-by as they often 753
need them in doing their work on a regular basis. 754
755
This issue was brought to the committee by several County staff members: the 756
County Clerk, the County Historian and staff of County Personnel and Administration. 757
They emphasized the current need, and certainly a growing future need, to address the 758
growing burden of record storage by all levels of municipalities in the County. 759
760
In the presentation, it was pointed out that this burden represented both a 761
challenge and an opportunity. The County, City and Town could work together to create 762
a centralized records center that could serve not only these three governmental entities, 763
but also other municipalities that may have the need for such a facility. Combining 764
efforts to create a records center for the entire county to house vital public records and 765
historic documents could be more efficient and less costly than if each municipality 766
attempted to address the problem on it own. It was noted, however, that discussions with 767
all of the County's municipalities, including the Town and the City of Ithaca, about 768
records storage needs have not been held. Therefore, it is not clear whether there will be 769
buy-in from everyone to this concept. 770
771
It was pointed out, also, that a New York State program currently exists that could 772
provide what could be substantial financial assistance for its creation and management. 773
The County and several municipalities already have tapped into that fund for grants. 774
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
775
While a records center may not be seen by many as a major service when 776
compared to other critical public services, it is required and is necessary, and will have to 777
be established eventually. This appears to be an opportunity to achieve municipal 778
efficiency. It was suggested that the City-Town committee, working with the County, 779
could assist in moving forward with such a project. In fact, it was learned by the 780
committee that the County currently has taken the first steps to locate and fund such a 781
facility and have it built, probably in the Town of Ithaca. The tentative timetable for 782
construction of such a records building is 2010, which suggests that a timely response to 783
this opportunity is called for. 784
785
G. Recreation 786
787
Until the mid 1990's, public recreational facilities and programming in Greater 788
Ithaca were provided by the State and the City of Ithaca. The State Parks System 789
provides local Greater Ithaca residents ready, convenient access to three major State 790
Parks offering a choice of swimming, camping, hiking, and picnicking opportunities and 791
spectacular view sheds. The City provided local residents access to its lakeside centrally 792
located Stewart Park with picnicking facilities, playgrounds, a carousel and a pavilion 793
available for group functions, Cass Park with its seasonal swimming pool/skating rink, 794
ball fields, pavilion and marina, as well as other parks and facilities. In addition, the 795
Ithaca Youth Bureau has provided extensive recreational programming based principally 796
at the City's recreational facilities for more than half a century. 797
798
Before the 1980's, the City gave area residents equal access to its recreational 799
programs irrespective of their home address. In response to budget pressures, the City 800
instituted a system in the mid 1980's whereby local municipalities could opt to make a 801
designated financial contribution to the City and become "an affiliate", in which case a 802
resident of that municipality could use City recreational facilities and programs on a par 803
with City residents. Several municipalities, including the Town of Ithaca, became 804
"affiliated" with the City in this way. The Town has continued to make regular payments 805
to the City in one form or another to compensate the City for its provision of recreational 806
facilities and activities used by Town residents. 807
808
In recent years, the Recreation Partnership, a joint venture of the City, the County 809
and most of the county's Towns, was formed to provide resources for youth oriented 810
recreational programming for county residents. The funds raised by the Recreation 811
Partnership were largely paid to the City, which provided the programming requested by 812
the Partnership. In addition to its contributions to the Recreation Partnership, the Town 813
has made annual contributions of approximately $100,000 to the City to reimburse the 814
City for the use that Town residents make of the Cass Park facilities in ways other than 815
the programming of the Recreational Partnership. 816
817
In 1997, the Town adopted its Park, Recreation Open Spaces Plaon and embarked 818
on a program to expand the number of parks within its boundaries. It has opened a 819
variety of parks of various kinds, from Tutelo Park, with a regulation baseball field and a 820
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
pavilion, to undeveloped neighborhood parks offering an opportunity to walk quietly in a 821
natural setting. 822
823
Recreation in the Town and City is a function that is particularly well suited to 824
cooperative or consolidated efforts of the two municipalities, as residents freely cross 825
municipal boundaries in using parks. However, the obstacles to making it a joint venture 826
are the usual considerations that arise in such issues, namely the degree to which the 827
share of control and benefit to each municipality equals or exceeds its financial 828
contribution. Insistence on a strict cost/benefit accounting can sometimes conflict with 829
win-win arrangements. 830
831
V. Full Consolidation of the City and Town of Ithaca 832
833
Initially, the members of the study group held a wide range of views regarding 834
full consolidation. Some believed that a full study of the issues might well demonstrate 835
that consolidation was possible, desirable and practical, and could in fact lead to that 836
result. Others believed the advantages of consolidation would not be found to be 837
compelling enough to justify following a path that was sure to be long and difficult. 838
839
Despite these differences of opinion, the study group agreed that it was 840
worthwhile to record the results of our analysis, in the hopes that such a record would 841
clarify and delineate the issues that must be examined by whoever wishes to realistically 842
pursue consolidation. As indicated in Section VIII - Recommended Next Steps below, a 843
broader consensus among study group members to recommend pursuing consolidation 844
developed during the course of deliberations, with full recognition of the difficulties 845
involved. 846
847
During the course of our deliberations, individual members of the study group 848
talked with each other about what we thought about consolidation of the City and the 849
Town, what we had heard from friends and acquaintances, and what we believed were the 850
prevailing attitudes amongst citizens. We then assembled a list of core arguments for and 851
against consolidation. We certainly cannot pretend that the list is in any way a scientific 852
survey of the attitudes of citizens of the City and the Town. We present it only as our 853
best guess at what a public opinion survey would reveal, and as a starting point for an 854
analysis of the key issues that lie at the center of any consolidation debate. 855
856
We will start by presenting the key arguments for and against consolidation, then 857
reduce them into four distinct categories, and finally analyze them as best we can. 858
859
860
A. Commonly Expressed Arguments For and Against Full Consolidation 861
862
Arguments For 863
1 Increased efficiency should lower property taxes in the long run 864
2 Residents already self-identify as "Ithacans", not Town or City residents 865
3 Social responsibilities would be shared more fairly 866
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
4 Town residents would benefit from increased services 867
5 The quality of life for Town and Village residents is strongly affected by the 868
health of, and services provided by, downtown Ithaca 869
6 Integrated planning will improve responses to challenging issues (e.g., 870
transportation congestion, climate change, environmental stewardship) 871
872
Arguments Against 873
1 Would result in substantial increases in property taxes for Town residents 874
2 The Town would lose its identity 875
3 The disparate cultures of the Town and City preclude a harmonious union 876
4 Cayuga Heights would never agree to consolidation 877
5 The welfare of Town residents would not be adequately addressed in a joint 878
government 879
6 A merger would create grave problems for the staff 880
7 The effort required is not justified by the potential gain 881
8 In a larger municipality, there will be a loss of control over local service quality 882
and delivery 883
884
Argument 1 in each of the two lists presents the two sides of the same question, 885
namely how would total costs of government and property taxes change if the two 886
municipalities were to consolidate. Argument 2 in the "For" list, and arguments 2 , 3, 4 887
and 8 in the "Against" list all pertain to the identity politics issue for the 47,500 residents 888
of the City and Town. Argument 3 on the "For" list is a moral issue for Town residents. 889
Arguments 4, 5 and 6 in the "For" list and arguments 5 and 6 in the "Against" list are 890
costs and benefits for Town residents that cannot be given a monetary value. Argument 7 891
in the "Against" list is not really an argument. It is simply a prediction of what the 892
conclusion of a full cost-benefit analysis of consolidation will be. 893
894
We will organize our analysis of the issues raised in the consolidation debate 895
along the following four dimensions. 896
897
The effect of consolidation on property tax rates 898
Identity politics in the City, Village and Town 899
Moral and ethical considerations 900
Non-monetary costs and benefits 901
902
B. An Analysis of the Major Perceived Benefits and Barriers 903
904
1. The Effect of Consolidation on Property Tax Rates 905
The first question that most residents pose is straightforward enough, namely; "If 906
the City, Town and Village were to consolidate, how much would my property tax bill 907
change?" Unfortunately, the question is easier to pose than it is to answer. The answer 908
depends strongly on a series of subsidiary questions, such as whether the services 909
delivered to residents would change, whether a consolidated government would be more 910
or less efficient than the current governments independently and whether (and how much) 911
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
the sources of public income other than property tax would change and how outstanding 912
debt service payments will be handled. 913
914
In order to make a first estimate of the impact of consolidation on real estate tax 915
bills of City, Town and Village residents, we will assume that the expenditures and 916
revenues of the combined municipality (Greater Ithaca) will be the sum of the current 917
expenditures and revenues of the three separate municipalities. Following that, we will 918
examine the effects on the tax bills of a few modifications to that assumption that we 919
think are reasonable possible projections. The estimates are based on data for the year 920
2005 supplied by the financial officers of the three municipalities (See Appendix 4). 921
From the point of view of a 2009 reader, the data must be taken as illustrative. However, 922
percentage changes in tax rates attributable to consolidation probably have not changed 923
significantly. The data will be presented as the City/Town/Village property tax bill on a 924
$200,000 residence. 925
926
a. The "Status Quo" Assumption. 927
To make this calculation, we assume that every resident in Greater Ithaca will pay 928
the same local tax rate, and that the revenue raised by this tax will equal the sum of the 929
revenues that the City, Town and Village raised from the property tax in 2005. The 930
results are shown in Table 1. In addition, the current City/Town/Village property tax 931
bills, the school and county tax bill, the total property tax and the percentage changes in 932
property tax due to consolidation for each of the three municipalities are shown. 933
934
Table 1 935
Property Tax on a $200,000 Home 936
Status Quo Assumption 937
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 $6,080 $6,556
Total Greater Ithaca Tax $6,859 $6,859 $6,859
Percent Tax Increase -10.6% 12.8% 4.6%
939
We think it is likely that under this scenario, the substantial increase in 940
Town/Village taxes and decrease in City taxes would overshadow all other 941
considerations, and the consolidation would be seen simply as a subsidy of City taxpayers 942
