2013-1-24 joint town/village board meeting

public comments by guy kempe

At the request of KT Tobin and Steve Greenfield, I have reviewed the following documents available to the public on the VoNP website:

• Year 2011 Revenues with DPW grouped, 12-20-2012
• Summary of 2011 Actual Expenditure Village/Town
• Village Town Water and Sewer Rate Anysis (Based on 2012 Rates)
• Town and Village Tax Rates Base on 2011 Actuals and 2012 Taxable Value
• Tax Rates for Town and Village [Note: Village represents approximately 25.6% of Town Taxable Value]
• Attachment 3 A-2009 New Paltz Police Cals by Zone
• Police Zone Activity-October 2012
• Space Needs for a Merged Government
• Town and Village Space Report
• Report of Town /Village Fiscal Consolidation Committee to the Joint Boards and Community
• Tax Rates if Consolidated (Rev 1/8/13)
• Tax Rate Comparisons (Sumarized) With Recommended Police Benefit District Included

In addition, I reviewed Part G. Work Program - Project Description; Goals & Objectives; Project Area; Background & History, and; Component Tasks – from the High Priority Planning Grant Application for Efficient & Effective Government which funds the study of potential municipal merger.

Based upon these documents, I see cases where the assumptions they made are totally off base. For example, the cost of administering a single payroll [A1430.1] will not decrease in any significant way, as payroll costs are based upon a fixed escalator based upon the number of employees. As suggestion that a handful of staff reductions (mostly electeds) will result in the proposed savings of almost 60K are a distortion.

On the matter of professional services, while the village and town do spend some money on legal expenses [A1420.4] related to each other, the estimate that these services cost almost 84% of the legal services they currently use is an exaggeration. Present engineering services required in each municipality will remain the same.

As Michael Russo pointed out, any one-time-only reduction seen in the 2011 budget from reductions [A3120.1&2&3] in force due to retirements etc, has nothing to do with proposed future savings of $300,000.

In 2011, combined expenditures for the Town and Village in the areas of Central Communication [A1650.4] Central Printing [A1670.4] and Data Processing [A.1680.4] amount to $145,011. There is no explanation how consolidating these expenses to Data Processing [A.1680.4] will result in costs of only $70,000.

As I recall, the town and village shared a contract with NYCOM for a repeater [A3989.4] and eliminating this duplication will plausibly result in a savings of $2000 per year.

The assumption that there will be reduced insurance costs because there are fewer municipal buildings [A1910.4] resulting in $10,000 savings is not based on anything specific I see in the proposal.

In my opinion, the costs of zoning board [A9010.1] planning board [A8020.1] and the professional / admin services required to address applications will not be reduced $48,665 because there will not be one fewer application in either town or former village based on consolidation, nor will the costs of administration or review be curtailed.

It is my understanding that DPW and Town Highway have for many years shared equipment and costs wherever possible, and it is unlikely that added reductions of costs of significance could result from government merger.

In my opinion, the community could achieve most of the desirable benefits of merger by simply establishing an Intermunicipal Water/Sewer Infrastructure board to set rates and policies for the system, and by establishing a Special Police Protection (taxation) District to share the costs of added services in the commercial district (“Zone 6”.) Also, in my opinion, the documents I reviewed suggest the community has failed to meet the "project goals and objectives" described in Part G Work Program of the planning grant.

public comments by kt tobin

I was part of the team that wrote the original 2009 application to the state to request funding to study alternative governance models for New Paltz. This process has most definitely turned out differently from what we had hoped and expected.

We wanted this study to provide the requisite factual information to (from the original proposal): "help the public distinguish between fact and rhetoric in order to develop and contribute informed opinion and participation." We actually got the buy-in and the votes from wary village and town board members at the time because the plan we laid out was going to be different. It was going to be informed and inclusive. Disappointingly, we have not come anywhere near achieving that goal.

My assessment of the reports (human resources, infrastructure, financial) completed by the consolidation proponents is that they lack sufficient detail and documentation. If a professional submitted these reports, one could easily make the case to not pay. They are unorganized and lack attention to standard reporting and accounting best practices. Egregiously, false information about aggregate “savings” was released to the public and the press before there was any real or adequate validation of the numbers. And at a recent joint town/village meeting, the town supervisor actually silenced the independently elected town highway superintendent when he was asked to provide detail about the over half a million dollars his department would contribute to the supposed “savings”. 

I was distressed by this so I called Chris Marx and he walked me through the highway numbers in the financial report. All the proposed savings ($520K) cuts were already made in the 2013 town budget - with consolidation in mind, including 4 positions ($320K) and the remainder $200K (not buying stuff he knows the village has). All one time costs, already instituted with the assumption of merger in the short term. He in no way can or will cut more people, as he believes he can not do that safely. Overall it appears none of the cuts require consolidation and he has some great ideas for efficiency that could easily be implemented informally or via inter-municipal agreements.

In my review of the recently released financial report, I could not find any significant savings that would require consolidation to implement, found no work load or safety analysis, or any assessment of the impact the proposed cuts to personnel and services would have (e.g. how much longer it will take to plow all the roads in a typical snow storm). There appear to be multiple lines that were cut from the town budget this year in anticipation of merger, but are being counted towards future savings. Government appears to grow, not shrink, as many new and various infrastructure special districts are proposed for the village (e.g. lighting, sidewalks, police, fire, sewer). Overall, the financial report reads as a tax restructuring – not a consolidation – plan, as it includes significant tax shift from the town to the village – it is definitely not an appealing scenario for villagers to have their taxes increase in tandem with losing home rule!

