VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR CONSULTING SERVICES FOR CITY STATUS FEASIBILITY INITIATIVE RFP # 2019-03
City Status Committee
Release Date: May 17, 2019
Submission Deadline: June 21, 2019 3:00 P.M._
1 PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR CONSULTING SERVICES FOR CITY STATUS FEASIBILITY INITIATIVE
RFP # 2019-03
VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that proposals will be received by the Village of Port Chester (hereafter "Village") until 3:00 p.m. local time on June 21, 2019, at the Office of the Village Clerk, 222 Grace Church Street, Port Chester, New York for the following:
CONSULTING SERVICES FOR CITY STATUS FEASIBILITY INITIATIVE
No proposals will be received or considered after the time stated above.
A copy of the Request for Proposals ("RFP") may be downloaded from the Village's website starting on May 17, 2019: http://www.portchesterny.com/bids
All proposals must be submitted in a sealed envelope bearing the name and address of the bidder and clearly marked "RFP # 2019-03 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR CONSULTING SERVICES FOR CITY STATUS FEASIBILITY INITIATIVE".
The Village of Port Chester reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals and to waive any informalities at their discretion, and to award contracts in a manner deemed to be in the best interest of the Village of Port Chester even if such award is to other than the lowest bidder.
The Village will NOT be responsible for any cost or losses incurred by any respondent at any time in preparing and submitting a proposal in response to this RFP.
It is intended that, whenever possible, positive recommendations will be presented to the Board of Trustees so that an award can be made at the next scheduled meeting. Your cooperation in adhering to the procedures outlined above and contained within the specifications would be greatly appreciated.
ls/Christopher D. Steers Christopher D. Steers Village Manager Village of Port Chester
Dated: May 17, 2019 Table of Contents I. Introduction ...... 3 II. Scope of Services ...... 7 III. Submittal Requirements ...... 9 IV. Evaluation ...... I 0 V. Administrative Information; Additional Submittal Requirements ...... 11 VI. Appendices ...... 13
2 I. INTRODUCTION
The Village of Port Chester ("Village") is located in the southeastern comer of Westchester County along the Byram River and within one mile of the Long Island Sound. The Village has a total land area of 2.4 square miles and is home to approximately 29,000 residents, 60% of which are Latino or Spanish-speaking.
The Village hereby requests proposals from qualified professionals to be retained as a consultant for the purpose of investigating the feasibility of the Village of Port Chester changing its form of government to a city.
This Request for Proposals ("RFP") describes the project, the required scope of services, the consultant selection process, and the minimum information that must be included in a proposal.
Background Port Chester is well situated, accessible to the rest of Westchester County, New York City and the entire metropolitan region. Adjacent municipalities include the Town of Greenwich, Connecticut, located to the northeast across the Byram River, the village of Rye Brook to the north and west, and the City of Rye to the south.
Incorporated as a village in 1868 from the Town of Rye by the State Legislature, Port Chester is generally governed by a charter issued by special act. In 1975, the Village changed its form of government to facilitate the retention of a professional manager as chief administrative officer (with some chief executive functions) to run day-to-day operations subject to policy set by a seven member elected Board of Trustees. The Mayor is an equal voting member of the Board.
The Village is located within the Town of Rye which includes the Village of Rye Brook and the non-contiguous, unincorporated area of Rye Neck. The Town provides tax assessment and collection functions for the villages and the Rye Neck area.
Port Chester is one of the densest municipalities (11,809 persons per square mile) in the county, served by commuter rail service by the MTA's Metro North Railroad New Haven line, multiple local and regional bus routes, and an urban fabric that is naturally scaled and catered to walking and biking. Principal arterials serving Port Chester include the New England Thruway (Interstate 95), the Cross Westchester Expressway (Interstate 287) and U.S. Route 1 (Boston Post Road).
As the Village continues to establish itself into the 21st century, its greatest assets are its downtown retail and restaurant district, waterfront and location along the Byram River to the harbor on Long Island Sound, close proximity to New York City, its diverse population, and its surging retail economy. Port Chester is popularly known as the restaurant and entertainment capital of Westchester County. However, the Village's surging retail sector should be viewed more broadly as a dynamic and powerful engine in the County economy.
By any Metric, a City The Village of Port Chester is a city in almost every sense of the word. It has a $45 million operating budget (not including an $11 million capital budget), a staff of 163 full-time and 60 part time employees, a police department with a current staffing level of 62 sworn members, a fire
3 department consisting of seven incorporated volunteer fire companies with over 328 volunteers serving not only Port Chester but the neighboring village of Rye Brook on a contract basis, and a justice court with three judges and one of the highest dockets and fines/forfeitures in New York State. The Village has an active industrial development agency and local development corporation to promote economic development. It is in the midst of an economic rebirth with many new high end residential developments and has adopted the necessary zoning changes to the redevelopment of the former United Hospital property for mixed residential/commercial use, one of the largest properties in the County on the market for redevelopment. More broadly, the Board of Trustees is considering an expert-recommended new Zoning Regulation that would establish form-based code throughout the Village. Last codified in 1975, the new Zoning Regulation would emphasize "best practices" in urban design, foster predictable built-results and facilitate a high quality public realm.
To confirm the Village's close resemblance to a city, reference is made to the Peer City Identification Tool (PCIT). This tool was developed by the Community Development and Policy Studies division of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. It uses city-level indicators from the American Community Survey and historical decennial census records to analyze groups of similar cities across the United States. Four cities in Westchester County are profiled: Mount Vernon, New Rochelle, White Plains and Yonkers. The tables below compare these cities with Port Chester:
Comnarison of Selected Economic Measures % Median Change in Median % Owner Households Monthly Median Family Gini Index of Westchester Family Occupied that are rent- Housing Household Income Economic Countv Citv Income Housini, burdened Costs Income since 2000 Ineaualitv Mount Vernon $65,578 39.76% 58.75% $1,380 $51,886 -9.38% 0.3840 New Rochelle $95,447 49.66% 55.51% $1,672 $73,178 -10.09% 0.3840 Port Chester $61,944 43.50% 56.50% $1,626 $56,524 -15.12% 0.4745 White Plains $104,383 52.12% 55.08% $1,737 $82,460 -0.54% 0.3657 Yonkers $75,111 47.59% 55.33% $1,365 $61,272 -3.35% 0.3337 Comoarison of Selected Pooulation Measures Westchester Total Foreign Hispanic-White Population Change Countv Citv Ponulation White Born Povertv Dissimilarity Index since 2000 Mount Vernon 68,217 16.02% 34.39% 13.57% 40.841 -0.24% New Rochelle 79,299 46.49% 28.75% 7.82% 48.446 9.86% Port Chester 29,417 28.6% 45.6% 12.9% 46.700 5.56% White Plains 57,925 44.62% 32.97% 7.88% 41.826 9.13% Yonkers 199,725 40.04% 30.91% 13.26% 51.258 1.86%
4 Historical Efforts to Become a City May Now be Realized The Village of Port Chester's quest to become a city is not new. In 1931, then Governor Franklin Roosevelt vetoed a bill that would have made Port Chester a city. Since that time, the Village has commissioned experts to study the issue. In 1970, the Village obtained a study from the State University ofNew York. (Pettengill, Robert S. On Changing Port Chester from a Village to a City: Analysis and Recommendations: State University of New York at Albany, October 12, 1970). In 1981, the Village secured the first of two studies from Pace University. (An Examination & Study of Forms of Government for the Village of Port Chester, Pace University Institute for Sub/Urban Governance, January, 1981). In 1996, the second study was provided to the Village. (Edwin G. Michaelian Institute for Public Policy and Management of the Dyson College, An Examination of the Service, Legal, Fiscal and Structural Impacts of the Village Becoming a City, March 1996). Neither of these later efforts resulted in any proposed legislation. In fact, they discouraged action as they concluded there were limited benefits to becoming a city.
Despite intermittent attempts since that time, city status was not elevated to a policy matter for serious consideration until the election of the current Board of Trustees. In April 2017, the Village completed a strategic plan which unified the vision of the Village Board of Trustees and Village Manager with regard to organizational and Village priorities in the next five years. The strategic plan process helped to create a cohesive vision for the future of the Village and allowed it to effectively focus on its immediate needs and major priorities. As part of this process the concept of City Status was thoroughly reviewed. Based on the best information available the Board of Trustees decided that the case for City Status is compelling, given Port Chester's emergence since the last study in 1996 as a regional retail powerhouse that generates substantial sales tax, providing an opportunity for the Village to "pre-empt" the County to retain a portion of these locally generated revenues. Accordingly, the Strategic Plan calls out the identification and implementation of the process to pursue city status. (Goal Area C, Resource Management, Long-Term Strategy No. 7).
City Status Committee In November 2017, the Board of Trustees established a resident City Status Committee charged with studying the issue for study the feasibility of city status. The Committee consists of twenty two members. $25,000 was appropriated towards the effort. It was anticipated that the Committee would seek the professional services of a consultant to provide expert assistance in providing a report to the Board.
This Request for Proposals seeks to implement the intent of the Board of Trustees to provide dedicated resources to the City Status Committee.
At its inaugural meeting, the Committee was in consensus that the professional services of a consultant was appropriate and necessary.
The Committee was also in agreement that the current climate for the Village of Port Chester to attain city status is more compelling than ever before. The State's two percent tax cap has forced the issue. Municipalities and school districts are increasingly sharing services and consolidating functions. More fundamentally, they are reconsidering existing organizational structures and political units of government to more effectively deliver services. Indeed, the Town of Rye had most recently completed a study that would result in town dissolution. Although the dissolution
5 effort was not successful, it illustrated the inevitable logic of change that must take place at the local levels of government in New York State. Equitable modification of property tax structures is a key component in such change. Port Chester cannot continue to deliver the accustomed high level of level of services to its residents if it provides retail services to the region, but is left poorer in the process.
It is acknowledged that there is no "road map" to achieving city status therefore presenting both a unique opportunity and challenge to the Village of Port Chester. The successful proposer will have a deep and diverse background and experience in public policy, intergovernmental relations, economics and political science. Academic institutions with external relationships to local governments are especially encouraged to respond to this solicitation.
Interestingly, the last municipality to become a city in the State was the City of Rye in 1942. Like Port Chester, Rye was formerly a village in the Town of Rye; perhaps history will come full circle.
Port Chester's rationale In 2006, the New York State Comptroller's office released a study entitled "Outdated Municipal Structures," in which it concluded "traditional classifications no longer fit many of today's local governments." It identified scores of communities throughout the State that would benefit from a change in municipal structure.
But while this study underscored the need for change, it also indicated the challenge for Port Chester's efforts. If Port Chester were to become a city, what would stop the flood of other municipalities that could benefit from demanding similar treatment and upending the financial viability of Counties and Towns throughout the State?
Perhaps Port Chester has to illustrate it is a New York State "unicorn," eligible for City Status for unique reasons, not readily replicable throughout the State. One such rationale that could be considered is Port Chester's status as the immediate region's retail vendor of choice, whereby it provides vital services to neighboring communities, absorbs all the costs in delivering these services, realizes little benefit from the delivery thereof, but rather encounters substantial cost burdens.
And not to be overlooked is the fairness issue. Access to revenues that Port Chester should be entitled to would make the City, increasingly majority minority, more self-sufficient and less reliant on higher levels of government for assistance.
6 II. SCOPE OF SERVICES
The Consultant will work with the City Status Committee in a collaborative, iterative manner and prepare a written, research-based report as to the feasibility of city status.
Initial Meeting The Consultant will initially meet with the Committee to kick-off the initiative, facilitate a structured discussion of mutual expectations, role of the parties, opportunity for public input and the action steps/work plan and interim study products and delivery of final report.
Subcommittees It is expected that the Committee will thereafter break out into subcommittees to study select issues or subject-matters. The Consultant will meet and closely engage the subcommittees. Such interaction is mutually beneficial and will enable the Consultant to obtain critical local knowledge, historical perspective and community viewpoints and for the subcommittee members to gain necessary insights from the objective vantage-point of a qualified expert.
Scope of Services In working with the Committee and subcommittees in developing and preparing the report, the Consultant will be expected to:
• Evaluate Village governance and administrative structures, departmental operations and delivery of services; • Study short-term and trend long-term budgetary needs; • Analyze budget-making process, impact of State property tax cap, reductions in state and federal grants-in-aid and other fiscal pressures; • Identify changes in the regulatory environment, impact of state and federal mandates and assess limitations of real property tax to fund services at the level expected by the taxpayers; • Examine current sales tax distribution structure, formulate statistical formulas and validate the Village's substantial contribution of sale tax revenue as an economic engine in the County that would support an equity change in the current allocation of sales tax revenue; and • Identify alternative revenue streams, user fees and other structures available to cities that would more fairly spread the cost of funding government operations; • Describe the pertinent requirements, financial obligations, regulatory environment, and structural barriers involved in a change to city status; • Study the impact of city status on the Port Chester School District and other taxing jurisdictions; and • Describe the experience of other municipalities that have sought city status, the process for seeking same and lessons to be learned from such experiences. • Analyze metrics that could justify Port Chester's "uniqueness." These could include but should not be limited to: o A comparison of taxable sales volumes in communities throughout Westchester County o A comparison of assessables bases of communities throughout Westchester County o A comparison of density metrics of communities throughout Westchester County o An analysis of metrics such as those discussed in the "Sales Tax Creation in
7 Westchester County" attachment to this RFP
Committee Proceedings The Consultant will attend meetings of the subcommittees and Committee on an as-needed basis.
The Consultant will provide interval reports to the Committee that reflects agreed-upon progress milestones.
Where appropriate, the Consultant will implement parametric and non-parametric test analysis of data (population, financial, demographic, etc.) or other such statistical manipulations of data as may be needed or requested by the Committee.
Final Report The Consultant will present a final report to the Committee. Such report shall be presented first in draft for review and comment by the Committee. Upon acceptance, the Consultant shall provide the report in final form for referral to the Board of Trustees for their determination as to whether to advance to the next step of seeking state legislation for city status. The expected time for completion of the report is sixty days from the kick-off meeting with the Committee.
If thereafter requested by the Board of Trustees, the Consultant shall be available for consultations.
8 III. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
I. Cover Page: Submit the Request for Proposals coversheet on letterhead stationery, signed by a duly authorized officer, employee, or agent of the consultant organization submitting the proposal that must include a statement that the proposal is submitted in response to RFP # 2019-03 "Consulting Services for City Status Feasibility Initiative". 2. Capacity and Team Structure: State that the respondent will provide all of the services listed in Section II. If the respondent is utilizing a team approach, the proposal must state all members of the consultant team, and the roles of each team member 3. Statement of Qualifications: Respondents shall begin their proposal with a Statement of Qualifications that includes the information below: a. General description of the respondent, including size and length of time in business; b. A summary of the respondent's background and specific experience on similar projects; c. Examples of completed projects similar in size and scope; and d. Any qualifications not previously described that make the consultant organization(s) or team unique. 4. Personnel: List key personnel and the anticipated roles which said personnel are expected to play on this project. Resumes for key personnel should be provided and include work location, education and licenses or certifications. 5. References: Provide three (3) references from other clients, especially public agencies, with whom the consultant or team now work or have worked within the last five (5) years and have consulted on a project relevant to this Request for Proposals. Provide the name of the agency, contact name, address, telephone number, project name, and dates the services were provided. 6. Proposed Work Plan, Statement of Schedule and Costs: The proposal should include the anticipated schedule for activities to be performed hereunder, including a proposed work plan for services to be provided. This schedule/work plan should include the tasks as outlined in Section II reflecting the estimated timeframe for each task, together with the total completion time as provided herein. Moreover, the proposed work plan should include: (i) a budget broken down by task and expenses for each described item, and (ii) a statement as to who will be working on each item of the work plan. Further, with each stated item/task, respondents should indicate the anticipated number of hours and cost (in dollars) necessary to complete it. The schedule should also include provisions for Village review, iterative effort, revision of draft deliverables, and preparation of the final documents. The proposal should provide a total flat fee for the Services. 7. Insurance Requirements: General and professional liability insurance policies in such amounts as required by the Village and naming the Village as additional insured must be submitted for the approval of the Village Attorney. 8. Minority (MBE) and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE): The Village encourages MBE/DBE's to respond to this solicitation.
9 IV. EVALUATION
I. Criteria: Each responding consultant organization will be evaluated based on the information submitted, on follow-up interviews (if any), and on information gathered upon investigation into the responding consultant organization's integrity, reputation, and past performance.
All proposals deemed acceptable by the Village will be rated, based upon the following criteria:
Cateoorv Comnleteness and nualit-., of nronosal Education. Exnerience and nuatifications Education Experience in City Status or other governmenta restructurinu efforts r.ualifications Pronosed Scone of Services Proiect Understandino Pronosed Work Plan Pronosed Schedule Pronosed Fee Strenoth of References Total:
2. Rights Reserved By the Village: The Village reserves the right to contract for all or any part of the services herein and to bid separately any project it feels will be in the best interest of the Village to bid separately, or to reject any and all proposals in its best interest. Incomplete proposals will not be considered.
10 V. ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION; ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
I. Release Date: The release date of this Request for Proposals is May 17, 2019. 2. Questions and Inquiries: Questions and inquiries will be accepted, but must be submitted in writing or via email to: Janusz Richards, Village Clerk Village of Port Chester 222 Grace Church Street Port Chester, NY I 0573 [email protected] A summary of all substantive questions and answers will be distributed to all parties receiving the Request for Proposals. The closing date for submitting written questions is June 12, 2019.
3. Responses: Responses to all written questions received will be posted on the Village's website on or before June 14, 2019. 4. Closing Date for Proposals: To be eligible for consideration, all respondents must submit the following materials: TWENTY-FIVE (25) COPIES, AND ONE (I) ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL MUST BE IN A SEALED PACKAGE AND RECEIVED BY THE VILLAGE NO LATER THAN JUNE 21, 2019 at 3:00 P.M. ALL PROPOSALS MUST BE HAND-DELIVERED TO THE VILLAGE CLERK BY 3:00 P.M. LOCAL TIME. Respondents who submit their proposals by mail or delivery service should allow sufficient mailing and delivery time to ensure receipt on or before the time and date stated above. There will be no exceptions granted. All submitted proposals must contain the following title: "RFP #2019-03 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR CONSULTING SERVICES FOR CITY STATUS FEASIBILITY INITIATIVE" 5. Where to Submit Proposals: All proposals, whether mailed or hand delivered, must be delivered to: Janusz Richards, Village Clerk Village of Port Chester 222 Grace Church Street Port Chester, NY 10573 [email protected] 6. Interviews: Selected respondents may be invited to present their proposal at a follow-up interview. 7. Addenda and Supplements to Proposal: In the event certain respondents are invited to present their proposals at a follow-up interview, they will have the opportunity to further respond to any questions asked and to clarify any points made at the interview by submitting a written addenda and supplement to their proposal.
11 8. Expenses Incurred by Responding Consultant: The Village will not be responsible for any cost or losses incurred by any respondents in preparing and submitting a proposal or requested supplemental information in response to this Request for Proposals.
12 VI. APPENDICES
APPENDIX I - STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT ALBANY REPORT (1970)
APPENDIX 2- PACE UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE FOR SUB-URBAN GOVERNANCE (1981)
APPENDIX 3 - PACE UNIVERSITY MICHAELIAN INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY AND MANAGEMENT (1996)
APPENDIX 4 - VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER STRATEGIC PLAN 2017-2022
APPENDIX 5 - BOARD RESOLUTIONS REGARDING CITY STATUS COMMITTEE
APPENDIX 6 - PRESENTATION AT INAUGURAL MEETING OF CITY STATUS COMMITTEE
APPENDIX 7 -AN ANALYSIS OF RETAIL SALES IN PORT CHESTER JUXTAPOSED TO WESTCHESTER COUNTY CITIES
13 APPENDIX 1 STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT ALBANY REPORT .-~. d, I :tJ
ON CHANGING PORT CHESTER FROM A VILLAGE TO A CITY
ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
by
Robert B, Pettengill, Ph,D, Professor of Economics State University of New York at Albany October 12, 1970
L '·:" ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
In preparing this report the author has received valuable assistance from the following to whom he wishes to express his gratitude:
Mrs, Jean Wickert, Director of Municipal Research and Statistics, New York State Division of Audit and Control Mr, Donald Walsh, Mr. Donald Larsen, Mr, J, Omer Laplante, and Hrs, Pat Hickey of the New York State Conference of Mayors and other Municipal Officials Mayor Joseph Dzaluk, Hr, James Sapio, Hr, Pat Frederico, Mr. Arnold Bernfeld, Mr, D,D, Pierro, and Hr, John Del Vecchio of the Village of Port Chester ON CHANGING PORT CHESTER FROM A VILLAGE TO A CITY
If Port Chester were to change its political status by an act
of the State Legislature from a Village to a City, it would benefit
financially and would achieve greater freedom of action in subsequent
years. Cities get $5.00 more per capita aid from the State than do
Villages. (See Appendix A) For Port Chester's 25,000 people, that means an additional $125,000 per year. Under the 1970 revenue -
sharing bill it would receive an additional 55% of this (approximately), making a total of about $194,000, (See Appendix B) These are the major immediate financial gains of becoming a city.
Another possible advantage, though minor, is an increased share of mortgage tax receipts. Cities receive the entire amount of mortgage tax collections arising from loans made within the city less the county ad ministrative cost, Villages get only that fraction of total town mortgage tax revenues represented by the proportion that the assessed valuation of the village bears to twice the assessed valuation of the town (in this case ~6o,000,000/$2JO,OOO,OOO, or 1:4), It is difficult to estimate what additional revenues the change might bring since most of the new construct ion in the Town of Rye presumably occurs outside the village, but if any thing more than one-fourth of the new mortgages originate within the city, there would be so~e gain, This tax yielded the village only $19,500 in 1970, -2-
There would also be slightly more state aid for the maintenance or city streets. The exact amount depends on a complex formula involving population and the full valuation per mile of city streets. $1,000 seems a reasonable estimate.
Minor amounts of state aid could also be obtained by· the new
city for 11Youth Bureau" projects, as distinguished from recreation and/or youth service projects which now receive $3,500. This new
state aid would be 50% of approved costs up to a max.iJnum of $15,000.
Aid is also obtainable by cities in the health field: mental health, health laboratories, and blood banks.
Another financial advantage of the change from village to city is indirect, getting relief from town taxes. County taxes remain a burden, but town taxes at the current rate of $1,194 per thousand assessed valuation now take $76,000 out of the pockets of the villige taxpayers per year. This they would no longer have to pay.
In addition to these fiscal changes which are very definitely beneficial, there are other revenue changes which could be brought about if Port Chester city government should so desire. Cities have the power to levy certain sales and use taxes which villages cannot. (See Appendix C) Therefore, if the people want to shift the burden of taxation from real property to other sources, they could do so.
(See Appendix D)For instance the city of Plattsburgh, population
20,000, formerly grossed enough revenue from its 2/, general sales tax to finance its entire net budget. It presently achieves the same result by getting 40% of a new 3% county - wide sales tax, At the -4-
the various financial gains may be summarized as follows:
l. Increased state per capita aid ••• , • • • • , • $125,000
2. Additional 11revenue-sharing11 under 1970 law. • • • 69,000 3, Possible additional mortgage tax receipts. , ••• c. 5,000 4. Additional share of state motor vehicle fuel tax •• c. 1,000
5. Miscellaneous additional state aid. • • . . .. . • • uncertain TOTAL BUDGETARY GA IN C• $200,000 Plus tax savings of property owners c, 76,000
There is a further revenue possibility, but it must not be called more than that. The 1970 legislature enacted a special urban aid measure that applies only to cities in existence Aprill, 1968, (See Appendix B) The exact amount per capita depends on a formula involving population figures not yet available and the yield of the state personal income tax which will not be known until the end of the next fiscal year, Estimates, however, put the figure at from $25 to $JO per person, (See Appendix B) If Port Chester were to be included under this formula either by a removal of the restrictive 1968 rule from the law or by a special favoring clause in its charter of incorporation, the city could receive from $625,000 to $750,000 additional state aid (using a 25,000 population estimate for the' city.) This amount is one fourth of the present budget and could be used to reduce property taxes accordingly.
On the other side of the ledger, one must put the portion of the township debt which the new city must assume. This is computed by find ing the ratio of assessed value of real property in the village to the total for the township, about 52/100, and then multiplying the town debt -5-
by this percentage, The resulting figure is only $196,000, much less· than one year's financial gains and the debt, of course, would be paid off in installments. _/ If a ten year period is assumed, then the
_/ $60,777,000 (Port Chester property) divided by $ll5,108,000 (Town of Rye property) times $377,000 (debt of Town of Rye) equals $196,000,
annual principal and interest payments would not exceed $25,000,
Another way of looking at this assumption of a portion of the town debt is to add it to the existing village debt and compare the total with the a.~ount permis9ible under state law. Here the safety margin is more than ample, Total debt would be less than $2,750,000, The 7% debt limit comes to more than $10,000,000, _/
_/ The limit is obtained by dividing the current assessed value of real property by the average of the town and county equalization rate for the past five years, or 0,41, to get the "full value" of said property and then multiplying by 0,07, Existing debt of the village is $1,583,000, Assessed value of village real property, $60,777,000, divided by 0,41 yields $148,200,000 as the 11full value;• 7% of which is $10, 374,000. ·
On the negative side there is always the possibility that the expense of running a city would be greater than that for a village of equal size, However, a close examination of the items in Port Chester's present budget reveals that it already supports nearly all of the offices a city charter might require. (See Village Budget, Appendix F) It has a _/ The 11full value" of the school district real property is obtained by dividing the assessed value for the last year before the city's creation by the state-established 11equalization rate" for that year, For 1970-71 this would work out to divided by or $761000,000 0,37, $206,000,000, (See Appendix IJ
The tax limit of two per cent for operating expenses appears to be a problem, but it is really not so, thanks to a law passed in 1969, According to Article 54, Section 2701, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution, (Appendix I), school districts in newly incorporated cities of less than 125,000, shall figure their tax limit by dividing the full value of real property for the "last completed fiscal yea:r preceding the effective date of ••• incorporation of such city11 into the total "school taxes levied on the taxable real estate of such school district" for that year nfor the purposes which would have been subject to the constitutional tax limitation ... 11 This is defined in Article 8, Section 10 of the Constitution as the net tax budget less the debt service charges. (See Appendix J) If the quotient exceeds 1,75%, the tax limit shall be 2%, For Port Chester this is clearly the case. Subtract debt service charges of $410,000 from the 1971-72 budget of $4,700,000 and get a remainder of $4,290,000. Divide this by $206,ooo,ooo, and the quoti~t is 0.0208, Hence, the city school district would have an operating expense tax limit of 2%, the maxi.mum permitted,
This 1969 law permits excluding from the tax limit. calculations any taxes that need to be levied to pay for retirement and social -9- security expenses. _/ These amounted to nearly $850,000 in the 1970-71
J Ch. 183, Section 3609, Paragraph 10, Laws of 1969. (See Appendix K) school budget. _/ Subtracting this total from the net budget of
J If the non-instructional retirement.contributions are included, the figure would be $954,000. (See the summary of the School Budget, Appendix I.)
$4,290,000, one gets $3,440,000, If this is used as a numerator and
$206,000,000 (the 11 full value" of school district property) as a de nominator, a ratio of 0.0167 is obtained, well below the permitted ceiling of 0.0200, Another way of looking at the figures is to note that there is a 11 safety margin" of $680,000 between the present net net bujget of $3,440,000 and the $4,120,000 tax limit amount. This should be ample to cover increased expenses many years ahead,
In the meantime, the legislatur.i way relax or revise upwards the tax lirr~t restrictions on city school districts as it did in 1969 • .( State aid to school districts may also increase substantially. or·•the state may permit them to use other non-property taxes to raise revenues. At present, the only one clearly available to city school districts is that on consumer utility bills. If Port Chester were to use the 3 per cent maximum rate under this tax, it could probably raise $125,000 and the levy on real property could be reduced by this amount.
State aid to education remains unchanged when a village becomes -11-
Relations££ the City (2,! f2.d Chester 12 2 ~ ££ ~
Incorporation as a city removes former village property and village residents from the jurisdiction of the township, As indicated above, there would be no more town taxes and the city would assume the village portion of the town debt. City residents do not help to elect town officials,
·The city would operate under a special charter, not under a general state law such as determines the privileges and responsibilities of the village, Those applying for a charter may choose whatever form of government they wish, whether a mayor form, manager form, or a city council made up of elected members, Once established by an act of the legislature, the city may substantially revise its charter locally through t.he enactment of local laws.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The foregoing analysis indicates that the advantages of becoming a city far outweigh the disadvantages to the people of Port Chester, The financial gains would be substantial and greater political independence is another distinct benefit, Thanks to the recent relaxation of the tax limit law for school budgets, there would be no harmful effects in the education area, _/ Only the Town of Rye would
_j The exemption of the retirement and social security payments is for three years, until 1972, but there is every likelihood of extension thereafter by subsequent legislation, -12- be pinched, It would lose more property ta.x income than it would lose in expenses and the area of its political power would be reduced.
The author of this research study recommends, therefore, that the Mayor and the Village Trustees proceed forthwith to employ expert counsel to draw up a proposed charter in consultation with the area's representative in the State Legislature, Public hearings probably should be held to answer objections and to lay the foundation for the public support needed in the local referendum that must follow approval of the proposed charter in Albany.
The problems involved are outlined in Appendix M where a position paper prepared for the Constitutional Convention by the Conference of Mayors details the steps required. (It intentionally exaggerates the difficulties in an effort to get a constitutional improvement in procedure.) Attached also is a copy of the charter proposed for the
"City of Sloatsburg" in 1967 which, unfortunately, did not get out of committee,
Robert B. Pettengill, Ph.D. October 12, 1970 APPENDICES TABLE OF CONTENTS
Appendix A Showing that Per Capita Aid to Cities is $5.00 More Than To Villages ($8.60 vs, $3,60) ,, Appendix B The 11Revenue-Sharing Law of 1970 and an Interpretation by J. Omer Laplante Appendix C Power of Cities to Levy Certain Non-Property Taxes Authorized by Article 28 of the Tax Law; A Summary of the Law by Murray M, Jaros Appendix D Yield of Local Non-Property Taxes in Various Local Governments Outside New York City for Fiscal 1969 Appendix E Estimated Aid to Cities and Villages Under Revenue Sharing Program · Appendix F Budget Summary, Village of Port Chester, 1970-71 Appendix G Budget of Town of Rye, Aprill, 1970 Appendix H Article 5-G - Municipal Cooperation Appendix I Tax Limits of School Districts Appendix J Excepting Interest and Principal Payments on Indebtedness in Figuring Tax Limits of School Districts Appendix K Exception of Retirement and Social Security E;g:,enses in Calculating Real Property Tax Burden Limits Appendix L Summary of School District Budget, 1970-71 Appendix M Method by which a Village May Incorporate into a City, A POSITION PAPER for the Constitutional Convention by the New York State Conference of Mayors Appendix N Proposed ·"Charter for the City of Sloatsburg" APPENDIX A
SHOWING THAT PER CAPITA AID TO CITIES IS $5,00 MORE
THAN TO VILLAGES (ORIGINA.LLY $8,60 vs. $3,60) Sec, 54, Art, 4-A of State Finance Law ~ffiTICLE 4-.A.-S'.I A.TE ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL tW V ~H.~~l!!!.S'l' l}:EW J S,'.!c. 5-.:c. Por car,ito. stntv dd 1 :;ir the support of !oc::.l government. 5-re.. Withh'11Jln~ ol" p:i.yr.,ct t of loe:11 ~ssl:lt11.111lo bJ th1, st:1.te to eoun- tieu, c;til.!3 :i.1:tl v:lb:3"1 s, i:i c6rmiu c:u:;:s. · 54-b. St:i.te ::.ssist:i:u::,:; to ce:tc.fo pub!ic cc:-porntions in which r-.iilio:i.d rel!! pr.ipe:rty is par i:tlly exempt from t:ii.:b.tion. A.:-tic!..i -.-~ :.r.dd~d :>y L.rn.;u c. i.•1. ta. April 1, l':14H.