by Town/Village taxpayers. Were this to be the common perception, consolidation 943
would have virtually no chance of becoming a reality. 944
945
b. The Effect of Consolidation on Sales Tax Distribution 946
Sales taxes revenues generated within Tompkins County are divided among New 947
York State, Tompkins County and local governments. The local government share of 948
sales taxes generated within the City goes to the City. The local government share of 949
sales taxes generated outside of the City is divided between the local governments (other 950
than the City) based on their population, irrespective of the jurisdiction in which they are 951
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
generated. The County Legislature bears the responsibility of determining how the sales 952
tax revenue is divided between the County and the municipalities. 953
954
Since only a modest number of retail stores are located within the boundaries of 955
the Town and Village, most of the Town and Village's sales tax revenue is generated by 956
sales that take place in the other towns and villages in Tompkins County. Therefore, if 957
the Town, City and Village were to consolidate into the City of Greater Ithaca, and the 958
formula for dividing the sales tax revenue were not changed (i.e., the sales tax revenue 959
actually generated in Greater Ithaca would be credited to Greater Ithaca), a large fraction 960
of the sales tax revenue currently received by the Town and Village would be credited to 961
Greater Ithaca. We estimate that of the Town and Village's current combined sales tax 962
annual revenue of $3.2 million would be reduced to $800,000. The resulting change in 963
real estate tax on a $200,000 home is shown in Table II. 964
965
Table 2 966
Property Tax on a $200,000 Home 967
Status Quo with Sales Tax Sharing Determined by the Existing Algorithm 968
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
Of course, the County Legislature could certainly decide to allow the Town and 971
Village to take their sales tax with them when they consolidated with the City. In that 972
case, Table 1 would apply. This is a concrete example of how decisions made by higher 973
bodies regarding the allocation of local tax revenue can lead to sub-optimal local land 974
use, planning and transportation strategies. 975
976
c. Savings Due to Increased Efficiency 977
The Study Group talked with the department heads of the major departments in 978
the Town and City. Both municipalities have many of the same departments, including 979
public works, planning, recreation, and budget and finances. While the services these 980
departments perform are in many cases identical, they are not duplicative, since they 981
provide these services to a different group of customers. Some, and possibly the 982
majority, of the savings that might be realized from consolidation, such as the sharing of 983
specialized capital equipment, have already been accomplished by informal agreements 984
between parallel departments in these two municipalities. 985
986
However, it is possible that savings could be achieved by eliminating one of the 987
department heads when two parallel departments are combined. A very rough quick 988
estimate indicates a maximum annual saving of approximately $800,000, including fringe 989
benefits. Such a saving would translate in to a Greater Ithaca tax rate decrease of only 990
$0.35 per $1000 of assessed value. 991
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
992
d. Increase in Per Capita State Aid 993
Cities in New York currently receive block grants from the State in an amount 994
roughly proportional to their population. If the City, Town and Village were to 995
consolidate, and the grant aid were increased to reflect the increase in population in the 996
transition from the City of Ithaca to the City of Greater Ithaca, the Greater Ithaca tax rate 997
would decrease by $0.59 per $1000 of assessed value. 998
999
Of course, there is no guarantee that the State would make such an adjustment. 1000
Indeed, currently that grant is capped. Currently, the enacted budget includes funding for 1001
an increase in state aid of 15% of the combined property tax revenue as an incentive for 1002
municipalities that consolidate, with a ceiling of a $1 million increase. That incentive 1003
would continue annually. Adding that increased state aid would decrease the Greater 1004
Ithaca tax rate by $0.45 per $1000 of assessed value. An alternative provision of law, 1005
which apparently is not funded at present, provides for an increase of 25% in the existing 1006
state aid block grant on an ongoing annual basis when municipalities consolidate, again 1007
capped at $1 million. Moreover, the former governor stated his support for consolidation 1008
of municipalities, and it is conceivable that his successor's support could translate into a 1009
proportional increase in the block grant. 1010
1011
Assuming that the County Legislature will allow the three municipalities to keep 1012
their current sales tax revenues when they consolidate, that the efficiency savings 1013
described above will be realized and that the State will agree to increase the block grant 1014
aid proportional to the increase in the population, Table 3 shows the changes to the real 1015
estate tax on a $200,000 home for the city, the town and the village. 1016
1017
Table 3 1018
Property Tax on a $200,000 Home 1019
Status Quo plus Increased Efficiency and State Aid 1020
as Described Above 1021
1022
1023
e. The Issue of Debt 1024
A glance at Table 1 shows that the current total property tax on a home in the City 1025
is 150% higher than a comparably priced home in the Town and 75% higher than a 1026
comparably priced home in the Village. Of the many factors that contribute to this 1027
disparity, one deserves special attention. The outstanding debt in the City per dollar of 1028
taxable assessed value is roughly ten times greater than it is in the Town, and eight times 1029
greater than it is in the Village. 1030
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%
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
1031
To estimate the effect of the current debt on property tax in a consolidated Greater 1032
Ithaca, we repeated the "Status Quo" calculation, making the following assumption: that 1033
part of the property tax on a $200,000 home in Greater Ithaca that pays for all expenses 1034
except for debt would be the same for all residents. However, residents in that part of 1035
Greater Ithaca that was originally in the City would pay the debt service on the City debt 1036
until it was paid off. Residents in that part of Greater Ithaca that was originally in the 1037
Town or Village would likewise continue to pay the debt service on that Town or Village 1038
debt until it was paid off. Of course, all property owners in Greater Ithaca whose 1039
property had the same assessed value would share equally the debt service on any new 1040
debt. Given the City's history of accumulating large debt, Town residents would have to 1041
be convinced that the governmental structure of Greater Ithaca had sufficient safeguards 1042
against the continuation of this practice. It would also be important for Town and Village 1043
residents to understand the degree to which they use and benefit from the infrastructure in 1044
the City such as bridges and roads that their tax dollars would be help to support in the 1045
future. 1046
1047
Table 4 shows the result of this calculation. 1048
1049
Table 4 1050
Property Tax on a $200,000 Home 1051
Status Quo plus Increased Efficiency and State Aid 1052
and Existing Debt of the Three Municipalities not Pooled 1053
1054
1055
Table 4 presents a scenario in which the owner of a $200,000 home living in the 1056
City and the Village enjoys a decrease of approximately $400 in his property tax, and the 1057
owner of the same home living in the Town experiences an increase of $150 in his or her 1058
property tax. 1059
1060
2. Identity Politics in the City, Village and Town 1061
By identity politics in the context of this report, we mean the extent to which the 1062
political jurisdiction in which an individual resides is a significant factor in that 1063
individual's self-identification. For example, local election district, State Assembly, 1064
Senate district and Congressional district boundaries change every ten years with little 1065
public comment or concern other than by elected officials and political leaders. On the 1066
other hand, a treaty by which the U.S. and Canada realigned the border between them is 1067
nearly unthinkable. The reason for the difference in the two cases is clear. National 1068
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%
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
citizenship is a critical part of most individuals' self-identification, while a legislative 1069
district is not. 1070
1071
Identity politics of this sort has played a leading role in changes in the political 1072
map of the globe in recent times, including the former two Vietnams, the Germanys, 1073
Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. What role it will play in advancing or 1074
retarding the formation of Greater Ithaca remains to be seen. 1075
1076
Based on our experience as long time residents of the area, we make the following 1077
assessment of the prevailing self-identification of area residents. We are unaware of any 1078
existing survey information that speaks to this issue. We believe that Town and City 1079
residents generally identify themselves as coming from "Ithaca". Their children go to the 1080
same middle and high Schools. They share the same post office address and zip code. 1081
Politically, both are solidly Democratic; in the City, by a ratio of 4 to1, and in the Town, 1082
by a ratio of 2.5 to 1. The Town of Ithaca Board and the City Common Council have not 1083
had Republican members for nearly twenty years. Many residents of both jurisdictions 1084
are unaware of the boundary between the two jurisdictions. Residents tend to identify 1085
with neighborhoods with names that cannot be found on many maps such as Fall Creek, 1086
East Hill, Cornell Heights, or West Hill or Taughannock Boulevard, rather than as Town 1087
or City residents. We do not believe that the boundaries between the Town and City 1088
parts of the residential areas are of great concern or interest to residents of these areas. 1089
1090
Over the years, the Town has steadily changed from a mixture of rural and 1091
residential areas to a predominantly residential community. Currently, there are less than 1092
a dozen active farms in the Town. Furthermore, its odd geography (often described as a 1093
doughnut) makes the City's downtown the geographical, commercial, cultural and 1094
entertainment center of the Town. It is no accident that the Town's Town Hall is in the 1095
City. This unique geography and the current concentration in the City of Town residents' 1096
work, social, entertainment and cultural opportunities blurs the distinction between City 1097
and Town in their minds. Furthermore, it is our guess that for City residents, the 1098
geographical distinction that matters most to their self-identification is between 1099
downtown and the suburbs (including the City parts of East, South and West Hills) rather 1100
than the political boundary between the City and the Town. 1101
1102
In contrast to residents of the Town and the City, it is our sense that residents of 1103
the Village identify strongly as citizens of the Village of Cayuga Heights. Cayuga 1104
Heights is widely considered the most prestigious address in the County. The median 1105
family income and the per capita home assessment of the Village is roughly twice that of 1106
the Town. The perception of its residents is that the Village is the most desirable, safest, 1107
best served and best maintained municipality in the County. Our guess, based on 1108
perception, rather than any survey data, is that Village residents would be very reluctant 1109
to lose their Cayuga Heights identity. However, there are alternative strategies for 1110
preserving local geographic identity and some level of local control short of municipal 1111
boundaries that can be pursued (see Section VIII -Recommended Next Steps). 1112
1113
3. Moral and Ethical Considerations 1114
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
The problems arising from the structure of local public financing, whereby less 1115
affluent communities often have a greater ratio of financial needs to tax base, is widely 1116
recognized. One example of this phenomenon is a high density, lower income downtown 1117
jurisdiction surrounded by an independent low density, higher income residential 1118
jurisdiction. State aid to needy local jurisdictions and consolidation of jurisdictions are 1119
