Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know that this topic has been discussed on here in the past, but I'm curious as to how posters would go about consolidation in order to potentially lower taxes. Would you consolidate school districts to a certain level? Would you consolidate the whole county into one entity? Would you consolidate things at lower levels like villages into towns(or dissolve villages)? Are there other methods that you would use? I'm just curious as to how people would approach this topic.
Regarding villages, I think some of them are no longer necessary. The majority of villages were incorporated years ago because they were providing services that the mostly rural towns did not. However, these days the towns can provide most services that any village can. Especially large wealthy suburban towns.
The Town of Pelham in Westchester County is only 2.2 square miles (many towns in New York are 30 to 50 square miles or so) but is divided into two villages - a total waste of money. When you are in such a small town, you do not need any villages.
Regarding villages, I think some of them are no longer necessary. The majority of villages were incorporated years ago because they were providing services that the mostly rural towns did not. However, these days the towns can provide most services that any village can. Especially large wealthy suburban towns.
The Town of Pelham in Westchester County is only 2.2 square miles (many towns in New York are 30 to 50 square miles or so) but is divided into two villages - a total waste of money. When you are in such a small town, you do not need any villages.
This is where the duplication of services has to be looked at and where some layers are unnecessary.
I'm surprised that Pelham just doesn't become incorporated as a city, given its small land size and that it essentially completely built out as much as could possibly be.
Another thing I found to be odd is that there are still a few school districts that are one school districts without a high school like Lyncourt, Menands, Wynantskill, Abraham Wing in Glens Falls(Glens Falls Common SD), etc. Here is an article about one of these school districts: Abraham Wing voters say no to merger with Glens Falls city schools | Local | poststar.com
Last edited by ckhthankgod; 03-12-2016 at 05:36 AM..
I come from the opposite end of the state and opposite type of culture than Joe461 but I share his views on municipal consolidation.
Where I'm coming from: I live in Jamestown, NY, population 30k, which is located at the southern end of Chautauqua Lake. It's the biggest city in Chautauqua County, which has a population of about 130k total scattered over about 1200 square miles. The next biggest "city" is Dunkirk which has about 10k and then Fredonia with 5K (which is next door to Dunkirk). My guess is that probably 50k people live in the Jamestown and Dunkirk and their "suburbs", so we're pretty rural. Next door, in Cattaraugus County, they've got about 80k, and their largest city is Olean, population 10k. Salamanca has about 8k I think. Catt County huddles with the Adirondak counties like Hamiliton and Jefferson in the state poverty rankings. Unlike Long Island, this is a sparsely populated area with lots of old people and poor people.
For municipalities, I totally agree that the "benefits" of municipal consolidations are way over rated. IMO, some, like the city/county merger plans, are little more that attempts to a) get control of patronage and/or b) disenfranchise minority voters and/or c) benefit real estate developers who don't want to deal with people who really care about their own areas. That was certainly the case in the proposed Buffalo/Erie County merger that was proposed -- and rejected -- back about 10-11 years ago.
There's no reason that some municipal services can't be pushed up to the county level while leaving the towns and villages in control of the remainder of their own business. There's no reason that in order to get a general service, like law enforcement, done better and, hopefully, cheaper, that Jamestown residents should be forced to give up their right to self government, which on a municipal level, means things like street maintenance, noise ordinances or zoning codes. Jamestown and Chautauqua County are currently working on merging the Jamestown Police Department with the Sheriff's Department. The end result will likely be the gradual transition of the JPD to Sheriff's Department, with all new hires being county rather than city employees. That's consolidating services, not governments, and it makes much more sense since crime doesn't stop at the city line.
Here in a predominantly rural area, most villages actually continue to provide services that aren't available outside the village limits: sidewalks, zoning/ordinances more appropriate to "urban" style property uses, street lighting, municipal trash pick up, public water, and public sewer. Currently, village residents pay for these through their taxes ... and vote on the people that run them. If villages dissolve, the residents still have to pay for the services they get only it's done through "special assessment districts" that are controlled by the town boards. Generally speaking, when village residents find out that "consolidation" does not mean that everybody in the town -- including farmers with their own wells and septic systems -- is going to pay for the bonds on the village water system, they tend to lose interest in "consolidation" because the savings are so miniscule. Out here, often the only full time village employees will be the village clerk, the DPW chief, and the police chief if the village has its own PD. The elected officials are all part-timers, generally paid stipends and no benies at all. The tax bills might go down pennies rather than the hundreds of dollars that proponents promise.
The problem we have here in Chautauqua and Cattaraugus Counties for school consolidation is that it's generally not logistically practical. Our school districts are already large in area -- Pine Valley and Randolph both stretch over two counties and Cassadaga Valley sprawls over a huge area of central Chautauqua County. Their problem is that there aren't a lot of children in those areas. There never were, but it's worse now as the population ages and young families have fewer children.