§ 54. Per CZ.!>ita ~tc.ta aid. for tha "su.p;port of !oc.:tl cove:r.::mi.e.!!.t l. Dcfir.i.ticns. Whun usot. in this section, un](!SS otherwise e:qircssly st.:ifad: .:.. (lj "Popufatio:i." a: a cou:-,ty, city, iown o:- vill:i.;a nicnns the . lW!)1:.!:i.tion ns shown by .the k:Ci!t:t p1·,:;et.! 1•!-. ::.1 :1: ll,c e,i!c•:u)nt· year Jll'.:1•,·,~im.: l!ic t•:1J1,;:,lnr ytiar of ll10 rll11 :1,:: COllUIIIS!IIOZl pursunnt to subd:\'biort fi\'e "( U,i.o; !it-r,Lion for t!," l\':Hll'l ~:~:-:'. i.1 ,;. :· ~::1 :11L::1~:1, <::,t.,j•L (1) wh\!:'e tin, :kct:111:i:d cr.mms of ni,: ,. cnlcndar y(!:cr, pro\'i first .!;.!rtlfl fi,;c:11 yc:>.r in. which nitl pnyinrnts nre: nrf1:r.[t..,J 1,y !,Jui ri!rlur e~,'ia;; lhL• cr.:m,w::~•c11\!11l c,f the :.l:itc fr:•.ml r.::ir in which the .:ppodion 1 !hl·:.t !Pill p.:}'::,·•:,~ a:·,, l!l::,1 ... , Ol' :1 1:p<•dal 11v1,ubli,:m <:1·11,rns c1:rlific,1 to tion :i.ncl the r,mount tl1:1.t woul THE 11REVENUE - SHARING.LAW OF 1970 AND AN INTERPRETATION BY J. Omer Laplante of the New York State Council of Mayors and Other Municipal Officials, Municipal Bulletin, March-July 1970 ,, STATE OF NEW YORK 6811 IN.· ASSEMBLY April 17,. 1970 Inti:oduced by COMMITTEE ON RULES-read once and referred to the Committee on Rules · AN ACT· To amend the state finance law, in relation to state assistance to local government Tiu Poopl• of the Stale of New York, repreunlod in SMIGlo •nd ,hsembly, do ,nacl a: follow,: · l Section 1. Subdivision one of section fifty-four of the state 2 finance law is hereby amended by adding thereto a new paragraph, 3 to be paragraph j, to read as follows: 4 j. "Total state personal income ta:r, collections," for lhe pur li poses of comptttatifm and payment of aid under this section, means G collections, as certified by the state la:,; commission pttrsttant .to 7. subdivision five-a of section filty-fo11r of t1,e state finance law, , 8 from taxes imposed pursuanl to section si:,; hundred one of article . 9 twenty-lwo. of the ta:r, law, e:,;cl11din(J amounts ref11nded to taxpay- 10 era and anwu!'ts set aside as reserues'for paymenl of wch refunds 11 purma11I lo acctiotu si:,; hm,dred fiftv.,,,ne ·and m,h11ndred ..in,tv• 12 ·,ight of article twenty-two of lhe t@ ww. 2 • l § 2. Subdivision two of se~tion fifty.four of such law in hereby · 2 amen,led by adding thereto three new paragraphs, to be para• . :l grapl1s f, g, and h, to read as iollowe: 4 ' /. Additio11al apportionment. Ditrino the [/.Seal vcar of the staid 5 . br.gi1111i?lg April /itst, ni11cteen lwndrcd sevcnty-0110 and in each G s11-cl1 year tilcr'caftcr, there s/ia.!l 1,c paid to the cities, counties, 7 towns and villages of the sfote, in addition to the amoitnts provided 8 by parouraplts a, b, c and d of this rnbdivision, an additional appor g tionmcnt calc1,latcd by determining the amo1mt of ten and one-half 10 , per. cent of tlte total stale _personal incom~ tax collections during • 11 · the prior state fiscal year, subtracting the total amo1tnt required ·· : 12 11.nder paragraphs a, b, c and d above, determining the percentaue 13 whid1 the remainder is of the fotal payments under paragraph$ 14 a, b, c and d, and then increasing the a.mount payable to each l[i co11nty, town, village and city u11dcr paragraphs a, b, o a,ul d by 1G such pc,·ccntoge. 17 !I· Additional city appol'tionmenl. 011 June twenty-fifth, nine IS teen l11mdred se11cnty-onc and in each yea,· thcrca.fter, there shall 19 be paid to the cities in the slate in c2:iste11cc on Apri1 one, nineteen . ,20 l11111drcd sixty-eiuht an amo,mt equal lo ten and on-o-half per cent 21 'of the total state personal income tax coUection.i dttring the prior 22 state fiscal year. S11c/, a11101111t sl,al! be apporlio11ed to sttch cities 23 011 tlie basis of the perccntaue that the total population of each city·· 24 bcnrs to /he lotttl population of all cities in the state. 25 h. Los, of aid to localities. During tits fiscal vear of the slato 26 conimcncing .Apr11 first, 11ineteen hundred seventy-one, the total 27 amount of aid paid to cmy co1111t11, town, village and city ai,cord.ng . . . . . 3 l to tho scl,cd11lc specified ill para.graphs a tlirouoh o of this wbdi• 2 vision s71all, ;n no caso, be less than the antount of aid paid to that 3 county, lown, villago and city according to the schedule specified in 4 paragraphs a thro1tgh e of this wbdivision in the state fiscal year 5 cnmmcnci11g on April first, ninctaen h1rndrcd seventy, 6 § 3, Section fifty.four of such law is hereby amended by adding 7 thereto a new subdivision, to be subdivision five-a, to read 8Jl 8 follows: 9 lia. Certification of total slate persona! income taz collections. 10 The stale ta:,; commission shall prepare and furnish to the stats 11 board of eq11alization and asscssmc1't by May fifteenth of each year, 12 commencing in calendar year nineteen hundred seventy-one, a eer- 13 lifted report setting forth. the total stute personal ineonw ta:i: col-. 14 !cctions d11rin[J the prwr state fiscal year. 15 § 4. Subdivision seven of section fifty-four of su?h law is hereby 16 amended by adding thereto a new paragraph, to be paragraph h, 17 to read as follows : 18 h. Notwilhsta1iding any provision of law fo the contrary, any 19 aid de.rived· by any city p11rsuant to paragraph f of subdivision . 20 two of this sectio1> for stale fiscal year commencing April first, 21 nineteen hundred seventy-one and each. subscq11e11t slate fiscal 22 year which ·e:tceeds the total aid paid to such city pursuant lo 23 paragraph a of s11bdivision two of this section during stale fi,cal 24 yca-r conimcnoinu April first, ninr.lcc11 lmnclrcd aovcnty ,hall bo 25 paid on June twenty-fifth,. nineteen hundred sevsnty-6'119 .and on 26 Juni twentv-fifth of each subsequent llale fi,ca'l year; 27 § 6. Thi& act shall take efi'eot immediately. ).:: I\ 1u:v ii:11 0 F THE nAS 1 C Bteg.tnnin;, w:i th tlw avni.h:lii.U ty PER CAPITA AID FORMUL!1S of 1970 census l.i.g11res, how,,vt'r.·, 1-JH• statute pt'nvides that l'Jf,9 cqunl.:i.zi ro,_• those not c0mpletely L:miil zation rutcs ~1;t be used'with the inr witlt the workings of tht' present new popl!l;iti.011 counts in dl'tcrnd.n:c; per capita aid formulas (§3lf of the per capita t'at:u,; for· ,all co1m,iun:i.U<"s. State finanr.c Law), ancl because dis This method w.ill be in effect in rhc tribution of half of the_ new revenue State's next fiscol year if the of sharing funds is geared to those ficial 1970 ccnsu.;; cour:ts are certified formulas, it may be helpful to re to the State Co~ptroller not lacer than view thC'111 and to look at the effects December 31, 1970, which is considc sanu? t11bl.es •~~!11.f..i:L:~.!.'~~'~!Jt..YB t' :to" .. Q:(_~pp_rox.irr:ntel~. were used t\l c11lculatc the estimutt!d ,2f({, (Sl07 .4 million dividcicl" iiy"$191.9 sharing amon,~ the 62 cit;ies. mil Lion) • · ThP. est.i.nwted pop11l.,.1t:i.nn tot,11 .is some .I.SO, 000 h.i.12;hE1r thun th•c J 'l GO ccnsu,; ;.,ncl ah The second part of the revenue The estimated r.ata in the immedi sharing program, as mentioned at the ately preceding paragraphs produce a outset, involves the other 10. 5% of rate of $27.324 per person. If, how-· income tax revenues, to be shared ever, total 1970 city population turns among the- 62 cities in existence out to be only 10,700,000, then- the Ap!'il. 1, 1968. rate would t>ise (assuming no t'evenue change) to about $27.962. Here, each city's shure depends on its own population, on the total Should the 1970-71 State income population of the 62 citi.es ccnd, of . tax revenue, on the other hand, only course, on how much money the 10.5% match the 1969-70 level, the rate, as allocati·on represents. The statutory suming the 10,950,000 population total, formula was mentioned earl1er. might be about $24.03; or approximately $24.59 if the city population total is To illustrate the approximate only 10,700,000. apportionment of the predicted $299.2 million in this ''block,·• the t!Stimated . Next year, multipl.ication·of the total J.970 city populati<:>n of about actual rate by a city's 1970 population 10,950,000 was taken fro!T'. the popu will fix that city's share of this "ad lation projections of the Office of ditional city apportionmnnt" - for one Planning Coordination, which take yeE'r. ~ * * * * * * * * ~ * * * MHNIC TP.I\L RlTLLETIN - 5 - MARCH-,Jl.JLY 1970 APPENDIX: C POWER OF CITIES TO LEVY CERTAIN N'.:JN-PROPERTY TAXES AUTHORIZED BY ARTICLE 28 of the TAX LAW A SUMMARY OF THE LAW BY Murray M. Jaros, Associate Counsel New York State Office for Local Government NON-PROPERTY TAXES THAT .MAY BE IMPOSED BY A LOCAL GOVERNMENT Murray M. Jaros, Associate Counsel Neu, York Slate Office /or Local Coi,ernmenl. Although the title of my presentation is "Taxes that may be im posed by a local government as an alternative to the ·real property tax," I should like to dispel! a misconception about the scope of this topic. I should like to commence with a clear understanding: ·Under present law there is no alternative to the real property tax. There are additional or supplemental sources of revenue that a local govern ment can utilize as a possibility either to reduce the real property tax or to avoid increasing the real property tax-but in the aggregate these additional sources, at the present time, are not alternatives or substitutes for the real property tax. However, in view of the present conditions of increased c:osts and inflationary trends, the additional sources, though not substitutes, cannot be overlooked. In fact, they may take on new significance. The real property tax generally has been, and in most areas of the State continues to be, the financial backbone and mainstay in financ ing Jocal government services and functions. There are, however1 some exceptions, that is where the real property tax is no longer the major source of revenue. As the population grows and communities continue to develop ·and expand, the. people demand more and better gover.ninental services whether they be refuse disposal, water, lighting or police protection. The local governments have endeavored to meet their responsibilities by undertaking the necessary programs in providing the services and facilities. However, the cost of the services-both capital outlays and operation and maintenance-have continued to rise at a greater rate than the normal increment of economic growth and the increase of the tax base. To meet the higher costs oi services, the local governments still will look to the. real property tax to bear at least some of the tax burden. Permit me to cite a few statistics on the extent of the burden of the real property tax. In the last ten years real property taxes have in creased by approximately 85% in the City of New York and by more than 150% upstate. For school district purposes alone, outside the City of New York, property taxes have increased by over 260o/o dur• · ing the same decade. In total, real property taxes in the State amount to approximately $4 billion annually. Incidentally, when considering an alternative to the property tax keep this figure in mind. [32] MUNICIPAL LAW 33 The property tax burden may be reach.illg a saturation point, not merely from a legal limitation point of view, such as constitutional and statutory tax limitations, but from a practical point of view: The ability of the property owner to bear a greater burden. Since governmental operations must continue and the demand and need for increased and better services similarly continues, various means of providing the services, as well as available sources of reve nue, must be explored·. In the following discussion of existing sources of revenue I will re fer only to those which are of a general nature, rather than to sources of revenue available only to specific local governments. For example, the New York City income tax will not be discussed. I should like to make it clear that in presenting the additional sources I do not intend to debate the relative merits of one or the other, or to propose possible alternatives, but merely to list the applica ble statutes and to mention their salient features. Types of Taxes Authorized I. Pursuant to Tax Law, Section 1210 any county outside the City of New York and. any city is authorized to impose all of the taxes specified in Tax. Law, Article 28, which includes the retail and com pensating use taxes provided in such Article 28. All the provisions of ordinances, local laws or resolutions imposing such tax, including definitions and exemptions, must be identical so far as the provisions of Article 28 can be made applicable. There is, however, a provision for exclusion from the operation of the local tax, certain sales of tangi ble personal property for use or consumption in the production of tangible personal property, gas, electricity and so forth. This par ticular exclusion is in the last paragraph of Tax Law, Section !210(a). The rate at which taxes may be imposed pursuant to Sec tion J210(a) is from one-half percent to a maximum of three percent. The following is a summary of the taxes authorized by Article 28: I. Section l!OS(a)-A three percent tax on the receipts from every retail sale of tangible personal property. 2. Section J!OS(b)-A three percent tax on receipts from sales, other than for resale, of gas, electricity, refrigeration, steam, telephony, telegraphy, except international telephony and· teleg- raphy. · · . 3. Section !!OS(c)-A three percent tax on the receipts from every sale, except for resale, oi the following services: (a) The furnishing of information by printed, mimeo graphed or duplicating matter, with certain exceptions. (b) Producing, fabricating or printing of tangible personal property. · ( c) Installing, maintaining or servicing tangible personal property, with some exceptions. 34 REPORT OF fflE ( d) Storing of tangible personaLproperty. ( e) Maintaining, servicmg or repairing real property, with certain exclusi011s. 4. Section !lOS(d)-A three percent tax on sale of alcoholic beverages, regardless of price charged, and on food served in restaurants, by caterers, bars, cafes and so forth in excess of $1.00, with specified exclusions. 5. Section IIOS(e)-A three percent tax on hotel room occu pancy, except that the tax shall not apply to rents oi permanent residents, and where the rental is less than $2.00 a day. 6. Section 1105 ( f)-A three percent tax on certain admission charges to any place of amusement where the charge is in ex cess of IO cents, except charges for admission to race tracks, box ing or wrestling matches or exhibitions which charges are taxes under any other provision of law, and certain other exceptions, on dues paid to an athletic or soda! club in excess of $10.00, on the amount paid as a charge of a roof garden, cabaret or similar place. II. A county wishing to impose some form of sales tax, is not re quired to impose all of the taxes of Article 28, but is authorized to im pose certain other taxes as it may choose. Thus, Tax Law, Section 1210(b) authorizes a county to impose one or more of the taxes specified in subdivisions (b), (d), (e) and (f).of Section llOS of the Tax Law, listed above. As attorneys, you are well aware of the dangers of taking another persons summaries without actual perusal of the law. Therefore, it would be incumbent on anyone considering imposition of the tax, to read and scrutinize the full text of the applicable statutory pro visions. The foregoing taxes are administered, collected and distributed by the State Tax Commission, as distinguished from administration and collection at the local level. Since Section 1210 contains no provision for a referendum, the decision to impose any of ·the taxes authorized by such Section 1210 must be made by the governing body of the county or city, as the case may be, 1.vithot1t the submission of any ques tion relating thereto to the people for a vote. In other words, no referendum of any kind may be held on the imposition of any of the foregoing taxes. In addition, I invite your attention to the provisions of Tax Law, Section 1210(c) which contains provision relating to the preemptive rights of a county and a city which imposes the same taxes. I will discuss the rights of preemption after outlining the other taxes authorized under Tax Law, Article 29. I also invite your attention to subdivisions ( d) and ( e) of Section 1210 relating to the effective dates of the taxes imposed under .Section 1210 and the filing of certified copies of local laws, ord\nances or resolutions which impese such taxes. · MUNICIPAL LAW 3S III. Any county outside the City of New· York and any city with a population of less than one million is authorized to adopt local Jaws, ordinances or resolutions pursuant to Tax Law, Sections 1202 and 1203, respectively, imposing any of the taxes provided in subdivisions (c), (d) and (e) of Section 1201 of the Tax Law. _Such taxes are to be administered and collected locally and not by the State Tax Commission. The following is a summary of the authorized taxes under this sectlon-: I. Section 1201 ( c)-Privilege taxes on coin-operated amuse ment devices such as juke boxes, pin ball machines and so forth, at a rate not exceeding $25 per year for each such device. 2. Section 1201 ( d)-Taxes on the privilege of selling liquor, wines or beer at retail for on or off premises consumption, not to exceed 25 percent of the amount of the license fee. 3. Section IZOl(e)-Taxcs on the use of passenger cars which are not used for commerdal purposes, at a rate not to exceed $5 if the vehicle is under 3,500 pounds, not exceeding $10 if the vehicle weighs over 3,500 pounds and not exceeding $10 on com mercial vehicles, except farm vehicles, such as trucks, buses and other commercial vehicles. Pursuant to_ Tax Law, Section J2:)2(b) before a county imposes any of the taxes authorized under such section, it may submit the question of whether the taxes should be imposed to-the electors of the• county. In other words, a referendum may be held on the imposi tion of those taxes by a county. However, there ls no similar au• thorization for a referendum where the taxes are being imposed by a city. IV. When requested by a majority of the school board of a school district or districts coterminous with or wholly or partly within a city having a population of less than 125,000, a city is authorized to im pose, on behalf of the ,school districts, the same taxes which the city may impose pursuant to Tax Law, Section 1203. In other words, the taxes which are authorized by Tax Law, Section 1201 (c), /d} and (e) may be imposed on behalf of the school district or districts within the city. In order for such tax to be effective, each school district partly within and partly without the city must also impose the iden_tica! tax within its limits outside of the city. Specific authorization is given to such school districts to impose the tax outside of the city. The taxes so imposed by the city ·on behalf of. the school district or school dis tricts within the city are to be administered and collected by the city, and with respect to the taxes imposed by the school district outside of the city, the school authorities and the governing body of the city may enter into an agreement for the administration and collection by the city on behalf of the school district. 36 REPORT OF THE As in the case of imposition of these 'iaxes by the city for city pur poses, no referendum is authorized witl1 respect to lhe imposition of the taxes on behalf of or by the school districts ( outside the city). V. Another authorization to impose taxes on behalf of a school district is contained in Tax Law, Section 121 I. Pursuant to such Section 121 I on request of a majority of the whole number of the school authorities ·of a school district which is coterminous with, partly or wholly within a city having a population of less than 125,000, the city is authorized to impose for school district purposes the sales and compensating use tax which the city may impose under Section 1210 at a maximum rate not to exceed three percent, or any of the other taxes authorized under Section 1210 which I discussed earlier (namely, those described in subdivisions (b), (d), (e) and (f) of Section 1105). However, if the city is imposing the same taxes for city purposes, and is also imposing the taxes under this section, the aggregate rate of the tax pursuant to both sections cannot exceed three percent. In effect what it means is that ii the city is imposing the taxes at the maximum rate (i.e., three percent) or the rate is three percent by reason of imposition of both the city and the county, no sales tax can be imposed on behali of the school district pursuant to Section I 21 I. The taxes imposed pursuant to Section 121 I are to be administered, collected and distributed by the State Tax Commission. The request by the school authorities and the imposition by the city is not sub ject to any referendum nor is there any provision for the submission of any question to a referendum. VI. Certain school districts are given expressly the authority to impose an additional tax on the receipts from sales, other than resales, of certain utilities. Tax Law, Section 1212(a) authorizes a school district coterminous with, partly or wholly within a city having a population of less than 125,000 to tax the recei ts from sale of certain utilities specified in Tax Law, ection l!0S(b), The maximum rateo7 the taxes imposed pursuant to this section is three percent, and such tax is in addition to any tax which a co~nty or a city may be imposing at the same time. Before the tax may be imposed under this section, the school au thorities are required to hold a public hearing on notice in the manner required for a public hearing .on its tentative budget. However, no referendum is authorized for the imposition of such tax. The tax imposed pursuant to this Section (1212) is to be administered, col lected and distributed by the State Tax Commission. I invite your attention to the remaining provisions of Section 1212 regarding the effective dates and the filing of the necessary resolutions. At this point I should like to discuss briefly the question of pre emptive or prior rights as between a county and a city within_ such _ county which impose the same taxes. The provisions on prior or MUNICIPAL LAW, .. 37 preemptive rights are contained in Tax Law, Section 1224. The county has a prior right on: 1. Any or all of the taxes provided in subdivisions ( c), ( d) and (e) of Section 1201. For example, if the county were to impose the maximum tax of $2j on coin-operated devices under Section 120!(c), the city is precluded from imposing any such tax under Section 1201 (c). However, if the county imposes a tax of only $20, the city may impose a $5 tax on the same coin operated devices. 2. All or any of the taxes described in Article 28 of the Tax Law, namely1 retail sales and compensating use taxes to the ex tent of one-half of the maximum rate of three percent ( i.e., one and one-half percent). In other words, if a county is imposing the maximum three percent tax and the city is also imposing the maximum sales tax, within such city the county may impose only one and one-half percent. Outside such city the three percent would be applicable. Any city in such county has the prior right to impose within the city: I. Any or all of the tars described in subdivisions /b), (d), (e) and(f) of Section 1105. · 2. All of the taxes described in Article 28 to the extent of one-half oi the maximum rate of three percent. However, where a county containing a city with a population of more than 125,000 imposes all the retail sales and compensating use taxes for ( 1) county purposes, and (2) educational purposes or for the allocation and distribution, as provided in Tax Law, Section 1262, the county has a prior right to impose these taxes for county pur poses at a maximum rate of one percent and a prior right to impose such taxes for educational purposes or for allocation and distribution, at a maximum rate of one percent. Thus, in such a situation where a county is imposing the taxes for educational purposes and for county purposes or for allocation, the county_ has a prior right within the city to the extent of two percent, and in such event the city can impose a tax at the maximum rate of only one percent. In view of the prior rights provision of Tax Law, Section 1224, I invite your attention to the related provisions of Tax Law, Section 1223 since it contains some limitations on the effective date of the prior right by both a county and a city. This section, in effect, pro vides that if a county or a city imposes a tax which, by reason of the respective prior right, requires the county or city to reduce its per .. centage, it shall not become effective before the commencement of the county's or city's next succeeding fiscal year, and then only if the county or city has given at least six months notice before the com- 38 REPORT OF .. '.I'HE mencement of the county's or city's fiscal year. The county or city may waive this time limitation. However, even if the time limitation is waived, the tax imposed pursuant to Sections 1210 and 1211 must still comply with the time limitations of Section 1210(d) and (e) and Section 12ll(d) and (e). I also invite your attention to the provisions of Tax Law, Section 1241 which relates to the joint administration and collection by counties and cities of certain taxes which may be imposed by each. Under such Section 1241 (a) the governing body of a county and a city may agree for the imposition by each of one or more of the taxes described in subdivisions (c), (d) and (~) of Section 1201, referred to earlier in this discussion, and for the joint admini~tratiOn and col~ lection of the same including the common use of a single agency for such purposes. In addition, pursuant to Section 124l(b) the county and city may agree for not more than one year at a time that the city will have the sole right to impose the taxes described in Section 1201 (c), (d) and ( e), within the city while the county will have the right to impose such taxes only in the area outside such city. Before completing the references to the other available sources, I merely wish to make reierence to the provisions of Tax Law, Section 1262 which governs the disposition of revenues imposed under Article 29. The particular point of interest is the revenue from the county sales tax. The county has the option of either setting aside the total amount for county purposes or for educational purposes or dividing the amounts between the two or to set aside the total amount for al location and distribution. With respect to amounts not set aside for county or educational purposes, pursuant to the provisions of Sec tion 1262 a city, town or village may elect to receive its proportionate share of the revenues directly which it may apply against its own tax levy rather than as a credit against the county levy in the city, town or village. In addition to the options mentioned before, there are a few other options available to cities and villages. VII. Pursuant to General City Law, Section 20-b, ~ny .city is au thorized to adopt and amend local laws imposing in such city a one percent tax on the income of utilities. · This tax is in addition t<>any other tax authorized by law and is)Jimited to transactions within the e!Y, such as for example telephone calls within the city. Villages are authorized to impose the same one percent tax, sub ject to the same limitations, pursuant to Village Law, Section 6'.-640. VIII. For the purposes of making subsidies under the provisions of Public Housing Law, Section 94, cities, and villages with a popula tion of over 5,000, may impose. one or more of the taxes specified in Public Housing Law, Section 110. · Where a debt is incurred under MUNICIPAL LAW 39 the provisions of the Public Housing Law in excess of the limitation prescribed by the State Constitution, other than by Article 18, the taxes described in Section 110 must be imposed by the city or village, as the case may be. The taxes under .Section 110 are as follows: (A) An excise tax on admission to places of public amuse ment or entertainment, with a graduated scale ranging from one cent on fifty cents on the price of admission, to ten cents on ad mission of over $2.00. ( B) An excise ta" on the possession of each tele11hone at a rate not in elCcess of five cents per month for each telephone to be collected from the subscriber. (C) An excise tax on tenant occupancy, not in excess of $12.00 per year for each separate premise so occupied. (D) An excise tax on the sale of patent medicines sold for consumption within the territorial limits of the city or village, at a rate not in excess of ten percent of 1he purchase price. ( E) An excise tax on tobacco, other than dgarettesi not in excess of ten percent of purchase p,i,:e. ( F) An excise tax on possession :md operation of each vend ing machine, not in excess of 50 c~nts per month per machine. This then completes my list of the other available sources of taxa tion. Before concluding, I would like to suggest for your considera tion another approach as a means of achieving economy and savings. One of the most promising avenues for keeping down costs to local taxpayers for quantity and quality oi services at a reasonable price, is through the joint cooperative or contract device. The authoriza tion for such cooperative device is provided by General Municipal Law, Article 5-G. Briefly, this Article empowers local governments to provide any of their services or to perform their functions on a cooperative basis or on a contract basis. For this purpose, joint and several debt is authorized by State Constitution, Article VIII, Section I and under the implementing legislation in Local Finance Law, Sec tion 15.00. Through the utilization of Article 5-G local governments may be able to achieve savings by providing services and facilities such as water, sewer, computer and so forth. The terms and conditions of an agreement under Article 5-G have to be worked out between the parties. Some guidelines for this purpose are set forth in the Article. As an added incentive to consider utilization of Article 5-G, the Office for Local Government administers a program of State assis tance for cooperative feasibility studies. Under this program the State would v 71 ercent of an a proved feasibility study for co operative undertakings. Thus, local governments that w1s to exp ore the potentials and benefits of cooperation, may be able to undertake• a study before deciding to embark upon a particular undertaking. In 40 REPORT OF THE other words, some money is provided f~r the local governments to •. look before they jump. Conclusion The subject of taxes and services has a direct relation to economic well-being, not only at the State level, but at the local government level as well. Prospective businessmen considering locations or ex pansions look at the community as a whole. The quality of services at reasonable cost is one of the considerations. The soundness of the fiscal structure is another. To achieve both, responsibility dictates that all avenues be explored. . NIEW YO~C{ STATf: BAL'? ASSOCIATION ADDRESSES AT MEETING OF MUNICIPAL LAW SECTION ~ 1~n 81 . NEW voRK, NEW YORK NYSBA JANUARY 29-30, 1970 CONTENTS PAGE "Local Industrial Development Agencies-State Constitutional Aspects"-William E. Redmond, Albany ...... 1 "Industrial Development Agency Financing-Federal Tax As- pects"-Robert W. Marshlow, New York City ...... 5 '~How to Organize and Operate an Industrial Developn1ent Agency"--George W. Cregg, Syracuse ...... • ...... 12 "Non-Property Taxes That May Be Imposed By a Local Govern ment"-Murray M. Jaros, Albany ...... 32 "Some Matters Which Municipal Attorneys Should Know About the New York State Employees' Retirement Sys tem"-Court of Claims Judge Milt9n Alpert ...... 41 "Remarks of Lieutenant Governor Malcolm Wilson" ...... 46 "The School District & Student Unrest"-Frederic Paul Norton, Kenmore ...... • • . . . . . 50 [iii] APPENDIX D YIELD OF LOCAL NON-PROPERTY TAXES IN VARIOUS LOCAL GOVE!OO!ENI'S ·ouTSIDE NEW YORK CITY FOR FISCAL 1969 (N.Y, Department of Aud.it and Control, Division of Municipal Affairs, Bureau of Municipal Research and Statistics) A?PEW.DIX D LOCAL NOl'!