often proposed as solutions to the problems of financially stressed jurisdictions. 1120
1121
Consolidation can be seen as an appropriate step when the jurisdictions are 1122
contiguous, when the two jurisdictions share some measure of self-identification and 1123
when a convincing argument can be made that the more affluent jurisdiction derives an 1124
important benefit by its proximity to the less affluent jurisdiction. Even without a legal 1125
obligation to do so, residents of the more affluent jurisdiction may feel a moral obligation 1126
to take an action that may not be in their own financial interests. 1127
1128
In this particular consolidation, it is the citizens of the Village and the Town that 1129
must decide whether or not they agree with, and if they do, wish to respond to the moral 1130
and ethical dimensions of consolidation. No matter how this particular consolidation is 1131
structured, it will likely entail some additional property taxes for the residents of what is 1132
now the Town and Village to meet the mutual needs and benefits for the residents of 1133
Greater Ithaca. It would, in addition, likely entail some increase in service levels for 1134
residents of the Town (e.g., public safety) and possibly the Village as well. Many of 1135
these residents think of themselves as socially conscious individuals and support 1136
progressive causes and solutions. Whether those inclinations will play a role in their 1137
willingness to support consolidation can only be known when the idea enters the local 1138
public debate. 1139
1140
4. Non-monetary Costs and Benefits 1141
In the end, it is our conclusion that the decision whether or not to consolidate will 1142
depend on voters' assessments of a series of issues that do not have a direct or even 1143
predictable effect on their pocketbooks. One of these issues involves all three 1144
jurisdictions, and the others relate primarily to the Town and Village. We will discuss 1145
these four issues separately. 1146
1147
a. Merging Three Municipal Workforces into One 1148
Whether the sector is private, educational or public, one can expect to find that 1149
any proposal for a major organizational change will result in a volley of protests and 1150
arguments for preserving the status quo. The intensity of the protests tends to be 1151
proportional to the degree to which the protester is directly affected by the change, and no 1152
one is more affected by a change in an organization than those who derive their living 1153
from it. Staff who are content with their workplace, their bosses and their fellow workers 1154
have good reason to be wary of change. Mergers are often justified by savings or 1155
increased efficiency, which often means staff reductions or changes in responsibilities. 1156
The difficulties are compounded when the workforces of the merging organizations are 1157
represented by different labor unions. 1158
1159
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
We have no particular insight into the magnitude of this problem as it affects the 1160
consolidation of Greater Ithaca. We note that successful corporate mergers are 1161
commonplace throughout the nation. However, staff objections to consolidation is 1162
probably a greater obstacle to a successful merger in the public than in the private sector, 1163
since the municipal workforce has easier access and probably will attract greater support 1164
from the local residents than the workforce of a corporation can expect from corporate 1165
stockholders. 1166
1167
In the course of its deliberations, the study group talked with the department 1168
heads of the Public Works Departments of the Town and the City, and asked them 1169
whether they thought that staff objections would be a substantial obstacle to consolidation 1170
if the government of both municipalities came to the conclusion that it was in the best 1171
interests of the residents to pursue that course. They both felt that if that were to happen, 1172
the staff of their departments (which constitute a large part of the staff of both 1173
municipalities) would be happy to try to work constructively with each other to carry out 1174
the wishes of the public, and that they do not anticipate serious problems. We also note 1175
that the consolidation of the transportation systems of the City, the County and Cornell to 1176
form TCAT was achieved over the initial objections of the three different unions that 1177
were involved. 1178
1179
b. Increased Services for the Town 1180
With the exception of police protection for Town residents, nearly all of the 1181
services provided by the City, the Town or the Village are provided by each of the three 1182
jurisdictions. Police protection for Town residents is provided by the County Sheriff's 1183
office, which is independent of Town government. There is considerable anecdotal 1184
evidence that Town residents (outside of the Village) have been frustrated by the Town's 1185
inability to deploy a police presence to reduce speeding, illegal parking and other such 1186
problems. On occasion, the Town has considered establishing its own police force to 1187
carry out such activities, but found that the expense of building from scratch even a small 1188
police force was too great. 1189
1190
It is possible that the existing infrastructure of the City and Village police 1191
departments could be expanded at a modest cost to cover the police needs of the Town 1192
outside of the Village borders. If that turned out to be feasible, increased public safety 1193
might come to be seen by Town residents as an important tangible benefit of 1194
consolidation. 1195
1196
c. The Contribution of Each Municipality to the Other's Quality of Life 1197
When Town residents travel far from home and proudly describe their hometown 1198
as "a special place in upstate New York called Ithaca", what exactly do they have in 1199
mind? What's "special" about Ithaca compared to similarly sized upstate New York 1200
towns? 1201
1202
There is certainly no one answer to this question. Some will describe the setting - 1203
the three hills overlooking Cayuga Lake. Others will describe the spectacular vistas 1204
greeting visitors approaching Ithaca from the four points of the compass. But many will 1205
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
point to the quiet, suburban residential area that can boast the above settings yet is only a 1206
stone's throw from a nationally admired university, a smaller but very prominent college 1207
and a downtown center with cultural, culinary and entertainment opportunities that can 1208
compete with much larger metropolitan areas. 1209
1210
The state of downtown Ithaca has an important impact on the quality of life for 1211
those residents of the Town whose view of their hometown coincides with the latter 1212
description. For those residents, the chance to help define and take responsibility for the 1213
character and quality of their downtown may be viewed as a positive outcome of 1214
consolidation. Additional benefits might include the chance to participate in such 1215
looming future issues as transportation congestion, climate change, environmental 1216
stewardship and the interface of Cornell and Ithaca College with the community 1217
1218
The Town makes its contribution to City residents' quality of life in a 1219
complimentary fashion. With just a few miles of driving or biking, City residents will 1220
find in the Town working farms with livestock and roadside stands, preserved unique 1221
natural areas, cross country ski trails, peaceful recreational areas, a network of trails and 1222
parks and woods open to the public, and incomparable views in all seasons. 1223
1224
Taken as a whole, Greater Ithaca, the colored area on this report's cover page, 1225
provides a broader range of quality life experiences than the vast majority of other 1226
American municipalities can offer. 1227
1228
d. The Future Politics of Greater Ithaca 1229
At some level, consolidation involves complementary trade-offs for residents of 1230
the City and the Town. From the point of view of City residents, the downtown would 1231
receive additional resources from Town residents at a cost of their losing some measure 1232
of control over all decisions regarding the downtown. From the point of view of Town 1233
residents, they will acquire some level of control over decisions regarding the downtown, 1234
but at the cost of providing some level of financial support in exchange for that control. 1235
If consolidation is to be viable and acceptable to all parties, each must be aware of the 1236
nature of the potential gains, the trade-offs and the safeguards, and accept them willingly 1237
or not. 1238
1239
The Town and the City have some history of having agreed to similar bargains in 1240
the case of fire protection and the wastewater treatment plant. However these two 1241
examples have not given rise to deal-breaking policy disputes. Consolidation, on the 1242
other hand, makes all issues that face the City and the Town joint issues. In such a 1243
situation, each side must carefully consider how differing needs will fare under a 1244
combined government. 1245
1246
Both Town and City residents will surely note that the ratio of the population, and 1247
therefore the potential voting strength, of the City to that of the Town is roughly 5 to 3. 1248
In the U.S. Senate, such a ratio would correspond to a division of 62 to 38. In a binary 1249
legislature (i.e., two parties or two distinct interest groups), the majority group has the 1250
ability to ignore the views and concerns of the minority group. Indeed, we have heard 1251
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
concerns expressed by Town residents that consolidation would lead to a legislature that 1252
would simply use Town resources to fund City projects and address City needs. If a 1253
majority of Town residents do not believe that their concerns will be addressed in the 1254
Greater Ithaca governing body, consolidation will simply never happen. 1255
1256
The quick answer to the concern of Town residents is, as we have discussed 1257
above, that the boundaries between City and Town are artificial, often invisible to 1258
residents and will disappear with consolidation. In a consolidated government, the 1259
residential areas of the City adjacent to the Town will find more in common with the 1260
suburban parts of the Town than they do with downtown. However, in any elected 1261
government, what matters is the self-identification of the legislators, not the self-1262
identification of the residents. Before examining the implications of this statement, it 1263
makes sense to contemplate the future governing structure of Greater Ithaca. 1264
1265
The elected mayor of the City is its chief executive officer, and as such, prepares 1266
its budget. In addition, the mayor is a member of, chairs and appoints the committees of 1267
the Common Council, the City's legislative branch. The City is divided into five wards, 1268
each of which elects two members of the Council. The Town of Ithaca governing body is 1269
the Town Board, which exercises the executive and legislative functions of Town 1270
government. The Town Board consists of six Town Board members and a Supervisor, all 1271
elected at large. The Supervisor chairs the Town Board, appoints its committees, and 1272
prepares the annual budget, which is considered, amended and approved by the Town 1273
Board. In recent years, the Town Board has annually chosen to delegate its managerial 1274
responsibilities to the Supervisor. 1275
1276
If the City and the Town decide to consolidate, they must decide whether the new 1277
municipality will organize as a Town or a City. The conventional wisdom is that a city is 1278
allowed more flexibility in establishing the details of its governing structure, and that 1279
cities are more likely than towns to receive state and federal aid. Towns may choose to 1280
have Town Boards as large as they please, and may choose to have them represent 1281
subsections of the Town (i.e., wards) rather than the Town as a whole. Likewise, cities 1282
may choose to elect their Council members at large or by wards. While it is certainly true 1283
that most cities are larger than most towns, there are striking exceptions to this rule. The 1284
Town of Hempstead, New York has a greater population than the cities of Boston, Seattle 1285
or San Francisco. Either form of government could probably work for Greater Ithaca. 1286
What is more important is the politics of the consolidated municipality. 1287
1288
When redistricting takes place, legislators strive to have "their" new districts 1289
correspond as much as possible to their old districts. Currently, in addition to the city 1290
mayor and town supervisor there are ten elected City Council members and six elected 1291
