Below is an Op-Ed I wrote that will be published in the Star Gazette on April 15, 2018. It can be found online here.
At the Chemung County Legislature’s meeting last Monday, County Executive Tom Santulli and Deputy County Executive Mike Krusen proposed an initiative called the “Municipal Fiscal Transparency and Tax Stabilization Plan.” Based on their presentation, it appears the plan’s purpose is to help municipalities improve their fiscal health.
This is a laudable objective. The City of Elmira’s financial problems have been widely discussed recently.
But, Elmira is not alone. The Town of Horseheads levied a property tax in 2016 for the first time in 30 years, the Village of Van Etten voted last December to dissolve, Town of Southport Supervisor David Sheen recently stated his board will likely have to raise taxes in the near future as it has “controlled expenses while seeing its revenues dry up,” and this past week, the Town of Chemung laid off its entire highway department, citing lack of adequate funds.
Although many factors contributed to this difficult situation, there is only one viable solution going forward — genuine cooperation. Unfortunately, the proposed plan is not the way to get there.
At its core, the plan calls for the re-creation of a Council of Governments, an inter-municipal body that existed more than a decade ago to help facilitate cooperation among Chemung County’s municipalities.
This is a good thing. In fact, re-creating a Council of Governments is something I have written about in this newspaper and on a blog I created called Chemung County Matters (chemungcountymatters.com). However, the Council of Governments envisioned under the proposed plan comes with a catch.
At the onset, Santulli stated Monday that the City of Elmira will not be invited to participate. Although Krusen backed off these statements to some degree in subsequent written public comments, it is clear that anything less than full participation by the city is enough to render the plan flawed.
Moreover, the plan includes the establishment of an emergency reserve fund of $400,000 that will grow over time and be made available to members of the Council of Governments that abide by certain “rules.”
Some rules regarding financial transparency and disclosure of financial statements make sense and are unlikely to face substantial pushback.
However, other rules are more onerous. The plan would dictate how projects are funded. Such decisions fall squarely within the discretion of elected municipal leaders rather than county officials. Specifically, Santulli and Krusen stated that municipalities would be encouraged — even required — to bond major purchases, something that results in interest payments and is at odds with how some municipalities choose to do business. Furthermore, municipalities would have to keep their ratio of reserve fund to annual budget below the ratio maintained by Chemung County, interfering with their abilities to protect against unforeseen expenditures.
A broad perspective is necessary to evaluate what this plan seeks to do. Rather than promote the kind of cooperation we need, this plan would place elected municipal leaders in the unenviable position of choosing whether to make what they believe are the best financial decisions for the people they represent, or cede that power by agreeing to the Council of Government’s rules in order to be eligible to receive money through the emergency reserve.
There certainly may be times when the rules echo what municipal leaders believe is the right thing — but it is equally possible there will be times when the rules work against what is in their constituents’ interests. Cooperation is about bringing people to the table to work together. This plan simply misses the mark.
–Christina Sonsire
The Legislators had a briefing and will soon receive the proposal outline. All other interested municipal partners will also receive a briefing and as mentioned the COG will have the opportunity to weigh in on the plan before final adoption. Press conferences are generally a means to start the process of informing the public. Plenty of time and opportunities for everyone to build a plan around consensus.
Loading...Are the county legislators and respective municipal leaders in each district aware of the press conference planned for tomorrow, 4/16/18?
Loading...Andy there will be plenty of time. Our thinking is for Legislture to adopt a resoltioun of conceptual support if you would. Local governments be invited to participant and the COG propose any modifications for final adoption by county. This should provide for a logical process with fuller participation and support for the finished process and product.
Loading...Mike, when will the actual COG plan be presented to the County Legislature for consideration? Adequate time for the legislators to confer with the municipal leaders in each of their districts is critical to large scale proposals such as this.
Loading...Christina while I think there is certainly full scale agreement with establishing a mechanism for our local governments to continue to collaborate and look for best practice solutions to problems and of course opportunities your article does not fully represent many of the early features of the plan. First the City will be invited to fully participant in the COG as will all local governments. This was never in doubt. Second the discussion surrounding bonding projects and project selection is not properly characterized. While you are correct these decisions rest with local boards our discussion regarding this matter simply suggested the COG fiscal review process could provide guidance from local government certified public accounts on how debt service properly managed can and in some cases should be a part of budget management for local governments. This is true both from the standpoint of identifying project or purchase useful life and impact on reserve (fund balance) management. Many local governments do not have available staff to assist wth this analysis and this lack of big picture information can result in an incomplete decision making process. But of course once all information is available and reviewed local boards will have the final decision. Third access to the municipal reserve fund has few “rules” as you call them and I believe you concur with the key features: (1) participation in the COG (2) participation in the annual fiscal review process (3) public disclosure of the fiscal review documents. Additional parameters would include a fund balance trigger such as the level of reserves equal to or less than the county as a percentage of expenses. We indicated this issue would be vetted more by the COG and recommendations returned to the county legislature for final adoption. Of course this type of universal reserve account would provide municipalities greater comfort in managing their own reserves and provide that backstop for emergencies . The COG and operating standards that will be established by the COG I believe holds the promise of allowing our local governments to provide more effiecent and effective public services to our mutual residents.
Loading...https://youtu.be/vTfpenfiaVs
Loading...Mike – as you know, I was at the meeting where the proposal was laid out, and posted a recording (linked below) of how it was presented so that there is clarity about exactly what was said. Tom Santulli’s description of the plan begins at about 6:35. I believe everything I wrote in the Your Turn piece is consistent with what was presented. I appreciate your willingness to clarify any points and engage in dialogue, as a plan like this will have significant implications for municipalities and requires careful analysis.
Loading...