I think this should be a way to help eliminate one of the many layers of beauracracy in local government in NY. And maybe Ithaca would have a population approaching 50,000 in the near future. Of course the way things operate up there, this is at least 10 years away.
Consolidation may be best in certain areas
Cathy Valentino / Guest Column
Reducing the cost of government and promoting efficient delivery of needed services are much discussed these days. My tenure as Ithaca Town Supervisor has been governed by these principles, and so I was pleased to join Mayor Carolyn Peterson in forming a committee to study consolidation and shared services.
This committee, charged with researching opportunities and compiling information that can lead to informed decision making, should have a report ready by the end of the year. Peterson and I are both dedicated to this project and hope to find ways for the town and city to strengthen our relationship.
ADVERTISEMENT
One proposal unlikely to make the list would be merging the town and city into a single municipality. That is impractical for several reasons starting with a disparity in our tax structures. The city property tax rate is $13.58 per $1,000 of assessed value; the town's $1.68 per $1,000 of assessed value and $3.74 per $1,000 for fire protection services, bringing the town-levied property tax to $5.42. In addition, the city has a very high debt burden — almost at its legal limit — while the town has very little debt. Consolidation might mean that the town would have to share the city's debt load, an obvious disadvantage to the town. Town residents would have to pay exorbitantly higher taxes or city residents would have to give up many services. Neither is acceptable
A second issue concerns the Village of Cayuga Heights. Traditionally, residents who share an interest in services and policies that exceed those provided by town government form villages within towns. They may want a separate police force, stricter zoning regulations, local speed limits and the like. These can reflect an aura of community pride I have come to value and respect as supervisor of a town that encompasses a village. The Town of Ithaca and Village of Cayuga Heights co-exist very well, and I am proud to represent each.
One option short of merger but important to efficiency is shared services. Some good examples have been established and/or expanded during my tenure. These include:
* The Bolton Point Water Commission, with its five partners, provides a model for inter-municipal cooperation.
* The Recreation Partnership, which I helped found, provides many opportunities for youth.
* Two fire protection contracts — one with the city, one with the Village of Cayuga Heights — provide responsive and economical services to town residents while allowing the city and village to offset some costs.
* A joint sewer agreement among the Town of Ithaca, the city, and the Villages of Cayuga Heights and Lansing as well as joint ownership of the Ithaca Area Wastewater plant by the city and the Towns of Ithaca and Dryden.
All of these inter-municipal agreements provide efficient and cost-saving services and allow for financing of important infrastructure, such as water and sewer districts that the municipalities alone would not be able to afford.
The newly formed Tompkins County Council of Governments shows great promise of facilitating new shared-service agreements. This is not to suggest that reaching such agreements will be easy. My years as a labor union leader negotiating difficult contracts that improved wages, benefits and the rights of workers has served me and the town very well. I have been very successful in facilitating agreements that benefit the town and its partners. These agreements always involve compromise by all parties. Gaining something important for your constituents usually means understanding that you will have to give ground on something else. It is difficult for some to understand that people have to be able to accept that compromise is a given in any working relationship.
Finally, the state has formed a committee on local government efficiency and competitiveness. That sounds positive and innocuous enough, but many of us who represent towns and villages suspect we may be seeing the camel's nose under the tent. We are wary of state efforts to eliminate local option and control and move toward large bureaucratic entities to govern and provide services. Regional governments with regionally elected representatives would never understand our local needs or replicate the close connection many citizens enjoy with local governments and the services we provide. That kind of consolidation inevitably separates a government from its constituents. We would lose a little bit of ourselves if we were swallowed up by such a system and no longer feel any direct ownership. We'd get lost in that shuffle. In contrast, the kind of shared services I have pursued for the past 12 years allow each locality to maintain its identity and increase efficiency.
Originally published August 31, 2007