Town Board members. The 16 legislators representing the City and Town are consistent 1292
with the 5 to 3 ratio of population of the two jurisdictions. Traditionally, legislators 1293
identify themselves with their legislative districts, and strongly prefer redistricting 1294
solutions that preserve their districts. A division of Greater Ithaca into 8 wards, five in 1295
the city and three in the town, would maintain the districts of all city legislators and 1296
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
create favorable districts for all of the six town board members, and likely appeal to 1297
current office holders. 1298
1299
Unfortunately, current legislators bring with them their self-identification with 1300
City or Town, and would be likely to reinforce the fears of current Town representatives 1301
that their concerns would not receive a sympathetic hearing from a 16 member Council 1302
dominated by ten representatives answerable to solely City constituents. One possibility 1303
might be to elect all legislators at large. However, it is conceivable that such a system 1304
might make the problem worse by inducing the Town legislators to run as a block and 1305
concentrate their efforts on the parts of Greater Ithaca that were in the old Town, and 1306
vice-versa for City legislators. It is possible that such an election would produce a 1307
winner-take-all outcome, resulting in a legislature that was composed mostly of either 1308
Town or City legislators, depending on which jurisdiction had a greater voter turnout. 1309
1310
The decision about how to design and apportion the governing council of Greater 1311
Ithaca, be it a Town or a City, is very fundamental and crucial, and must be an important 1312
part of future study and deliberation if consolidation is pursued. 1313
1314
VI. Other Approaches to a More Unified Local Government 1315
1316
A. The Role of County Government 1317
1318
While this report deals with issues of consolidation of services between the City 1319
and Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County government could play a role in this discussion in 1320
the future. In recent decades, county government has become stronger and more 1321
involved in providing local services as the state has become more urbanized, with the 1322
balance between rural and urban populations shifting towards urban areas away from the 1323
surrounding rural towns. In this process, some services provided by local municipalities 1324
have been taken over by county governments, and the state legislature, which regulates 1325
the powers of local municipalities have encouraged this transition. A bit of governmental 1326
history in Tompkins County helps illustrate this trend. 1327
1328
Originally, Tompkins County was governed by a Board of Supervisors. Town 1329
Supervisors carried out dual responsibilities as both the leaders of town governments and 1330
members of the county legislature. Many rural, low population counties in New York 1331
still retain this form of government. Initially, Tompkins County offered relatively few 1332
services. It had a sheriff's department, and a major concern was caring for the poor. A 1333
County Home was established in the early nineteenth century and continued to exist until 1334
quite recently. In the early twentieth century, the County Board of Supervisors 1335
established a Highway Department, and in mid-twentieth century, it established the 1336
Public Health and the Welfare (renamed Social Services) departments. Other services 1337
came along rapidly in the mid and late twentieth century as the county population grew. 1338
1339
A major change in governmental structure took place in 1970 when the Board of 1340
Supervisors was replaced by the Board of Representatives (renamed recently as the 1341
County Legislature). That year, the County became what is known as a charter county. 1342
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
According to state law, a charter county is permitted to exercise more control (otherwise 1343
known as home-rule) over the scope of its operations. Charter counties are seen by their 1344
supporters as being better suited to address the wider range of public services demanded 1345
by those living in cities and urbanized towns. The Tompkins County Board of 1346
Supervisors in 1970 saw the need to adopt a different governmental structure that could 1347
respond more effectively to the demands caused by the rapid increase of population in 1348
Tompkins County following the end of World War II, and the rapid growth of Cornell 1349
University and Ithaca College. 1350
1351
Since 1970, with this new form of government, the County was better able to 1352
assume some of the functions of the City and the towns, relieving them of the costs and 1353
responsibilities. A few examples of this realignment of services are instructive; they 1354
point to a possible continuation of the movement of some local services to the County, 1355
reinforcing the suggestion that future discussions of consolidation of public services 1356
would benefit by bringing the County into the picture. 1357
1358
One of the first actions taken by the County on January 1, 1970 was to establish a 1359
county-wide property assessment office. Interestingly, Tompkins County is still only one 1360
of two counties in the state to have done so. This consolidation of the assessment 1361
services has provided a uniform system and has saved our local governments time and 1362
money. Many other New York counties look to Tompkins as a leader in assessment 1363
practices, and some have expressed wonderment that the county was able to accomplish 1364
this major feat of consolidation in the face of the power often wielded by local assessors. 1365
1366
Another important consolidation of local services was in the area of solid waste. 1367
Until approximately twenty years ago, our towns and the city each had their own garbage 1368
dump. As environmental issues became more prominent, the State required that these 1369
dumps be upgraded or closed. This would be a very costly process for the local 1370
municipalities, especially for the rural towns with small populations and limited budgets. 1371
With state financial and professional assistance (together with a mandate), the County 1372
took over this responsibility, relieving the municipalities of that financial burden. Solid 1373
waste removal, together with the expanded services for recycling, has now become a 1374
major and costly responsibility of Tompkins County government. Nevertheless, this 1375
consolidation was a better way of dealing with solid waste, rather than having each 1376
municipality manage its own dump and recycling center. 1377
1378
For similar reasons, the County has become involved, or considered becoming 1379
involved in other functions. For example, the County now builds all the bridges and 1380
much of their repairs in all of the County's towns (but not the City), even though they are 1381
not on County roads. Also, discussions have been ongoing for a number of years about 1382
moving youth services entirely to County government, and to have much of the cost of 1383
those programs included in the County budget. In these discussions, issues of sharing of 1384
costs and control are at stake, as can be expected when towns are asked to give up 1385
services to another governmental organization. 1386
1387
B. Other Consolidation Avenues 1388
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
1389
Additionally, there are other consolidations that have occurred recently that have 1390
been based on consortiums of other local organizations and governments. Examples 1391
include the Metropolitan Planning Organization, a regional transportation planning 1392
group, TCAT, a regional public transportation network, governed by a consortium of the 1393
City, County and Cornell representatives, the County Library governed by its own Board 1394
of Trustees, and Bolton Point a water system operated by a consortium of towns. In the 1395
mid twentieth century, local school systems in NY were consolidated into a structure that 1396
transcends municipal boundaries and is governed by a separately elected school board. 1397
Thus there are several forms of governmental structure that could be employed when 1398
looking at consolidation of services. This trend toward the upward movement of services 1399
to larger organizational structures could provide some savings and improved efficiencies 1400
for the County's municipalities. 1401
1402
VII Recommended Next Steps 1403
1404
In general, the committee believes that consolidation of the two municipalities 1405
makes sense conceptually, and that the idea should be pursued. The committee 1406
recognizes that there will always likely be substantial barriers to the consolidation of two 1407
municipalities, and that it will not take place without building a strong consensus in both 1408
municipalities that consolidation makes sense. Therefore, the committee suggests the 1409
following courses of action. 1410
1411
The first and most urgent cooperative venture should be to establish a close 1412
relationship between the parallel efforts in the Town and City to revise their 1413
comprehensive plans. This relationship should be much more than an exchange of 1414
information. One of the major potential gains of consolidation is that Greater Ithaca 1415
would look more broadly at future planning, and establish a plan based on a common 1416
vision. If the two municipalities cannot agree on a common vision, it is unlikely that 1417
consolidation will ever come to pass. If they can, then some of the barriers to 1418
consolidation (e.g., fears that the two entities will have very different plans and priorities 1419
for their common resources) may be greatly diminished. Comprehensive planning is a 1420
rare event in both municipalities, and the two municipalities should not squander this 1421
fortuitous congruence of timing. 1422
1423
The City and the Town should establish a joint committee of legislators (including 1424
legislators from the Village of Cayuga Heights) to adopt a broad policy position to be 1425
adopted by the municipalities to consolidate over time, regardless of how long that may 1426
take. Such a policy should include the following items: 1427
1428
● An exploration, in greater depth, of the step-by-step consolidation of specific 1429
services, as identified in Section V of this report. Special note should be taken of 1430
the need to participate quite soon in the County's efforts to build a new public 1431
records center. 1432
1433
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
● The establishment of joint City/Town neighborhood associations in border 1434
areas such as South Hill, East Hill, West Hill and Cornell Heights/Cayuga Heights 1435
so that the City and Town could address the concerns of their residents in a 1436
coordinated way. 1437
1438
● Detailed studies of the legal and financial aspects of consolidation undertaken 1439
by professionals. Particular attention should be paid to the possibility of the 1440
Village maintaining some measure of independence in a consolidated 1441
municipality. Examples of consolidation successes and failures in other 1442
communities should be thoroughly studied. Funds for this should be sought from 1443
the state government, which has a program for this purpose (see Appendix 2). As 1444
noted above, no funds and no staff were available to the committee to prepare this 1445
report. These in-depth studies should look at both individual public services as 1446
well as the larger picture of total consolidation. The City and Town might jointly 1447
approach Cornell and Ithaca College to make use of any expertise and help they 1448
could offer, 1449
1450
● The municipal parties should enlist the help of local media, political parties, 1451
civic associations (e.g., Chamber of Commerce, League of Women Voters, 1452
Service Clubs, religious organizations) to foster broad based Town, City-and 1453
Village wide public discussion of shared services and consolidation. 1454
1455
VIII. A Vision of the Future 1456
1457
At its initial meetings in December 2006, the Joint Study Group carefully read the 1458
documents in Appendix 5 in an effort to understand our charge. We were asked "to 1459
examine, among others, the pros and cons of both shared services and possible 1460
consolidation." While we were not specifically asked to draw any conclusions from our 1461
examination, we were not prohibited from doing so. However, early in the process, we 1462
all agreed that for various reasons, we should not make a recommendation regarding 1463
whether or not the Town and City should consolidate. 1464
1465
During the almost two years of regular discussion and deliberation, we found that 1466
our initial skepticism about the feasibility and possible benefits of consolidation slowly 1467
