We are pleased that the Center for Governmental Research helped develop the dissolution plans for three of these communities. Our role was to work with citizen committees to collect facts and identify the costs and benefits of dissolving each village. This did not mean that these dissolution and consolidation votes were devoid of emotion.  On the contrary – votes about changing local government necessarily entail using both your heart and your head.  To address these concerns, the citizen committees presented findings to the public well in advance of the votes, to allow time for each community to discuss the impact of dissolution.

Regardless of whether you are for or against dissolution and consolidation of local governments, most people understand that it is important to preserve the integrity of the process.  Fear and innuendo need to be balanced by facts and reasoned projections.  If communities follow an open and honest process, and if community leaders assume their proper role, which is to guide the community through a civil debate about the future, then voters will do what is right.  Regardless of the outcome of the vote, it is important to recognize the value of going through the process.  Even though the vote to dissolve failed in his village, the Port Henry mayor said that the dissolution study was valuable because it helped his community look at new ways to share services and save money.

Locally, it appears that the Village of Brockport is about to proceed with a dissolution process.  It will be important to apply the lessons learned in these latest dissolution votes. Informing voters by providing a fair and balanced presentation of the facts and options, and then empowering them to vote for the future of their community, is democracy at its best.

Charles Zettek, Jr. Vice President and Director of Government Management Services
Published in the Rochester (NY) Democrat & Chronicle March 20, 2010

In 2006, state law was changed to improve the auditing and budgeting of fire districts.  As a result, expenditure information for each district is now available on the Office of State Comptroller web site. For 23 reporting fire districts in Monroe County, total expenditures rose from $44.8 million in 2006 to $53 million in 2008, an increase of 18.3%, which was more than double the northeast regional Consumer Price Index of 7.2% for the same period.

Can anything be done to slow down this relentless growth in costs without compromising the quality of our fire services?  Studies done by CGR and other organizations across the country have demonstrated that having too many individual governments (there are 867 fire districts in New York) leads to fragmented decision making, which leads to unnecessary and inefficient duplication of resources.  For example, one study comparing northern Virginia (where fire services are managed at a county level) with Long Island (where fire services are fragmented) found four times more equipment on Long Island, even though response times and insurance ratings were comparable.  With fire trucks now ranging in cost from $250,000 to over $750,000, unnecessary duplication quickly adds significant increases to property taxes.

Individual citizens do have the power to change the system.  First, citizens can affect the election of fire district commissioners, although this could take several election cycles.  Second, they can initiate dissolution and consolidation of fire districts through a citizen petition.  There are ways to reduce the costs of fire services in communities, but citizens need to become directly involved in the process.

Charles Zettek, Jr. Vice President and Director of Government Management Services
Published in the Rochester (NY) Democrat & Chronicle December 7, 2009

In communities facing crushing tax burdens, citizens are ready to explore alternatives to the status quo.  But let’s be realistic, in many communities people love to complain about high taxes but really aren’t willing to make the changes necessary to attack the problem.  It is disingenuous to argue that nothing can be done locally until Albany first fixes the “big” problems.  Yes, the bulk of local government costs are driven by state mandates and labor costs, but there is plenty that can be done by local governments themselves.  Fortunately, more and more citizens are demanding that local elected leaders look themselves in the mirror and ask whether their layer of government is truly needed, even if it means eliminating their own positions.

There’s clearly more at stake here than just trying to reduce local taxes, although that is a good starting point.  Making the effort to change has many benefits beyond tax savings, as two local communities are finding out.  The City and Town of Batavia have just started a very public debate about whether or not to consolidate into one government.  The Village of Seneca Falls has begun a public process that will lead to a vote on whether to dissolve the village and consolidate with the Town of Seneca Falls.  What is most encouraging is that these efforts demonstrate the willingness of citizens to consider change, through an open, honest thoughtful civic engagement process.  Even if voters ultimately decide not to change their governments, at least the communities will have gone through a thorough analysis of their operations and intentionally selected their governance structures for the future, knowing the plusses and minuses. These are key building blocks for re-invigorating local government for the 21st century.

Charles Zettek, Jr. Vice President and Director of Government Management Services
Published in the Rochester (NY) Democrat & Chronicle June 7, 2009

Study after study makes it clear that consolidation is not a magic bullet for drastically reducing costs and can’t provide the 10% to 30% immediate savings that many taxpayers want. Rather, research suggests that consolidation realistically reduces total costs by 2% to 5%, which critics use to raise the question – why bother? Based on 10 studies over the past three years where the Center for Governmental Research examined shared services and consolidation in towns, villages, cities and school districts across New York, I suggest five reasons why consolidation should be considered.

First, counties, cities, towns, villages, fire districts and school districts across the state, excluding New York City, spent $67.7 billion in 2007. A 2% savings statewide would equal $1.35 billion per year. A 5% savings statewide would amount to $3.38 billion per year. Certainly, savings of this magnitude are worth pursuing.
Second, these are not one-shot savings, because once the costs are out of the system, savings continue every year. It’s the same principle as homeowners restructuring mortgages to reduce costs over time.

Third, while the 2% to 5% savings come from total expenditures, the percentage impact on local property taxes is much higher. In Seneca Falls, for example, a savings of $243,000 equals 1.8% of total expenses, but translates into a 7.2% reduction in property taxes.

Fourth, consolidations reduce direct costs primarily by creating personnel efficiencies. Since retaining dedicated, conscientious public employees is important, government consolidation plans typically reduce payroll only through normal attrition, except where top-level administrators or duplicate elected officials are eliminated on day one. And, even then, in most cases, non-elected positions are eliminated only when affected employees voluntarily resign. Consolidation-related savings are less about immediate personnel reductions and more about governments not having to fill vacant positions because of the efficiencies consolidation creates.

Fifth, because of artificial boundaries caused by the multitude of local governments, decisions are frequently made about buildings, facilities, equipment and staff that result in costly and inefficient use of limited community resources. For example, the decision to build a new fire station on Ridgeway Avenue created a $3.2 million cost that a consolidated approach could have avoided.

Perhaps the most hopeful sign is that communities are making the effort to examine their current operations in a new light. What we’re seeing now has fascinating parallels to what happened 100 years ago in the “good government” movement. Now, as then, civic minded citizens want an open and honest evaluation of how services are provided in order to identify how to eliminate duplication and overlap to make government more effective and efficient.

Charles Zettek, Jr. Vice President and Director of Government Management Services
Published in the Rochester (NY) Democrat & Chronicle March 1, 2009