-PROPER'£Y TAX RBVENUES Loc:;.l ·Goverruaents in New York St~te Fiscal Years Ended in 1969 State of llew York Department of Audit and Control Division of }fonicipal. Affairs Bureau of Municipal. Research and Statistics LOCAf' HOiJ-PitOPE:°L''.'Y 'ft.)~ f{;,;\' ·.::iu;~s Counties jn J-r .. ;i; Yoi~k ·sk,t(: Fisc1tl Ye,,11• Endnd D;;c"mbor 31, 1969 ======::==-:.::··--·::::-.:..:·======--·:- ..::::.-=--== Cc,un t,1, Imposi 'l'.'. Tax (a) Albanr, $12,570,Jll (2%) Alleg~t,;,' 1, OI.J!;, O::>9 (21'.) B:-oom::: • 7,.380,091 (2;i) CattarauvH . . 2,765, 1n7 Ca,>'llga . • 3,185,812 Chautauqua 5,738, 111-8 Chemun~. , . 1;,89+ ,578 C!um :rn,::o (b) •• , ,. 63,;, 91) (2%) Clintc/c1,.F .! at t,~bur·gh 2,605,?02 Cortland 2,lf27,009 Erie ..• 30,3(J,,(,50 (2;t) $ 5!J, 121 ?. . 11i•1 • ·no Franklin l,63J,6J3 Fulton , 1,235,153 Ganesce, 1,799,092 (2;;;; 74,2J}i Green,:, ·, 1,233, 7e11. (2%) Hamilton 330,278 Jefferson, 4,061, lJ!f Livingzt,on 2,002 ,8~'-4 Madison. 1,331,1,32 (2%) Monroe , . .. 45, 10/f, 591J. Hon t1;01:1cry 1,511, os3 Nassau (b) , 39,136,3£2 (2;&) 1,268,155 (JO%) $370,616 Niagara (b), 5,578,031 Oneida, a • I I I O I t 0 105,131 Onondaga • • 25,029,415 Ontario. 2 ,558,0~!f (2%) 60,769 Orleans. 861,985 (2%) Otsego, l,726,0J2 (2i) Rensselaer 2,712,121 (2p) ' St, Lawrence . ' 3,034,667 Saratoga , , t t O I O t I O I 106,636 113,831 Schuyler. , 709,141) Steuben, , , J,576,059 (2%} Suffolk. (b), . ' 18,309,644 (2}) -2- - - -· - -·-- ·- - --- Harno:-;s R:,ce lilt, t Rnco C,:nmty SaJ.e~ TAX /vlr:n ::; :::·1 n-r. .r.: 'rnx l1di,i :":'."':".'.on::: 'i'~r Imposing 'f8X (a) -r:-;y--:1;,. --(15;.,) (15;0) ,. (2)() SulJ.iv.o.n . • • • • ' ·l• J,0?3,890 $ 137,078 Tior;a, . .. • • . • • · 1,012,08?, (2::I) Tc~nrikins . • ' . . . 3,e.92,662 Ulster (c) . • . . . 1,029,011 (1%) i-,,rar~en . • • . . . • 2,673,819 w.. y,..o, . ' ' • . • • 2,932,961 Westchester . . . • 1 • ' ••••• 217,341 (5%) Yates. . . ' . • • 714,959 Total . • . • • . ~25/,, 769,539 $1,962, ?if6 $ 545,216 (a) Each ta,: was impos0d at the r.:ct0 shown in tho colu,nn headine;, Ul1loss a ,:_.:_:°t':'!":·!~-1: ~~":? :_;:·:~-:';".~:'. :._~ ;-:i.~".'~":ho..--i,.. ".f'~ ':'::" -1:!~':' :,:•FJVSl1'l1.€1S, (b) This tax was imposed Harch 1, 1969, (c) This tax was imposed June 1, 1969, Hote: The reve11ues fro~n the taxes on ad!:'issions to harnosS nnd flat rac~s 1\1ore us0d for cenoral county purp:ises only. -The· sales taX revenues lt:erc. the total n0t collections remitted by the Sbte to the counties. h'hile some o:(' the collllties retained all of this revenue for ganeri,.l county purposes, others shared it with the· cities, to,ms, villages end school districts. -J- LOCAL HON-lJROVil!ll'Y 11A:'.. n:;:;v!::;rw~s Citic,., Vi1lagci:: nnd City S.:!h•,{>l D.Lstr:,ct/; iu lk1-, Yc,i•k !Jt.at.o ,.. E;..dudin1: l:"1-1 l~ork CJ.-i.y Ji=j ~cal Yt;ar-~ r..-idt~d 1n J 9:~9 ======:::::======-:.···-===::::======---=-::::._:,::_, === - · r · I 11'.mi cJ.p.~11. ty ~ t C,:,,11.r-m.!11er-ti D Jh1.. i1c,r,s Rac.o Ot.!i,;.:r,• Iinpovin~ 'i.'.L"'li: (a): S:11.~~~ T,~Y~ L.!:!.ttlttY-1::;,:-c..•:· __,, /v~·-:i.c:;:1.nnfi 1.\"!:.·: ~ T[':j:.os 2',s) . (U:)_ '--- (:1 ·.,;) ___;_ ----- cn·rrn Alb~r;y· ~'~ 676,95!4 I Amst.oJ.•dti:;:i 267,971 (1--1/2;0 (b) Bt. t.r:v:t:.\ / I: $ 7i,,,2J11- Buffalo t 2,4-39,300 C~1:.:.nd.:'!.i gua 394,743 (1-1/2%) Cohc,cs "I 57,783 Fulton 534,690 Ganev:1. 406,318 (1-1/2t) ' Glenc; F"11s 365,681 (1-1/2%) Glovel·t,v.i.lle 38,863 (c,) J ohnE:tm-,,1 32,971+ (c) ,. K:iJ'lgB ton Loni; k,1.ch $ 152,258 (e) Hewbu1•5h Niagara Falls 1,139,719 (3p) (c) 0gden~burg 166 ,2}'2 (1-1/2%) Oneonta 54, 74-5 0s\reso ,•. 850,213 Port J'0rvis ~ !fl,291 Poughk0epsie .. 1,187,776 (f) Rye I 75, 7112 (g) Saratoga Springs 204,515 (1n (d) 106,686 Tro3r j 799,267 (l;i) (b) 91,289 (c) (f) YonkerG 1· 6,107,469 1,304,041 (301,) cities 60 l (Sliorrill • excluded) ! VILLAGES I (123 of the 556 l,1}28,768 (h) eligi.ble) i CITY SCHOOL DISTRICTS Glen Cove i 67,051 GJ.ov0rsville l 101,037 Long Boac;h _I '184,198 Hiddlotown ! 149,678 _ Niagai:-a Falls I! 379,270 Schenectady 403,337 Utica 566,320 Watortown 183,143 I . Total 1$1.) ,598' 201 {ts ,620 ,177 I$1,1}84,961 I$7, 931,1,g3 See following pago for footnotes, -h-.· (a) Each tnx was impos0d at the 1•ate shown in tho colu.1im hrladine, unless o. .difforent rate t.ppeai·s• in parentheso1; aftor t.hc re-venues. (b) This tJJx was _imposr,d 011 Mnrch 1, 1969. (c) This tax was rcpu,led on March 1, 1969. (d) This tc.x wa.s imposed on J'.llle 1, 1969, (e) .'.3% tax en bot.ei 1•oom occupancy and restaurant ruoa.la. (f) The tax rate incroas<>d from 1% to 2'/, on Ha.i:-ch 1, 1969, (g) .'.3'/, ta,"C on amusement aclmissic,ns. (h) 1'/, tax on gross income of utility companies, -s- APPENDlX E ESTIMATED AID TO CITIES AND VILI.AGES UNDER REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM (New York Division of the Budget, Intergovernmental Relations Group, April 17, 1970) County___ WE=S.;:.T.:;,;CHE:;;;;;;..S,;;,;TE;;:;R;__ __ P.ROJECTED EFFECT 0:F NEW REV'ENtJE SHARING PROGRAM State Fiscal Year . · 1970-~l 1971.:.•,. increase Villages thousands or aollars) Ardsley 17,0 28.0 11;0 Briarcliff Manor 24.o 46,0 22.0 Bronxville 24,0 37.0 13,0 Buchanan 8,0 12.0 4,0 Croton-on-Hudson 34.o 42,0 8,o Dobbs Ferry 45,0 68,o 2~.o Elsmford 16,0 24,0 .o Hastings~on-Hudson 43.0 67,0 24,0 Irvington ..,. 23.0 33,0 10.0 Larchmont 25,0 39,0 14.o Mamaroneck 82.0 120,0 38.0 Mount Kisco 28.0 40.0 12.0 North. Pelham 27.0 34.o 7.0 North Tarrytown 41.0 47.0 6.o Ossining 102,0 18◊.0 78.0 Pelham 7.0 12,0 5,0 Pelham Manor 23.0 36,0 13,0 Pleasantville 27,0 39;0 . 12.0 qo·rt-:-Cli:Efs'tev 130,0 _g_8.o carsdale --55~0 ~Q__5,0 39,0 _Tarrytown 50.0 67,0 17.0 Tuckahoe 31,0 41.0 10.0 NOTE: These figures are only rough estimates based on projections of the - factors used in computin/,j: the revenue-sharing payments. Final data on all of these factors {population, full value of.real property, personal income, and State income tax collections) will not be . available until 1971, · . · IRG/DOB 5/70 87 County___ WES____ TC_HE __s_T_ER __ · __ • PROJECTED EFFECT OF NEW REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM State Fiscal Year 1970-71 1971-72 Increase (thousands of dollars) Countv ot Westchester l,?15.0 1,015.0 ••• Cities Mount Vernon 1,850.0 2,958.0 1,108.0 New Rochelle 1,827.0 3,012.0 1,185.0 Peekskill 453,0 784.o 331.0· R:[e _,.. 343.0 664.o 321.0 White Plains 1,m.o 2,020.0 875:t) Yonkers 4,745,0 8,978.0 4,233,0 Towns- Bedford 81.0 138,0 : 57 .o Cortlandt 203.0 297,0 94,0 Eastchester 165,0 262.0 97,0 Greenburgh 371.0 6~3.0 262.0 Harrison 114.o l 9,0 75,0 Lewisboro 29,0 55,0 26.0 Mamoroneck 134,0 221,0 87,0 Mount Pleasant 177,0 295,0 118.0 New Castle 83,0 148,0 65.0 North Castle 43.0 77,0 34·.o North Salem 16.0 31.0 15;0 Ossining .. 116.0 234.0 118.0 Pelham 49.0 77.0 28.0 Pound ridge 17,0 30.0 13.0 Rye 157.0 259.0 102,0 Scarsdale 65.0 103.0 38.0 Somers 37,0 10.0 33.0 Yorktown 1~9~0 236.0 107.0 8ti ESTIJ.!ATED AID TO CITIES UNDER REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM (thousands of dollars} · Total 1970-71 Regular Per Capita And 1271-72 Revenue Shn1•:lne; Aids./ 1971-72 Increase Special City Aid 10 11'.2 Per Cent 10 11'.2 Per Cent (Total) Over 1270-71 :ie·,·1 York City 207,038 143,029 222,639 365,668 158,630 Ubnny 3,200 1,927 3,331 5,258 · 2,058 Buffalo 12,966 7,456 12,434 19,890 6,924 rlochester 7,578 4,222 7,788 12,010 4,432 3yracuse 5,256 3,309 5,643 8,952 3,696 l:onkers 4,745 3,155 5,823 8,218. 4,233 Subtotal 240,783 163,098 257,658 420,756 179,973 !\msterdam 721 427 670 1,097 376 ~uburn 828 520 872 1,392. 564 Eata via- 443 289 500 789 346 Beacon 303 180 314 494 191 Binghamton 1,779 992 · 1,749 2,741 962 :::anandaigua 245 173 295 468 223 :::ohoes ~10 330 414 844 334 :::orning 06 253 51 704 298 :ortland 482 327 442 869 387 Dunkirk - . 410 237 84 721 311 81mira 1,109 673 l,099 1,772 66~ ~ulton 349 238 399 637 28 Jeneva 428 285 ,_l\9_5 750 322 3len Cove 476 365 1,085 509 ::ITen:J Palls 54 278 ~ 757 303 - 2 - ESTUlAl'J::D AID To··crTIES UNDER REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM (thousands of dollars) Total 1970-71 Regular Pc 1, Capita And 1971-72 Revenue Sharing; Aidy 1971-72 Increase Socciul City Aid 10 1/2 Per Cent 10 11'.'.2 Per Cent Total Over 12ZO-Zl G.L,)'.11J\•;1ville 5115 333 529 862 317 1"..1."l:!.... ).11~.I.. I. 351 227 355 582 231 ~~1-~\j:,,.,,111 272 165 262 427 155 :i:t!'!.RCG 711 1156 765 1,221 510 ,Y:l~.!as to·.~n ). , 019 6119 1,085 1,734 715 \~.:,.l~ns [:o:·m 260 161 261 422 162 ::~.nss ton 715 473 788 1,261 546 J°..:?s.:l<".a~•:anna 665 378 771 1,149 484 :;·_.,',. I; [.;ln F·aJ.ls 223 147 263 410 187 ------:~-:.),.~kµu r- t; 642 391 ( 691'') 1,082 440 r.0:-1g E::ach 660 1140 847. 1,287 627 ::-::cl;anicville 172 100 159· 259 87 :::.,:dleto~i:n 509 284 492 776 267 :::01..'..:'1.t Vernon 1,850 1,047 1,911 2,958 1,108 :\~·,iburgh 766 425 716 1,141 375 :·:-·-: ~!"--1... 3 ,, e ·"" 1,827 1,000 2,012 3,012 1,185 :::.~.s;:::.:...."a ~-alls 2,420 1,313 2,282 3,595 1,175 :· ..::--th Tcna;•;anda 878 592 999 1,591 713 :~,:r;•1:!.ch 225 152 259 411 186 C_;;d.r::nsburg 360 243 377 620 260 0:lc?an 541 325 541 866 325 ::r,8ida 288 193 ~24 517 229 <:;.r?onta 361 262 19 681 320 0.;·11ego a35 341 487 928 393 / ::-<.:!rnkiJ.l 53 285 99 784 331 - 3 - ESTIHJ\TED AID TO CITIES UNDER REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM (thousands of dollars) Total ·--71 Regular :::apita And 1271-72 Revenue Sharin~ /\ids/ 1971-72 Increase ,1 Cit;'£ Aid 10 1/2 Per Cent 10 1/2 Per Cent ~ Over 1970-71 Pla'.· 523 355 574 J/1,% 929 406 Por\ . : l~ 231 137 228 365 134 Pou~ :.::psie 932 573 984 1,557 625 Renss-.:.luer 259 166 276 442 183 Rome 1,159 757 1,243 2,000 841 . 343 212 (_~ 664 .:>e.~ amanca 216 14~ ·2 36/ --r~i . 3E=.ra toe;a Springs 435 27 465 739 304 Sclw!'lectady 1,996 1,1~~ 1,913 3,043 1,047 Si1errill 69 79 121 52 T0t:.2.~·.'anda 537 352 600 952 415 T1·..:,y 1,706 1,120 1,722 2,842 1,136 Utica 2,426. 1,575 2,582 4,157 1,731 Watertown 828 508 840 1,348 520 Watervliet 353 219 3112 561 208 1-;.11te P"lains 1,145 665 1,355 2,020 875 Totals 280,232 187,282 299,277* 486,559 206,327 a/ 10 1/2 per cent of total State personal income tax collections in the prior State fiscal - ::.;..::a~ t·1ill be sl:2rcd with all cities, towns., counties and v:tllages., and an additional .· 10 1/2 .oer cent ,-,111 .be ~hared. >11th'. . .. all. cities. . -~~2:~cr::.eds estir:mte H.Y.S. Division or the Budget Intergover:i.mcntal Relations Group JEI:jh - April 17, 1970 APPEND:CX: F BUDGET SUMMARY, VILIAGE OF PORT CHESTER, 1970-71 Vilk1ge of Pod Cnestc. New Yol'lt TAX Ll::VY FISCAL YEAR 1970-71 (APRIL 1, 1970 to MARCH 31, 1971) Assessed Valuation of Real Property ...... $60, 776,800.0o v Assessed Valm1tion Including Spcci::I Franchises ...... $64,987,959.00 TAX RATE PER THOUSAND ... $ 37.5589 BUDGET SUMMARY ADMlNISTRATION HI--Ltl!is.h11ivc S 30~\27.00 20-J11llici.al )),2otl.00 ' J1l.-Excnrli\'C ~i-=~o.uo s c.9,96~.oo STAFF·- 41-.\'ilb~e Tr..:;csurcr JO,S6!:-.0U 43-Vili;:i;r C:lc1 k )C.,,J 1(,.00 44--13i111iv 3,l00.00 - 51-Villai::c ,.~~t·.,.sor \,IOI.OU 54-VillaJ!'" A1t1•1 nC)' 16,7};6,00 58-Villl)!C l::nl)'1ncn I 1,1:S!i.OO 60-~l,..l"uon f..,r,w~c-s 5,75U.00 f.4-J>lanlllll)! 8('a!'(I I.)00,00 65-Zonin)t nu:11 d 1,000.00 74-Vill:i:?<' Hall ... 7,2SIUl0 75-Centr:il C'iar;1ttt ...... 99544.00 ,.,. rl,,,., __ , D,,.,.,, r~"'..,.;~~ln., \0(1 011 214.16S.CJO PUBLIC SAFETY- 8!-r.i1c Dcpanmcnt 208,0!16.0tl f::?-Pri\1::c I.Ji.:p,,nmi.:m 7J GENERAL 290-VII.Li\GE. GENERAL- .. ·-·... 40tl-Lfobility & Fire ln!mrnncc ~~-~ 24,000.00 REVENUES 41.U-Scrvicc Con1r:ic1 with Uniu:d Hos;>it:i.l 3,0mt.on 411J-J'uhlinnion nf Lc~nl Notices ...... 2,mm.ou 441-Fidclity Bll1!ds ...... "'Cl ~~M"''"''' 5011.00 ,..44,7 T;ix c~ssunu Fees +.: .... : .. '--M!'!l'Ah...... 103on.0H- COMMISSIONS- 47S bu1:su111c111:1i Associanons ...... 1 00.ik 1701-Telcphonc Coin Boxes ______900.00 6IO-.tud)!.n1~·nt.,; mu! Cl.lims ...... 5,000.00 62:t.-Ex11c1tM:$ l'lf Vill:1,::c-Ownl!d Property .• 500.011 RENTALS- Ci:!9-St:111.: Rt'lircmc111 System ...... 112,oon.oo ltlOIA-Rcn1al-HCAlih S1:uion 6,000.00 t>.ltl--\\'url.nn:n·~ C1m1rcn:;.11fon Expenses: .... 25,0011.IHI JH0IB-Atlvcrttsinl! Site Rental _____ 6.H-l'olkc rcn~ill11 Fund ...... ~---- 47,000.00 IUO.UO ti.l:!-H11nd Issue nntl C(')uncil Expenses ...... 2,500.{lO l80IC-Rcn1al-AII Others 1.100.00 1.2110.110 n:.J-Stntc $1,)('inl Security -=---- 67,000.00 b)4-<."clcbrn1io11-Dcl.'.'.oration Oay ...... - .... ~ 300.00 6J5-C,:lc:tim1ion-F(lt1rth or July ...... SU0.00 CHARGES FOR SER.VJCES- 6)6-C:clt::hr;,li('lll-Columbus. Day ...... JUtl.00 JIJOJ-Clinic Services ...... ______120.00 fiH-Hu:;pitoliz:nion ···········-----~· 57,imo.uo 1907-Sewcr Connection Services ...... 100.00 • 6SO-C'11ntinµcn1 Account ...... , ... ____ S,000,00 J908-Char11cs For Publication a! fiC.0-Rcs.crvc for UncC1l1cc1ed Ta.:r.cs 10,000.00 LeµI Notices ______MO-lnh:rc~t on Bonds ______56,728.00 200.00- 68 l-ln1cr~1 "'" Notes ...... 48,826.00 1919-S1i-ce1 Openin~ Chnrg:cs .... ---- 300.00 702-P:1ymcn1 tn Humane Sociely 8.700.00 1919A-Sidcwalk, Curo and -Gwtcr 104-Grant 10 Public Lihrnry ..... -~-- 'lS,250.00 Correct.ions ...... --~- 100.00 7lS-F11n1ily Scf91ce7irw?slchcs1cr Co. ,..... 2,500.00 19198-Jnsurance on Street Opening Permits IU0.00 71~roup Life Insurance ...... '1,900.00 634,304.00 1919C-G.\rb:asc Fees 24,000.00 24,920.00 PROVISION FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES: DOWN-PAYMENT ON BONDS-IMPROVEMENTS: 800-StreC'l Liµh!in!! and Trdfic Si!!nal Moderni.t.1\ion (5% of 58,000.00) ...... 400,00 1922-Fire Department Facilities 801-Slreel Resmlacint! & lmprovcmenls Town o{ Rye .. '16,000.00 {5% or sso.oou 00) ...... 2,soo.00 1923-Sewage Disposal Facilities- 802-New Garai:,e and Storage Shed Town of Rye ---- 3,200.00 (5% of $35,000.001 ...... ,...... 1,750.00 1923A-Garbai;e Dumpini::-Towil. of Rye 80.000.00 1926-Snow RcmoYal Chari;es-Sla1c ...... 10,000.00 DOWN PAYMENT ON BONDS-EQUIPMENT: 1927-Call Boxes-Town of Rye Share ...... 700.00 11'5, .. 00.00 805-0ne ( I ) New Snow Loader ---- (5% of $32,000.00) ...... ---- 1,600.00 806-One ( I ) New Sweeper OEPARTME!'.TAL FEES- (5% of S17,000.00) ...... ___ 850,00 1931-Do~ License Fees ...... ---- 200.00 195!-Villa.i:e Clerk's fees ...... SO.DO 807-0ne (I} New Aerial Truck 1953-Huntmi; and Fishing Fees ...... :?50.00 (5% of SIK.500.00) ------925.00 1956-Fec:s From Vital S1:1.t1S1ics ...... 7,200.00 808-0nc ( I) New Diesel Tractor 1957-Policc Dep:ir1mcnt Fees 1,suo.00 (5% of S!9,500.00) ..... ---- 950,00 l9511-Bic::,,cle Ordin:ince Fees ISO.OU 80Y---Onc ( 1) New Aerial Ladder 1959-Zoning ln~pcction Fees ____ 400.00 (S'm of S100,000.00) ____ 5,000.00 13,975.00 1961-S:ircty Inspection Fees ____ 900.00 l9Ci2-Pl:mninl: Commisi.ion Fees ...... IO(J.00 TOTAL VILLAGE GENERAL 648,279.00 1962A-Arehi1cc1ural Board of Review Fees ..--- 500.00 11,250.00 FEES AND CHARGES FOR USE OF RECREATIONAL FACJLITIE~ 2010-fecs £or Use of Moorini:s and Lockers 5,l90.0U lNCOME FROM OTHER SPECIAL ACI!VlTJES- 2201-Parkinl?, Meter Fees ...... '10,000.00 · 2202--Commuter ParkinG Fees ...... 6,590.00 2203-Bini:o 3% of Receipts Fees 4,200.00 80,790.00 STATE AID- 2.hii Per Car,lla ...... ------1291600.00, 2J02 'ruuih Pnifcc1s J,Suu.0o 2Jo:\-Scnim Citl1t:ns 900.00 2JUS-Mor1i:ai:c T:tX 19.5011.110 2J07-Rnilrnad Ta.:r. Loss ...... 8.51ltl,OO 2:lOK-1\cimburscment for Family Service .... 1,2511.00 2JIO-Scw:1i:c Tr.:atmcnl Plant QperaliMn ...... 45,000.00 2:llK-Ni,vii::i.tion ...... ---~...... 600.00 2319-Hi~hway, Traffic & Transpon:ition ...... 13,7CKl.OO 2320-.Juvenilc Aid Bureau ...... ,...... 1,800.00 224,350~00 INTEREST ON DEPOSITS AND lNVESTMENTS- 25111-lntcrcst Earned .5,000.00 FINES, FEES AND FORFEITS- 2625-Fine.s, Fees and For{ellcd Bail Returned by S1att:: • 91,000.00 2627-Fotfchurc ol Deposits ----··""'" .50.00 98.0SO.OV -·l ¥J - MINOR SALES- 2651-Codc and Zanin; Books ----- 100.0D SALE OF ASSETS ANO COMPENSATJON FOR LOSS- 2675-Salc or Equipment -:-,,-a=--- 1.$00.00 2676-Sa.le of L:lntl and/or Buihllnp .,._...... 84.000.00 2680-0thcr Compcnsatlon for Loas ...... ·-·-··. 2,600.00 . 88,100.00 -( 10 )- APPENDIX G BUDGET OF TOWN OF RYE, APRIL l, 1970 ~.., .... 1970 April 1, 1970 Budget for STATE, COUNTY, TOWN, and SPECIAL DISTRICT TAXES Anthony J. Posillipo, Supervisor James Jackson, Receiver of Ta:.:c~ TOWN OF RYE, NEW YORI{ :,:, Y. Sta.te Judlclnl U,Gl3.-t7 Count)' o! Westchester 2,8:S0,l>27.H l31ind 13rook S~wt~r Uistrict ______2Ll3,9L3.GG .M,uu:mmcck Valley ~wer District --- 72,959.83 • TAX RATE PER $1 1000 OF ASSESSED VALUATION TOTAL STATE 11.nd COUNTY TAXES ______;3,201.aa.10 County Town Total Tow1\ Uoard, Counsel ~,------ 3&.050.00 A,h·. ,md Pubhshitu; Not.1ce.3 l,S0U.00 Unincorporated Area ______23.952 20.932 ...... ::::u1h:r\·1:;:or ------JS,iUU,00 . Vmago of Port Chester ______23,9444 1.194 25.1384 19,Gou.uu Village of Mamaroneck 21,954 1.4)4 a.sos. TownL'ompt1·011"•r Clerk __ _ · -···:-:·======_ 19,350.U0 •rowu Justices 19,200.00 Tax Rate Per $1000 for Special Olstrlcta .,\!>SCS'llOr ____ ••- ______2s,~ou.uu h~•,:1:1\Cf" o[ i:lXCS ------•-• ◄ J,Stnl.llO Water District .6392 · Z..!ccl 1u11 ______2~.Jz.1.00 Lighting Dlgtrlct • ..0,785 lown Omce:. ll,lJ0.00 Blind Brook Sewer ------~.• sos Insurance __ · ------7,100,0U Mamaroneck Valley sewer ,741 30,U00.00 Sower District No, 1 ------1,634 lnt~re~tHc1h.-mplion on Debt~r~o~,b~l 3,718.75 Sewer Dl•trlcta 4, 7, 91 10, 11 and 12 (Special Formula) Tnx Notes _ =·=-=:-:=::::::::= 162,0G0.50 Stn.1c Retlreme-nt System ______23,266.00 7,G00.00 SocinlHo.~pitallz.:t.tion Security • ,-.:=-:===-...:.===•••• 6,050.00 AudiLlns: Town Accounts ______2,500.00 Surety Bond Premiums 850.00 Holid:iy Obser:ance ______900.00 Taxes on Town Property 500.00 ASSESSED VALUATION Board of Review 3.100.00 Publicity Fund 1.000.00 Veterans • 1,500.00 Unlncorponi.tod Area. 33,699,622.00 Rye Tot,:n Park 88,885.00 m: 6-t,121,727.00 Public S:i.fety 8,000.00 ~)llageuiaga o°-f &-9rta.maronec Chftsw 2.\,296,0J I.Oil Family Service 3,348.00 $122,117,-4.26.00 U~'lNCORPORATED AREA Town Police 209,176.00 Dulldin; nnd Plumbint; Dept. ---- 2G,H5.00 Fire Protection ~~------ 66,DOO.OO RESUME PlanninJ; Commission 4,5:!5.00 United Hospital 500.00 Doi:: Control fi,R00.00 State Budget .f3,lil3.,t7 Tree Work 1,500.00 County Budget 2,880,827.H Incinerator 40,000.00 County ~wer Districts 276,873,-19 Refuse Pick-up 8.000.00 Town and Special District BudS'eta 1,403,58-4..50 Library 32,500.00 Redemption of Debt 13,00fl,00 $ 4.60,(.895.60 Interest on Debt • .«,187.50 Parks and Recreatlon 73,156.25 ◄ 8.f.789. 75 Le~s Estimated Revenues '10,992.25 4:13,797,60 SUMMARY mGHWAY AND CfVIL DEFEXSE Genera! Town Bud'-et 691,552.25 High'n"ay Fund 20.770.95 Less Esttm::i.ted Re\'enues Superintendent oC Highways_---- ll,03&._oo Town Justices - Fees --- 6,000.00 Civil Defen!!le ______:"'":."~ 500 00 Ta~ Collection Fees 11.000.00 Town Clerk - Fees ______1.fJS0.00 Morts11s;e Tax ______2.67,306.91i 45,000.00 Interest and Penalties 25.0(10.00 SPECIAL DISTR1CT9 ASSESSMENTS EstimatC!d Cash on hand ---- 93.000.00 Retunds-Cily ot Rye (RTP} __ _ 12,250.93 WAter Dli-trlct 17,000.00 Rye Town Park Operations - 6&,000.00 Lishtin~ District __ 20,000.00 Sl::i..te Allocation Fund 1U,i53,30 Sewer District No. l 3,407.80 State Aid-Traffic, Trans. ___ 450,00 Sewer District No. -4. 23,055,00 Dog T~ State Allocation ___ 1,600.00 Sewer Di.strict No. 7 15,990.00 Rents 1,200.00 Se.,·er District No. 9 ]8,]85.00 P. C. Housing Authority ___ 13,000.00 Sewer District No, 10 17.690.00 FamllY Service 3,3-t8.D0 Sewer District No. 11 9,300.00 Co. WesL AJrport Tues-1969- 40,000.00 Sewer Dlatrtct No. n 10,300.00 13.(.921.80 452,382.23 Total Town and Spe<:lal D!atrlct Aaaeasmentlf.-- 1.403,0H.60 NET TOWN CHARGES U6,i70,02 APPENDIX: H ARTIC:\,E_ 5-G - MUNICIPAL COOPERA.TION (See Also APPENDIX: C) ., . Art. 5-G MUNICIPAL COOPERATION § 119-n ARTICLE 5-G-MUNICIPAL COOPERATION. Sec. llD-m. Legislative intent. ·- 119-n. Definitions. 119--0. Per:fom,ance of muni.cipal ~ooperative activities;- alternative powers, Historical Noto Article added by L.1000, c. 102, err. Feb. 23, 1960. § 119-m. Legislative intent_ The provisions of this article are designed to effectuate in part (1) section two-a of article eight of the constitution and (2) section one of article eight of the constitution as amended Janu ary first, nineteen hundred sixty, and shall be in addition to and not in substitution for or in limitation of any other authorization , for performance by municipal corporations or districts of their functions, powers or duties on a cooperative, joint or contract basis. Added L.1960, c. 102; amended L.1961, c, 681, eff, April , 18, 1961. Library references~ Municipal Corporations e=57; O.J.S: ?tiuniclpal Cor_. porntions § 106 et seq. · Historical Noto r .. 1001, c. G81, § l, err. April 1S, application ot. Const. Art. 8, § 2-a, 1001, omitted scntcnci? rcl.'.l.ting to the to certain joint services. § 119-n. Definitions As used herein: a. The term "municipal corporation" means a county outside the city of New York, a city, a town, a village, or a school dis trict. The term "municipal corporation" shall also mean a fire district for the purpose of agnements among two or more fire districts. b. The term "district" means a county or town improvement district foi• which the county or town or towns in which such district is located is or are required to pledge its or their faith and credit for the payment of the principal of and interest on all indebtedness to be contracted for the purposes of such dis trict. c. The term "joint service" means joint provision of any municipal facility, service, activity, project or un~ertaking or 23 McKIMey 55 l-l'J9-2S 385 § 119-n GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW Art. 5-G tho joint performance or exercise of any function or power which each of· the mtmicipal corporations or districts has the power by any other general or special Jaw. to,.provide, perform or ex- ercise, separately. ·,_ .. d. The tcnn "joint water, sewage or drainage project" means a joint p1·oject to p1·ovide for a common supply of water, the common conveyance, treatment·and disposal of sewage or a com mon drainage system, as described in paragraphs B, D and F of section two-a of article eight of the constitution. e. The term "voting strength" means the aggregate number of votes which all the members of the local governing body of r, municipal corporation or district are entitled to cast. Added L.1960, c. 102; amended L.19Gl, c. 681, § 2; L.1963, c. 15; L. 1964, c. 355, eff. April 3, 1964. Library refcrcr.cos: Counties ~211JJ i Mnniclpnl Corporations e=,~7; Schools and· School Dlstrh::ts e:>21 i Towns e=1r;; O.J.S. Counties § 40; C.J.S. J.!unicip::i.l Corporations § 100 ct seq. ; C.J.S. Schools a.nd School Districts i 25; O.J.S. To,vns §§ 34, 3S. Historioal Note Pnr. n a.mCndcd by L.1004, c. 355, ancc or cxal'cise of n.ny functton or cf!. April 3, 1064, which Jncludcd a. Po\VC:r" nnd ''perform or excrci.se." fire district for purpose of agree Par. d added by L.1061, c. 681, § 2; ments among two or more such dis cfl', April 18, 1961. Former par. d tricts, rclcttcred c. Par. c amended by L.1061, c. 681, § Par. e formerly d, reJcttcrctl c IJ;y 2: L.1003, 15, Feb. 25, 1963. c. err. L.1961, c. 681, § 2 eff. April 18 1061. L.1003 inserted "or the joint perform•.. 1 1 § 119-o. Performance of mwticipal cooperative activities; alternative powers 1. In addition to any other general or special powers vested in municipal corporations and districts for the performance of their respective functions, powers or duties on an individual, cooperative, joint or contract basis, municipal corporations and districts shall have power to enter into, amend, cancel and termi nate agreements for the performance among themselves of theii· respective functions, powers and duties or for the provision of a joint service or a joint water, sewage or drainage project. Any agreement entered into hereunder shall be approved by each par ticipating municipal corporation or district by a three-fourths vote of the voting strength of its governing body. Where the authority of any municipal corporation or district to perform by itself any function, power and duty or to provide by itself any facility, service, activity, project or undertaking or the financing 386 Art. 5-G MUNICIPAL COOPEnATlON § 119-o thereof is, by any other gencrnl or special law, subject to a public hcal'ing, a mandatory or permissive referendum, consents of gov ernmental agencies, or other rcquirc1u.cnts applicable to the making of contracts, then its right 'fo p~rticipate in an agree ment hereunder shall be similarly coni:litioned. 2. An ag1·ecment may contain provisions relating to: a. A method or formula for equitably providing for and al locating revenues and for equitably allocating and financing the capital and operating costs, including payments to reserve funds authorized by law and payments of principal and interest on ob lig·ations. Such method or formula shall be established by the participating corporations or districts on a ratio of full valua tions of 1·eal property, or on the basis of the amount of services rendered or to be rendered, or benefits received or conferred or . to be received or conferred, or on any other equitable basis, includ ing the levying of taxes or assessments to pay such costs on the entire area of the corporation or district, or on a part thereof, which is benefited or which receives the service. b. Tiie manne1· of employing, engaging, compensating, trans ferring or discharging necessary p-,rsonnel, subject, however, to the provisions of the civil service law where applicable; the making of employer's contributions for retirement, social securi ty, health insurance, workmen's compensation and other similar benefits; the approval of attendances at conventions, conferenc Historion.l Note L.1061, c. 0S1, § 3, ctr. April lS, rclcrcncas to joint water,• sc,r-ng~ or 1061, amom: ·other ch.nngl?S, inserted drainage project throughout section. 388 APPENDJX I TAX LIMITS OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS Section. 2701, Article 54, ·state Constitution Ari, 54 TAX LIMITATIONS § 2701 § 2701° EiDUCATION LAW T_me 2 l>e rnisecl, in ;1.ccordunce with section ten of article eight c:,f L!:e constitution, by tnx·on rcn.l estate in ~my fiscnl yenr for schc,ol ARTICLE 3-!-F.LEC1'IONS TO INCUEASE COXSTITUTION Oistl:ict purposes, in addition to providing for the:;, interest 011 AL TAX LIM11'ATIONS OF SCHOOL DISTilICTS CO• nnd the pl'incipal of nll indebtedness, shall not exceed mt amount 'l'ER:i.IINOUS WITH, PARTLY Wl'J'JIIN OR WHOLLY equal to the following percentages of the aver,,gc full valuation wr.:~HIN (;!1"IES HAVING LESS TH.AN ONE HUNDRED of taxri.ble real estate of such school clistdct, less the amount to TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND !NHA!llTANTS be raised by tax on real estate in such yC?ar f~l' the payment of the interest on and redemption of ccl'tificates _oi· other_ evidcnc~ sec, of indebtedness d"eScriOe'.d in p!lt=ii::jrai,hs A"arld°D of secHOit fi~e 2;01. Constitutional tax limitations of cert!l.in school districts: of a"rBclS"eigllt Of the constitution, or renewals thereof: 2702. Resolution to submit proposition to increase liffiit11tion. a. One and one-quai·ter per centum, or 2i03. Xotice of submission of proposition. 2i0.J. Procedure. b. One and one-half per centum, if the taxes subject to this :!7US. Repca!ed. limitation levied for any such school district for its ffrst fiscal 27VG. Certification of approved proposition. year beginning on or after July ffrst, nineteen hundred fol'ty. seven, were in excess of one and one-quarter pet· centum but not Jii.3to:-ical Noto greater than one and one-half per centum, or .\rlll"l•~ n!l,i.~,l r,.10-m, c. S.J.'i, ca. Former Arti<-lc ;;s, which rcln!cLI to c. One and three-qunrters per centum, if thC? taxes subject to J,111. l, lH,>O, !t wm; (<.irml.'rly l'I f\1\rt cc1·tlflcd shol·thnnd rC'Pnrtcr~, Ii; now o: 'l'illl? Ill which wns rcrw(lk1l lly co,·c1·cd hy Article J.Gl. this limitation levied for any such school district ior its first fis J,.~,::;a, c, 67,9, § l;\, <.'ff. April 20, t•·ormP.r ,\1·tic!c G!l, l\"hlch rc•lnt('il to cal year beginning on 01· after July first, nineteen hundt·ed for :r,~;t. ~nlU section 15 trnns!cri-ccl A1·• ~cicntiflc :ind historic plnc('s, is uow ty-seven, were in excess of one and one-half per centum but not tictr:s Jl, ii2 n1ul ::i-'J fl'Olll 'l'lllc III to co,·cn·c,i hy Arllclc 3, l'nrt IV". Ulis tltlc, but matle no rc!ercncc to greater than one and three-qum:ters pet· centum, or A;tlclcC--1. Sep::irablllty. J,nws l!HO, r. S-J7, § 2, [ltoJl'i1!(.>t\ th:"lt: "I! :rny cl:rn:w, s-:u d. Two per centum, if the taxes subject to this limitation lev For:ner Articles 54-5!1. tcucc, 1mra;:raph, scctlou or 11:1,rt ot ied for any such school district for its first fiscal year beginning For1n-:!r Article ii-J, wl,lch rclntcd to ;,,rt!clc Ci!ly•four of the c!lucntlon on or after July first, nineteen hundred forty-seven, were in ex .n11t,:,n1etrr, Is now cOV(!retl !;3 Article lnw, ns n '> Tu the event that on or afte1· January fh·st, nineteen b. The full valuation of the taxable real estp.~ of such dis. / htt;;drt=d fifty, :my school clish·ict shall be £.0!:1,.~9.lid~~ with one trict deternimed from the assessinent rolls upon w?i~h the appor or more school districts, and such consolidated dish·_ict is cot~r tionment and levy of the school taxes referred to mJparagx.:,.~ minonz with or partly within or wholly ,.,.ithin any city_ to. w~1ch , of this subdivision were respectively bnsed. Any tax. 1imitntion .·· fois articic applies, it is hereby prescribed t_lm~ the_ h~1t.:lt1011, pr~vided in this subdivision may be increased as provided in this/ n,;t excceclin:;r two p(!r C(!ntum, for such conso!tdat(!d thstr1ct shall arl1clc. / oo enc a::-.d oncH;u~.rtat per centum, one and one~hnlf per c;ntum, ,t. In no event shall the constitutional tax limitation foi- any one ar,d three~qun.rt!!rs per cedum or two per centum, wluchcvex.- school dist1'ict or consolidated school district to which this section shall be highei· by not less than one-quarter of one per centum applies exceed two per cent.um. r::,:;_i rnr.n the ratio of; / · 5. a. The a.vernge full valuation o( taxable real estate ~-f~ a. The total of the school taxes levied on the taxable real es school district shall be cfeter ·ne ~JJ¥.,.taking the assessed valun~ \ tate of tho area within such district for the la~t fiscal year b~ Uons of taxable real esta1e"on the last completed nnd the four f;:ire consolidation for purposes which were s_ubJect to the consti- preceding assessment rolls of such district, and applying to the, ti.:t:vnal tax limitation 01· which would have been subject. ihei:eto appropriate portions thereof the city o.i1d town equalization rates if such limitation had been applicable to the school district for established by the authorized state offlce1· or agency fo1· t.he rolls which such taxes wei-e levied, to on which such school district rolls were based. In such computa~ b. The iull valuation of the taxable real est~te of such con tions the last completed assessment roll of a school district shall be the latest school district roll for all parts of which lhe equali-/ soU(!ated dLs~rid dclermined from the nssessmcnt rolls upon. zation rates to be applied ther~to shall have.been established; _;-~ whkh the ap;,ortionment :l.nd )cv;r of the school trixes referred ~o i:-i paragraph a of this subdivision were respectively based. "-., .: b. Where, after a consolidated school district shall have be~;f Cl'eated: t--~ c. The tax limitation of a consolidated school.district created Uilder the provisions of this chapter, shall not be lower, in any. (1) There is no com)'.ll~ted assessment roll of such district\;'f e1:er,t than the tax limitation of lhe city school district in-• so created on the last day on which such distdct determined or determines the a·motmt ta be raised by tax on real estnlo for its d:.:dcd in such consolidation, as in effect immE!diately·-.,,p~ first fiscal year after such creation, which fiscal year iJh:tll have ~1:ig such, consolidation. An~ ta.x_ li~~tati~~ provided in ~ ~ commenced on or after July first, nineteen hundred forty~S'even, ·. ~s'ection may be inc:i·eased as prov1ded rn dus arttcle. ; the average full valuation of the taxable real estate of ~nch ~- In ".;b &\·r•nt that on 01· aitcr January first, ninelcen .. · school district shall be determined from the ~!.J:Qm~leted .:fS- :,•::·;~1e.J fifty-r.i;te any school district 0:€7_~~! ..