evolved into a unanimous belief that its rewards were potentially substantial and that for 1468
national as well as local reasons this moment was unique and the opportunity it presents 1469
must not be allowed to slip by. In this spirit, we offer below in narrative form our view 1470
of what benefits consolidation might mean to future citizens of Greater Ithaca. 1471
1472
An energized Greater Ithaca would pioneer new and innovative ways to 1473
determine, establish and carry out area goals, hold down the expenses of providing public 1474
services and at the same time provide mechanisms that give neighborhoods the 1475
opportunity to bring forward their problems in the expectation that they would be 1476
addressed. Consolidation, joint authorities, neighborhood councils, and shared services 1477
are the tools most often mentioned, but a general recognition that solving the problems of 1478
a new century requires new tools will likely generate other more efficient institutions. 1479
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
1480
A unified Greater Ithaca would find ways to coordinate its planning and economic 1481
development efforts to achieve area goals and work as a single partner with Cornell and 1482
Ithaca College to ensure the economic vitality of the area while preserving the quality of 1483
life of all its neighborhoods. It would join with other area governments and institutions 1484
to capitalize on the diverse strengths of the area from its high tech potential to its growing 1485
wine industry, to solve its diverse problems from a lack of affordable housing to a 1486
deteriorating infrastructure, and last but not least, to develop sustainable, socially 1487
conscious and environmentally sensitive policies for the future. 1488
1489
In short, Greater Ithaca could lead the way in the long sought transformation of 1490
upstate New York. 1491
1492
1493
1494
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
Appendix 1 1495
1496
Past Cooperation and Consolidation Efforts 1497
1498
While the work of this City-Town Joint Study Group should be viewed as unique in its 1499
particular combination of time, place and circumstances, it is not without precedent in the 1500
municipal lives of the City and the Town of Ithaca. A modest review of local newspaper 1501
coverage and public meeting minutes dating back sixty years has revealed a number of 1502
concerted efforts toward intermunicipal cooperation and consolidation involving the City, 1503
the Town and, in some instances, the Village of Cayuga Heights. Also evident in past 1504
decades are successful initiatives within even broader geographic spheres, such as the 1505
Tompkins County Board of Supervisors’ approval in mid-1946 of the consolidation of 1506
City and County health offices into a County health district, or the April 1956 vote by 1507
forty-two suburban school districts in favor of consolidation with the Ithaca City School 1508
District. 1509
1510
Among the various efforts involving the City and the Town of Ithaca, the most salient 1511
were two which produced substantial documents of their work—the Greater Ithaca Fact-1512
Finding Committee, formed in 1947, whose report was released in March 1953, and the 1513
Greater Ithaca Regional Planning Board, created in 1957, whose plan of the Ithaca urban 1514
area was published in 1959. During the 1950s and 1960s, still other joint committees 1515
composed of elected officials and community leaders explored ways to make a reality of 1516
the prediction that was captured in a July 15, 1963 Ithaca Journal headline—“Unified 1517
Area Government ‘Inevitable’ Here.” To understand the work and significance of each 1518
of these efforts would require further investigation in order to identify the conditions that 1519
led up to each initiative, its chief proponents and participants, the vehicle (board, 1520
commission, committee) charged with each study and the resources made available to it, 1521
and the findings, recommendations and outcomes of each. 1522
1523
Greater Ithaca Fact-Finding Committee 1524
“The Invisible Wall; Shall It Come Down?” queried the headline of the Ithaca Journal 1525
editorial as it quoted a local official who had noted that “‘there has been too much of this 1526
business of setting the people of the City against the people of the Town [of Ithaca] and 1527
the Village [of Cayuga Heights], or vice versa on the basis of prejudice coupled with 1528
incomplete or erroneous facts.’” The date was February 11, 1947, and a committee, to be 1529
named the Greater Ithaca Fact-Finding Committee, was embarking on its work, seeking 1530
to gather facts and balance advantages and disadvantages in order to ascertain whether 1531
Ithaca “can be made a better community, a more attractive community, a more 1532
progressive community, through a consolidation of the separate political units inside and 1533
outside of the Invisible Wall” of the corporation boundary. This initiative was set in 1534
motion by City Mayor Arthur N. Gibb, following conversations with the Town of Ithaca 1535
Supervisor, Harry N. Gordon. 1536
1537
While many of the observations recorded in this 1947 editorial have parallels today, its 1538
language that describes “the possible expansion of the city’s boundaries” gives a clue to 1539
the City’s relationship to the other municipalities as one of a “have” to “have-nots” in 1540
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
terms of water and sewer systems, fire and police protection, garbage collection, and the 1541
like. Appropriately, the charge to the new committee was to present information on the 1542
cost of providing such services to outlying areas. 1543
1544
The final, approximately 350-page report of the Greater Ithaca Fact-Finding Committee, 1545
delayed by an initial lack of resources, was dated December 1952 and made public on 1546
March 23, 1953. Remaining close to its “fact-finding” mission rather than specifically 1547
promoting or discouraging annexation, the committee concluded that “[its] estimates 1548
indicate that it is possible to devise arrangements under which the cost to taxpayers 1549
during the next several years is not likely to differ greatly regardless of whether urban 1550
services are provided for areas adjacent to the City by annexation or by the use of special 1551
town districts and other devices.” (Ithaca Journal, Mar. 23, 1953) 1552
1553
Interlude 1554
About a month following the release of the report, the heads of the three participating 1555
municipalities agreed to establish a four-member committee to study the matter of 1556
annexation with greater specificity in order to provide recommendations and information 1557
pertaining to particular areas of the Town and Village; five such study areas were 1558
identified as candidates for early attention. The committee was expected to engage 1559
Cayuga Heights engineer Carl Crandall for technical studies, and to have additional input 1560
from City Superintendent of Public Works Francis J. Laverty. (Ithaca Journal, Apr. 27, 1953) 1561
1562
Although details of the new committee’s work have not yet been ascertained, it is clear 1563
that interest in intermunicipal opportunities and issues remained current. In an October 7, 1564
1953, speech to the Ithaca Rotary Club, Superintendent Laverty called for “a 1565
comprehensive master plan for the Greater Ithaca area,” one that would address 1566
“clusters” of problems or needs—traffic, water and sewer facilities, indoor and outdoor 1567
recreation, etc.—through joint initiatives by the City and either the County or the Town. 1568
He cited two different means of coordinating efforts—by the consolidation of 1569
governmental units, or by “closer cooperation between groups with similar functions.” 1570
Noting, for example, that there were twelve governmental agencies concerned with 1571
highway construction in Tompkins County, Laverty proposed the pooling of all publicly 1572
owned equipment, with its administration under county supervision. (Ithaca Journal, Oct. 8, 1573
1953) 1574
1575
Meanwhile, various annexation proposals continued to be explored, with one of the more 1576
dramatic involving the Village of Cayuga Heights, fueled by a Tompkins County Board 1577
of Health assessment of sewerage conditions in the village. When the proposed 1578
annexation was rejected in late 1954 by an informal poll in which 744 of the village’s 1579
potential 900 voters participated, Cayuga Heights trustees responded by adopting 1580
resolutions “committing the villagers to construction of their own sewage disposal plant 1581
and establishment of a fire department.” (Ithaca Journal, Jan. 5, 1955) 1582
1583
The idea of a broad-based planning effort was given form and made public in August 1584
1955 by “a committee of interested citizens which has been meeting frequently for the 1585
last two years,” at least three of whose members had participated in earlier initiatives. 1586
Behind this proposal for a Citizens Regional Planning Council of Tompkins County was 1587
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
the belief that the community’s limited resources of time and money could be best 1588
employed by physical and social planning efforts that emphasized cooperation and 1589
prioritization. A letter of introduction and an outline of the proposed council’s goals and 1590
membership were distributed to some 400 community leaders, from whom comments 1591
were solicited. (Ithaca Journal, Aug. 8, 1955) 1592
1593
Greater Ithaca Regional Planning Board 1594
Though no direct link has yet been identified between the 1955 proposal and the 1595
subsequent establishment of a regional planning board, it seems likely that that they are 1596
connected. Following preliminary approvals by the respective municipal bodies in Fall 1597
and Winter 1956, the City of Ithaca Common Council on February 6, 1957 approved an 1598
agreement between the City and Town of Ithaca and the Village of Cayuga Heights to 1599
create the Greater Ithaca Regional Planning Board. Four members were to be from the 1600
City, two from the Town and one from the Village. Funds totaling $7,000 for the board’s 1601
operations in 1957 were committed by the respective municipalities, in proportion to their 1602
membership. (Common Council Minutes, Regular Meeting) 1603
1604
The broad goals and specific efforts of this board may be understood in its 1959 1605
publication, Ithaca Urban Area: A General Plan that resulted from a comprehensive 1606
general plan study undertaken in 1958, with consultants Community Planning Associates, 1607
Inc. of West Trenton, New Jersey, Thomas Niederkorn, Resident Planner. This general 1608
plan set forth desirable principles, objectives and standards for the physical development 1609
of the region, and recommended particular actions based on its studies of land use, 1610
physical facilities, population distribution, and projected growth rates. It was presented 1611
as “a dynamic ‘Living Platform’ from which action on specific problems can be 1612
programed [sic].” 1613
1614
The Greater Ithaca Regional Planning Board remained active during the 1960s, having 1615
expanded its membership beyond the original three municipalities, and being called upon 1616
by various of the governing bodies and their elected officials. Still other committees were 1617
formed, as local interests expanded into regional ones. In 1960, Village of Cayuga 1618
Heights Mayor Frederick G. Marcham was reported to have described “his ideal 1619
governmental situation” being a “’composite structure of government’” including the 1620
Village, City and Town, and perhaps even the county. In 1963, Ithaca Mayor John Ryan 1621
changed the name of the City’s special Annexation Committee to include the word 1622
“Consolidation,” and the Greater Ithaca Study Committee worked alongside the Regional 1623
Planning Board on a number of issues. 1624
1625
Woven throughout the local news of these times were reports of requests for extensions 1626
of water and sewer services, as residential and commercial development sought to expand 1627
beyond the immediate urbanized area. Understanding these requests and their disposition 1628
of seems essential in understanding the historical context of intermunicipal initiatives. In 1629
addition, alongside the reports of efforts toward cooperation and consolidation were 1630
concerns about population decline in the City and costs. The City proceeded to approve 1631
and adopt its own “General Plan” in May 1970; in the plan, as published in 1971, the 1632
Epilogue noted that “while the General Plan is limited directly by the governmental 1633
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
boundaries of the city, the plan must also estimate the impact of trends of growth and 1634
development in the area external to the city and vice versa.” After presenting some of the 1635