What is currently proposed is not a viable, equitable, or democratic path. I do believe we can have more efficient and effective government in New Paltz, and I will continue to contribute to this work with that goal in mind. 

letter, kt tobin to chris marx

KT Tobin (former Vice President, New Paltz School Board) to Chris Marx Highway Superintendant

I have some questions about the T/V New Paltz consolidation study HR and Finance reports. It is my understanding that as elected Town of New Paltz Highway Superintendent you participated in and contributed to these committees and made recommendations that were included in their final reports.

A. In the HR report, from page 4, section I, item D:

1. What was the basis for this statement? "Based on input from department heads, council persons  and others the committee has been advised that as many as 13 full time positions can be eliminated with many of these positions coming from buildings and grounds."
2. How many positions did you recommend be eliminated from the town highway department?
3. Please provide both the workload and safety analysis that provided the basis for making this recommendation to reduce your staff
4. Please provide your assessment of the potential impacts on service delivery, e.g. how much longer it will take to plow all the roads in a typical snow storm
5. Please provide your assessment of the impact of these recommendations on worker morale and fair collective bargaining practices.
6. Please provide the timeline that you constructed in order to implement the proposed reduction in staffing

B. In the HR report, from page 9, section III, item 2 reads, "Employee head count reductions should coincide with retirement to the extent possible" (italics added).

1. Did you recommend this strategy?
2. Which positions from your answer above (1b) did you recommend be reduced via retirement?
3. Which positions did you foresee reducing via other means and what were those means?

C.  In the HR report, from page 9, section III, item 3 recommends transitioning to a part-time staff to reduce health care and retirement costs

1. Did you recommend this strategy?
2. How many positions did you recommend be transitioned to part-time positions?
3. Which positions from your answer above (1b) did you recommend be transitioned to part-time via retirement of full-time workers?
4. Which positions did you foresee transitioning to part-time via other means and what were those means?
5. Please provide both the workload and safety implications for this type of staffing more reliant on a part-time workforce.
6. Please provide your assessment of the potential impact on service delivery based on staffing more reliant more part-time workers, e.g. how much longer it will take to plow all the roads in a typical snow storm
7. Please provide your assessment of the impact of these recommendations on worker morale and fair collective bargaining practices.
8. Please provide the timeline that you constructed to implement the proposed transition in staffing

D. From the Finance report data on public works departments:

• $2,699,936 Total town + village budget
• $2,179,859 Merged budget
• $ 520,077 Savings

1. How was the savings of $520,777 derived? Please provide an itemized list with associated savings including positions, materials, etc.
2. Please provide both the workload and safety analysis behind your recommendations included in the $520,777 reduction.
3. Please provide your assessment of impact on service delivery that will result from your recommendations, e.g. how much longer it will take to plow all the roads in a typical snow storm.
4. Please provide the timeline that you constructed to implement the proposed savings.

Thank you for serving New Paltz.

I look forward to your prompt response.

letter to the editor from steve greenfield

A very interesting thing about the turnout for public comment at the joint Town-Village meeting held last Thursday to consider text for a consolidation referendum: a whole bunch of people with many years of successful local government budgeting experience and relevant professional credentials came down to critique the financial report at the heart of the matter. These included people favoring consolidation, people opposing it, and people who are neutral, and were hoping clear data would help them make up their minds -- in other words, three completely different perspectives -- yet all of them were issuing the exact same critique -- the financial report is an epic fail. And so it is.

Pro-consolidation people in particular must consider the implications of this. People already in the "no" column are obviously going to stay there. People in the "not sure yet" column have nothing to move them towards "yes," and much in the combativeness of the defense of the document by its purveyors to confirm suspicions that it is politicized to the point of being potentially fraudulent. And for those of us leaning towards "yes," the report as it now stands pretty much guarantees that should the matter be hastily put to a referendum, it will not only fail to garner passage, but in so doing, will send it to the "dead issue" pile for at least another generation, if not forever.

Town Supervisor Susan Zimet's contention that the matter must be rushed to the ballot booths before May, lest the composition of the Village Board change to one less inclined to put the matter to referendum at all, is the exact wrong approach for consolidation advocates to take. Is there a risk that new Village trustees may be elected in May who will not vote to go to referendum? Sure. And if most Villagers are anti-consolidation, that's a legitimate way for them to express that, saving the expense and divisiveness of the referendum process. But they might not. And even if they do, there's another Village election in two years. Weigh that against the risk of putting it to the public now, with no supporting data; with a mountain of data that is demonstrably false; with the risks completely ignored; and with prominent pro-consolidation residents refusing to support the vote due to bad information. Because in that scenario, it's the consolidation itself that fails, not the process of getting it to the voters, and when that happens, it's over for good.

If New Paltz citizens, no matter what their initial position on this matter may be, are to have the fair debate to which they are entitled on a matter of such historic import, and if pro-consolidation citizens in particular are to have a reasonable chance at their goal, the pause button has to be hit right now. Everyone please contact your Town and Village Board members, and ask that the process be delayed for at least as long as it may take to unpack what went wrong with the financial report, and to reassemble it with useful, plainly verifiable data.