Consolidating schools could mean students being on school buses for hour plus long bus rides to and from. Much of the supposed savings from consolidation would be eaten up by transportation costs, and many parents don't want to have their primary or even middle school kids on buses for long rides through rural areas, especially with WNY's notorious winter weather.
There's also the issue of school cultures. This happens in rural schools as much as it does in suburban/urban ones. Some areas, for whatever reason, will have significantly more people with higher income/education than other areas. Some school districts therefore support their schools with more tax dollars than others, and often, the most likely candidates for school consolidation have cultures that just don't fit well together.
One solution that might work, at least on the high school level, is the idea of a regional high school. Several school districts in the western part of Chautauqua County are exploring this idea currently but I don't know how well it's going.
One solution that I think might work to save some money is to have administrative consolidation but leave the actual brick and mortar schools alone. I think that dividing the county into 4 administrative districts, or maybe the two counties -- Chautauqua and Cattaraugus -- into 6 or 7 administrative districts could cut down on administrative costs. We're not talking about 10k kids in a district but rather < 2K in most and some with fewer than 1k. That would mean significantly fewer school superintendents, fewer transportation supervisors, a few less office personal I think.
Warren County PA has this kind of system. Warren County has at least 2 high schools, Warren and Russell. It also has several elementary/middle schools. I don't know if this system was always in place or is the result of earlier consolidation, but it seems it would make sense for rural areas with their small school age populations.
I come from the opposite end of the state and opposite type of culture than Joe461 but I share his views on municipal consolidation.
Where I'm coming from: I live in Jamestown, NY, population 30k, which is located at the southern end of Chautauqua Lake. It's the biggest city in Chautauqua County, which has a population of about 130k total scattered over about 1200 square miles. The next biggest "city" is Dunkirk which has about 10k and then Fredonia with 5K (which is next door to Dunkirk). My guess is that probably 50k people live in the Jamestown and Dunkirk and their "suburbs", so we're pretty rural. Next door, in Cattaraugus County, they've got about 80k, and their largest city is Olean, population 10k. Salamanca has about 8k I think. Catt County huddles with the Adirondak counties like Hamiliton and Jefferson in the state poverty rankings. Unlike Long Island, this is a sparsely populated area with lots of old people and poor people.
For municipalities, I totally agree that the "benefits" of municipal consolidations are way over rated. IMO, some, like the city/county merger plans, are little more that attempts to a) get control of patronage and/or b) disenfranchise minority voters and/or c) benefit real estate developers who don't want to deal with people who really care about their own areas. That was certainly the case in the proposed Buffalo/Erie County merger that was proposed -- and rejected -- back about 10-11 years ago.
There's no reason that some municipal services can't be pushed up to the county level while leaving the towns and villages in control of the remainder of their own business. There's no reason that in order to get a general service, like law enforcement, done better and, hopefully, cheaper, that Jamestown residents should be forced to give up their right to self government, which on a municipal level, means things like street maintenance, noise ordinances or zoning codes. Jamestown and Chautauqua County are currently working on merging the Jamestown Police Department with the Sheriff's Department. The end result will likely be the gradual transition of the JPD to Sheriff's Department, with all new hires being county rather than city employees. That's consolidating services, not governments, and it makes much more sense since crime doesn't stop at the city line.
Here in a predominantly rural area, most villages actually continue to provide services that aren't available outside the village limits: sidewalks, zoning/ordinances more appropriate to "urban" style property uses, street lighting, municipal trash pick up, public water, and public sewer. Currently, village residents pay for these through their taxes ... and vote on the people that run them. If villages dissolve, the residents still have to pay for the services they get only it's done through "special assessment districts" that are controlled by the town boards. Generally speaking, when village residents find out that "consolidation" does not mean that everybody in the town -- including farmers with their own wells and septic systems -- is going to pay for the bonds on the village water system, they tend to lose interest in "consolidation" because the savings are so miniscule. Out here, often the only full time village employees will be the village clerk, the DPW chief, and the police chief if the village has its own PD. The elected officials are all part-timers, generally paid stipends and no benies at all. The tax bills might go down pennies rather than the hundreds of dollars that proponents promise.
More good points about differences in different parts of the state and potential reasoning for consolidation.
With this said, setting schools aside and outside of law enforcement or fire departments, what would be other potential ideas for consolidation or the amalgamation of services? This just an open question for anyone.
What would be a better alternative in regards to lowering taxes?
I am not particularly interested in lowering taxes. Maintaining strong locally controlled districts where like-minded families can live and educate their children together is more important. Consolidating districts would create trivial tax savings at the expense of destroying outstanding districts that already exist and perform exceedingly well.
I am not particularly interested in lowering taxes. Maintaining strong locally controlled districts where like-minded families can live and educate their children together is more important. Consolidating districts would create trivial tax savings at the expense of destroying outstanding districts that already exist and perform exceedingly well.
What if it is done in a way to where you do not have to change anything in that regard, if you don't want to?
More good points about differences in different parts of the state and potential reasoning for consolidation.