areas in which broader perspectives were required, it acknowledged the importance of 1636
intergovernmental cooperation and of planning and programming organized action by 1637
private and public agencies at all levels. 1638
1639
1640
1641
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
Appendix 2 1642
1643
New York State Commissions, Reports, Funding Opportunities and 1644
Fiscal Incentives Related to Local Government Efficiency, Shared 1645
Services and Consolidations 1646
1647
The State of New York has long been interested in fostering local 1648
government efficiency, shared or consolidated services and, where warranted, 1649
municipal consolidations. 1650
1651
Most recently, in April 2007 Governor Eliot Spitzer established the New 1652
York State Commission on Local Government Efficiency and Competitiveness. That 1653
Commission issued its final report in April 2008. The report along with the briefs and 1654
studies that accompany it may be found on the web at 1655
http://www.nyslocalgov.org/report_page.asp. Of particular relevance to these Ithaca City 1656
and Town study considerations is a consultant’s report to the Commission that assessed 1657
opportunities for shared services and consolidations between three upstate city/town 1658
configurations: Oneonta, Norwich, and Cortland. The consultant’s findings at points bear 1659
striking similarity to these Joint Study Group conclusions. The Commission report 1660
concludes, as have earlier efforts, that New York State suffers from the burden of an 1661
antiquated local government structure, with nearly 5.000 local entities. The report 1662
recommends modernization through change initiated at the local level that will 1663
streamline municipal jurisdictions and increase shared services, without sacrificing local 1664
identify. 1665
In recent decades several earlier commissions have addressed local 1666
government reform. These have included: the Commission on Local 1667
Government Reform (Governor Pataki, 2002-2004); Commission on the 1668
Consolidation of Local Governments (Governor Cuomo, 1990-1993); the Local 1669
Government Restructuring Project (Riley Commission, Rockefeller Institute, 1670
1990-1992); and the School District Organizational Change Study (Regents/State 1671
Education Department, 1992-1995). All have supported the need for increased 1672
shared services and consolidations to improve effectiveness and efficiency. 1673
1674
The Division of Local Government Services and Economic Development 1675
within the Office of the State Comptroller has issued a number of reports over the years 1676
that focus on the need for local government reforms. Significant reports include: Local 1677
Government Management Guide, Intermunicipal Cooperation, November 2003; 1678
Intermunicipal Cooperation and Consolidation, 2003; and Outdated Municipal Structures, 1679
Cities, Towns, and Villages – 18th Century Designations for 21st Century Communities, 1680
October 2006. Copies of these reports may be accessed on the web at 1681
http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/pubs/listresearch2.htm. 1682
1683
The Division of Local Government in the New York State Department of 1684
State also has prepared a guideline for considering Consolidations for Towns and 1685
Villages, which can be accessed on the web at 1686
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
http://www.dos.state.ny.us/lgss/publications.htm, along with relevant statutes and 1687
legislation governing municipal organization. The Department also maintains the State’s 1688
Shared Municipal Services Incentive (SMSI) Grant Program, which provides: 1689
1690
• Cities and towns, among other municipal entities, may apply for grants of up to 1691
$200,000 per municipality for consolidations, mergers, cooperative agreements 1692
and shared services between two or more municipalities; 1693
• Priority in the selection of awards will be given to applications that plan or study 1694
consolidations, mergers, and dissolutions; implement shared highway services 1695
projects; and develop countywide shared service plans, among other criteria. 1696
• Annual grant application deadlines are usually in December and awards 1697
announced the following May; 1698
• More information is available on the Department of State website at: 1699
http://www.dos.state.ny.us/lgss/smsi/index.html 1700
1701
State government also supports a Local Government Efficiency Grant 1702
Program (LGEG), which provides: 1703
1704
• Two or more municipalities may apply for competitive grants for Efficiency 1705
Implementation activities that can achieve savings; 1706
• Grants can be used to cover transitional personnel costs to implement new joint 1707
functions, among other applications; 1708
• Grant amounts will be up to $200,000 per municipality, with a total amount not to 1709
exceed $1 million; 1710
• General Planning Grants for groups of municipalities to study shared services 1711
will be awarded on a competitive basis in amounts up to $25,000 for two 1712
municipalities, plus $1,000 for each additional partner, with a $35,000 maximum; 1713
• High Priority Planning Grants targeted to specific types of studies are available 1714
on a non-competitive basis; groups of municipalities may receive funding to study 1715
sharing or consolidating services countywide or on a multi-county or regional 1716
basis; single municipalities may get grants for charter revision studies that include 1717
functional consolidation or service sharing; amounts will vary by category, not to 1718
exceed $50,000. 1719
1720
As recommended by the Joint City / Town Study Group, a successor body 1721
should be charged with studying in detail the feasibility and desirability of consolidating 1722
the City and Town of Ithaca municipalities into a Greater Ithaca municipality and, if not a 1723
full political consolidation, then consolidation of services or shared services including 1724
such functions as comprehensive planning. That study and planning activity would be 1725
eligible for state support through the General or the High Priority Planning Grants 1726
identified above and, if significant savings were identified, and Efficiency 1727
Implementation Grant. If consolidation of municipalities or services were ultimately 1728
approved, then state support of up to $200,000 per municipality might, on a competitive 1729
basis, be available to implement the consolidation. 1730
1731
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
In addition, the State Budget funds specific Consolidation Incentives for 1732
municipalities that achieve consolidation. These include: 1733
1734
• An increase in Aid and Incentives for Municipalities (AIM or "revenue 1735
sharing") equal to 15% of the combined property tax levy of the 1736
consolidating municipalities; this incentive funding continues annually and 1737
is capped at $1 million annually; OR 1738
• A 25% increase in the AIM of the consolidating municipalities. This 1739
incentive funding continues annually and is capped at $1 million annually; 1740
OR 1741
• $250,000 the first year after the consolidation, phased down in equal parts 1742
over the following four years ($200,000 in the second year, $150,000 in the 1743
third year, etc.) This is capped at 25% of the combined property tax levy of 1744
the consolidating municipalities. 1745
1746
This program is administered by the New York State Division of the Budget, 1747
and more information is available on the DOB website at: 1748
http://www.budget.state.ny.us/localities/local/aim.html. Additional modeling 1749
is required to confirm the level of additional ongoing state revenue sharing that 1750
would be available to a Greater Ithaca municipality. 1751
1752
1753
Complementing these financial supports and incentives, State Government 1754
will also be providing enhanced technical assistance and information on best practices. 1755
Technical assistance might include legal guidance, financial modeling, procedural advice, 1756
data sharing, results from case studies, and liaison with other municipalities studying or 1757
pursuing consolidation. 1758
1759
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
Appendix 3 1760
Legal Aspects of Consolidation 1761
1762
Like many other aspects of New York State government, the powers of, and 1763
relationships among, the state's municipal corporations are covered by a number of 1764
separate and at times confusing statutory regulations. While not intended to be in any 1765
way comprehensive, the purpose of this Appendix is to point out some of the legal 1766
questions that might arise in any proposed consolidation of the City and the Town of 1767
Ithaca. Municipal corporations, including cities and towns, are created by the state, and 1768
the state accordingly may prescribe the manner in which municipal corporations are 1769
created, made larger or smaller, or dissolved, with or without the consent of the citizens 1770
of the larger area out of which the municipal corporation has been created. 1771
1772
One of the major differences between towns and cities is that towns, like counties, 1773
are mere subdivisions of the state; they are organized in order to exercise, in a convenient 1774
manner, portions of the state's political power. Cities and villages, on the other hand, are 1775
created by charter and have a number of private and proprietary powers other than 1776
carrying out the duties of government. This distinction has eroded somewhat over time, 1777
as New York's towns have begun to assume proprietary and quasi-proprietary duties of 1778
their own, but it is still an important one. However, under New York law, both cities and 1779
towns have an inherent right to local self-government that is considered to have existed 1780
even before the adoption of the state Constitution; for this reason, the New York State 1781
Constitution itself contains a bill of rights of local governments. 1782
1783
There appear to be no legal barriers to the consolidation of services between a city 1784
and a town. Under the Constitution, local governments may provide, cooperatively or 1785
jointly, or through contract, "any facility, service, activity or undertaking which each 1786
participating local government has the power to provide separately" and to apportion the 1787
sharing of expenses between or among the local governments affected. The actual 1788
consolidation of local governments into one governmental entity is a different matter. 1789
1790
Under the Municipal Annexation Law, a local government may annex territory 1791
belonging to another local government, provided that the majority of the inhabitants of 1792
that territory agree and that the governing board of each of the involved local 1793
governments consents to the annexation. If this consent is not given, the State 1794
Legislature may direct that the Supreme Court (New York's lowest court of general 1795
jurisdiction) determine whether the annexation would be in the overall public interest. 1796
However, by the explicit provisions of the Municipal Annexation Law, the term 1797
"annexation" does not mean or include "consolidation." 1798
1799
Under the Town Law, two or more towns in the same county may consolidate by 1800
a vote of the majority of the voters in each of the towns, in a vote on a ballot proposition 1801
for consolidation submitted by the boards of the towns at either a general or special 1802
election. Consolidation of a city and a town, however, is not so simple. 1803
1804
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
As noted, the State Legislature has the power to consolidate municipal 1805
corporations without receiving the consent of those municipal corporations. When the 1806
Home Rule Amendment was added to the State Constitution in 1923, the question 1807
quickly arose whether the amendment limited that particular power of the Legislature. 1808
The Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, answered that it did not. The Court 1809
held that increasing or decreasing the size of an existing city is not within the "property, 1810
affairs or government matters" covered by Home Rule; instead, it remains an incident of 1811
the "legislative power to create and abolish municipal corporations and to define their 1812
boundaries," because this is a matter of state concern, extending beyond the limits of the 1813
affected city.1 1814
1815
Although our research has not yet uncovered any case specifically addressing this 1816
question, it appears that a city and a town that wish to consolidate may not do so in the 1817
manner that would be available to two towns. In order to consolidate a city and a town, a 1818
special law must be passed by the Legislature. An existing city that would be affected by 1819
such a special law can present its objections to the Legislature before the special law is 1820