~-~ho~!_,~i~trict··: sessment rolls upon wl1ich the re~I estate included irl siidl dis,, c-:tc::·1i!r.ou.; with 01=·1;-tii·tIY"'\viihii\0r\Vholly within anY;'._£ili,:. to·· trict was assessed for school purposes prior to such creation, or r:::::h this a!·ticie nppli::!s, eithCl' as a result of the enlargement {2) There jg a.t least one but less than five completed assess ~: ct;:y :;ounda1·ies or of the incorporation of a city, it is hereby . ment rolls of such dish·ict as so created, on the last day· on which prascribed .that tlte limitation, not exceeding two per centum for-,. such district determined or determines Uc-a amount to be raised such district shall be one and one~qua;1er _per centum, one .and .: by tax on real estate for a fiscal year ~tar such creation, ·the' · · .- .. · ·-~- ... · ·· 3~z ...: 364 Art, 5.J T \X LIMITATIONS § 2701 :wcrnEte full 'valuation If the taxa.ble rea1 estate of such school district i.hall be determ ued from the Inst completed assessment roll and the preceding ;.ssessment rolls, if any, of such disti-ict thnt were completed after such creation. c. Where, after the boundaries of any school district shall have bel?n altered so t iat real estate subject to taxation for. school pm·poses shall h~ ve been theretly added to or subtracted from the nren of such dis ;i·ict: (1) There is no comz:leted assessment roll of such district ns so nltered on the last di y on which such district determined or determines the·amount 10 be raised by tax on real estate for its first fiscal year after I uch alteration, which fiscal year shall have commenced on 01· 1 fter July first, nineteen hundred forty. seven, the average full valuation of the taxable real estate of such school district shnl be determined from the last completed · :i:ss~ssmcnt rolls and th-: four preceding assessment rolls upon· which the real estate in•:ludetl in such dlstrict was assessed for school pm-poses prior to~ uch alteration, or (2) There is at least ·me but less than five completed assess~ mcnt rcills of such ;.n:~toriciAl Noto Snlul. l lHIJt'n•kil L.10:i~. c. 3 io, 5 G, S11bt1, 2 nmcndctl T,,J9;;:J, c. 77:l: ~u. :<.fare!! :!O, l!XH; L.lOOO, I. 1013. r,.rn:n, c. 74J, ! o, err. April 1~. l!ljc&: f 2, t!lt. Juuc· l, 1000, L,rnGO 11dtlct1 r,.wo.s, c. 437, ctr. Julr 1, rnaa; I,. pnr:i::r:i11h beglnn1Dg "It !l.ny Jc iot in l070, c, 720, 5 l, ctr. ?tJ11y 12, 10.0. tlebtcdneSll". r,.10GS, In pnr. c, Included rctorcncc 365 · ,. APPENDIX J EXCEPTING IN'rEREST AND PRINCIPAL PAYMENTS ON INDEBTEDNESS IN FIGURING TAX LIMITS OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS Article 8, Section 10, State Constitution Art. 8, § 9 LOCAL FINANCES Library ltoforcncoa CounUcs Notes of Decisions I, Salaries of county cmJJJoyees Forro('.r .sect.ion 10 J)roviclcd 1n pnrt cmrnr.y fO cmbrnccd within n clty thn.t "whcnc\'cr OJc homidnt·ics or n from obllr.ntin~ it-<.:cJC to pny the ex dt,1 nrc thca so.me n& thor.c of n. conn penses Jncldcnt to ilR m:dnlcunnce, t;;1 or when nuy cily ~lrnll i11chulc Ln\"t"S Hl01, cc. 70-4, 71):i, 7UC1 :lffixins wilbin Its boundnri.cs 1Ut1rc llrn.n one Fnlo.rfos to the oHicC'~'- or. shcrirr, reg, county, the po\\'Cr oC any county-, islcr nnd county clcrl:: or Kings C0\111• · wholl;r incluilcd willlin such city to t.y, were not unconstit.ution:;l IC con• become indebted, shnll cease." 'l'hnt strucd to create an inclchLcdnC!i.s on provision related only to lnclcl.Jtcdncss the part Ctf Inn;;s coun(.y. McGr:Hb for other pi1rposcs thnn the m:i.lntc-- v. Grout, lUO:?, 171 N.Y. 7, (i3 .N.B. 11nncc of ~be counts as n political or 547. canizo.ti~n nncl did not lnllibit a § 10. [Limitations 011 amouut to be raised by real csta(c faxes for local purposes; cxecp!ions] Hereafter, in any county, city, village or school clistrict de scribed in this section, the amount to be raised by tax on real es tate in any fiscal year, in addition to providing fo,· the interest V•'- c:.,ln1 ~:1.__ p1 ~•J\..;pc.,,: v: a~: :u..:-..!..~..:..J1,:...,~; .:.:u.J: uV~ ._,;._._,._,..,.: u.11 amount equal to the following percentages of the ,wernge full valuation of taxable real estate of such county, city. village o. sc.hool district, less 'the amount to be rai~ed by tax on real estate in such year fo1•· the payment of the interest on and redemption of certificates or other evidence of indebtedness described in paragraphs A and D of section five of this nrticle, or renewals thereof: · (a) any county, for county purposes, one and one-half per cen tum; provided, however, that the legislature may prescribe a method by which such limitation may be increased to not to ex ceed two per ccntmn; (b) any city of one hundred twenty-five thousand or more in habitants according to the latest federal census, for city purpos es, two per centum; (c) any city having less than one hundred twenty-five thou sand inhabitants according to the latest federal census, for city pui·poses, two per centmn; (d) any village, for village purposes, two percentl)m; (e) any school district whic\l is coterminous with or partly within or who\Jy within, a city having less than one hund1·ed twen ty-five thousand inhabitants .according to the latest federal cen- 498 REAL ESTATE TAXES Art:. 8, § 10 sus, foi· school district pur1ioses, one and one-quarter per ccn tum; provided, however, that if the ~~xes subject to this limita t.ion levied for any snch school district for its first fiscal ye:,r beginning on or after .Tuly first, nineteen hundred forty-seven, were in excess of one and one-quarter perccntum but not greater than one and one-half per centum, then for such school district the limitation shall be one and one-half per centum; ur if such t~xcs were in excess of one and one-half per ccnium but not greater than one and three-quarters per centum for such fiscal year, then for such school district the limitation shall be one arnl three-quarters per centmn; or if such taxes were in excess of one and three-quarters per centum ·for such fiscal rem·, then for such schooi rlisfrict the Timitntion shrt!l be t,vo-pcr c·eiitum. 1;he 1imitatioii71ercinifn"1ioseu for any such school district mn,:-be in cr-eased by the appro\"ing vote of s:,:ty per centnm or more of the duly qualified voters of such school district voting on a prop osition therefor submitted at a gcn"rnl or special election. Any such proposition shall provide only for an additional one-quarter of one p_er centum in excess of the limit,.tion applicable to s:1ch /;"-:-l1nr.l Mi~+,,;,.t,- .... + J.!,.,. H....,n r,.f_ c-~~1 .. .-. .. ;r<-;,...... , ,.,,.; ~,.,...1-, !'''f'\:"'"'"';H·,.,". When such a proposition has been submitted and ,,pproved by the voters of the school district as herein provided, no proposi tion for a further inc,·ease in such limitation shall be submit,ed for a period of .one yen,· computed from the date of submiss:.c,n of the approved proposition, provided that where n proposition for an incren.se is submitted and rq-iproved at a general election or an annual school elc:::tion, a pro1msition for a further increase may be submitted at the corresponcling election in ihe following year. 'fhe legisbture shnll prescribe by law thB ,1.u::.!~::~.:.cl.t:ons for voting at any such election. In the evelit any such school district shall be consolidated with any one 01· more school dis tricts, the legislature shall prescribe a limitation, not exceeding two per centum, for such consolidated district. Thereafter, such limitation may be increased as provided in this sub-paragraph (e). In no event shall the limitation for any school district or consolidated school district described in this sub-paragraph ( e) exceed two per cen tum. (f) Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the city of New York and. the counties therein, for city and county purposes, a combined total of two· and one-half per centum. The average full valuation of taxable real estate of such coun ty, city, village or school district shall be dete1mined by taking 499 Art, 8, § 10 LOCAL FINANCES the assessed valuations of taxable real estate on the last-complet ed assessment rolls and the four prcccdin1: rolb of such count;-, cilJ', village or school disll'ict, and applyinrr lhcrclo the ratio which such assessed v,,luation on each of such rolls bears io lhe . full valuation, as ,1cte1·mincd by the state tax commission or by such other state officer or agency as the legislature shall by law direct. The legislature shall prescribe the manner by which such ratio shall be de!:ermined by the state tax commission or by such other state officer or agenCJ'• Nothing contained in this section shaU be deemed to restrict the powers granted to the legislature by other provisions of this co[)st.itution lo further restrict the powern of any county, cit)', town, village or school district to levy taxes on real estate. Amended Nov. 8, 1949; Nov. 3, 195~, eff. Jan. 1, 1954. liisto1.-ioa.l 2:ioto 'l'he 1040 nmcn Cross :Re£orenccs Amounts 1o be -lnc:-ltHlC'd Ot' cxcludctl in computing con~tHulional tnxing power, see County Lnw § 233-n. Date !or determining last cc11nplctcd ilsscssmcnt rolls, sec Gcnaral Com.true• tton Law§ 01. Proccdul'C to incrcnsc constitutional ta~ limilnt.ion, see County Law § :la3. Library References Counties (:';::)100{2). C.J.S. Municipal Corporations 5§ 1t.[uniei1>al Corporations ¢:,0J0{2), . 10S0-1001. SchooJs and School Dl~tricts C.J.S. Schools and Sc11ool Districts =101. ! 3Sl. '!'owns ¢::>G4 • C..J .S. Towns §§ ltiG, lOL .C.J.S. Counties§ 2i0. Notes of Decisions Average De!Jls within lirnltatlon-Conl'd Assessed valuation 4 · Sewer rents JO Full valuation 3 Sinking funds and ·reserves fl CltJes of 125,000 or less I Snow removal 12 j)ebts within JlmltatJon 5-12 Duration of tax lncreaso 13 GoneraUy 5 EducatJon, debts within limitation 6 Education 6 ' Flro deJJartments, debts within Umi• Fire departments 7 tations 7 Libraries O Injunction against Illegal tax t4 Pension, 9 Libraries, debts wJthln limitation 8 500 APPENDIX K EXCEPrION OF RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECUR!'l'Y EXPENSES IN CALCUIATING RFAL PROPERTY TAX BURDEN LIMITS Ch. 183, Section 3609, Paragraph 10, Laws of 1969 1969 REGULAR SESSION Ch. 183 /' Education-Apportionment of Moneys CHAPTER 183 An Act to nmcnd the education Jn.w, In rclo.tlon to the apportionment of puhlic tncuicya a.ud the computR.tlon of sl:Llc !hu~ncla.l assl.s:tn.11ce to $Chool districts and to bonrd:, cit coopcrattve ('ducalJonnl serv ices, ln<'lmling minimum a.p11C1rllonmcnls, aid rnllo, nl:z;e correction, n.pportionm(:nt for pup.II trnn!'lportatlon. to pro,•ioe temporary np portlonr.1cnl ror hlS"h tux ro.tc dl.cr.trlcts: to extend the durntiun of ccttain 11rol'islons for such apportionment 11nd to rcpcnl i;ubdl vlsionR clcht, nine and clc,•en o( section thirty-six hundred two of such lnw, relating to pn}•m~nt of n1,port1onment lo school districts, subdivision two of section thirty-six hundred Lwo b, and ::;ecllou el&hl o( ch1t.pter six hundred elghly-fh•e of lhe lt1.ws o( nineteen hundr('d sixty-ell;ht, enlltlcd "An n.ct to amend lhe education Jaw, In relation lo the apportionment o( public mnne)'B to school districts, emplorln,!;' eii;-ht or more teachers, for opera.tlni:; cellln,!;'s, use oC cur rent hudi;ets by certah1 d!strlcls, flnt grants. lime o( pa)'mant. ur ban dlstrkl.11 haYlng speelal educallona.l necd:-i, n.nd high tti..X rate distrids, nml to a.me.nd chn pter four hundred elS'hty-four or tho laws ot nineteen hundred sb:n·-seven. entitled 'An a.ct In rela.tion to the ori;nnlzation o( the CltY school district o( the city or New York,' In relation to temporarily conllnulng the npportlonmcnt of public moneys to such &chool tllstrict on a borough· bnsis", 0.11d to provide {or the exclusion by ccrtn.ln school dlstrlct;11 or employer contributions to state retirement .syslcms n.ncl the state socla.l secutil)' n.ge-nc)· from to.x limitations, o.nd to amend chapter fh•e hundred sixty-six of the laws or nineteen hundred atxty•SC\'en en titled "An act 13rovldlng for the apportionment ot funds to certnln . special school districts". The People of the State of New Yo1'k, ,·epresented in Senate ,.nd Assembly, do enact ns follows: S<"ction 1. S<.•l'lion t.hirt.r-six hundred nine of the education lnw 1 M amended by chnptcr se,·en hundred sixt.y.two of the ln.ws of nine• teen hnndred fifty, subdivision one thereof h1n·ing been last nniendP.d by ehuptcr one hnntll'cd fifty-two of the laws of nineteen hundred sixty, is hereby amended to reRd ns follows: § 3609. Moneys apportioned, when and how payable 1. An cstimntcd e+re-~• eight. nnd one-third pcrcentum of the moneys to he a.p11ortioned by the commissioner of education to -e+t-y school dist!'icts nnd efh.e.;a ..Ji&&! di~...,. 1ttw;,,,i & 4'i"""1 - id.... #ea-l ~ .t-he eAlent-~91' ~ boards of coopern.th·e cducntional services chuing any school veni· shall be payable on or before the fifteenth· day of onch of the months of September, October, November, January and Fr.brnar\' ~ twe~ &+1-efl. &fll+\-tfH e-flflSFtionmeRt, an estimated ...,..'l"...i.,. &J' .,..J, - she-II I>., ~ "" ,.. Def9i' rnorC\ tlum ntHi-ci~hl.h or. one por nC'utmn of the nctunl va1unl.ion of tho tnxnLlo 1·cnl prnpcirt.y or s11d1 ,lisl.rh:t ns clcfin~ sections ~ix, seven, ci,..ht0 and Lwentv• of this net. ~.., § 10. 1"'olwilhsinn tho pcmod bcg-rnn1ng- July f1;:sl 1 nrn~tcen hundred so.:ty-mne nnd cndmg / June thirtieth, ninclcen haMirc two of the cdur.ation lnw1 ns Inst r.mC'nded by chapter six hundred cightyw fi\'c of the laws of nineteen hundred sixty-eight, is hereby amcn SUMMA.RY OF SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET, 1970-1971 District #4, Town of R,ye, ·Port Chester, N.Y, POSITION PAPER NUMBER ONE of the NEW YORK STATE CONFERENCE OF MAYORS RELATING TO CONSTITUT!ONA'L REVISION This position paper relates to the following subjects: Incorporation of Cit• ies by General Law, Consolidation, Annexation, Municipal Cooperation and Power of Contract. INCORPORATION OF CITIES BY GENERAL LAW The Conference of Mayors recommends that the Constitution should pro vide for the incorporation of cities by general law. There are over twenty boards of trustees of villages in this state that have been studying the possibility of incorporating their villages into new cities. The individual independent studies in each of such villages proved that greater services could be obtained by the people for the same tax dollars under the city form of government, provided the city charters were _properly drafted. There are also a number of independent studies now being conducted by pub lic officials and taxpayers ta develop plans to reorganize their local govern ment in order ta obtain a more efficient form of local government. In some instances, the studies indicate that more efficient and effective local govern ment could be obtained in the event a town and a village incorporated as one city. There are other instances which have indicated that a city and a town could operate more effectively and at less expense if both units merged as one city. While local officials and, often, the taxpayers of local governments recog nize that efficiency and economy in government can be so attained, the Legis lature of the State of New York has made no effort to provide the statutory procedure or authority ta incorporate cities by general law .. In fact, the existing provisions of the Constitution do place sufficient road blocks on the route to incorporation so that no new cities h3:ve been creat~d in this state since 1942, a quarter of a century ago. While state officials give much talk ana°time to the development of better local government, no major effort has been made to provide one proven, basic necessary goal• a general statute that will authorize incorporation of cities. The only method by which a village may incorporate into a city, for ex ample, is by following this arduous course: · 1. Develop local public support for incorporation. 2. Appropriate funds for the preparation of a special act of U1e Legisla ture that provides for the incorporation of a new city. 3. Hire a consultant or attorney to prepare the special act of the Legis lature that provides for the incorporation of a new city. 4. Discuss the proposed bill with many local groups and local officials to develop an acceptable city charter. -2· 5. Discuss the proposed bill with many state agencies to attempt to sat isfy their objections to the proposed charter. 6. Procure the introduction of the bill by the legislators from the area in which the new city ls located, 7. Try lo satisfy any objections raised by,_persons in the Legislature lo the bill and to redraft such bill, if necessary, while still not altering the provisions heretofore altered to nice! the objections of state agencies or local groups. 8. After all alterations are made to meet the objections of the many, Board of Trustees must approve the altered bill and submit a Home Rule request asking its passage by the State Legislature. 9. In the event the I Jome Rule request is obtained, the two state legis lators from the district in which the proposed city is located must give their approval. Under present legislative practice, their lack 'of support is tantamount to the defeat of the measure. JO, In the event the bill is passed by the Legislature, it must then go _lo the Governor, who, in turn, submits the bill to various state agencies and to independent associations for their criticisms and comments. In the event this lengthy technical documCnt passes over that pit of fiery coals and is, thereafter, approved by the Governor, it goes lo its next phase. 11. The bill goes back to the local government for final approval by the voters at a referendum held for that purpose. The voters are then asked lo approve the charter. In the event the charter is approved by· the people, the city is incorporated. The above complicated procedure takes years. It strains the patience of the strongest man. It is costly in time and money to the Legislature, the local government, and state agencies. Our recommended alternative procedure calls for the development of sev eral model city chart,crs that may be prepared under the direction of the Legis li'.llure. Such charters could be thereafter. submitted to tile local governments. fn the event the local governing board deems it 10 be in the best interest of their particul.:ir local government i.o submit tile question or city incorporation to the people based upon one of the model charters and in the event such proposition is approved, such city would automatically come into existence without following the arduous and impossible road heretofore described. The procedure we recom·mend is net new. At one time, New York State had a series of optional city charters that could be adopted by existing cities (Chapter 444 of tho Laws of I 914). Our proposal is to provide similar option al charters for areas seeking 10 become cities 10 be adopted in a procedure that is consistent with our concept of local option, self-determination and home rule. · ·· The procedure we here recommend has long been Jn existence in other slates and has worked with success. The history of New York Slate local government will show that villages were originally incorporated one at a time by special act or the Legislature. The Constitution of 1846 was amended in 1874 (Article Ill Section 18, new ·3- ,. ··-... APPENDIX2 PACE UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE FOR SUB-URBAN GOVERNANCE Pace University Institute for Sub/Urban Governance I An Examination & Study of Forms of Government for the Village of Port Chester by Pace. University January, 1981 I I \ I •. 'I I -,----- \_o· An Enmination & Study of I \ \~/ I ·\-v Forms of Government !ILHALLA / \ OUARRY - - for the \ f 'l... (EIGHTS \ , 1) Village of Pon Chester by '--\ (__ HARRISON \ ITTLE RYE\ LL -.....____ l ·. C- wHrTE "' I .\.>, \ PLAINS \ ~ ,,/,, · ' GEONcY \ \ I "\ FARMS I I \ " I PORT \ / \ ICHESTER "- I '--, ! I L E '--- I fz_! '-\.. ROSEDALE I ( l ·7 \ / r /------' ' HEAi'HCOTE \ / ( \ /"1 I RYE \ / I t, \ // ~\__,, ..,_\ 1 ( ),,..., /J \ I / ...... , \; / I >. -.., y I ( \ / """\ RYE NECK <,) \ MAMARONlCK L) _/ \ ~ '0 \ \ ·····M• 0 'o \ ' \ ,I/ ', \ ,I ...... --\ ....,..., w \ ,r J (\\ Y/ • 1. TABLE OF CONTENTS STUDY TEAM 2 PREFACE • 4 OUR MISSION 5 SUMMARY OF SALIENT DATA AND FINDINGS . 7 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS 15 PROJECTIONS , . . . 21 THE CHARTER ...... • ...... 28 COMMENTARIES ...•...•..•.... 30 DEMOGRAPHY ...... •. , 41 DATA - VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER 55 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS. . . . 72 LEGAL ASPECTS AND ANALYSIS 106 APPENDIX. , . . . • . . 139 THE ANNEXATION LAW 140 CREATION OF A NEW TOWN LAW 147 CHARTER FOR CITY OF PORT CHESTER 159 2. - /..._ __r_HE_s_ru_D_Y _rE_AM___ 3. TRUSTEES CO-DIRECTORS VILLAGE OF --- PORT CHESTER DR. E. MICH.AELIAN/DR. S. J. PREZIOSO RESEARCH STAFF LAW - JOHN DUGAN, ESQ. FINANCE - DAVID GOODMAN PROJECTIONS - SY SCHULMAN DEMOGRAPHY - GEORGE OROS PROFESSIONAL ADVISORS CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE MURRAY JAROS JOHN COI:ANGELO, CHAIRMAN NEW YORK STATE ASSOCIATION OF TOWNS FRANK FRAGOLA ALAN MC MINN DONALD H. WALSH ROBERT MORABITO NEW YORK STATE CONFERENCE OF MAYORS PETER MORGANTI ANTHONY NAPOLI ROBERT BATSON & KEVIN CRAWFORD JOSEPH NOZZOLIO NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE CAMILLO PAGANO JOHN PALMER WILLIAM REDMOND CHARLES PARLATORE EXECUTIVE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FRED TEDESCO NEW YORK STATE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT WILLIAM RYAN NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND ASSESSMENTS CHARLES KAMMERER & LAWRENCE M. DEMING BANK OF NEW YORK AGNES NASH & RALPH BANDEL NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF AUDIT AND CONTROL 4. PREFACE The initiative for this study was provided by Mayor Peter Iasillo when, as a trustee a few years ago, he suggested an examination of the basic structure of the Port Chester Village Government - to be sure that it was a sound and viable entity upon which to build the future of this proud community. The Village of Port Chester, like many other communities through out the county, has undergone several basic changes. The substance of questions raised by Mayor Iasillo were supported by members of the Vil lage Board of Trustees. These were: "Is the government of Port Chester a viable entity now and in the future? If not, what are the alterna tives - the advantages and disadvantages - and do we dare change?" It was on this basis that the Village Board contracted with the In stitute for Sub/Urban Governance of Pace University to undertake an exam ination and study of alternative forms of government. The Co-Directors owe thanks to the following for their gracious co operation, among them Mayor Peter Iasillo and the Village Board of Trust ees; Joseph Vita, former Chairman and John Colangelo, present Chairman and all members of the Citizens Committee; members of the Professional Advisor's Group who assisted in the research and analysis; former Sena tor Anthony Gioffre, the Honorable Joseph Dzaluk and Supervisor Posillipo who are former Mayors of the Village for their opinions; Milton Berner, Rye Town Attorney; Village Manager Michael Ritchie and staff for their professional outlook and the Westchester County Department of Planning. Pace University has undertaken this study at nominal compensation because of its interest in the viability of every municipality in the county and as a matter of policy to continue its involvement in community affairs to enhance our governmental structure. Dr. Edwin G. Michaelian Dr. Sal J. Prezioso 5. OUR MISSION I 6. OUR MISSION What change or changes, if any, in the Village governmental structure would best serve the Village of Port Chester today and in the years ahead? This is our charge. Basically, the study presents an examination and study of the follow ing optional forms of government: The Village of Port Chester should remain intact - no change. - The Village of Port Chester should dissolve, give up its Charter, and let the Town admin ister the governmental affairs. - The Village of Port Chester should create a co-terminous Village/Town within present Village boundaries. - The Village of Port Chester should create a co-terminous Town/Village within present Town boundaries. - The Village of Port Chester should become a City, Emphasis was placed on the legal aspects and procedures necessary if change were to occur; further the financial impacts upon the Village, including tax and cost projections, that any change may bring. Also taken into consideration were: - The social and political impacts. - The effect upon services and programs, - The advantages and disadvantages of each alternative. 7. SUMMARY OF SALIENT DATA & FINDINGS 8. SUMYJ.AR.Y OF SALIENT DATA Al\TJJ FINDINGS GENERAL 1. We find a need for a closer working relationship with Town Govern ment. One Town/Village Hall would be helpful to both communities. For example, common meeting rooms and sharing of data processing equipment, programs, and one judiciary serving both Town and Village, could serve each of their constituents adequately and at great dol lar savings. 2. The expansion and development of the Westchester County Airport located in part in Rye Town give rise co great concern regarding fire service. Response time to the airport is estimated to be 20 minutes. There is a need to consider an additional location for a volunteer fire station to improve coverage and service for the "Town outside'1 area. 3. We find a need for more cooperative and coordinated planning for capital developments, among others, between the Board of Education and the Village Board of Trustees. 4. While New York State has 931 Towns in 62 counties, only four Town/ Villages have been created. GREEN ISLAND - has two separate bodies administering its affairs - one for the Village and one for the Town. SCARSDALE - is a Village/Town. HARRISON and MT. KISCO - are both Town/Villages. 5. It has been estimated that Port Chester with a population of 25,803 (1970 census) will drop to 20,000 by the year 2000. 6. Port Chester is one of 13 Villages in N~w York State under special charter. 9. FINANCE 1, Thereis need to establish a Town-wide fire district and to distribute fire costs based on assessed valuations. Town developments now in the making should require that Town pay the added costs which are bound to accrue. Presently, the Town pays only $205,000 for fire service. 2. The Village tax collection dates need to be coordinated to coincide with the Village fiscal year. 3. It has been estimated the Village is in need of one million dollars to balance its fiscal affairs each year. A one-percent sales tax via a county tax collection would provide this amount of money. A better distribution of Federal revenue sharing funds and additional charges for fire protection would also bring in lost needed revenues. 4. Approximately 34 properties are in tax foreclosure proceedings, add ing to the financial woes of the Village. 5. The present tax assessment/collection agreement with the Town of Rye in which the Town prepares the tax roll, collects the taxes, and pays all uncollected taxes is a good omen of cooperation. The Village pays the Town one-half percent of the total tax roll for doing so. The Town appoints the Assessor and the Village Board of Trustees acts as a Board of Ass.essors. 6. In 1971 the Town assessed Village property values at $123,640,915. In 1980 it rose.to $131,332,252. The 1981 assessment is $2,000,000 less than the previous year. 7. If the Village were to dissolve, it would cost the Town annually $823,150 in more revenues and it would increase their budget by $4,000,000. 10. 8. One of the major financial advan.tages of dissolution would be that the growing tax base of the Town eventually would minimize the inevit able tax increases in the former Village. However, the financial dis advantage of dissolution would be the loss of the utilities gross re ceipts tax ($104,000), the loss of $240,000 of Federal revenue sharing funds and the loss of $240,000 of State per capita aid which would be phased out over a five year period. 9, If the Village became a co-terminous Village/Town, it would have no impact on the school budget. Village/Town income would increase by $352,000 and expenses would increase by $200,000, leaving a net bal ance of $152,000; however, the cost of settlement with the Town rele vant to its long-term indebtedness for that portion of the Town with in the Village boundary would have to be added to the expense, This figure is unknown, 10, Under present laws, were the Village to become a city, revenue could ·increase by $872,000 and expenses by $225,000, leaving an approximate net of $647,000 on paper, According to a law enacted in 1968, a new city is not eligible to receive the special city aid presently avail able to existing cities. A special act of the Legislature could be enacted to make the special city aid available to Port Chester were it to opt to become a city, This is highly speculative because of the following. A new city may be created only by an act of the State Legislature, This was attempted on behalf of Port Chester in 1971 but it failed, The basic question remains as to whether the Legisla ture could act without a home rule request from the local government (Town of Rye), a portion of whose area is included within Port Chester, the proposed new city. There are no constitutional or statutory criteria for the creation of new cities. 11, If a Village is incorporated as a city, it is no longer a part of the Town. As a result, the Town loses that portion of revenues derived from real property taxes levied in the former Village area. The Town would also lose that portion of State and Federal aid attributable to the population of the former Village, 11. 12. The effect of city incorporation on school districts within the in corporated area is one of the most significant barriers to the creation of new cities. The major disadvantage of becoming a city would be the tax limitation placed upon the school system. If the Village became a city, a tax limitation of 2% would be imposed upon the schools and this might be catastrophic. 13. From 1969/70 to 1980/81 the Town assessment roll for the levying of Village taxes declined from $63,974,701 to $61,911,701, a decrease of $2,063,000. At the same time, the State equalization rate declined from 37.00% to 19.64%. Applying the equalization rate, the "true value" of Port Chester property increased from $172,904,597 in 1969/70 to $315,911,858 in 1980/81. 14. The Village budget rose from $3,044,831 in 1969/70 to $7,298,559 in 1980/81, an increase of 240%. 15. The property tax levy to partially fund the budget rose from $z',231,146 in 1969/70 to $5,304,556 in 1980/81, an increase of 238%. 16, The Village budget for 1980/81 is $7,298,559, Public safety receives 30.75%, employee benefits 19.47% and general government support 14.1%. 17. As of 1980 Port Chester's long-term borrowing capacity was $19,834,766 of which $19,000,000 is unused. 18. The Village, for 1980/81, shows Federal revenue sharing funds of $240,000 while the Town budgeted $243,000. Much of the Town's alloca tion is attributable to the lower economic factor for Port Chester, its population and that of the Village of Mamaroneck within the Town of Rye. 19. The Village could increase revenues by a) receiving a more equitable charge for fire protection from the Town, and b) a greater credit from Federal revenue sharing funds, and c) a share of approximately 1% of the present county sales tax collected in Port Chester. 12. 1. The present Charter of the Village of Port Chester should be retained if it becomes a Village/Town or Town/Village. The Charter is unique and valuable in several respects; nevertheless, revision is necessary to update it. This should be accomplished to avoid administrative confusion. 