With this said, setting schools aside and outside of law enforcement or fire departments, what would be other potential ideas for consolidation or the amalgamation of services? This just an open question for anyone.
The municipal consolidation crusaders always yap about "duplication of services" because county, town, and villages maintain their own units, for, say street/road maintenance. What they ignore is that these units aren't serving the same populations. Take snowplowing. The same county road through a village does not get plowed first by the village, then by the town, and finally the county. Generally, counties pay towns and villages to plow the county roads through them unless they are main routes.
The counties could take over snow plowing for all cities, villages, and towns within them, but how would that actually save money? The cost of snowplowing is in the equipment, the fuel, the salt, and the manpower to operate it. If you get 2 feet of snow in 12 hours, somebody needs to clean it up. Who's likely to have a better handle on when and how often to send out the plow crews? The highway super who lives right in the village or town or the county highway administrator sitting in an office 25/30 miles away?
There are some services that could be/are provided to towns and villages by counties.
Catt and Chautauqua Counties both maintain assessment and tax data for the local municipalities. When property ownership changes and the new deeds are filed in the county seats, that info flows back to the towns/villages almost immediately and tax bills, which are calculated at the local level, get adjusted. You can go to either county's web site, find their GIS map, and look up any parcel of land in the county where you can find out ownership/assessment/tax data for all levels, which enables the county and municipal governments to provide better service to residents/potential residents for a whole lot less. Certainly, the individual towns and villages couldn't afford to hire the expertise to set up individual systems ... and the town systems wouldn't be able to talk to one another seemlessly.
Another area that would lend itself to upward consolidation of services would be accounting. I think if counties had control of accounting/auditing functions, it would be more efficient and also less likely to invite embezzlement. A uniform set of accounting practices as well as better accounting software and more expertise using it would likely lower accounting/bookkeeping costs for the municipalities.
I am not particularly interested in lowering taxes. Maintaining strong locally controlled districts where like-minded families can live and educate their children together is more important. Consolidating districts would create trivial tax savings at the expense of destroying outstanding districts that already exist and perform exceedingly well.
If you are talking about schools, I totally agree with you.
People who favor school consolidation always talk about needing less school superintendents and other bureaucrats. While I agree the salaries of superintendents are out of control (many here on Long Island make more money each year then the Governor of the entire state!), the great majority of people working for schools are teachers, custodians and other personal who would not be affected by consolidation. So the savings would be minor.
Maybe there should be a cap on school superintendent salaries. A couple of them topped $500,000 a year here on Long Island, which I believe is more then the President of the United States?
The municipal consolidation crusaders always yap about "duplication of services" because county, town, and villages maintain their own units, for, say street/road maintenance. What they ignore is that these units aren't serving the same populations. Take snowplowing. The same county road through a village does not get plowed first by the village, then by the town, and finally the county. Generally, counties pay towns and villages to plow the county roads through them unless they are main routes.
The counties could take over snow plowing for all cities, villages, and towns within them, but how would that actually save money? The cost of snowplowing is in the equipment, the fuel, the salt, and the manpower to operate it. If you get 2 feet of snow in 12 hours, somebody needs to clean it up. Who's likely to have a better handle on when and how often to send out the plow crews? The highway super who lives right in the village or town or the county highway administrator sitting in an office 25/30 miles away?
There are some services that could be/are provided to towns and villages by counties.
Catt and Chautauqua Counties both maintain assessment and tax data for the local municipalities. When property ownership changes and the new deeds are filed in the county seats, that info flows back to the towns/villages almost immediately and tax bills, which are calculated at the local level, get adjusted. You can go to either county's web site, find their GIS map, and look up any parcel of land in the county where you can find out ownership/assessment/tax data for all levels, which enables the county and municipal governments to provide better service to residents/potential residents for a whole lot less. Certainly, the individual towns and villages couldn't afford to hire the expertise to set up individual systems ... and the town systems wouldn't be able to talk to one another seemlessly.
Another area that would lend itself to upward consolidation of services would be accounting. I think if counties had control of accounting/auditing functions, it would be more efficient and also less likely to invite embezzlement. A uniform set of accounting practices as well as better accounting software and more expertise using it would likely lower accounting/bookkeeping costs for the municipalities.
Good post but I wanted to mention something you put your finger on in the line I bolded.
New York States has both Town and County governments. Most other states have one or the other.
The New England States for instance have Towns like New York but have limited or no County governments at all. Fairfield and Berkshire Counties, for instance are more historical regions then actual functioning counties. So residents there are paying no or limited taxes to the County.
Most states, especially down South or out West, have County governments but no local Towns (Townships), and certainly no Villages within the Towns like New York. Townships out West are often just on paper so residents are not paying taxes to a local government, just the County.
Now in New York we have BOTH systems so we are paying taxes to both local governments and the counties. We started off with something similar to the New England states (weak counties) but have been increasingly adopting the national system of stronger counties. The result is higher taxes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