enacted, but the decision itself is up to the Legislature. 1821
1 See City of New York v. the Village of Lawrence (250 NY 429 [1929]).
1822
1823
1824
Appendix 4 1825
1826
2005 Municipality Budgets 1827
1828
TOWN CITY VILLAGE 1829
1830
Aggregate Expenditures Subtotals Total
Operations
Personnel $3,717,568 $30,061,621 $2,328,619
Wages $2,621,282 $19,366,200 $1,738,182
Fringes $1,096,286 $10,695,421 $590,737
Materials & Equipment $2,437,000 $476,931 $409,327
Highway Dept $1,937,000
Payments for Services to City $3,294,942 $6,049
Cass Park $100,192
Fire Protection $2,329,914
Water&Sewer $864,836
Payment to Cayuga Heignts $385,056
Fire Protection $188,475
Sewer Treatment $196,581
Other Governmental Servie
Providers
$1,171,848 $253,137
Bolton Point $1,171,848
Non Governmental Service
Providers
$99,321 $8,890,001
Debt Service $6,221,379 $122,161
Other $371,591 $203,838
$46,280,709
Capital Expenses
Personnel $634,984
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
Materials & Equipment $82,422 $2,609,277
Pew Trail and South Hill
Water
$56,709
Other $25,713
Non-Govermnemtal Service
Providers
$325,000
Debt Service $1,204,706 $281,624 $3,850,885
Total $12,392,863 $50,131,594 $3,063,945
Expenditures by Function
Administration $1,405,596 $4,168,991 $315,029
Water $1,893,372 $3,196,407
Sewer $1,097,677 $4,718,127
Solid Waste $542,194 $152,414
Fire $2,750,646 $7,674,487 $213,878
Planning and Development $465,563 $809,723
Zoning $285,385 $966,979 $86
Highways, Walkways and Trails $2,076,328 $3,528,134 $660,254
Parks & Recreation $749,029 $5,661,298
Parks $945,158
Recreation $4,716,140
Other Human Services $23,900 $56,790
Police/Crossing Guards $16,021 $8,991,066 $602,253
Traffic Controls $621,856
Safety Inspections $966,979 $25,610
Parking Garages $1,493,821 $126,740
Contributions to BID $58,500
Other $254,369 $210,881
Courts/Prosecution $386,723 $381,097 $44,204
TCAT $663,166
Utilities $81,103 $804,463
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
Insurance $113,187 $722,262 $61,383
Debt Service $1,204,706 $0 $122,161
Other $27,441
Capital Expenses $3,850,885
$12,576,677 $50,131,594 $2,534,893
Aggregate Revenue by Source
Property Tax $4,930,493 $13,511,816 $1,697,062
Sales Tax $2,604,003 $9,761,642 $639,654
Mortgage Tax $313,290
Fines and Penalties $354,015 $722,048 $39,409
Parking $1,339,047
Payments/Fees for Services
Water $1,908,799 $3,241,985
Sewer $1,427,748 $3,734,969
Solid Waste $558,443 $37,892
Other Services to
individuals/organizations
$576,071
Other Services to governments
Town $2,548,676
Other $1,263,576 $147,446
Grants
State $127,903 $45,532
Federal $162,976
Utility Tax $313,222 $61,697
Other Depmental Income $913,192
Other Income $631,768 $80,000
StateAid Per Capita $1,905,116 $204,887
Gifts $1,223,010 $37,892
Licenses $988,087 $13,640
Insurance Recoveries $16,397
Sale of Property/Equipment $30,903 $30,949 $133,832
RentalProperty $146,057
Interest $138,570 $220,732 $37,116
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
Proceeds from Bonds $500,000 $3,850,000
$12,911,795 $47,129,240 $3,130,527
Other Information
Total Assessment
Taxable K$937,082 K$1,023,622 K$326,204
Exempt K$827781 K$2,231,803 K$ 32,722
Real Estate Tax Receipts $4,930,493 $13,511,810 $1,697,062
General Fund $1,293,091
Water $485,477
Sewer $466,717
Fire Protection $2,518,389
Other $166,819
Tax Rate/$1000
General Fund 1.38
Total 5.26 13.20
Number of Households 6,440 10,268 1,500
Number of Residents (2000
Census)
18,198 28,875 3,273
Debt $5,630,000 $61,290,008 $2,409,000
Debt/Million dollars of assessed value $6,009 $59,912 $7,390
1831
Appendix 5 1832
1833
Resolutions of the Town of Ithaca Board and City of Ithaca Council 1834
1835
Establishing the Joint City/Town Study Group 1836
1837
on Shared Services and Consolidation 1838
1839
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
May 3, 2006 – Regular Common Council Meeting – 1840
1841
GOVERNANCE & INTERMUNICIPAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE: 1842
A Resolution to set up a joint study group to investigate possible shared services and 1843
possible consolidation between the City of Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca. 1844
By Alderperson Berry: Seconded by Alderperson Tomlan 1845
WHEREAS, over the last several decades there has been much local and national 1846
discussion over the advantages and disadvantages of shared services or consolidation of 1847
governments, and 1848
1849
WHEREAS, several successful partnerships have emerged in local municipalities during 1850
that time, such as the Ithaca Area Waste Water Treatment Plant, youth and recreation 1851
services, joint city/town fire services, and the Bolton Point Water System, and 1852
1853
WHEREAS, the benefits of cost sharing/ consolidation have been enumerated by the 1854
New York State comptroller as reported in the booklets Local Government Management 1855
Guide: Intermunicipal Cooperation and Intermunicipal Cooperation and Consolidation: 1856
Exploring Opportunities for Savings and Improved Service Delivery, and 1857
1858
WHEREAS, recent state reports illustrate the difficulties that New York State 1859
municipalities have been facing especially in the last 5 years including rising pension 1860
costs and health insurance, and 1861
1862
WHEREAS, the Mayor of the City of Ithaca and the Supervisor of the Town of Ithaca 1863
have recently held meetings including an intermunicipal forum facilitated by Interface of 1864
the Community Dispute Resolution Center, and 1865
1866
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council and the Town of Ithaca Board are 1867
desirous of further examination of the mutual benefits between the two municipalities 1868
that could improve services, create efficiencies, and benefit citizens, now therefore be it 1869
1870
RESOLVED, That a study group on intermunicipal cooperation and consolidation be 1871
created forthwith to examine, among others, the legal and regulatory aspects of shared 1872
services and possible consolidation, the pros and cons for both shared services and 1873
consolidation, the financial opportunities and liabilities of consolidation or shared 1874
services, an analysis of the property and sales tax scenario for a single jurisdiction, the 1875
concept of a new jurisdiction, a unified comprehensive plan, and be it further 1876
1877
RESOLVED, That an analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats be 1878
provided for each topic area, and be it further 1879
1880
RESOLVED, That the study group be composed of 8 members, mutually agreed upon 1881
by the town of Ithaca Board and the City of Ithaca Common Council, with 1882
representatives having knowledge of finance, law, planning, public works, police, or 1883
organizational culture, plus one elected official liaison from each jurisdiction (making 10 1884
members), such study group and its chair to be nominated by a town/city joint 1885
nomination committee comprised of the mayor, supervisor, one Common Council 1886
member and one town board member, and be it further 1887
1888
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
RESOLVED, That the city council and the town board identify and work toward 1889
obtaining financial assistance such as grants from appropriate agencies including the 1890
State comptroller's office, and be it further 1891
1892
RESOLVED, That each municipality agree to provide staff assistance to the study group, 1893
including participation from each municipality’s historian, and be it further 1894
1895
RESOLVED, That the study group report at least quarterly or as needed to the Common 1896
Council and Town Board at a joint meeting for periodic updates and consideration of 1897
possible amendments or additional directives, with ample opportunity for public input, 1898
and be it further 1899
1900
RESOLVED, That a final report will be presented to the Common Council and the Town 1901
Board for their deliberation on future policy, based on the above topics, in approximately 1902
12 months from the study group’s first meeting. 1903
1904
Mayor Peterson stated that this Resolution was co-written with members of the Town of 1905
Ithaca Governing body. 1906
1907
A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows: 1908
Carried Unanimously 1909
1910
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
October 4, 2006 Regular Common Council Meeting 1911
1912
INDIVIDUAL MEMBER – FILED RESOLUTIONS: 1913
Resolution to Approve A Joint Study Group to Investigate Possible Shared 1914
Services and Possible Consolidation between the City of Ithaca and the Town of 1915
Ithaca 1916
By Alderperson Tomlan: Seconded by Alderperson Cogan 1917
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council and the Town of Ithaca Board, desiring 1918
to examine the mutual benefits that could be achieved through possible shared services 1919
and possible consolidation measures, have agreed by votes at their respective meetings of 1920
May 3, 2006, and May 8, 2006, to pursue such investigation through the establishment of 1921
a joint study group, and 1922
WHEREAS, the Common Council voted unanimously to create such a study group to 1923
investigate, among others, the legal and regulatory aspects of shared services and possible 1924
consolidation, the pros and cons of both shared services and consolidation, the financial 1925
opportunities and liabilities of consolidation or shared services, an analysis of the 1926
property and sales tax scenario for a single jurisdiction, the concept of a new jurisdiction, 1927
and a unified comprehensive plan, and to provide an analysis of the strengths, 1928
weaknesses, opportunities, and threats for each topic area, and 1929
1930
WHEREAS, the Common Council voted that the study group would be composed of 1931
eight “at-large” members, mutually agreed upon by the City of Ithaca Common Council 1932