2. In accordance with present statutes, the Village of Port Chester could: A) Negotiate cooperative joint agreements for services to be rendered by or for any city or town. B) In terms of joint operations, the Village of Port Chester could annex part of the Town provided that residents in that portion or area to be annexed approved by referendum. C) Port Chester could dissolve, but in so doing a plan of dissolution would need to be voted upon by the people. Village Law, Article XIX, provides a procedure for the dissolution of Villages. Though the Village could dissolve by unilateral action, it would be desirable that a plan be worked out in advance with the Town authorities who would take over and ad minister the functions performed by the former Village and levy taxes accordingly. D) If Port Chester wishes to become a Village/ Town or a Town/Village, the County Board of Legislators must approve holding a referendum to that effect by a two-thirds vote and a majority of the eligible voters Town-wide must approve the referendum. 13. 3. The legislative powers of the Village of Port Chester have effect only in the territorial boundaries of the Village; likewise, legisla tion of the Town of Rye, generally, is not effective in the Village. 4. The fiscal year of a Village is April 1 to March 31, unless the Board of Trustees elects a different fiscal year (Village Law 510). 5. There is power in County Boards of Legislators and the State Legisla ture to establish new Towns. (Town Law, Article V, and County Law Section 229). 6. Home rule requests from local governments are required to create a new Town; however, a certificate of necessity from the Governor could be used (except for New York City). 7. The State Legislature has the power to consolidate local governments, under their plenary powers - Article III, Section 1 of the State Con stitution. However, under Article III, Section 17, the State Legislature cannot create new incorporated Villages by passage of a special act. On the other hand, no action is required of the State Legislature to create a new Town co-terminus with the present boundaries of a Village. A special act by the New York State Legislature is required in the crea tion of Village/Town, Creating a new Village to be co-terminus with Rye Town requires State legislation. 8, Annexation must be in the overall public interest. (Article IX, Section 1) and requires a favorable referendum among the inhabitants of the area proposed to be annexed, Determination that annexation is in the overall public interest must be made by the governing boards of the affected local governments. ~- PROJECTIONS 1. Aside from legal and financial considerations, it becomes essential, as we consider possible change in the governmental structure, to take into consideration social and human factors, racial and family composi tion matters, physical and developmental aspects, and provisions for housing and also community pride and traditions. 2. As we examined the legal and financial factors, we notedthat the range of choices for change are very limited. 3. The financial advantage for any go~ernmental change is uncertain. Federal and State contributions in the form of revenue sharing and other local government aids are subject to change and cannot be counted independently. 4. Existing laws and apparent policy changes would be barriers of great difficulty to overcome in effectuating change. 5. The development of the unincorporated area, south of the airport, is expected to generate approximately $100 million of new construction. Assessments in the Town might increase by 10%. The major beneficiary would be Blind Brook (Union) School District. It comprises almost all of the unincorporated area of the Town of Rye. 6. Though the Village of Port Chester has practiced severe economies and financial austerity these past few years, its declining tax base, which is vulnerable to tax certioraries, is cause for immediate concern. 7. It is estimated that the tax situation will improve within the next decade due to the contemplated proposals for waterfront developments and other community development administration projects. However, at this point in time, we can only assess this probability as somewhat speculative. 15. I SUMMARY CONCWS!ONS · I ' ·' I ' !' ; . 16. SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS 1. The·heart of the issue is dollars. 2. It is clear that the Village of Port Chester has several legal al ternatives it can pursue under existing law or through special action by the State Legislature to modify the present organizational and operational structure of the Village government. These include - for purposes of easy reference - the following: A) Dissolution of the Village. B) Annexation of additional property to the Village. C) Achieving co-terminous status through the establishment of a new Town co-terminous with the existing boundaries of the Vil lage, D) Achieving co-terminous status through the incorporation of a new Village co-termin ous with the existing boundaries of the Town of Rye. E) Achievement of city status for the Village of Port Chester. F) Achievement of city status for the Town of Rye including the Village of Port Chester. G) Increased use of municipal corporation agreements. H) Updating the Village Charter. 17. 3. The alternative to be chosen by the Village will depend in large degree (1) on the best way to remedy the problems in current Vil lage operations as perceived by the Village Board of Trustees, and (2) the pros and cons attendant to each alternative. In short, the final determination as to the course of action to be followed by the Village will depend on a number of factors. 4. Notwithstanding other considerations, it will 6e helpful to sort out the legal alternatives in terms of their viability and chance of success. A) Creation of a new Village co-terminous with the existing boundaries of the Town of Rye can be eliminated because there is no procedure to accomplish the dissolution of the current Village (which will be necessary) and the concurrent incorpora tion of the new Village. Nor is it likely that such a procedure will be established by State Legislature. The fact that the Village of Mamaroneck is partly in the Town of Rye is another complicating factor. B) Annexation of additional lands to the Vil lage can be eliminated since it is primari ly dependent on the initiative of property owners and residents in the areas_proposed to be annexed, which is hardly likely in this instance, thus taking the matter out of the hands of the Village Board of Trust ees. 18. C) City status. In 1971 the Village unsuccess fully pursued the change of status to a city, While it is possible, its chances of success are primarily dependent on action by the State Legislature, which has not incorporated a new city since the 1940s (the City of Rye), The impact of inco~poration on the area outside the'new city will be an important factor to be considered by the Legislature, as well as the impact on school districts which should be located wholly or partly in the new city and will thus have constitutional tax and debt limits. D) The Village could initiate proceedings for the e.stablishment of a new Town with boundaries to be co-terminous with that of the existing Vil lage. This process would have to be initiated by petition of electors of the Village qualified to vote at Town elections in number equal to at least 5% of the total votes cast for Governor. While the Village Board does not have it within its sole authority to initiate the process, this did not prove an insurmountable obstacle in the Nt. Kisco situation. The critical fac tor here will be to convince the County Legisla ture that establishment of the new Town is in the overall community interest. E) The Village has it within its authority to initi ate the process for Village dissolution. This ultimately has to be approved by the voters of the Village. ~~ile the Village has the clear legal authority to initiate the process, much will depend on the plan of dissolution, if any, that can be worked out with the Town, 19. 5, On paper, the most advantageous improvement in Port Chester's finan cial position could be achieved by incorporation as a city. However, the New York State Dept. of Audit and Control informs us that the school district's current tax levy is equivalent.to 1.89% of a city's tax limitation of 2% of the average five year full value assessment becomes a formidable obstacle ..While the citizenry might welcome a cap on school spending, political opposition might preclude the Legislature from approving a city charter. 6. The net financial gain from changing to a co-terminous Village/Town is so insignificant as to eliminate the option as being not worth the hassle to make it a reality. In downgrading this option it should be noted that the very favorable Port Chester Charter pro visions exempts the Village from certain Town charges which are a major irritant in other Town/Village relations generally. 7. The real disaster would be the dissolution of the Village of Port Chester as the best solution to Port Chester's problems. 8. Port Chester's fiscal problems cannot be solved through any of the various reorganization alternatives we have examined. Any gains would be more than over balanced by significant expenses involved in changing the legal structure. By shifting to any other govern mental framework the Village would be losing some unique and highly advantageous features of its charter by: exemption from Town high way taxes and the Town assessing and guaranteeing the collection of taxes. Clearly within the Village's authority to pursue are (1) in creased use of municipal cooperation agreements, and (2) an updating of the Village charter. Each of these will require analysis in their respective areas. The cooperation agreements necessarily involve an other unit of government, e.g., Town of Rye, The Village charter up dating can be done by the Village on its own. 20. 9. Retainment of the current governmental set-up should not be a signal for doing nothing. Fiscal negotiation with the Town as noted should be explored; the charter must be updated and, above all, negotiations with the county for a portion of the county sales tax should also be explored. 10. It would appear that Port Chester's best course would be to re tain its present status with appropriate amendments to its charter. At the same time, the Village should try to secure a more equitable fire service charge from the Town. It also should seek a fairer distribution of the Town's Federal revenue sharing funds by gain ing credits for obligations of the Village in which the Town is also a participant, 21. PROJECTIONS 22. PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS: EVALUATING THE ALTERNATIVES FOR PORT CHESTER The purpose of this section of the report is to bring together previous materials relating to the background, demography, history, legal frame work and financial considerations. A secondary purpose is to introduce and evaluate other related considerations that must be recognized by the Village leadership and, ultimately, its citizenry as they decide whether and how to move ahead along any of the potential paths for organizational change. This study, in common with other similar kinds of efforts, should be viewed as having three basic components: 1. To describe the situation - that is, to provide materials upon which there can be no disagreement, including demographics, history, economics and tax data, etc., which is included in the appendix. 2. To analyze or to project - that is, to note the implications of the descriptive materials, to indi cate the likelihood of future change based on the current setting or administrative arrangements, and 3. To prescribe - that is, to postulate or propose a solution or solutions, spelling out the implications of each. It should also be noted that the subject matters involved in two areas that we have thus far emphasized --Legal and Financial-- have much broader implications than those limited headings. Those subject areas, and any projections that may be offered involving them, inevitably in volve a host of other kinds of issues which underlay all considerations in the study effort herein presented. They include, for example, economic and fiscal considerations, including income levels of the population in the Village as against other areas; social and human considerations, includ ing racial and family composition matters; physical and developmental as pects, including the provision of housing for various elements of the 23. population. That is to say, it is not possible merely to talk about the legal and financial aspects of the Village and its residents, since there is inevitably an unavoidable overlapping and feedback into the other con siderations as noted above. lt also should be noted that the studies of the legal and financial areas already considered, as well as considerations noted above, have shown how severely limited a range of choices there are available to the community, In financial terms, considering the various theoretically possible alterna tive frameworks of government, it is evident that the theoretical "swing" of potential financial advantage is uncertain. The range of choice is obviously extremely narrow and should automatically raise serious questions in the minds of the readers of this study and those who will be making decisions based on it as to whether governmental change is a fruitful area to pursue. The legal aspects involving the government of the community are severely hemmed in by existing law, by apparent policy in Albany regarding resis tance to creation of additional Town/Village frameworks, by very severe legal problems relating to a city structure and notably regards school district governance. In short, a dispassionate reading of the findings and the analyses heretofore presented must come to one broad conclusion: that potential savings implied by one or more of the alternative reorgani zation formats might not be worth the effort involved in attempting to carry out that reorganization. There are a number of areas that are conjectural if not unpredictable in this whole area of dealing with local government organization and reorgani zation, including: - Actions that might be taken by the County and/or State Legislatures. - Future prospects for Federal revenue sharing including particularly whether so-called "double dipping" would 24. continue to be available for Town/Village government, - Future of assessment practices and the extent to which the courts and/or the State Legislature may impose new requirements and procedures that may supersede Town and Village involvement. - The problem of school district financing and the con stitutional limitations applying particularly to city school districts. - Possible changes in the legislation applying to urban· towns which might make an alternative format available for Rye and/or its component Villages. Reference to the Town of Rye has thus far been muted in this report, which by definition has been focusing on Port Chester; however, it should be noted that some of the potential "solutions" for Port Chester fall in the category of what has been called a zero-sum game - that is, any gains for one area would have to be at the expense of another area. It hardly seems logical that Port Chester would find allies in the remaindar of the Town of Rye if a Port Chester solution were to be seen as being adverse to the interests of the rest of the Town. On the other hand, one implicit underlying motive for this inquiry has been that of attempting to secure taxation benefits for the Village area that might flow from the currently planned developments in the unincorporated area of the Town, and notably south of the airport. It should be noted that the full Town value is approximately 720 million dollars. There is little reason to expect within the next decade that the airport-related development would increase that full value by more than perhaps 10%. Thus, the prospective development, while not insignificant, is still not so great as to enable a truly radical change in the whole real property taxation structure of the Town and, potentially, of the Village area. Even if the Town were to acquiesce in any arrangements so that the Village community were to receive a significant share of the taxes from the airport development, the amounts involved are not so large as to involve a complete revival (or reversal of trends) of the tax base for the Port Chester community. 25. The best indication of the financial stakes, as regards tax ratables, is provided by a comparison of the full value assessments in the various portions of the Town of Rye, as shown below: PORT CHESTER $ 338.2 million (full value assessments) MAfL!\RONECK VILL. (portion in Rye) 138.8 TOWN OF RYE (unincorp. area) 243.l TOTAL TOWN OF RYE $ 720.l million (The foregoing are 1980 data secured from the County Tax Commission and ar rived at by dividing the assessed values by the equalization ratio of .1821.) It is possible that during the decade there will be as much as $100 million of new construction added to the unincorporated area south of the airport, which would have an assumed full value of $70 million. Hence, the previous observation that assessments in the Town might increase by ten percent. The assessments in the various portions of the Town may also be considered on a per capita basis, that is, computing the amount of tax ratables per resident as a measure of the tax wealth of the area. This is shown below: PORT CHESTER 23,200 persons $14,600 per capita MAMARONECK VILL. PORTION 7,300 19,000 RYE TOWN-OUTSIDE 9,300 26,100 39,800 $18,100 per capita (average) It is also evident from these data that the prospect of an additional $70 million or so in additional ratables (full value) in the unincorporated portion is a happy one indeed for residents of that area, who are hardly likely to feel so beneficent as to share the largesse with Port Chester. In fact, the major beneficiary would by the Blind Brook (Union 5) School District, which comprises almost all of the unincorporated area of the Town of Rye. 26. As for the Village of Port Chester's quests for finances within its own jurisdiction, no significant change appears to be feasible within any 0 reasonable period in the near future. The Village has used up virtually all of its maneuvering room by practicing severe economies and severe cuts. It has a stable to declining tax base which is continually vulner able to tax certioraris. Its plans for urban renewal are still at the very earliest phases of a single project, and tax fruit may be borne only after a decade or so. (This refers to the schemes propounded by a Dutch investment and development group that is allegedly going to undertake a massive waterfront development involving hundreds of millions of dollars - and the reader will recall that the entire Village has a full value of just $338 million,) One area of financial potential for the Village is that of fire protection. At present, the Village is the only provider of fire fighting facilities for the unincorporated portion. The Village receives about one-third the cost of its fire agency - $205,000 out of $616,000 - from the Town. This arrangement is a potentially fruitful area for renegotiation since it has already been shown that the Town has almost 42% of the full valuations in the Town (excluding Mamaroneck): $243 million for the Town-outside vs. $338 for Port Chester. On an ad valorem basis alone, it would currently be justifiable to increase the Town's fire charge by about $25,000 - and that number would increase correspondingly as the new south-of-the-airport office development proceeded. In fact, it would be desirable for the Vil lage and Town to commence discussions now for the provision of a fire house in the unincorporated area, with the Town paying for its construction and manning by the Village fire agency - it is certainly not appropriate to create a further division by creating a Town-outside fire agency. There are doubtless similar areas of potential negotiation involving refuse and garbage collection and police services, whereby the Town could contract with the Village to perform such services on a fair fee basis. That ,would give the Village incentives to improve management and personnel; and the assured fees by contract would assist the Village in refinancing its debt structure. 27. There is one final area of consideration that can be judged and made only by the residents of the community and that is in relation to what, for lack of a better term, might be called civic continuity. We are not dealing with a cold-blooded corporate reorganization de signed for the maximum benefit of the stockholders of one corporation, whether or not at the expense of another. What we are dealing with is the life of a vibrant community with a long, honorable and civically identified tradition, and one which has proud roots in Port Chester. Any "solution" that would in any way diminish the identification of or would deny the status of, Port Chester and its civic and govern mental leaders would surely fall afoul of local traditions and make that a completely unacceptable solution. As outsiders and as consultants to Port Chester via its elected leaders, we have sought to maintain a completely professional and impartial ap proach. We believed that by collecting in one place all the facts and analyses about Port Chester's governmental and fiscal structure,this study would lay a solid groundwork for determining whether changes might be desirable and feasible, Subject to a careful review by our clients, our conclusion, at this time, is that Port Chester's fiscal problems cannot be solved through any of the various reorganization schemes we have previously described. Any theoretical gains would be more than overbalanced by significant expenses involved in changing the legal structure. Moreover, by shifting to any other governmental framework, the Village would be losing some unique and highly advantage ous features of its charter. In short, our general conclusion is that Port Chester should retain its current governmental set-up. However, that should not be the signal for doing nothing; we believe that there are areas of fiscal negotiation with the Town that should be explored, and portions of the charter need updating and revision without losing the beneficial aspects of that legal document. 28. THE CHARTER VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER 29. THE PORT CHESTER CHARTER Although,in accordance with the contracted agreement, the consultants had no responsibility for the analysis of the Charter or recommending revisions, nevertheless, we feel obliged to make the following observations: In order to properly update the Charter, it would be advisable to under take the following steps: 1. Analyze in depth present operations. 2. Check this analysis against the present Charter provisions to determine the inequities or concerns. 3. Amend the Charter in accordance with the appropri ate operations as may be determined by the Village Board. 4. Add an appropriate administrative code. It is recommended that the Village Board take action, utilizing their present powers, to bring about a change in dates that would coincide with tax collec tions. The New York State Department of Audit and Control (Mr. Al Maroli, in charge of local government _affairs) has agreed to assist in bringing about change. The Village Board may opt to prepare either a 14-month budget to make the transition or a 2-month budget. This is all that is required to bring about change. 30. COMMENTARIES WILLIAM E, REPMOND - N,Y,S, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AGNESE, NASH - N,Y,S, DEPARTMENT OF AUDIT & CONTROL I MURRAY M, JAROS - N,Y,S, ASSOCIATION OF TOWNS \ ' i.' CHARLES KAMMERER - THE BANK OF NEW YORK I 31. STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF AUDIT AND CONTROL ALBANY 12236 EDWARD V. REGAN State Comptroller In Replying Refer To December 10, 1980 Dr. Sal J. Prezioso Director, Graduate Program/Public Administration The Graduate Center 55 Church Street White Plains, New York 10601 Re: Portchester meeting Dear Dr. Prezioso: Following are our comments and thoughts on the discussion on Portchester on December 3, 1980. Portchester becoming a City 1. School District would become a city school district, subject to a tax limit. Using the 1979-80 tax levy and full value, 1.89% of its tax limit would have been used. Therefore, a 2% limit would be in effect. However, using the same 1979 tax figures applied to average ·s-year full value, taxes for operating pur poses would have exceeded the limit by $246,300. Thus, if the village became a city, the school dis trict would be forced to cut back its spending to stay within the constitutional tax limit. 2. City Court would become a part of the State Judiciary. This will result in a savings for a city, as court expenses are paid from State funds, and a city re tains fines and fees with certain exceptions. 3. Representation in County Legislature. This was not discussed, but should be looked into. 4. State Aid. As a city, an additional $5.00 per capita would be paid to the city, However, new cities are not entitled to the additional aid which is paid to those cities in existence at April _1, 1968. l{ECEIVl:1.o. IJEC 1 S 1980 ~ .... r1""'''" .. '.. • ...... ,, ... 32. Prezioso -2- December 10, 1980 5. County taxes. Provision would have to be made for the city's share of county taxes. Also, the City would have responsibility for enforcement of city and county taxes. 6. The new city would be responsible for its share of general town debt outstanding at the date of incor poration, I believe there was a comment that this could be negotiated. 7. Iown would lose that portion of state revenue sharing that is based on the area that incorporates. 8. A charter would have to be enacted. Village - Town; Town - Villaqe The reasons generally given for either of these is double state and federal revenue sharing; and control of zoning. Al- so to be considered would be elimination of duplicate expendi tures, i.e. highway, fiscal, etc. However, there would be no town highway aid, as all highways would be within village limits. Village - town - would involve the creation of a new town. This would cut the prsse1,t town of R)'e into two sections. This could be corrected by providing that the section of the town in the Village of Mamaroneck be included ~n the Town of Mamaroneck, Town - Village - Assuming the section of the town in the Village of Mamaroneck is included in the Town of Mamaroneck, this approach could work. It would expand and benefit the village from the area of the present town for which an industrial (or office) complex is planned. However, a town - village or village - town has several other problems which must be explored. For instance, the· fis cal year should be the calendar year (a town can only use the calendar year) and a village might conceivably decide on some other year, i.e. June 1. Certain activities must be provided as town functions to qua lify for "double dipping'' of federal revenue sharing. Dissolving Village This solution might be considered. However, consideration should be given to the desirability of forming special dis- tricts if certain services are to be paid by users in the pre sent village area. Even if the village is dissolved, officials sl1ould consider attaching the portion of the Village of Mamaroneck JJ. Prezioso -3- December 10, 1980 ~n the Town of Rye to the Town of Mamaroneck. Very truly yours, ,rl ) ,;; -7, / l 'F.v<-<. . ~ . ,.,...... __.(../ Ag~es E, Nash, Director Municipal Accounting Systems AEN:kt 34. THE BANK OF NEW YORK NEW YORK'S ,.,A"ST eAlPot-F'OUNCEO 1784 DY AL.EXANCE:R H,t,,.MILTON WHITE PLAINS, NEW YORK 10602 COUNTY TRUST REGlON CHARLES F. KAMMERER. JR, December 24, 1980 SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT Dr. Edwin G. Michaelian Pace University 861 Bedford Road Pleasantville, New York 10570 Dear Dr. Michaelian: Larry Deming and I were delighted to attend the seminar in Albany relative to the possibility of change in the status of Village of Port Chester. The bank's feeling stresses the importance of retention of the ethnic and social mix within the village under the current·· status and the autonomous· identification are of paramount importance to the spirit of the community. The advantages to be gained by possibility of economies of scale by possible merger with the town wouldn't offset this loss of community identity. As we pointed out, the Village has shown decided improvement in its operating results in the past three years and is no longer the great concern of the mid 70's to the lender on timely repayment of debt. Further evidence of the bank's attitude to the Village is the commitment to open an additional banking office within the community in 1981. Your session was most informative. Please let me know if you need any additional background. 7~1~~ . (_ 1dt:t,<( ·~.,~_.y-,---,rv/ Sen'iQL...V~l?re s iden&.ca V ~- cc: Dr. Sal J. Prezioso iJ t C :~ · i980 ·THE ASSOCIATION OF TOWNS 35. 0 F THE S TA TE O F N E \V Y O R K 90 St.ote Street Albany, N: Y. 12207 WlLLL-\'M K. SANFORD Telrphc.na Exec,."h"~ Se-c-ro!lc&r;y Area Codr 51 B -46S,79J3 or 465-l0U ZELDA M. UTHE Dire-cior December 16th, 1980 ML'RRA Y M. JAROS Counu:J Dr, Sal J', Prezioso, Director 'Graduate P.rograms/Public Administration .Pace University 55 Church Street .. rlhite Plains, New ~ork 10601 Dear Dr. Prezioso: This is in response to your request for a summary of observations concerning the Port Chester Tomi-Village ques tion. From past experience, the most dominant issue in such matters is the local political or coljllllunity situation, which is frequently not expressed by the proponents of change. Aside from the local situation, any alternative being con sidered should have a solid analysis of financial data, The enticement of "double dipping" is shortsighted especially today. I am enclosing a copy of S,7802-A, A,9249-A of 1980 which the Association requested to limit the division of tomis to be coterminous with existing villages. Also enclosed is a copy of S.3944-A, A,5225-A of 1977 which we expect to have reintroduced in 1981 on providing a role for the tomi board in village incorporations and dissolutions. It was good to see you again on December 3rd. Best wishes for a healthy holiday season, S .ncerely Coun el nECl:.IVi::,._ MHJ:jg Encs, DEC 1 S 1980 . ~ .... ~• ...... ~J;. .,),,. STATE OF NEW YORI{ S. '3944-A A. ·5225-A 1977~1978 P..e;;-ula.r Saaalona SENA TE-ASSEMBLY March 1, 1977 IN ·sE?\'ATE...:.Intro 'IN ASSEMBLY-Introduced bv M. of A. HINCHEY-read once ,.nd rcierrd to· th·e Committee ·on •1,o,;,1 Gcwernment.s~ommitt.ee disch!!.t;:ed, bill .amended, orde,ed repainted as amended and recommitted to se.id ci"nm:'.,<:e AN ACT to amend the village law, in relati:m to incorpor;;!ian and dissolu'.:o~ of vlllages · The People of tJ,e S!at, of Xcw J"orl:, repre.,ente.d in Sencle end Asse.mb!y, do. cnad ru follows: J Section 1. · Parsgnph b of.subdivision one of section 2-202 of the viHage Jaw., is 2 hereb); amended by adding 'thereto two new subparagraphs, .tp be 3 subpar&graphs seven and eight, to read, respecth·ely/as follows: 4 . (7) An allegation that the proposed incorporation. is in the oueraU public ir.~esl 5 of the re,;itlent.s of I.he proposed village and of the qther residrnt.s, of lhe lo!LJn or W'!=5, · '6 together with the supporting statements, facts and· inform.,,tion"". uvcn which tk · 7 aUega!ian is bruei/, 8 (8) A plan for <07Jtinu.ction of a:i.sting , ...... , s. no2:...A A. 9249-A Cal. 1'o. 401 ·-- sEN ATE-ASSEMBLy February 21, 1980 IN SE~4TE-Introduced by Sen. PRESE~l-read tt.:ice and ordered prini:ed, · and t.1hen .prins::ed t.o be committed to the Commit.r.e:e on Local ·GOvern~e~t-=--reported favorably from said committee, ordered to firsc and second repcrt, ordered to a third reading, amendeC and ordered rc ·prin~ed, re~aining i:s place in the order of t.hird·reading IN ASSE~1ELY-!r.t.:-ociuceC by M. of A,• NcCABE-read once and referred to the Commit':e2 on Lo~al Govern~er.~s-cornmittee dischergeC, bill ame~ded, ordered rep~int.ed as amended and_recommittcd to said commit· tee AN />.CT to a:;;end the t.o:..·:i lat.·, in relation to Civision of a to\.'n The Peoole of t.h£: S:at:e of l\et.: York, represented in Senate and Assem blv, Co er.zc~ as. fo!lc-.:s: 1 Sec~ion 1. Sec:ior: se•,:ent:r-1:h!"ee of the to:..