2013-1-15 joint town/village board meeting, with commentary

2013-1-15 Joint Board Meeting

Jeff Logan, Town Councilman

On [the] Youtube video go to 2:35:00 ..... Dave [Lent] says he doesn't know where [the] savings came from '...[Village Superintendant of Public Works] Bleu [Terwilliger] and [Town Highway Superintendant] Chris [Marx] came up with those savings...' I am confused.

Mike Russo, Town resident
After saying her piece about the videos, Susan at 2h40m then explains the Fiscal Committee methodology in analyzing 2011 figures, just as described on page 1 of the Report. Yet Sally's subsequent explanation of the DPW/Highway savings makes reference to 2012 costs and 2013 budget lines as components of the $520,077 calculation. So it sounds like there is inconsistency in the committee's methodology. In the 30 minutes I watched of the 12/3/2012 FC meeting at around 21m, there's discussion around questions of methodology, and even a vague passing mention of the Building and Grounds costs."

Mike Russo, Town resident

To follow [up] on Jeff Logan's reference to the video, right after Dave Lent's comments at 2h35m-2h38m, and Jeff's questions in response, [Deputy Mayor] Sally [Rhoads] states that the figures were compiled by [Town Supervisor] Susan [Zimet], Sally, Bleu and Chris. Then Susan makes the point that every discussion was videoed, implying that we can find all the answers if we watch the videos. So maybe someone who attended the meetings could help us out a little in pointing out the date and committee meeting when the DPW/Highway lines were discussed. I'd hate to have to watch all the videos, only to find out that Bleu was correct in recalling that the one meeting he participated in was not videoed. To expect the public to have to pour through hours of videos is much like saying if you desperately need a needle, there's one in that haystack."

Mike Russo, Town resident

I just drafted a letter summing up all the above and more, but since the next Joint Meeting of the Town and Village is tomorrow [1/15/13], when Q&A takes place, much of what I wrote may already be discussed. I'm wondering if some of the supporting documents to the savings claims will be made available at tomorrow's meeting:

1. The single largest cost savings line in the Expenditures spreadsheet is comprised from a collection of DPW and Highway item lines. The total savings is stated as $520,077. This figure seems unrealistically high for savings realized by consolidation, since regardless of whether we have one or two governments, we still have the same number of roads to be plowed and repaired, and the same number of vehicles, more or less, to be maintained. Consolidating to one garage will save a limited amount of money. So how will this cost savings be realized?  Note: I would like to ask follow-up questions in person in regard to this question.
2. Regarding Line items A3120.1&2&4, why is a $300,000 reduction in police expenditures being counted as consolidation savings when the annotation states "reduced due extenuating circumstances in 2011, no longer anticipate"? That brief note seems to imply that the $300,000 reduction has been already taken place, and has nothing to do with whether or not consolidation takes place. Please clarify.
3. The Fiscal Committee report contains a sentence that reads "Please note: The consolidated budget presented reflects personnel adjustments already made in the 2013 adopted Town Budget, and therefore, there are minimal employee impacts (except for elected personnel)." This statement suggests to me that labor savings that has already been initiated in the Town per its 2013 Budget is being presented erroneously in the report as savings that would be obtained by means of consolidation. Those 2013 personnel adjustments should show up as a correction line in the cost analysis and not be included in the tally for savings due to consolidation, yet I see no such correction. This leads me to believe that those personnel adjustments that are already in place and unrelated to consolidation, are nevertheless being included as savings in the various labor lines and the labor-related lines, such as A9010.8, A9030.8, A9040.8, A9060.8. Please clarify.
4. Line item A1420.4 Law expenditures in 2011 for the village and town were about $58,997 and $115,484 respectively, so how could consolidation result in a reduction of these costs to $95,000, a much lower amount than the Town’s costs alone? On what possible basis relating to consolidation, would legal costs drop by 45%?
5. Line item A1440.4 Engineer is being cut from $137,071 in combined 2011 expenditures to $50,000. Such a decrease seems unrealistic. Furthermore, since the village had less than $2,000 in 2011 costs, why would this $86,971 in cost reduction be counted as savings due to consolidation.
6. The consolidation of Treasurer, Personnel/Payroll and Bookkeeping/Budget (A1325.1, A1340.1, A1430.1) is shown as yielding a 25% savings. That seems highly optimistic. Since this line is primarily labor and related, what are the specifics in terms of job roles and costs of the analysis of the combined workloads that determined that 25% of the tasks are duplicative of town and village?
7. Line item A1680.4 Data Processing shows consolidation savings estimated at $25,650, a 33% reduction. While one would expect that consolidation will realize savings in Data Processing costs, the total number of workstations and software user licenses will not decrease; therefore this seems like unrealistically high reduction in costs. What are the specifics in terms of item and dollar costs that would result in a reduction of 33% in costs?
8. Line item A1650.4 is Town Central Communications Contractual, for which the entire $40,535 of expenditures is in the Savings column because, according to the spreadsheet note, this item is absorbed by consolidation into Line A1680.4 Data Processing. But since Data Processing expenditures is already reduced by 33%, it would seem that expenditures for this Central Communications line item are being completely eliminated. Is this an accurate assumption? What are the individual components of this line’s $40,535 costs? How much of the savings would directly relate to consolidation?

Mike Russo, Town resident

January 17 at 8:52pm