and the Town of Ithaca Board, with these representatives having knowledge of finance, 1933
law, planning, public works, police, or organizational culture, plus one elected official 1934
liaison from each jurisdiction, making a total of ten members, and 1935
1936
WHEREAS, the Common Council directed that such study group and its chair be 1937
nominated by a joint City-Town nomination committee consisting of the Mayor, the 1938
Supervisor, one Common Council member, and one Town Board member, and 1939
1940
WHEREAS, the nomination committee, consisting of Mayor Carolyn K. Peterson, 1941
Supervisor Cathy Valentino, Alderperson Mary Tomlan, and Councilor Peter Stein, has 1942
met three times, beginning June 26, 2006, and 1943
1944
WHEREAS, the nominating committee has agreed to put forward the names of eight “at-1945
large” study group members, all of whom have agreed to serve, being Lois E. Chaplin, 1946
Paul R. Eberts, Nathan Fawcett, Randy Haus, Tom Niederkorn, Wendy Skinner, Stuart 1947
W. Stein, and Constance V. Thompson, with Wendy Skinner nominated and agreed to 1948
serve as chair, and 1949
1950
WHEREAS, Mayor Peterson has nominated Mary Tomlan to serve as the elected official 1951
liaison from the Common Council; and 1952
1953
WHEREAS, each municipality has agreed to provide staff assistance to the study group, 1954
including participation from each municipality’s historian; now, therefore, be it 1955
1956
RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca concurs in the naming of 1957
the above-cited individuals to the joint City-Town study group. 1958
1959
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
Nominees to City of Ithaca-Town of Ithaca joint study group 1960
Lois E. Chaplin, Extension Associate, Department of Biological and 1961
Environmental Engineering, Cornell University; Bicycle and Pedestrian Specialist, 1962
Cornell Local Roads Program 1963
Paul R. Eberts, Professor, Department of Development Sociology, and Director of 1964
Graduate Studies for the Field of Community and Rural Development, Cornell University 1965
Nathan Fawcett, Special Assistant to the Provost for State-Related Issues, Cornell 1966
University; Tompkins Public Library Treasurer and Trustee; formerly served with New 1967
York State Division of Budget 1968
Randy Haus, Trumansburg Police Department; former Deputy Police Chief, City 1969
of Ithaca; former Tompkins County Undersheriff 1970
Tom Niederkorn, Principal, Planning & Environmental Research Consultants; 1971
former City of Ithaca Planning Director 1972
Wendy Skinner, Marketing and Communications Manager, Tompkins 1973
Consolidated Area Transit; active in Sustainable Tompkins; former Tompkins County 1974
Public Information Officer 1975
Stuart W. Stein, former Member and Chair, Tompkins County Board of 1976
Representatives; Professor Emeritus, Department of City and Regional Planning, Cornell 1977
University 1978
Constance V. Thompson, Manager, Recruitment and Diversity Recruitment, 1979
Recruitment and Employment Center, Cornell University; Steering Committee Member, 1980
Alliance for Community Empowerment (ACE) 1981
1982
A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows: 1983
Carried Unanimously (7-0) 1984
1985
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
March 7, 2007 Regular Common Council Meeting 1986
1987
Approval of Substitute Members to the Joint Study Group formed to Investigate 1988
possible Shared Services and possible Consolidation between the City of Ithaca and 1989
the Town of Ithaca - Resolution 1990
By Alderperson Coles: Seconded by Alderperson Tomlan 1991
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council and the Town of Ithaca Board, desiring 1992
to examine the mutual benefits that could be achieved through possible shared services 1993
and possible consolidation measures, agreed by votes at their respective meetings of May 1994
3, 2006, and May 8, 2006, to pursue such investigation through the establishment of a 1995
joint study group, and 1996
1997
WHEREAS, the Common Council voted unanimously to create such a study group to 1998
investigate, among others, the legal and regulatory aspects of shared services and possible 1999
consolidation, the pros and cons of both shared services and consolidation, the financial 2000
opportunities and liabilities of consolidation or shared services, an analysis of the 2001
property and sales tax scenario for a single jurisdiction, the concept of a new jurisdiction, 2002
and a unified comprehensive plan, and to provide an analysis of the strengths, 2003
weaknesses, opportunities, and threats for each topic area, and 2004
2005
WHEREAS, the Common Council voted that the study group would be composed of 2006
eight “at-large” members, mutually agreed upon by the City of Ithaca Common Council 2007
and the Town of Ithaca Board, with these representatives having knowledge of finance, 2008
law, planning, public works, police, or organizational culture, plus one elected official 2009
liaison from each jurisdiction, making a total of ten members, and 2010
2011
WHEREAS, the Common Council directed that such study group and its chair be 2012
nominated by a joint City-Town nomination committee consisting of the Mayor, the 2013
Supervisor, one Common Council member, and one Town Board member, and 2014
2015
WHEREAS, the nomination committee, consisting of Mayor Carolyn K. Peterson, 2016
Supervisor Cathy Valentino, Alderperson Mary Tomlan, and Councilor Peter Stein, put 2017
forward the names of eight “at-large” study group members, and 2018
2019
WHEREAS, the Common Council and the Town Board voted at their respective 2020
meetings of October 4, 2006, and October 14, 2006, to name those eight persons as study 2021
group members, being Lois E. Chaplin, Paul R. Eberts, Nathan Fawcett, Randy Haus, 2022
Tom Niederkorn, Wendy Skinner, Stuart W. Stein, and Constance V. Thompson, and 2023
2024
WHEREAS, two of those members, Randy Haus and Wendy Skinner, have since found 2025
that they are unable to serve, and 2026
2027
WHEREAS, the nominating committee has agreed to put forward the names of Ellen 2028
McCollister and Diane Bruns as study group members; now, therefore, be it 2029
2030
RESOLVED, That the Common Council of the City of Ithaca concurs in the naming of 2031
Ellen McCollister and Diane Bruns to the City-Town joint study group. 2032
2033
A vote on the Resolution resulted as follows: 2034
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
2035
Ayes (8) Coles, Seger, Berry, Clairborne, Tomlan, Gelinas, Townsend, Cogan 2036
Nays (0) 2037
Carried (8-0) 2038
Alderperson Zumoff absent from 2039
vote 2040
2041
2042
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
BUDGET MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD 2043
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2006 2044
2045
2046
TB RESOLUTION NO. 2006-199: Approving a Joint Study Group to Investigate 2047
Possible Shared Services and Possible Consolidation between the City of Ithaca and 2048
the Town of Ithaca 2049
2050
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council and the Town of Ithaca 2051
Town Board, desiring to examine the mutual benefits that could be achieved 2052
through possible shared services and possible consolidation measures, have 2053
agreed by votes at their respective meetings of May 3, 2006 and May 8, 2006, to 2054
pursue such investigation through the establishment of a joint study group, and 2055
2056
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca voted in favor of 2057
creating a study group to examine, among others, 2058
• the legal and regulatory aspects of shared services and possible 2059
consolidation 2060
• the pros and cons for both shared services and possible consolidation 2061
• the financial opportunities and liabilities of consolidation or shared 2062
services 2063
• an analysis of the property and sales tax scenarios for a single jurisdiction 2064
• the concept of a new jurisdiction 2065
• a unified comprehensive plan 2066
2067
WHEREAS, the Town Board voted that the study group would be 2068
composed of eight members, mutually agreed upon by the City of Ithaca 2069
Common Council and the Ithaca Town Board, with representatives having 2070
knowledge of finance, law, planning, public works, police, or organizational 2071
culture, including one elected official liaison from each jurisdiction, making ten 2072
members, and 2073
2074
WHEREAS, the Town Board directed that such a study group and its chair be 2075
nominated by a joint City-Town nomination committee consisting of the Mayor, the 2076
Supervisor, one Common Council member, and one Town Board member, and 2077
2078
WHEREAS, the nominating committee, consisting of Mayor Peterson, Supervisor 2079
Valentino, Alderperson Tomlan, and Councilman Stein, has met three times, beginning 2080
June 26, 2006, and 2081
2082
WHEREAS, the nominating committee has agreed to put forward the names of 2083
eight study groups members, all of whom have agreed to serve, being Lois E. Chaplin, 2084
Paul R. Eberts, Nathan Fawcett, Randy Haus, Tom Niederkorn, Wendy Skinner, Stuart 2085
W. Stein, and Constance V. Thompson, with Wendy Skinner nominated and agreed to 2086
serve as chair, and 2087
2088
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca has nominated Peter Stein to 2089
serve as the elected liaison from the Town Board; now, therefore, be it 2090
Draft 18
For Internal Use Only
2091
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca concurs in the naming 2092
of the above-cited individuals to the joint City-Town study group. 2093
2094
2095
MOVED: Supervisor Valentino 2096
2097
SECONDED: Councilman Stein 2098
2099
VOTE: Supervisor Valentino, aye; Councilman Burbank, aye; Councilwoman Gittelman, 2100
aye; Councilman Engman, aye; Councilman Stein, aye; Councilwoman Leary, aye. 2101
Motion carried. 2102
2103