•n lay,· is emended by adding 2 a net..' subC:.ivision se\•eri to read as follows: 3 7. A ~o~n shall no: be divided pursuaOt to·this section if env oor• 4 tion of its bounda.ri~s shall become coterminous "''it.h the entire boun 5 daries of a village or of that oort.ion of a village in such town. 6 § 2. This act shall not apply to any town in which a pet.ition for 7 division of the t.own has been filed in acco·rdance with section sevent:y 8 three of the town law prior to the effective dace of this act nor shall 9 this act be deemed to affect or impair ifiny rights or proceedings accrued -10 or commenced prior to such effective date. ' 11 § 3. This act shall take effect immediately. , EXPLASATIO~-~atter in italics (underscored) is newi matter•in brackets· ·) is old lat,,' to be omitt.ed. LBD04922208A 39. State of New York New York City DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 212 949-8520 99 Washington A venue Albanr. New York 1224$ ,1lC\.,C.fv __ 518 474-7910 'u•t~r,c,•·\J , .. (., 1980 William D. Hassett, Jr. William E. Redmond Commissioner Executive Deputy Commissioner December 16, 1980 Dear Sal: Pursuant to your request at our meeting on December 3, I am reducing to writing my thoughts relating to the Pace Study for the Village of Port Chester. As I indicated, the Department of Commerce is pleased to be a part of the study and certainly more than willing to help in any future activities, particularly 'in our role of promotion and economic development on a project basis. For the purposes of the study, however, I think it is important for the Village officials to identify more precisely what they wish to accomplish. What are the goals: lower costs; lower taxes; simplification of government structure; more services or more efficient services; more government aid? Without this clarifying information, the study can do little more than outline legal alternatives available to alter the present structure of the Village of Port Chester. Incidentally, I should note one of the options available, but not particularly discussed at the meeting, is· the possibility of annexation to the City of Rye. This could accomplish City status without the necessity of a new City and all that implies. It seems important for any study to point out that:. amounts of per capita aid (revenue sharing) State or Federal, can only reflect present status of those programs. Both State and Federal revenue sharing programs are under continuing review and subject to change. For example, there is a new administration coming in Washington and I remind you of the history of New York State where efforts to close double-dipping loopholes have been made. 40. Honorable Sal J. Prezioso - 2 - December 16, 1980 It seems to me that eventual action would probably be based on emotional issues such as sense of community identity or control of zoning rather than on the question of basic structure. Again, further need for identification of goals by the local officials. I suggest that any analysis assume a minimum cost of public service, rather than become mired in comparisons that may or may not be meaningful. My final comment relates to the structure of local government itself. In my more recent experience in the economic dev,3lo1Jmc11t £i~lJ, it is clearer to me that business investment decision-makers look for a local government structure that is efficient, understandable and accessible. Thus, simplic ity of local government structure, eliminating redundance and duplication, and similar efforts can, in fact, be a plus from an economic development standpoint. I would hope that any action taken by the Village will take into account the possibility of simplifying local government structure through consolidation, cooperation and even the possible elimination of any unnecessary local taxing jurisdiction. I trust these comments will be of some assistance. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. rs, E REDMOND Honorable Sal J. Prezioso Director of the Graduate Programs/ Public Administration Pace University The Graduate Center 55 Church Street White Plains, New York 10601 41. DEMOGRAPHY HISTORY OF VILLAGES - NEW YORK STATE HISTORY OF TOWNS - NEW YORK STATE VILLAGE/TOWNS IN - NEW YORK STATE VILLAGE MANAGERf ADMIN.ISTRATOR - NEW YORK STATE THE TOWN OF RYE THE VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER 42. HISTORY OF VILLAGES Pressed to find a starting point for the present pattern of local govern ment in New York State, an historian can cite a number of dates and places and argue that all have '' lidity, The first O,.,tch rulers of New York did not draw a sharp line between their colonial or provincial government and that of their major settlement, which was called New Amsterdam. It wasn't until 1646 (only 18 years prior to English takeover) that the Dutch West India Company (which ruled the colony under a charter from the government of the Netherlands) granted what appeared to have been certain municipal privileges to the inhabitants of what was known as the "Village of Brenckelen" --lineal ancestor of the Borough of Brooklyn-- across the river from New Amsterdam. Once the British took control, the State, as it then existed, was organ ized into 17 towns and one county, "Yorkshire", Tod<1Y there are 931 towns and 62 counties in New York State, Under the first State Constitution (1777) only counties, towns and cities were recognized as units of local government, The first Village to be established within the modern concept is said to be Lansingburgh, which was incorporated in 1790. Lansingburgh long ago ceased to exist as an independent entity upon absorption into the City of Troy, About ten percent of New York State citizens reside in Villages (1,843,641 - 1970 census). Villages are "incorporated municipalities." Although the term Village may connotate a small, sparsely populated area, many Villages (47 accord ing to 1970 census) have larger populations than cities in New York State. The name and form of a municipal entity is not, in every in stance, related to the population or land area. Villages formed before the implementation of Village Law (Book 63, McKinney~) need not meet population and land area requirements that now exist. 43. The pre-Revolutionary War Villages were formed primarly to overcome legal confusions that existed with the then governing English statutes. Generally, Villages formed after the Revolution had the purpose of pro viding and paying for special select services (i.e., police, fire, etc.) for population centers that existed in various sections of the Town. In a sense, Villages were multi-purpose, special districts. Though Villages were incorporated, the State Constitution -made only sparing mention in 1821. During this time, until 1874, when the revised Constitution (1674) forbade special incorporation, Villages were formed by special legislation of the State Legislature and unique charters were granted creating a variety of governmental forms. The next major development was in 1897. The Village Law was amended so that charter Villages were subject to general Village Law in those in stances where an inconsistency existed. The amendment gave the option to charter Villages to reincorporate under general Village Law, which many did. Twelve Villages, including Port Chester, have remained charter Villages. There are 554 Villages in New York State today, including 74 located in two or more Towns; 7 in two counties, NOTE: The uncertainty of the nature and scope of Town government fostered the incorporation of Villages as noted in the preamble -to the act incorporating Troy and Lansingburgh in 1798. 44. A Village is governed by a Mayor and a legislative body (the Board of Trustees). In Port Chester (unique in this and other respects since it operates under its own charter) the term of the Trustees is three years, and there are six Trustees. The Trustees approve appointments of department heads and officials made by the Mayor. The Trustees have final approval of the budget. The Mayor, in a Village Manager governmental form, retains the power to preside over meetings of the Village Trustees, to insure enforcement of local laws and ordinances, and to appoint department heads (subject to Trustee approval). The Mayor yields budget preparation and duties to the Village Manager. In Port Chester the charter grants specific powers to the Village Manager. 45. HISTORY OF TOWNS In the first adopted New York State Constitution of 1777, the existence of Cities of Albany and New York and the fourteen Counties was directly recognized, while Towns were noted in a·provision which stated: "That it shall be in the power of the future Legislators of this State for the advantages and convenienc.es of the good people to divide the same into such other and further counties and districts as it may then appear necessary." The Legislature divided counties into Towns to provide more efficient administration of State and governmental functions. From 1777 until 1801, Town government continued to primarily consist of functions pre viously performed under English rule. Those being: preparation of census and assessment lists, establishment of jails and local courts, appointment of fence viewers, sealer of weights and measures, Town gager or packer and a recorder of brands for cattle and hor.ses. Pro vided for was the election of eight overseers and a constable. They had certain ordinance powers. In 1800 assessment and collection of State taxes were consolidated with that of the units of local government (Town and county). In 1801 Town government assume.d comparatively definite form. By five acts of the Legislature, a system of judiciary was established; provision was made for the assessment and collection of taxes; for the settlement and relief of the poor in the various Towns; for the regulation of highways; establishing the powers of Town meetings and Town officers and determining the duties of the latter. In 1927 the State Legislature provided for a Joint Legislative Committee to recodify the existing Town Law and found it to be almost hopelessly confused because of duplications and conflicting statutes, honeycombed with special legislation for the benefit of the larger Towns. The Legislature in 1932 approved a bill embodying the recodification of the Town Law. 46. VILLAGE/TOWNS There are four Village/Towns or Town/Villages in New York State (Green Island in Albany County and Scarsdale, Harrison and Mt. Kisco in Westchester County). The reasons for the formation of Village/ Towns cannot be generalized. Green Island has been a Village/To,m since 1887 and has always had that structure of government and no other. A small (2 miles by½ mile) island surrounded by the Mohawk and Hudson Rivers, Green Island is unique as a Village/Town for several other reasons. It is the only Village/Town to have two separate govern ing boards (it has a Village Board of Trustees and a Town Council) and two separately elected executives - a Village Mayor and a Town Super visor. Green Island operates primarily as a Village with the Mayor and Trustees exercising most of the governmental functions and powers, The Town functions are limited to: Town Justice, Town Clerk and Tax Collector. According to local officials, the major advantage to this form of government is the "double dipping" with revenue sharing funds. There are no real disadvantages since the Island has functioned for so long this way. Unlike Harrison and Scarsdale, which formed to prevent subdivision of the Towns, Green Island is not geographically susceptible to either annexation or secession. Scarsdale became a Village/Town to avoid annexation by the City of White Plains. Harrison was incorporated as a Town/Village to prevent any secession from the Town. Mt. Kisco changed from a Village to a Village/Town in order to remedy the con tinual dilemmas that exist in any Village incorporated in two separate Towns. (Village of Mt. Kisco was in Towns of Bedford and New Castle.) All three of the Westchester County Village/Towns or Town/Villages have one governing board and chief executive officer who serve in dual func tions (i.e., the Mayor and Supervisor are the same individual).· Mt. Kisco and Scarsdale are functioning primarily as Villages while Harrison is•primarily a Town, The law provides the option to the citi zens of a newly formed Town/Village or Village/Town to operate either primarily as a Town or Village. 47. Legislation from Albany is necessary· to revise the .form of government to that of Village/Town, Special laws are also enacted for the vari ous municipal entities that choose this form. Certain peculiarities exist in Village/Towns; for instance, a quick look at the Scarsdale Village budget will show an allocation to the Town of Scarsdale. Advantages cited include double dip revenue sharing, more direct and responsive government with the reduction of one layer of government (the outside Town). The former Villages that become Village/Towns must take on certain functions formerly performed by the Town, namely county and school tax collection, licensing and voting. 48. THE VILLAGE MANAGER/ADMINISTRATOR IN NEW YORK STATE Over 35 Villages in New York State have opted to have a Village Manager or Administrator. The powers of the office are established by local law, as in Port Chester, or by Article 15-A of the Village Law. Gen erally, a Village Manager's role is that of full-time administrative supervision. In non-manager Villages the functions of the manager are handled by the Mayor. Village Managers may be appointed for a fixed term, but usually serve at the pleasure of the Village Board of Trustees who approve his appointment. The roots of the Village Manager form of government are in the "old" Village Law, that being the law before the 1972 consolidation. Under unconsolidated Village Law, provision was made for the Village Manager form of government. The law allowed a Village to have a Village Mana ger, if such position was approved in a public referendum. The powers and duties of the Village Manager were dictated by the statute, al though.there could be minor modifications by local ordinance. When the Village Law was consolidated in 1972, provision for the Village Manager form of government was omitted. The law did allow for already formed Village Manager governments to continue as they were. In 1974 an amendment to Village Law allowed Villages to form a commission to study the possibility of Village Manager government, or adopt by local law. The findings of the commission must be voted upon in a referendum. Port Chester has a Village Manager provided in their local law. The local law will spell out the duties and powers of the Village Manager in a general manner, which can be modified as time passes through resolutions and amendments by the Village Board. A Village Administrator is appointed by local law or by resolution. If adopted by mere resolution, the posi tion can be easily abolished by a simple vote of the Board. If the administration is appointed by local law, a publc hearing is required before abolishment of the position. 49. The Village Manager appointed under the old Village Law has the broad est powers of all, including the appointment of all department heads. Village Y,anagers today, since the consolidation of the Village Law, are more limited in their duties, which are determined by the legislation passed in the local law, and depends upon the manner in which the posi tion was created. In 1975 Port Chester, by adoption of Local Law No. 1, 1975, on November 11, 1974, established the office of Village Manager. By statute, the Village Manager in Port Chester is the chief administrative and executive officer of Village government. He is responsible to the Board of Trustees. He appoints all administrative officials and employees except the Corporation Counsel, Village Clerk and Treasurer. The Manager proposes an annual budget and exercises all other powers and duties of a Village budget officer. In addition, he represents the Village in labor negotiations, regulates and approves the purchase of materials, supplies and equipment contracts (subject to general policies and budget appropriations of Vil lage Board). Other specific powers and duties exist,including proposal of legislative measures to the Board; attendance at Board meetings; in vestigation of complaints and inquiries from the Mayor and Trustees; to oversee fulfillment of provisions of franchises, permits and privileges granted by the Village. Port Chester adopted its local law on the· es tablishment of Village Manager after approval by public referendum on January 14, 1975. 50. HISTORY OF THE TOWN OF RYE The Town of Rye has its origins in June, 1660, when Peter Disbrow and his band sailed down from 11 Greenwidge 11 to purchase "Manussing" Island from the Mohegan Inu1.ans.,. An ear_:i.er1 · purcnase· h a d b een "P eningo. !"~ec k" - -all the land along the sound shore from Blind Brook to the Byram River; a later tract ran about six. miles north to certain 11 marked trees." By 1664 the western boundary was designated at the Mamaroneck River, form ing the Town much as we know it today, rne settlers soon moved from the Island to Peningo (the site of Rye City) which in 1665 they named after Rye, England, The early corony was the center of disputed claims. In 1683 Rye was ceded to New York, an action bitterly resented by the colonists. A tem porary return to Connecticut followed but Rye was again ceded to New York by Charles II as a gift to his brother, the Duke of York. During the Revolution, as a "debatable land" between the armies, the area was plun dered by both sides, Finally, in 1788, the New York State Legislature defined the limits of the Town of Rye. For almost 100 years, the Town remained secluded and absorbed in oyster ing, farming, trading and rudimentary shipping. Houses clustered at the two settlements, with paths leading to grist mills on Blind Brook and the Byram River and to farms along the ridge between. Slow coaches rumbled over the Boston Turnpike (the Post Road) and King Street; the Rye-Oyster Bay Ferry and Jared Peck's market sloops sailing from Lyons' Dock, made the tedious trip across the Sound. In 1810, the total population was 1,278. But soon new forms of travel opened the Town to the outside. The beauty of Rye Beach drew summer \'isitors to Rye on the steamships from New York. In 1837 Saw Pit was renamed Port Chester, reflecting the new importance of the steamers that carried as many as 2,000 barrels of apples and potatoes to New York, returning with manufactured goods. The ships in 51. turn were followed by the railroad, completed in 1849, and industry succeeded commerce. In 1904 Rye Village was incorporated, with a population of 3,500, By 1930 suburbanites and summer residents had tripled that to_9,000. The Vil lage of Port Chester grew 30% in one decade, 1910-1920, and by 1930 its population was 22,000, In 1942 the Village of Rye seceded completely to become a city, leaving the area now knownas Rye Neck isolated from the rest of the Town. THE TOWN TODAY .the Village of Port Chester, 25,000 people in 2.5 square miles, .part of the Village of Mamaroneck, known as "Rye Neck", just over 1 square mile with 7,000 inhabitants, .an Unincorporated Area (often called "Rye Town"), 3.5 square miles populated by 9,000 people. All three parts together constitute the whole Town. There is no longer any connection between Rye City and the Town of Rye. And while the Unin corporated Area and Port Chester are both part of the Town, neither one is part of the other - two distinctions which often cause confusion. 52. HISTORY OF THE VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER Situated in the Town of Rye, the Village of Port Chester is bounded on the west and northwest by the unincorporated area of Town of Rye, on the northeast and east by Connecticut, with a small coastline at the southeast on Long Island Sound, while to the south lies the City cf Rye, Port Chester covers 2.22 square miles (1,421 acres), is about 40 minutes from Grand Central Terminal in Manhattan. Port Chester was incorporated as a Village on May 14, 1868. Although known as Port Chester since 1837,, the area was originally called Saw Pits. In sawing planking for boats with a two-man saw, the log was anchored in the pit and one man stood in the pit while the other manned his end of the saw on the ground above. Mohegan Indians were the first known owners of .land now included in the Town of Rye. On January 3, 1660, Peter Disbrow, John Coe and Thomas Studwell concluded a treaty with the Mohegans for the purchase of a tract of land then known as Peningo Neck. Disbrow and his associates purchased Manursing Island (called Manussing at that time) on June 29, 1660. There were other purchases in the area made by Disbrow, Coe and Studwell who, reportedly, were acting on authority of the Colony of Connecticut, but the Peningo Tract and Manursing Island included the area that now constitutes the Town of Rye, in which Port Chester is loca ted. All of this, moreover, was part of the territory claimed by the Dutch West India Company; but this claim vanished when the Dutch lost control to the English on August 20, 1664. Another purchase made by the early settlers of Rye and negotiated with the Indians by Disbrow and his associates was the tract of land lying between Blind Brook and Mamaroneck River, extending as far north as Rye Pond. This area was increased by a later purchase to a point six teen miles north of Westchester Path. However, in 1695 one John Harrison, disregarding these claims, purchased from other Indians all of the territory north of Westchester Path. Called Harrison's Purchase, this land was patented to Harrison by the 53. British government, despite the prior equity of Rye; and later became Town of Harrison, including an area now called Purchase. Preswnably, the Crown decision was based on the fact that Rye had neglected to· send representatives to Governor Dongan to prove the rights of Rye·to the land. Rye reacted by seceding from New York and joining Connecticut. More over, the.early settlers did not like the taxes being levied by New York, and there was no eternal uniqueness in this attitude. Thus, the Port Chester area became part of Connecticut. Four years later, _how ever, Rye was ousted from Connecticut and returned to New York by action of the King. But as late as 1773 the Board of Supervisors of Westchester refused to recognize a supervisor from Harrison as distinct from the Town of Rye. By 1800 Rye had freed all the slaves, a total of 123 including those in Saw Pits. From this period until the Civil War, Port Chester prospered. Commerce flourished. Ships were putting out regularly from Port Chester heavily laden with produce, and returning later with shiploads of mer chandise, including yard goods, shoes, tools and other essentials. After three years of deliberation (1834-1837), the people of Saw Pits decided to change the name to Port Chester. The port had become important, Chester was named after County of Cheshire in England. The development of Port Chester as an industrial center started in 1850. Immigrants in large numbers arrived to man the factories. More than 1,695 persons were reported in the 1860 census. Growth was greatly stimu lated by the advent of the steamboat and the establishment of a landing between Rye and Port Chester in 1825. Basically an agricultural area, geared early for exportation, Port Chester changed character in the early eighteen hundreds. Because of rapid growth of population, the people of Port Chester required an increasingly large percentage of their home-raised produce for themselves. Moreover, 54. the opening of canals and turnpikes.meant keener competition from western areas. Farmers, therefore, began to raise less produce for ex portation, and Port Chester set about developing the services required by their rapidly growing industry. Travel by boat in those days was dependent on weather, since some pas sages such as Hell Gate could only be negotiated in fair weather. Over land travel to distant points was via stagecoaches. The opening of the New York-New Haven Railroad in 1848 favored Port Chester industry but terminated the importance of shipping by water from the Village. In 1868, Port Chester was incorporated as a Village. In 1975 the Vil lage Manager form of government was established. Port Chester is one of twelve charter Vi1lages in New York State, thus operating under pro visions in their own charter rather than State Village·Law. 55, THE VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER "THE DATA" POPULATION EDUCATION HOUSING INCOME PROGRAMS & SERVICES RYE TOWN SERVICES To· VILLAGE SEWER DISTRICTS SCHOOL DISTRICTS WATER SOURCES LAND AREA 56. THE VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER POPULATION: Total 25,803 White 22,098 Black 3,520 (13.6%)*. Foreign 4,586 (About one-half of foreign stock are Italian - born there are 1,075 Cubans, second highest number· in the County) Population - under 5 years 1,909 5 to 9 2,160 10 to 14 2,161 15 to 19 2,130 20 to 24 1,919 25 to 34 3,157 35 to 44 2,967 45 to 64 6,426 65+ 2,974 *Buik of Black popuiation (2,570) Zive east of Boston Post Road and Smith Street and south of Horton Street, Concen trated in Zower southeast quarter of ViiZage. NOTE: even distribution of population by age; also note that over'l0% of the population is over 65 years of age. ABOVE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM 1970 CENSUS TRACT ESTIMATED POPULATION PROJECTIONS I 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 2000 PORT CHESTER 25,803 24,000 23,200 22,000 21,500 20,000 RYE TOWN 9,560 9,300 9,300 9,300 9,,'.\00 9,500 RYE CITY 15,869 15,300 14,700 14,100 13,800 13,500 WESTCHESTER 894,104 890,000 860,000 840,000 845,000 850,000 (From Westchester County Department of Planning) 57. EDUCATION: 6,603 enrolled in school Elementary, Nursery, Kindergarten 3,989 (2,855 in public education) High School 1,931 (1,601 in public education) College 683 48.3% of the 25+ years population are High School graduates (county average - 64.5%), 11.7 median school years (county median - 12.5 years). ABOVE FROM U.S. CENSUS TRACT INFORMATION - 1970 Two school districts are located in the Village (Port Chester Union 4 and Blind Brook Union 5). The great majority of the Village is in Port Chester District. Below is information from the Westchester County Department of Planning about Port Chester Union 5. NUMBER OF SCHOOLS 5 CAPACITY 4,470 PROJECTED ENROLLMENTS: 1975 1985 1990 3,836 2,800-3,200 2,500-2,900 HOUSING: NUMBER OF UNITS (TOTAL) - 8,813 OWNER OCCUPIED - 3,361 CO-OP OR CONDO. 94 RENTER OCCUPIED · - 5,262 UNITS WITHIN STRUCTURE: BUILDING PERMITS FILED TOTAL 8,813 1970 to 1974 226 1 2,245 1975 6 2· 1,979 1976 6 3-4 1,746 1977 2 5-49 1,843 1978 7 50+ 1,000 1979 ; ' 58. HOUSING: (Con' t.) YEAR BUILT: 1939 or earlier 6,074 1940 to 1949 494 1950 to 1959 1,261 1960 to 1969 984 (1970 CENSUS) INCOME: TOTAL NIDIBER OF FAMILIES 6,791 EARNING BELOW $ 5,000 1,076 $ .5,000 - $ 5,999 345 $ 6,000 - $ 6,999 345 $ 7,000 - $ 7,999 412 $ 8,000 - $ 8,999 506 $ 9,000 - $ 9,999 406 $ 10,000 - $ 11,999 840 $12,000 - $ 14,999 1,025 $15,000 - $ 24,999 1,542 $ 25,000 - $ 49,999 277 $ 50,000+ 17 Port Chester's median income is $8,764 (LOWEST in Westchester) County average is $11,349 7.7% of the families are below the poverty level (ABOVE DATA FROM 1970 CENSUS TRACT) 59, PROGRAMS AND SERVICES·OFFERED BY THE VILLAGE TAXES: Assessment - By Town of Rye; reviewed by Board of Trustees (acting as Board of Review). Collection - Town of Rye Audits Ernest and Whinney Have Village Treasurer and Assistant Treasurer who are appointed. JUDICIAL: Village Justice - Both serving part time Acting Justice SAFETY: Police - Have own Village department, There is a Detectives Bureau, Traffic Department, Youth Officer, Anti-Crime Unit*. There are 56 total police personnel in uniform. There are 18 vehicles (includes 4 patrol cars on constant duty and l spare; meter maid scooter; Chief's car; 2 undercover, 3 detective; a van for transporting prisoners), *FederaUy funded program of specia7,. undercover poUce to patrol high crime CU1eas . Fire One district 60. Inspections - Building/Plumbing Inspector Board of Electrical Control Plumber 1 s Examiner Board Fire Inspector PLANNING: Community Development Agency Planning Commission (meets monthly) Zoning Board of Appeals Architectural Board of Review Port Chester Housing Authority (public housing, 2 senior housing units) Conservacion Advisory Board Port Chester Industrial Development Agency Committee for New Village Hall Village Center Redevelopment Advisory Committee Objective: Different parts of Village represent various neighbors; background, best for downtown. Master Plan - 1968 RECREATION: Superintendent Recreation Commission Park Conunission 8 Parks - 49.64 Total Acres HEALTH AND WELFARE: Nutrition Program Drug and Alcoholic and Abuse Council Use County Health Officer 61. PUBLIC RELATIONS: PERSONNEL: LEGAL: Corps Counsel Code Enforcement Counsel PUBLIC WORKS: Own Sanitation Department Municipal collection Monthly recycling program for newspapers Port Chester Water Works (private firm) Regular Village employees, approximately 40 CETA help, 25 Trucks, 35 Sewage is handled by the County Ambulance Service is by a volunteer corps and a contract through Abbey Richmond for 8 hours a day (cost shared equally by City of Rye, Town of Rye and Port Chester). 62. SERVICES AND PROGRAMS FOR VILLAGE PROVIDED BY VILLAGE PROVIDED BY TOWN TAXES: Assessment (includes Vil lage tax) Collection guarantees (in cludes Village tax) Conducts tax liens Town tax to Village - $ 1.31 per 1,000 SAFETY: Police Supplies Civil Defense or Fire ganization Building/Plumbing Inspec Auxiliary police budget tion Board of Electrical Con trol PLANNING: Community Development Agency Planning Commission Zoning Board of Appeals Arch. Rev. Board Housing Authority Industrial Development Agency Village Center Redevelop ment Adv. Committee RECREATION: Connnission $2,000 for band concerts 8 Parks Rye Town Park/Cranford Park Budget funds to veterans' organization Contributes $80,700 to exp. of Village Library Subsidizes senior citizens activities 63. PROVIDED BY VILLAGE PROVIDED BY TOWN HEALTH Nutrition Program Share 1/3 cost with Village & WELFARE Drug & Alcoholic Abuse and Rye City of contract Council for ambulance services Volunteer Ambulance Corps with Abbey Richmond Narcotic Commission LEGAL: Corporation Counsel Contributes the $11,000 Code Enforcement Council Village share of legal fee to Water Company suit PUBLIC Own Sanitation Department WORKS: Private Water Works Approximately 40 DPW employees REGISTRATION Done by Town as law requires & LICENSES: CEMETERY: For indigent veterans VOTING: Town provides as law requires JUDICIAL: Two part time judges Court an:d two judges MISCELLANEOUS: Provides offices for United Way and Chamber of Commerce Paid $1,000 deficit Village had for Vietnam Veterans' Memorial 64. PROVIDED BY VILLAGE PROVIDED BY TOWN FINANCIAL: Received 21% of Town E.D.A. · money Underwrites share of all expenses for: Opposition to airport exp. Water Co. rate increase CMV franchise 65. SERVICES THE TOWN OF RYE RENDERS TO THE VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER 1. Collects all taxes for .the Village and maintains Tax Collection Office. 2. Collects and guarantees 100% of Village, School, State and County truces. 3. Conducts Tax Lien and In-Rem Sales for all delinquent taxes. 4. Assesses all properties in the Village and maintains an Assessors Office. 5. Town provides a Justice Court and two Judges for Town and Village use. 6. Town provides a Town Clerk's Office and staff for registering mar riages and deaths, and issues all licenses for hunting and fishing, 7. Town of Rye provides graves for the interment of indigent Veterans at Greenwood Union Cemetery, Rye, New York. 8. Rye Town Park is owned by the Town of Rye and available to the resi dents of the Village of Port Chester. 9. Town of Rye provides and supplies a Civil Defense Organization ($3,500), 10. Budget for Auxiliary Police expenses and provides a meeting room. 11. Town of Rye supplies voting machines to the Village at no cost for Village elections. Each voting machine costs approximately $4,000 • . The Village requires sixteen voting machines and two spares. 12. Town allocates in its budget funds for Veteran Organizations to help defray the cost of their rent for meeting rooms. There are five Veteran Organizations, all in the Village ($300 each), 66. 13, Town of Rye contributes to the Memorial - Independence and Columbus Day celebrations ($300 each). 14. Town of Rye contributes $80,700 towards the expense of the Port Chester Public Library. 15. Town of Rye contributes $1,000 towards the Port Chester-Rye Town Narcotic Committee. 16. Town of Rye provides offices for United Way and Chamber of Commerce. 17. Town of Rye contributes $205,000 to the Village of Port Chester for fire protection for services only and no equity in equipment or proper ties. 18. Town of Rye subsidizes many of the Port Chester senior citizen activi ties. 19. Town of Rye, in its continuing fight with the Water Company, has put aside $16,250 for legal fees (the Village's share of $11,000 budgeted by the Town otherwise would have to be included in the Village budget). 20. Town of Rye picked up a $1,000 deficit for the Vietnam Memorial in Port Chester. 21. Town of Rye provides $2,000 for band concerts for Village of Pore Chester and Town of Rye residents. 22· Town of Rye provides Crawford Park for additional Village of Port Chester recreational activities (softball, soccer and other activities). 23. Of the $1,108,000 received from E.D.A. by the Town, the Town of Rye provided to the Village: $100,000 - New doors for fire headquarters - 9% $135,000 - Sports field complex - 12% 67. 24. Town of Rye is underwriting the Village share of all expenses for: Opposition to airport expansion Water Company rate increase CATV franchise (otherwise the Village share would have to be included in their budget) 25. Westchester County Blind Brook Sewer District #1 Village tax rate is $5.48 which would be added to the Village tax rate if Village had to collect this tax. 26. Arranged for disposition of In-Rem properties to Village of Port Chester for redevelopment or other Village uses on deferred payment basis. (Payment rtot received.) NOTE: With all of these services rendered by the Town to the Village of Port Chester, the cost to the Village tax payers·is only $1.31 per thousand per year, based upon a $10,000 home assessment $13.10 per year. 68. SEWER DISTRICTS Orange= Port Chester Blue= Blind Brook Yellow= Mamaroneck ·, !RVIEW ·. 0 RYE \ '. C, ,>, tARSDALE ,AGYL \ { -\ ,....,.....\ /'l .•\ 1, I -- I 69. !'.'LHALLA / \OUARRY - ""'\i\ .._ -- / HEl(JHrs 'i{~ 1, --\ I )1-7\ ~1~' J.:.1~~?.~':•~~:i~~- "\ c i l :~§%f~«~~k:i/i'sJ.·•'''-t'•~ L1 ~~\,,.,,,,.~~,,,h~t r-.-) L....._ .,.g,lifi~. 0 I NORTH I SILVER r ;;_H!:_7-. • L.A/(E ~.~~11-~!~Y~ ,>. '~fi;\$1.{t;:;~~ FAIRVIEW ) SCHOOL DISTRICTS _) Red= Blind Brook Union 5 Yellow= Port Chester Union 4 / Blue= Rye Neck Union 1 W H IT E " ..,;;:,_.,., ,.,",, ,., ",.-, ..:,,,/\ PLAINS \ GE"ONEY \ / '°'\ FARM$ / \ '-\ I PORT I / \ J \ /cHBSTER " I '--, i SCARSDALE " I J-z._/ ROSEDALE// ( l.__ ~ r ..-- ---...... _ -7 \ J ; ---...... _ I 11£/ITHCOTE \/ ( ) \ ,A '-. J \ // l / RYE '(/ \\ / / \\.,~.,...... J?; / I \ I \ f J - l v/· I/ (;) \ \ MAMARON,CK ~ \ ( ,-'.) 0 WYKAGYL \ \\ ({ :::!" ~ tf POINT \ /', \ . NEW \ ,/ ROCHELLE\(/ ''-...rM\, ~ \lABCMMONT \ <"'I AFFCHMONT \ \ I \ \ -----\ _____ /'l \.. 1, } 70. '--._ -.:LHALLA ) QUARRY 1_ -\\ \ WATER SOURCES \ ( ;r._ (EIGHTS ) ••\1, Dark= Municipal ""\ < ~ l I ·. Light= Private J > L~ \. \. I lr1 . \ • o /NORTH_) L'-I SILVER \ \ >. } WN/ff I AK£ • . \ PLAINS I . \ .\ .,, FAIRVIEW ) /' \ • _..) ( PURCNA SF. • \ C> / ) \RYE\ ~ . HARRISON ~ ~ /aATTL£ -- ~ l \ ~L ~ / ~ \ WHITE "-\ I // ·• )\ PI,AINS \ \ / RTSOALE / I I GEDNEY I / "\ FARMS "\ I PORT / \ J \ /CHESTER I \ I "--, ! SCARSDALE "--"' i 11___ I •"""\.~ ROSE:OALE'r'"J ___. _< I____"-...... ____, \ ) I , ;-7~'"=" \/ ( ~'f) )) \\ / ~1 , I RYE ~/' \ \ /,/ I \ / I \ /t" . ,~,,.,,:,. :•.•·, ~--....1 f ) I I llr~~~":;,,,:... ''.J.~ ''./',', •:'.,·- · .-. . \ . ,. \ / I . RY£ NECK11 ' :ti~~?-- ·\ · \) )t I ;(,t.i._~:~:, .. , . . ,, r \ MAMARONECK ,·,t~f;..;. :_:_.i_-J /) / / OF TOWN AND VILLAGES PORT CHESTER 2.22 sq. miles 3.41 sq • miles ... -: ;..... ""''"Ft,i-_,..._ ND AREA WITHIN COUNT1 Green=Town (unincorp. J rea) Yellow=village of Port Cheste Brown=Part of Village f Mamaroneck in Town of Rye f\!l UN!CIPAL!T!ES 72. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS THE ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES - PORT CHESTER - STATUS QUO - DISSOLUTION - CO-TERMINOUS VILLAGE/TOWN - CO-TERMINOUS TOWN/VILLAGE - A CITY TOWN/VILLAGE FISCAL RELATIONS CHARTS ACTUAL & FULL VALUE ASSESSMENTS EQUALIZATION RATES TOWN ASSESSMENTS & POPULATION DATA GRANTS & CHARGES FOR VILLAGE SERVICES 73. PORT CHESTER FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Port Chester is the fifth most populous Village in the State. It has a population greater than 37 of the State's 62 cities. The Village of Port Chester is one of a surviving group of twelve Vil lages which have special charters. Ten of these Villages ha,,e popula tions of less than 10,500, with the smallest having a population of only 474. (l) The charter should be the Village's basic law. Much of the content of Port Chester's 250 page document is a well kept secret to most of its residents. There is no index. There is little infonnation as to the source and date of amendments. Twenty-five pages are devoted to "tax liens". Forty-three pages are devoted to "special road assessments". Six pages are devoted to "local police pension fund" to which no new members have been eligible since 1940. Sixteen pages are devoted to the 11 issuance of bondsu. Nineteen pages are devoted to "special assess ment rules". All of the above charter subjects are more adequately treated in Village Law or Local Finance Law where the regulations are more readily access ible. Other provision's are totally inadequate to address today's problems. For example, without a referendum the Village can only levy one-fourth of one percentum of the total assessed valuation for highway and bridge maintenance. The same limitation is applicable to street lighting. For sprinkling the streets, the limitation if one-fifteenth of one percentum, The Village uses the Town assessment roll for the levying of Village taxes. From 1969/iO until 1980/81 that roll declined from $63,974,701 to $61,911,701, a decrease of $2,063,000. At the same time, the State (1) All population figures in this report refer to the 1970 Census since final 1980 figures are not available. 74. Equalization Rate declined from 37,00% to 19.64%. Applying the equali zation rate we find that the "true value" of Port Chester prope'rty in creased from $172,904,597 in 1969/70 to $315,911,858 in 1980/81, an in crease of 183%. (Charts #1 and #2, Schedule #lA) During the same period of 1969/70 to 1980/81, the Village budget rose from $3,044,831 to $7,298,559, an increase of $4,253,728 or 240%. The property tax levy to partially fund the budget rose from $2,231,146 in 1969/70 to $5,304,556 in 1980/81, an increase of $3,073,410 or 238%. (Chart #4, Schedule #2A) Because the levy is based upon a wholly unrealistic assessment, the Vil lage tax rate had to be increased 246% from the 1969/70 rate of $34.87 per $1,000 to the 1980/81 rate of $85.68 per $1,000. However, if the "true value" of the property is taken into consideration the tax rate increase was $2.70 for that period. While the Village's assessment roll during the 11 year period was de creasing $2,063,000, the unincorporated area of the Town assessment was increasing $10,193,268. Of the total 1980 Town assessment roll of $131,332,352 ("true value" $668,696,530); 47.33% is in Port Chester, 19.21% in the Village of Mamaroneck portion of the Town and 33.46% in the unincorporated area, Population-wise Port Chester constitutes 59.68%, Mamaroneck 18.ZO;; and the unincorporated area 22.11% of the entire Town's 43,234 persons. (Chart #3, Schedule #3A) Grants and charges for Village services and other revenues are shown on Chart #4, Schedule 4A. Of the Village's 1980/81 budget of $7,298,559, 63,82% go to three func tional groupings: (a) 30.75% to public safety, (b) 19.47% to employee benefits end (c) 14,1% to general government support. (Chart #5) 75. Capital expenditures, for the most part, have been financed by short term borrowings. Five percent of the estimated cost of proposed capital expenditures are included in each year's General Fund appro priations. The subsequent borrowing, both principal and interest, are then repaid by annual debt reduction appropriations. The Village's most recent long-term bond issue was a $1,175,800 offer- ~ ing dated October 1, 1972, It combined 23 short-term issues into a single long-term issue. As of April 1, 1980, the 1972 outstanding bonds totaled $870,000 on which interest charges of $269,625 will be paid. The legal limit for long-term borrowing is 7% of the average full val uation for the preceding five years with certain statutory exemptions allowed from the 7% limitation. As of 1980, Port Chester's borrowing capacity was $19,834,766 of which approximately $19,000,000 is unused. 76. TOWN-VILLAGE FISCAL RELATIONS Unlike most Towns and their incorporated Villages, the Town of Rye and the Village of Port Chester seem to enjoy a most cordial relationship. Several of the Town elected officials are Village residents. Many of the Town employees are Village residents. A number of functions are per formed on a cooperative basis. The above noted charter, however, does contain some goodies that would be the envy of practically all other Villages which are constantly feud ing with their respective Towns regarding the imposition of Town taxes for services that are neither furnished the Villages or needed by the Villages and frequently duplicate an existing Village service. These require the Town of Rye to: (a) collect Village taxes (2); (b) prepare the Village assessment roll; (c) exempt the Village from the authority and expenses of the Town superintendent of highways and any taxes for the maintenance of Town roads. The Town of Rye, in effect, is not one but two basic governments. One is the entire or general Town which includes the unincorporated area plus all of the Village of Port Chester plus that portion of the Village of Mamaroneck which is not in the Town of Mamaroneck. The other is the Town outside of the Villages, i.e., the unincorporated area standing along. Rye's annual budget, while a single document, is actually .two documents- one that affects the entire Town including the Villages and the other that affects only the unincorporated area. Because of the above noted charter provisions,there i~ less overlapping of tax charges in Rye than there is in most other Towns. However, some overlapping does exist. For example, the Supervisor and Town Board make a very few decisions that directly affect Village resider.ts. The Viilage maintains its own court so that very few cases affecting only Village (2) In 1980/81 the Village has budgeted $29,000 for the services of the Town Collector of Taxes, 77. re.sidents are heard in the Town Justice I s court. By law the Town is required to collect school, county and special dis trict taxes; to issue marriage licenses (birth and death certificates are issued by the registrar of vital statistics of the municipality in which the event occurred); to conduct all primary and general elections and registration for the same. Fire protection in the unincorporated area is furnished entirely by the Village of Port Chester which, for 1980/81 budgeted $466,717 for its Fire Department. That figure does not include the cost of retirement, social security, workmens compensation insurance, liability insurance, life in surance, hospitalization insurance or amortization of capital costs, all of which conservatively total more than $150,000 - for a grand total of $616,000. That amount is equal to $10.00 on the Village tax rate. In 1980 the Town is paying the Village $205,000 for fire protection. On the basis of the unincorporated area's assessment, that payment is equiva lent to $4.70 on the Town outside tax rate. While title to the Town park system is in the Town's name, the Village taxpayers contribute their proportionate share of the operating and capital costs. Among other cooperative areas the operating cost of the Public Library is allocated one-third to the Town outside and two-thirds to the Village. The Town also contributed to the maintenance of veterans' meeting rooms, civic celebrations and band concerts which amount to approxmiately $5,000. All Towns and Villages receive substantial sums from both the State and Federal governments. State per capita aid is based entirely upon popula tion. The State pays Port Chester directly for their population. The State pay Towns on the basis of the population of the entire Town, i.e., the population of the unincorporated area plus the population of any Villages in the Town. 78. The formula for Federal revenue sharing is more complex. It is based upon: (a) population; (b) general tax effort factor; (c) relative in come factor. For 1980/81 the Village has an FRS of $240,000 while the Town budgeted its FRS at $243,000. Much of the Town's allocation is attributable to the lower economic factor for Port Chester and the popu lation of both Villages. The Town credits all of the State per capita aid to the entire Town. However, only $42,000 of Federal revenue sharing funds is credited co the entire Town for "Elections". The remaining $201,000 is credited to the Town outside with $30,000 going. towar.d the $205,000 the Town pays the Village for fire protection and $171,000 going toward sanitation ex pense. Should the Village opt for either Village/Town or City status, the Town would have to relocate its municipal offices from their present location in the Village into the unincorporated area. 79. VILLAGE OPTIONS FOR IMPROVING ITS FINANCIAL STATUS It is axiomatic; in both the public and private sectors, that financial stability can be attained by: (a) cutting expenses; (b) increasing revenue; (c) a combination of both. Since it is a goal of the Village to attain financial stability, the re mainder of this report will examine the Village's options and the pros and cons of each. A. Make no change in the existing governmental struc ture; B. Dissolve the Village and become an addition to the unincorporated area.of the Town; C. Become a co-terminous Village/Town based on the present Village boundaries; D. Become a co-terminous Town/Village based on the present Town boundaries; E. Seek a charter as a CLty. OPTION A - NO CHANGE IN STATUS Should the Village decide to continue their present status, the charter should be amended to make it a more viable and easily understood document. Since, as a Village, their local sources of revenue are limited they must look elsewhere for additional funding because of their shrinking tax base and inflation-fed .escalating operating costs. 80. Two possible sources of increased income lie with the Town: (a) a more equitable charge for fire protection; (b) greater credit from Federal revenue sharing funds. Close attention should also be paid to cash flow so that the timely in vestment of temporarily idle funds produce the maximum interest return. OPTION B - DISSOLUTION Under this option, upon a favorable vote of the Village voters, the Vil lage would surrender its charter and incorporated status and become part of the unincorporated area of the Town. After the effective date "Port Chester" simply would be a postal designation. Throughout the State there are 16 such populated areas larger than Port Chester that are in this category. MAJOR ADVANTAGES OF DISSOLUTION l. A layer of government is eliminated. 2, The Town does not have to be consulted via the ballot. A special election, at Village expense, open only to Village voters which, if approved, would become effective the following lJecember 31st. 3. The wealthier and growing tax base of the Town eventually would minimize the inevitable tax increases in the Village. 4. A single tax bill combining all Town, County and special district charges, including charges resulting from Port Chester's prior status, would be issued by the Town. 81. MAJOR DISADVANTAGES OF DISSOLUTION 1, The five member Town Board would replace the seven member Village Board as the governing body. 2, The Utilities gross receipts tax ($104,000) levied by the Village will be lost as Towns have no authority for levying such a tax. 3. Federal revenue sharing funds ($240,000) now be ing paid to the Village will be lost without any compensating increase in the amount of FRS paid to the Town. 4. St~te per capita aid ($240,000) paid to the Vil lage will be phased out over a five year period at the rate of 20% per year. 5. The present Village limits will become a "spe cial district" for the purpose of retiring Vil lage bonds and notes ($715,000), 6. The present Village limits, if a service level above that furnished to the unincorporated area is desired and the Town is unwilling to furnish it, would be constituted as a "special district" with a district charge for the service(s). This would affect such services as policeand street lighting, 7. The present $202,000 Village street maintenance budget will be combined with the Town's $459,923 street maintenance budget and administered by the Town Superintendent of Highways. Port Chester residents will be responsible for 59% of the total $661,923, 82. 8. Taxes applicable to the present Village limits, which are now payable semiannually, will be in cluded in the Town tax bill and subject to a single payment due each April 1st. 9. Jurisdictional disputes might occur between competing employee bargaining units representing the same occupational groups in the Tmm and in the Village. 10. The Village would lose its identity as a govern mental unit and become a simple "postal designa tion11. 11, Unless the Town would be able rapidly to blend the work forces of the Town and the Village, the quality and efficiency of the delivery of services might be adversely affected. OPTION C - CO-TERMINOUS VILLAGE/TOWN To use this option the Village would have to petition the W_estchester County Board of Legislators to authorize a referendum on the proposition to divide the Town of Rye into two parts: (a) the present limits of the Village of Port Chester which, if the referendum succeeded, would become a co-termin ous Village/Town; (b) the present limits of the Town of Rye less the limits of the present Village of Port Chester. Governmentally, the portion of the Village of Mamaroneck, which is within the Town of Rye, would not be affected. If the County Board approved the petition the referendum could be held only at the biennial Town election. If the majority voting approves the proposi •tion, all of the Town's qualified voters being eligible, the changeover would take place the January 1st following the biennial election for the 83. new Village/Town officers. In the State there are only four such co-terminous governments, three of which are in Westchester, namely, Scarsdale, Mt. Kisco and Harrison. MAJOR ADVANTAGES OF A CO-TERMINOUS VILLAGE/TOWN 1. A layer of government is. eliminated. 2. The Village/Town would not be affected or finan cially responsible by decisions or actions of the Rye ~own Board. 3. Be relieved of all taxes levied by the Town of Rye for the support of general Town functions, (in 1980, $81,000). 4. Be eligible for increased State per capita aid (approximately $50,000). 5. Be relieved of the payment to the Town for tax collecti_on/assessing services ($29,000). 6. Be eligible for additional Federal revenue shar ing funds (approximately $100,000), 7. Be eligible for all of the mortgage tax attrib utable to mortgages involving properties within the Village/Town limits (approximately $25,000). 8. Be eligible for State reimbursement for the mandatory reassessment of all property (approxi-. mately $10 per parcel). 9. Be eligible for any sales tax credits issued by the County to Towns. 84. 10. Retain, for Village purposes, the Village charter either in its present or amended form. 11, Be eligible for $17,000 now being paid annually, in lieu of taxes, to the Town of Rye by the Port Chester Housing Authority. 12. Would have a greater voice in the political processes at the County and State levels. MAJOR DISADVANTAGES OF A VILLAGE/TOWN 1. Be responsible for the assessing function and the billing and 100% collection of Village/ Town taxes, school taxes and county taxes (approximately $100,000 in ad'dition to pres ent costs). 2. Be responsible for the conduct of all elections - primary, registration and general (approximately $20,000 additional to present costs plus a one time charge for purchase of machines). 3. Be responsible for carrying out the mandatory pr~perty reassessment, 4, Use of certain Town park facilities might be de nied to Village residents, 5. Present Village municipal facilities might be in adequate for the proper administration of the additional responsibilities, 85. 6. Requires the County Board of Legislators to put the proposition on the ballot. 7. Requires the favorable vote of the entire Town, i.e., Port Chester, the unincorpora ted area, and the Rye portion of the Vil lage of Mamaroneck. 8. The division of assets and liabilities of the Town must be negotiated. OPTION D - CO-TERMINOUS TOWN/VILLAGE This is not a viable option because a portion of the Village of Mamaroneck is in the Town of Rye. If the Rye Town portion of the Village of Hamar.oneck were annexed to the Town of Mamaroneck, or if the Village of Mamaroneck was successful in be coming the co-terminous Village/Town of Mamaroneck Harbor, then this option might be workable. Pending removal of the "ifs", the closest substitute for such a happening is Option B, Dissolution of the Village. OPTION E - CITY CHARTER To become a city, a locally drawn charter is submitted to the State Legis lature. There the draft can be amended as the Legislature sees fit. When passed by both Houses and signed by the Governor, the State approved charter is then submitted to a referendum of the Port Chester voters. 86. Officially, the Tovn does not enter into the approval process. The effective date would be fixed by the charter. The general impression of municipalities that are incorporated as "cities" is that they are less affluent than other municipalities and need special assistance. Port Chester's relative income factor and population, when blended in to the Towr. of Rye's total picture, help to increase both the Tovn's Federal revenue sharing funds and State per capita aid. On the State level, per capita aid to cities is much higher than that for Villages and Towns. For 1980/81 the Village budgeted State per capita aid at $200,000. At the same time, the City of Peekskill (19,283) and the City of Rye (15,869) will receive $1,250,000 and $965,000, respectively. Unfortunately, because of a limiting provision in the law, the "City of Port Chester" would not receive as much State per capita aid as either Peekskill or Rye City. However, the Legislature either by special legislation or by inclusion in the charter, could negate the dis parity. MAJOR ADVANTAGES OF OBTAINING A CHARTER AS A CITY 1. A layer of government is eliminated. 2. The city would not be affected or financially responsible by decisions or actions of the Rye Town Board. 3. A modern up-to-date city charter would replace the Village charter. 87. 4. Be relieved of all taxes levied by the Town of Rye for the support of general or entire Town functions (in 1980, approximately $81,000). 5, Be relieved of the payments to the Town for tax collection/assessment services ($29,000). 6. Compliance with the Civil Service Law can be by either: (a) a locally appointed civil service connnission; (b) a locally appointed personnel officer; (c) or continuation under the Westchester County Personnel Office. 7, Broader taxing powers that are available only to cities. 8. All school districts within the city will be subject to the taxing and bonding limitations placed on cities. Board of Education members will still be elected but the annual school budget will no longer be subject to referendum. 9. Be eligible for additional State per capita aid which could range from between $450,000 and $900,000, depending upon actions of the State Legislature. 10. Be eligible for additional Federal revenue shar ing funds (approximately $100,000). 11. Be eligible for all of the mortgage tax attribut able to mortgages involving properties within its limits (approximately $25,000). 88. 12. Be eligible for $17,000 now being paid in lieu of taxes to the Town of Rye by the Port Chester Housing Authority. 13. All local court costs will be paid by the State. However, appointment, instead of election, of a City Court Judge and an Assistant Court Judge for four year terms is vested in the City Council (approximately $100,000). 14. Be eligible for State reimbursement for mandatory reassessment of all property (approximately $10 per parcel), 15. Be eligible for any sales tax credits issued by the County. 16. Greatly increased cash flow will make additional funds available for temporary investment (approxi mately $20,000). 17. Will have a greater voice in the political pro cesses at the County and the State levels. MAJOR DISADVANTAGES AS A CITY 1. A locally drawn charter must be approved by the State Legislature and signed by the Governor. Such State approved charter is submitted to the Port Chester electorate for approval. As approved by the State, the charter may not be everything the residents would like it to be. 89. 2. Be responsible for the assessing function and the billing and 100% collection of city, school and county taxes (approximately $100,000 in addition to present costs). 3. Be responsible for the conduct of all elections - primary, registration and general (approximately $20,000 additional to present costs plus the one-time charge for purchase of machines). 4. Be responsible for carrying out the mandatory property reassessment. 5. Use of certain ·Rye Town park facilities might be denied to·city residents. 6. Present Village municipal facilities might be in adequate for the proper administration of the additional responsibilities. 7. Obligatory to assume responsibility for maintenance of highways now maintained by the State (approximately $25,000). 8. Cost of legal sen•ices would be increase:l approximately $20,000. 9. The division of assets and liabilities of the Town must be negotiated. 90. DISSOLUTION Present Village Revenues that would Accrue to the Town: Departmental fees $ 268,800 Charges to other governments 209,000 Business & Occupational Licenses 17,050 Licenses & Permits 16,800 Fines & Forfeited Bail 155,000 State & Federal Aid 116,500 Mortgage Tax 40,000 $ 823,150 Present Village Revenues that will be Lost Entirely: Utilities Gross Receipts Tax $104,000 Federal Revenue Sharing 240,000 State Per Capita (5 Yr. Phaseout) 200,000 544,000 Net Revenue Gain $ 279,150 General (Entire) Town Budget Increase Necessary to Service the Enlarged Unincorporated Area: Staff $ 186,000 Public Safety 32,000 Public Health 45,000 Street 200,000 Nutrition Program 70,000 Parks & Recreation 251,000 Sewers 51,000 Refuse & Garbage 476,802 Special. Items 3,000,000 $4,311,802 91. *Amount of Present Village Appropriations Not Necessary for Maintaining Former Village Services: Legislative $ 44,173 Judicial 119,148 Executive 7,200 Staff 125,000 Shared Services 12,000 307,521 NET GENERAL TOWN BUDGET $ 4,004,281 APPROPRIATION INCREASE *NOTE: (a) Only the present Village taxpayers will be responsible for the current Village "Debt Service" of $715,000, (b) If the present Village is made a "Special Police District", it alone would be re sponsible for its police budget - currently $1,377,004 plus fringes. (c) If a "Special Street Lighting District" is created the current cost is $241,000. 92. CO-TERMINOUS VILLAGE/TOWN Increase Income/Decrease Expense: Additional State P.er Capita Aid $ 50,000 Additional Federal Revenue Sharing 100,000 Additional Mortgage Tax 25,000 Public Housing in lieu paid to Town 17,000 No Town Assessment & Tax Charges 29,000 No General Town Tax (Rye) 81,000 Reassessment Reimbursement ? Excess Sales Tax (if any) ? $352,000 Increased Operating Expense: Tax & Assessment expense $ 100,000 Decrease in Town contributions 5,000 Conduct of elections: Primarys, Registrations, & general 20,000 Purchase of Machines (one-time charge) 30,000 Interest charges (School & County Taxes) 25,000 Increased Legal fees 20,000 200,000 NET INCREASED INCOME $152,000 UNKNOWN: Settlement coses of Town debts 93. CITY CHARTER Increased Income/Decreased Expense: Additional State Per Capita Aid $ 900,000* Additional Federal Revenue Sharing 100,000 Additional Mortgage Tax 25,000 Public Housing in lieu paid to Town 17,000 No Court operations expense 100,000 No Town Assessment & tax charge 29,000 No General Town Tax 82,000 Increased Interest earning potential 20,000 Reassessment reimbursement ? Excess Sales Tax (if any) ? $ 1,272,000 Increased Operating Expenses: Tax & Assessment expense $ 100,000 Decreased Town contributions 5,000 Conduct of elections: Primarys, Registrations, & general 20,000 Purchase of Machines (one-time charge) 30,000 Interest charges (School & County Taxes) 25,000 Increased Legal costs 20,000 Maintenance of State Highways 25,000 225,000 NET INCREASED INCOME $1,047,000 UNKNOWN: Settlement costs of Town debts *Amount of additional State Per Capita Aid sv.bjeat to the Legislatux,e waiving the limitation above approximately $500,000. vn.H.nT tt 1. 94. __A_CTUAL AND FULL VALUE ASSESSMENTS ( 000, 000) Source: Comptrollers Reports; Village Budgets !ll!. l i i I . __ _i 3601> I T. .' I 'l45, I> • ·!"-·' . . , ··- -t-- ..... I.. ·------:---·. : : i I 3 JO I 0.5 ~ 1 .. . -- -· - ·-. ------··--···-· I l.' I -::io .. i r I .. ! . f ----T·---· -···-- I 1 ...... --+ .. -- -· .. -- -- ' I ---i I ' I ' Ac1tua]! asfje SSl ent~ i ( i,ncl~ding/ ·spejcia'Jj' ---7 FISCAL YEAR ENDING J/31: firanc;hises) i ! : C, : . -- .;. . t •··---·i I r Jq 70 ?I TV '1.3 ?4 7S" -JC. 77 C'/ I I ' ! .. 0 (.. " 0 ti. a:,,: VJ.tZ'l.J.\..1. TT(.,. 95. ',,,, ··,,~ ...... EQUALIZATION RATES; ACTUAL AND FULL VALUE TAX RATES $$$ Source: Comptrollers Reports; Budgets ,0 l : ·c . - ...... ·-·r---~ ---·, l i i · 1 1 , i j. ·· r·- .·---·r- I .i :. ;.... ·-·~-·+·i ;'. ' 100 . I ' '. . --- - .. i 0 . ' ... T ' L____ J___ --- .l 95 6. ··-··· ! j· ' 90 _, I . i I .- ...... i I , ' 85,. (. · .A(;~:l $I:~o~a!!l~-~-s~~nt) I l ! ! 1 so .. -~ . I : t-7-· :'_. .... { ...... ! ! -+ i ... ·f .: ... i ,,·· i' I : : ·-·;·-···-1--· ! .. i ·1·· rr 60 • .. I ;/--·--·...l--·-·····i--- l ; -···1,1·· •-····r,·_-· - ·- i i : ,' .. I;··--T--··t· j I :·--• .,l , .---,,----! .. ; I i ---j 1 --····1- .... :• ... ·-+ · . ! : I '. .... ··j .• . . i . ! .. I .T ! i . . l I ' ... ···1-···•-·--·1' . . -~- ... l I ··--1-." -: I l ' I ; ' ... _. !-· t-···· -· --~... _)' 35 0 j I ·: .•. 30" . ' -·-····' ' ' • I 25 " i ··· I -~-··- .. -- --·, i I 20 o ! ',, \ St11te fqua~iz~~ i~r{ Ra~e 15,. · --,-----;----.-..- ..- .... ,,,, _, F'ull---value! taxl-ra-t'e ...... -1 : I ' ! ! J . . ' I ' 10 .. ... ,. -i ·-··t· ,;. '.' ! :· .; ---- ·1· -- i i : . i ! -+-· . ! ·- --1"· .. - ~ • i ' I (tf7l'> 11 13 ?'( 1, 7f ._?_f t···· :...... 1\. .... ! .. ! ' l t' i...... i__ .... -- • • • ...... • • ... 0 .. ... JO) "' Oil' "" ...... ~ ...... IL,,,!. ~£QJ'illlrfS' ASSESSMllNTS AND ·POPULATION DATA Source: Town Tax Information Sheets (000,000)... 140a,. ,. --t· I ' Ti;,tal Town Assessment: .. J . , l}O o ! . . ! I i ' .... \.•.. -·'. .20,a l .10 0 ------·. ,- .. j I I ' _ooc;, ... i :-- -·· I --r---! \ 900 . ,. 80c. l : i 70..,,_ ·\· ·-[··· -- P?rt Chester AsseFsmept . . . - . '· . ·!·-- 60 0 500 ··-·-· i -j : I Unincorporatef __ ar!'a. t se~smeqt ls.Qt., ~--·-·· ' ' ' ' l I ~~o lo) Village of Mainaro~ec~ ·-- · · -1 1 7 Assessment • 20 u . • ~ I-1 "- 1111 7z 13 ?9- 75 7C 77 .7f . ?f .Yo *****t***t***~***: . ~ ;- ······j ··-· .S.,...eJf So60 "P/.~ .-,q,ov 1.71 ""1..lr.J.. /,OI /,IC/. !.~ /,II. ,.v.( t~3.t Cfl' /,~/ Toy,n Tax R.a.t~ Jt.2.,;- ./ Port Chestpr , j' ! ' ! . ' C . I • -·· ····-· ·-··· '!'otal town population (197Q) 43,234 , : ,•. Unincorporated Area .; 9,560 22,.11%,. - ---+-. ; ' I r Village of Mamaroneck . 7,871 lB[-201> ...L / C ?art Chester : 2.5' 803 .59j- 68%. i 7 , ' I C. I ..;..._. • ••·•---i I ! ·j' . ~-' 0 I t" ---·-1 'j ! ' .. l \ ··-\ I ; J : i ;__ __L__~ ,. a. 0 ,. C ,,. ., >C .. '- <:. "' a .. "' "' ,, .. CHART #4 97. GRAN'~S,~_,_,_, AND CHP.3(::;s FOR VILLAGE SERVICES Source: Village ( OOO's )-. Budgets 650 • · ... T--··r·· .. I I -L----~- .... ! ...... -4-· 'I ; 500. : ·- -' -, . ·------Federai Fupds ' 450. . : .... : ·---·- ... · 1 St~te Funds : 400. . ·1: ·- .. ---·-· - -· . i ' I I ! 35Q,,. .. ' r .. i __ .1 ' I; ! I. : ' .. .. ·-· i...... !' --t-····j i I 25Q. I ..... i .. ···i i I se Vl.C/=S I L. .... 't .. Ch~rge? f'..9F - ... - -·-·. -··-1 20C.,. to'the,Towp of Ryef , ! I ' • I ' ' 15'6 .. f··· -·1 l , lOQ,, j. .., ....~ ...... j 1'f7o ?! 1Z 73 71- 7~ 1, 7~ . 1f. 71 ~ ff . _ _l_ __i .. FEDERAL=Revenue sharing,+ CF;TA t Anti-rE¥cesi;iion. : / / S'l'ATE = Per Capita + Mortgag;e Tij.X + 'LOS$ on Railroad RevenUfclS +: • Navigation enforcement 1 Elderl;s, + Youtn Prograins +: Snorn ·· ···; TOWN " Charge for fire prot~cti~n + ;pol}ce ~ervices: · i ! • *****~; .. ;~**** ·: : .. . . +-·--1 BUDGETS; TAX LEVYS ANJ::i COLLECTIONS; OTHER'.REVENUES ! i ( OOQ, 000) ."""T":'T--.. -.-. ·=:"-~ --fl __,, , __ .,... ----~- ·l . ~ 8 I l ' I l V~lla~~. Bp.dge jt~ . __ _L .... ,,i 7 .. . . I ; ! 6 [. . .. ~' .... ·I' • I ! . : l . I Levysi , 5 • ...... , ... Vfl1-a.-~e. ~fl: .. ·i- · - ··-r--- - f I 1 1 I i . I : : ! : I ' : I . ..l - ' .. --- --1· -··1· -- ... - I, ,. ; I I I i ' . ' ' i l --1' . I ...... ··:· ·• --- ·r· · · •· r · J • I I I I I I I I , : . I I -I - ..., .... 1· . --·-r··· - ··- 2 Cl . ' O-j;herrRevenue~ i · I i i , l .. r•·--; . -· , . ····: - •"! 1 " I ; I l I ' i j ' I • !· .. ·-+--.... ,.... ,-4--·! Tax C?lle?tiors (~) ··- ·'-·-·...... ·---1·-•···· • ... It, SCHEDULE /llA 98. STATE FISCAL YEAR ASSESSED VALUATION EQUALIZATION ACTUAL TAX FULL VALUE ENDING (Inc. Spec, Franchise) RATE FULL VALUATION RA1:E TAX RATE 1970 $ 63,974,701 37. $ 172,904,597 $ 34 .87 $ 12.90 1971 64,987,959 36. 180,522,108 37.56 13.52 1972 65,t,92,575 34. 192,625,220 44.96 15.29 1973 65,858,695 32. 205,809,370 48.38 15.48 1974 65,860,871 30. 219,536,236 51.64 15.49 1975 66,358,481 27. 245 t 772 I 152 56.62 15.28 1976 64,743,138 25.16 257,325,668 62.16 15.64 1977 64,764,651 24.07 269,067,931 62.13 14.95 1978 64,599,596 23.09 279,773,045 67.89 15.68 1979 64,330,926 21.83 294,690,453 72.50 15.82 1980 62,045,08~ 19.64 315,911,858 79.43. 15.60 1981 61,911,701 NA NA 85.68 NA ACTUAL VALUE AND FULL VALUE ASSESSMENTS EQUJ\LIZA'l'ION RATES i ACTUAL TAX RATES FULi, VALUE TAX FATES Source: Village Budgets Comptrollers' Reports 99. SCHEDULE IJ2A FISCAL YEAR OTHER % TAX ENDING BUDGET TAX LEVY REVENUES COLLECTED 1970 $ 3,044,831 $ 2,231,146 $ 818,685 97.63% 1971 3,332,056 2,440,881 891,175 67.57% 1972 3,967,612 2,944,812 1,022,800 97 .13% 1973 4,241,808 3,186,235 1,055,573 96.75'.~ 1974 4,491,580 3,400,972 1,090,608 96. 98% 1975 5,138,887 3,757,544 1,381,343 93.53% 1976 5,447,404 4,024,476 1,452,928 96.78% 1977 5,490,853 4,023,859 1,406,994 *93.87% 1978 5,729,246 4,385,346 1,333,900 *100.00% 1979 6,282,228 4,664,249 1,617,979 *100.00% 1980 6,702,062 4,928,068 1,773,994 *100.00% 1981 7,298,559 5,304,556 1,994,003 *100.00% BUDGETS; TAX LEVYS; OTHER REVENUES Source: Village Budgets Comptrollers' Reports *100% COLLECTION GUARANTEED EX THE TOWN OP RYE SCHEDULE 113A 100. FISCAL YEAR WTAL UNINCORPORATED ENTIRE TOWN ENDING ASSESSMENT AREA MA11ARONECK PORT CHESTER TAX RATE - 1971 $ 123,640,915 $ 33,733,207 $ 24,518,119 $65,389,589 $ 1.77 1972 126,416,961 36,166,576 24,500,416 65,749,969 2.14 1973 128,411,447 37,555,473 24,907,333 65, 91,a. 641 1.01 ·1974 132,260,710 41,016,905 25,102,957 66,140,848 1.14 1975 130,712,444 41,005,983 24,816,050 64,690,411 1.23 1976 131,431,063 41,642,042 24,877,669 64,911,352 1.16 1977 131,259,205 41,801,290 24,864,119 64,593,796 1.25 1978 131,291,665 41,989,177 21, ,932 ,042 64,369,446 1.31 1979 130,162,682 42,928,480 25,068,204 62,165,998 1.31 1980 131,332,352 43,926,475 25,236,691 62,169,186 1.31 33.116% 19.21% 4 7. 33% TOWN COMPONENTS' ASSESSMENT & POPULATION DATA SOURCE: TOWN TAX BILL INSERTS POPULATION (1970) 43,234 I 9,560 I 7,871 I25,803 22.11% 18.20% 59.68% 101. SCHEDULE /14A FISCAL YEAR ENDING FEDERAL FUNDS STATE FUNDS TOWN FUNDS 1970 -0- 227,850 154,200 1971 -0- 234,350 175,500 1972 -0- 273,565 201,900 1973 -0- 327,885 134,285 1974 -0- 294,385 133,700 1975 409,500 282,465 153,200 1976 260,000 357,965 167,000 1977 308,100 408,216 151,000 1978 350,000 296,450 155,800 1979 615,544 323,100 175,000 1980 512,795 392,849 190,000 1981 461,767 420,500 205,000 GRANTS AND CHARGES FOR SERVICES SOURCE: VILLAGE BUDGETS FEDERAL - REVENUE SHARING+ CETA + ANTI-RECESSION STATE - PER CAPITA+ MORTGAGE TAX+ LOSS ON RAILROAD REVENUE + NAVIGATION ENFORCEMENT+ ELDERLY+ YOUTH PROGRAM + SNOW REMOVAL CHARGES TOWN - CHARGES FOR POLICE SERVICES+ FIRE PROTECTION 102, DEFINITIONS GENERAL GOVERNMENT SUPPORT includes: Board of Trustees; Village Justice; Traffic Commission; Mayor; Manager; Auditor; Treasurer; Budget; Purchasing; Assessment; Tax Advertising; Clerk; Law; Bingo; Engineer; Elections; Public Works Administration; Buildings; Central Garage; Unallocated Insurance; Municipal Association Dues; Judgement & Claims; Taxes & Assessments (village property); Bond ing Attorney; Village Hall; Contingent Account; Refunds of Re.al Property Taxes. PUBLIC SAFETY includes: Police; Operation Crime Stop; Jail; Traffic Control; On-street Parking; Fire Department; Control of Animals; Safety Inspection; Street Signs and Lines. HEALTH includes: Registrar of Vital Statistics; Board of Health. TRANSPORTATION includes: Street Maintenance; Snow Removal; Street Lighting; Street Cleaning ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE includes: CETA Programs;.Programs for the Aging (nutrition). CULTURE & RECREATION includes: Parks, Playgrounds; Shade Trees; Marina: Youth Programs; Celebrations; Adult Recreation; Programs for the Aging. HOME & COMMUNITY SERVICES includes: Planning & Zoning; Architectural Board; Emergency Tennant Protection; Sanitary Sewen; Storm Sewers; Pump Stations; Refuse & Garbage; Transfer Station. 103. EMPLOYEE BENEFITS includes: State Retirement; Fire & Police Retirement; Local Police Pension Fund; Social Security; Workmens Compensation Insurance; Life Insurance; Unemployment Insurance; Hospitalization Insurance. INTERFUND TRANSFERS include: Community Development Program; Library Fund; Capital Fund. DEBT SERVICE includes: Serial Bonds & Interest; Statutory Notes & Interest; Bond Anticipation Notes & Interest; Tax Anticipation Notes & Interest. !Oli. CHART 05 SOURCE: COHI'1'ROLLERS' REPOH'rS VILLAGE I 981 BUDGET FIY ENDING FUNC'rIONAL GROU!JINGS 3/31/71 3/3)./72 3/31/73 3/31/7t, 3/31/75 3/31/76 ··- GENERAL GOVERNMENT SUPPORT /134, 689 354,398 440,791 485,496 535,178 595,013 PUBLIC SAFETY 1,088,297 1,230,091 1,181,312 1,252,363 1,349,503 1,424,208 HEALTII H,259 14,917 10,802 14,169 11,370 17,288 TRANSPORTATION 225,282 228,409 254,532 290,571 345,385 369,589 ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE -0- 7,340 44,553 20,412 3,447 184,989 CULTURE & RECREATION 253,486 262,164 272,865 330,220 352,696 364,179 HONE & COMMUNITY SERVICES 708,418 724,540 725,980 758,141 805,183 775,573 ENPLOYEE BENEFITS 411,145 535,042 619,603 753,346 833,851 1,040,604 *INTERFUND TRANSFERS 6,280 5,450 5,850 19,150 13,900 5,850 DEBT SERVICE 413,920 563,404 612,971 673,697 716,960 826,544 TOTALS 3,563,623 3,925,755 4,169,260 4,597,566 4,967,475 5,603,837 *INTERFUNO TRANSFERS INCLUDE: CAPITAL FUND 6,280 5,450 5,850 19,150 13,900 5,350 LIDRARY FUND -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- CO.HMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND -0- -0- -0- -o- -0- -0- -CONTINUED ON PAGE 105- CHART 05 (continued) 105. F/Y ENDING BUDGET % OF1981 FUNCTIONAL GROUPINGS 3/31/77 3/31/78 3/31/79 3/31/80 1981 BUDGET GENER/\L GOVERNMENT SUPPORT 560,176 555,105 1,280,600 926,964 1,028, 71,9 14.096 PUBLIC SAFEl'Y 1,458,813 1,492,311 1,623,515 1,786,616 2,207,657 30.249 HEALTH 9,386 10,267 14,787 17,957 4/i ,698 .612 TRANSPORTA'fION J78,394 638,850 410,059 439,180 439,612 6.046 ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE 131,311 161,412 329,364 297,935 273,087 3. 741 CULTURE & RECREATION 381,853 379,318 231,409 261,572 251,538 3.446 HOHE & COMMUNITY SERVICES 692,170 342,655 585,767 518,195 5_91,501 8.104 ENPLOYEE BENEFITS 1,100,678 1,161,872 1,218,097 1,353,652 1,421,392 19.474 *INTERFUND TRANSFERS 18,810 -0- 258,265 311,335 324,668 4.448 DEBT SERVICE 505,977 621,339 633,674 636,942 715,007 9.796 TOTALS 5,237,568 5,363,129 6,586,042 6,299,022 7,298,559 100~; *INTERFUND TRANSFERS INCLUDE: CAPITAL FUNI.) 18 I 810 -0- 5,750 32,200 17,175 LIBRARY FUND -0- -0- 166,000 175,800 188,200 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND -0- -o- 86,515 103,335 119,293 . 106. LEGAL ASPECTS &ANALYSIS GENERAL NARRATIVE POWERS OF LEGISLATIVE & LOCAL GOVERNMENTS - CREATION - CONSOLIDATIONS - ANNEXATIONS - DISSOLUTIONS CO-TERMINOUS TOWN/VILLAGES DISSOLUTION OF VILLAGES VILLAGE - CITIES INCORPORATIONS 107. GENERAL NARRATIVE VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER - Present Legal Environment GENERAL COMMENTS: The Village of Port Chester is located in the Town of Rye, Westchester County. The Village was created by a special act of the State Legisla ture in 1868 and is one of 13 Villages in the State which continues to operate under special charter rather than the provisions of the State Village Law. (Note: Prior to 1874 Villages could be incorporated by special act of the State Legislature, which entailed enactment of the special charter of the Village. In 1874 the State Constitution was amended to pr.ohibit. the incorporation of Villages by a special act of the State Legislature. 'rhat prohibition is found in Article III, Section 17 of the State Con stitution. Since 1874 new Villages are incorporated pursuant to general State enabling legislation (see Article I.I, Village Law). Special charter Villages can reincorporate pursuant to Article XVI of the Village Law, thus becoming subject to the provisions of the Village Law, A brief comparison of the effect of such reincorporation by Port Chester Village is provided under separate heading. Notwithstand ing, the special charter of the Village of Port Chester is a full fledged municipal corporation. GEOGRAPHY: The Village of Port Chester is locate.d in and is part of the Town of Rye in Westchester County. Also located in the Town is a portion of the Village of Mamaroneck which also is located partly in the Town of Mamaroneck. The population of the Town of Rye, as per the 1970 census, was 43,234. Of this population, 25,803 people resided within the territorial 108. limits of the Village of Port Chester; 7,118 resided within the Village of Mamaroneck; 10,313 resided in that portion of the Town of Rye not in cluded in either Village. Thus, approximately 75% of the Town popula tion resided within the limits of the two Villages. Approximately 58% lived in Port Chester . .JURISDICTION: The legislative powers of the Village of Port Chester have effect with in the territorial boundaries of the Village. Local legislation of the Town of Rye, generally, is not effective in the Village. As a gen eral rule, one local government cannot impair the powers of any other local government (see Article IX, Section 2.10 (d) State Constitution). Thus, for example, the Village has full authority to enact, amend and repeal land use regulations applicable to property within the Village. The Town is similarly authorized to do the same with respect to property in the Town outside of a Village. The Village of Port Chester is authorized to provide a full range of public services and facilities to its residents including police and fire protection, sewer and water, garbage collection, parks and recrea tion iacilities and street maintenance. The co·st of these services is borne by the taxpayers of t:1e Village. FISCAL MATTERS: Pursuant to the Village Law, the fiscal year of a Village is June 1 - May 31, unless the Board of Trustees elects a different fiscal year (see Village Law, Section 510). Village taxpayers are subject to Town real property tax levies for certain Town services. Parenthetically, it is noted that Village tax payers are also subject to County real property tax levies as are 109. City taxpayers, and Town residents residing outside the area of an in corporated Village. The longstanding discussion over Town/Village tax relations bears some note. The matter has a long history. The crux of it concerns what services should be supported by what real property tax base. Currently, the issue is a checkered affair -- some Town services and facilities are provided by a Town-wide real property tax levy, which includes real property within Villages in the Town. Other services are so called pare-Town charges, that is real property taxes are levied in only the area of the Town outside of the Village. In addition to direct legislative prescription as to which services are Town-wide charges and which are part-Town - e.g., Town Law, Section 116 provides a general definition "Town charges", the Legislature in several cases has provided general authority for Towns and Villages to agree to allocate the costs of services or facilities which otherwise would be defrayed by a Town-wide levy. Highway Law, Section 277 is one example; Towri Law, Section 150 concern ing Town police departments is another. In addition, the Legislature has enacted special laws relating to local situations (e.g., L. 1970 Ch. 918; L. 1973 Ch. 366) authorizing the Town of New Castle and Village of Mount Kisco to apportion the cost of the Town Hall. An attempt co provide general authorization for Towns and Villages to agree to allocate costs was vetoed in 1970. A committee established to review that legislation arx!recommend a new bill to the Governor could not reach agreement on the matter. The issue of Town-Village taxes, as well as broader considerations concerning distribution of responsibility and functions among and be tween local governments,has periodically provoked discussion and various 110. proposals concerning government structure and service delivery. Most recently, the Temporary Commission on State and Local Finances in 1975 (Feeney Commission) completed an indepth analysis of state/local and interlocal relationships. The subject is also touched by the Temporary Commission on Constitu tional Tax Limits (Bergen Commission) in its 1975 report, the Tempor ary State Commission on the Real Property Tax (Gerber Commission), the New York State Special Task Force on Equity in Education (Rubin Com mission) and the Panel on the Future of Government. Each of these studies involved an analysis of the various provisions of the State Constitution. The following is a brief review of the• subject. Thereafter, follows discussion of several alternatives specified by the Village of Port Chester for study. 111. Existing Powe:-s of Legislature and Local Governments over Creation, Consolidation, Annexations and Dissolutions of Local Governments I. BASIC LEGAL SITUATION The basic law is that the Legislature has plenary power over the creation, existence and ci!sso.lucion of local governments, subject only to Fed:ral and Sta-c:e cor1£ti.:ution requirements and restric tions. Federal constitutional requirements include (a} the prohibitibn against the impairment of contracts, (b) equal protection of the laws, and (c) due process. The State Constitution concains several provisions which must be examined to identify and determine the extent of State constitu tional restrictions and limitations. A brief discussion of some of these provisions follows: 1. Article IX, Section 2 (a) provides that the Legislature shall provide for the creation and organization of local governments. This power was cons trued ir. Lane v. Johnson, 283 N. Y. 244 to be plenary in nature and as ~ subject to limitation of a local referendum consent procedure. 2, Under Article VIII, Section 3) only counties, cities, towns, villages, school districts, fire districts (and certain kinds of river improvement, regulating and drainage districts under the Conservacion Department) may be created with both power to contract debt and to tax real estate. 3. Article III, Section 17 prohibits the Legislature from passing privar2 or special laws incorporating Villages. Therefore, the incorporation of Villages is provided for by a general law which now appears as Village Law, Article 2. 112. 4. The subject of home rule, as provided in Article IX, Section 2, includes both affirmative aspects.relating to the power to legislate locally as well as negative aspects which relate to prohibitions on certain types of special legislative action by the State Legislature unless there is a home rule request for the enactment of such special legislation (a certificate of neces sity from the Governor also can be used, except for New York City (Article IX, Section 2 (b) (2)). 5. Under Article IX, Section l(b), the people in a local government have a constitutional right to select their own officers. This was construe.a in People v. Pelham, 215 N. Y. 374 to mean that functions performed by locally elected officials prior to the 1894 Constitution may not be transferred to another unit of local government, and thus deprive the people of their right to elect their own officials to perform these functions for them. However, such transfers may be made through the adoption or amendment of a county charter under Article IX, Section l(h), as implemented in the County Charter Law (Municipal Home Rule Law, Sections 30-35). 6. Article IX, Section l(c) provides a grant of local power co enter into cooperative arrangements with c,ther governments, subject co authorization by act of the Legislature. Under this heading and under general and special implementing statutes, there is a broad range of opportunities to take action locally tc enter into cooperative arrangements with other governments for the provision of municipal services. 7. The Constitution, Article III, Section 5 may be construed to pro hibit the dissolution of a county, except Hamilton, but to permit the Legislature to create a new county provided its population would entitle it to at least one assemblyman. 113. II. CREATION OF LOCAL GOVERlIMENTS 1. Counties The Constitution, Article III, Section 5 provides that a new county may be established provided it has sufficient population to entitle it to an assemblyman. The most recent examples are the creation of the counties of Nassau (L. 1898, ch. 588) and the Bronx (L. 1912, ch. 548). Most recently, the five eastern towns in Suffolk County have explored the creation of a new county called Peconic. A basic question is whether the Legisla ture could act without a home rule request on the theory that it had such power under Article IX, Section l(a) and Lane v Johnson. (However, a certificate of necessity from the Governor could be used instead, except for New York City (Article IX, Section 2(b) (2 )) • 2. Cities A new city may be created by act of the Legislature; those most recently created were Peekskill and Rye. In Lane v. Johnson, it was held that the Legislature had power to organize a city and to provide it with representation on the county board of legislators without a referendllll\ consent from the county. There would be a basic question as to whether the Legislature could act without home rule requests from the local governments whose areas are being included within a new city (however, acer tificate of necessity from the Governor could be used instead, ex cept for New York City (Article IX, Section 2 (b) (2)). There are no constitutional or statutory criterion for the creation of ne,; cities; e.g., population, area, etc. 3. Towns There is power in county boards of legislators and the State Legis lature to establish new towns. With respect ta the power of the board of legislators, the applic able law is contained in Town Law, Article 5, and County Law, Sec tion 229 and we have at least three instances where this power was exercised: L,1919, pages 1804 and 1805 concerning the creation of the Town of North Harmony; L. 1916, pages 2503 and 2504 concerning the creation of the Town of Minetto; and creation of the Town of Mt, Kisco in 1977. There would still be a basic question as to whether the Legislature could act without home rule requests from the local governments whose areas are being included within a new town, (however, acer tificate of necessity from the Governor could be used instead, ex cept for New York City (Article IX, Section 2(b) (2)). 4. Villages Article III, Section 17 prohibits the Legislature from passing private or local bills incorporating villages. Thus, the creation of new villages is accomplished pursuant to general law (Village Law, Article 2), In other words, villages may be created only pursuant to general law, and there is a general law for local action to incorporate a village, Minimum population and land area criterion are presented, 5. School Districts and Fire Districts The status of school districts and fire districts as full-fledged units of local government is indicated in the Constitution, Article VIII, Section 3 where it is provided, in effect, that only counties, cities, towns, villages, school districts, fire districts (and also river improvement, regulating and drainage districts under the supervision of the Department of Environmental Conservation) may be created with powers to contract indebtedness and to tax real estate. The Constitution does not grant or provide home rule powers to school districts or fire districts. Thus, these are subject to 115. the plenary power of the Legislature to create or abolish -them - the power being subject only to Federal and State constitutional requirements prohibiting the impairment of contracts and requir ing due process of law, equal protection of the laws. III. CONSOLIDATION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS With the exception of the lack of power in the Legislature to create specific villages (Article III, Section 17) and with the possible ex ception of the lack of power in the Legislature to eliminate counties other than Hamilton (Article III, Section 5) the Legislature has power to consolidate local governments, the only basic question being whether this would have to be on home rule requests, (however, acer tificate of necessity from the Governor could be used instead, ex cept for New York City (Article IX, Section 2(b) (2)). The Legisla ture has provided by general law specific authority for consolidation of towns (Town Law, Article 5-B), villages (Village Law, Article 18), dissolution of villages (Article 19). In addition, the governance of co-terminous town/villages has been provided for in Article 17 of the Village Law. The Legislature has exercised its power to consolidate local govern ments on a number of occasions. 1, The creation of the City of New York as the result of a number of consolidations on several occasions during the 19th Century. 2. The creation of cities such as Rome and Saratoga out of a village and one or more adjacent towns. 3. The oroposed creation of the City of Tarrytown by L. 1950, ch. 757 out of the Villages of Tarrytown and North Tarrytown. This was on home rule requests from the two villages. 4. The recent dissolution of the Town of Elko in Cattaraugus County (L. 1965, ch. 887) and the annexation of the areas thereof to an adjacent town. The action of the Legislature was on home rule request. 116. IV. ANNEXATIONS Article IX, Section l (d) r_equires (a) a favorable referendum among the inhabitants, if any, of the area proposed to be annexed and (b) a determination by the governing boards of° .the affected local govern ments that the annexation is in the overall-public interest, or, (c) in the absence of such an agreement among such boards, a Supreme Court determination that the proposed annexation is in the overall public interest. This constitutional provision has been implemented by enactment of the Municipal Annexation Law which is contained in General Hunicipal Law, Sections 700-719. Thus, .there is, in effect, a constitutional home rule procedure for local determinations on the merits concerning proposed annexations. However, the Constitution does not preclude the Legislature from taking action on proposed annexations provided it, in its action, complies with the above-described basic constitu tional requirements. A basic question that might be raised is whether annexation action by the Legislature must be on home rule request (however, a certifi cate of necessity from the Governor could be used instead, except for New York City (Article IX, Section 2(b) (2)). V. DISSOLUTIONS Language in the Constitution, Article III, Section 5, may be con strued as prohibiting the Legislature from dissolving or abolishing a county (except Hamilton) but also as clearly indicating that a new county may be established from an area or areas of one or more exist ing counties provided the new county has sufficient population to en title it to an assemblyman. With respect to towns, there are statutory procedures for the dis solution of towns (Town Law, Articles 5-A and 5-B). The Town of Elko was dissolved by action of the Legislature on home rule request 117. and its area annexed to that of an adjacent town. Under L. 1918, ch. 407 a town was dissolved and its area divided into two parts and these parts added respectively to two adjacent towns, The Towns of West Turin and Highmarket consolidated pursuant to Article 5-B of the Town Law in 1977. Village Law, Article 19, provides a procedure for the dissolution of villages; in this connection, it is noted that the Village of Downsville in Delaware County was dissolved effective September 21, 1950. More recently the Village of Fort Covington (Franklin County), Prattsville (Steuben County) and Rosendale (Ulster County) accom plished dissolution pursuant to Article 19, The Village of Pelham and Pelham Manor consolidated pursuant to Article 16 of the Village Law in 1975. While there is no citable instance, it is submitted that the Legis lature would have power to provide for the dissolution of a city, the only question being whether a home rule request would be neces sary pre-condition (however, a certificate of necessity from the Governor could be used instead, except for New York City (Article IX, Section 2(b) (2)). 118. CO-TERMINOUS TOWN/VILLAGE General Information: There are four co-cerminous Town/Villages in New York State - Green Island (Albany County), Scarsdale (Westchester County), Harrison (Westchester County) and Mount Kisco (Westchester County). Green Island was established in the late 19th Century and Scarsdale in the early 20th Century. Harrison was created in 1975 by incorporation of the Village pursuant to Article II of the Village Law. Mount Kisco was created fn 1977 by establishment of the Town pursuant to Town Law Article 5 and County Law Section 229. All co-terminous Town/Villages are governed by Article 17 of the Vil lage Law. The full text of Article 17 is attached. What follows is a description of the main elements of the Article. Prior to 1975, Article 17 of the Village Law was applicable to Scarsdale and Green Island - there being no~ co-terminous Town/Villages in New York State. Its provisions were framed in reference to the incorpora tion of a new Village - with boundaries co-terminous with those of 'an already existing Town. When the new Village was incorporated, "all the powers and duties imposed by law upon the Town board of the Town or upon any officer of the Town or commissioners or boards of any district in relation to any water dis trict, or any lamp or street lighting district, or any sewer district, or any fire district, created or organized under the provisions of the Town Law, shall devolve and are hereby imposed upon the board of trustees of such village, and all contracts in relation to such districts or any improvements therein shall be performed by or completed by the said board of trustees". (Section 17-1704) Similar provisions are provided for the 119. assumption of powers and duties relating to highways and bridges (Section 17-1706), The Town board of the Town continues to exist unless a majority of the voters in the Town approved a proposition providing that the Village board of trustees shall constitute the Town board of the Town for all purposes, The proposition can be initiated by the Town board~ upon petition signed and acknowledged by not less than 50 taxpayers of the Town. If such a proposal is approved - the Village board of trustees con stitutes the Town board on and after the first day of January - next following the date of said election (Section 17-1708). Special provisions relating to water districts, lamp or street light ing districts, sewer districts and fire districts are also included in Article 17. Water Districts (Section 17-1712) All water districts continue to exist and are managed by the board of trustees. Villages are given the option to establish a general Village water system and discontinuance of the districts. All water supply districts continue to exist under the management of the Village board of trustees. Lamp or Street Lighting Districts All lamp or street lighting districts continue and are managed and operated by the Village board as provided in the Town Law. The Village has the option of discontinuing such districts (by resolu tion) in which case the provisions of Village Law apply. 120. Sewer Districts Sewer districts continue under operation of Village board of trustees. Where plans for a system of sewers have been authorized and approved by the Department of Health - the board, upon notice - can elect to proceed with construction of the system. Section 17-1718 prescribes the procedures the board of trustees must follow in constructing the system, Specific authority is provided to: (a) do extensions as per Article 14 of the Village Law; (b) establish one or more sewer districts in the Village. Fire Districts All fire districts are merged into and consolidated with the Village. All property, real and personal, become part of the Village. The Vil lage board succeeds to all thP powers and duties of the board of fire commissioners. Outstanding indebtedness of such district is paid by general village tax. Assessment Roll; Completion Notice, Tax The board of trustees can, by resolution, determine to act as board of assessors and adopt the assessment roll prepared by the town assessor(s). Obligations and Property All outstanding obligations devolve upon and are assumed by the Village board of trustees. The obligations are discharged by taxation or assess ment of taxes in the same manner as may be authorized by the Town board, unless the Village board has elected to make such obligations a Village charge. 121. All moneys due the Town or any Town district are paid the Village. The Village Treasurer serves as the fiscal officer of the Town. Town Budgets During the month of December, the Town board must prepare and file with the Village clerk an itemized statement of estimated revenues and expenditures which the board must then include in its next annual estimate. Beginning in 1975, Article 17 underwent several changes. HARRISON In 1975, the Village of Harrison was created pursuant to Article 2 of the Village Law. Several amendments to Article 17 were enacted by the State Legislature to prov_ide the new Town/Village with certain organizational and administrative options in addition to those already provided. What follows is a brief description of those changes: 1, Section 17-1703 added. Filling of Village offices, election of officers. Upon the filing of the certificate of incorporation of the Village - the Town board constitutes the board of trustees for all purposes. The Town supervisor acts as interim mayor until the first election of Village officers. The first election of Village officers is held at the same time, place and date and manner as the first regularly scheduled election of Town officers occurring not less than 30 days after the filing of the certificate. 122. At the same time a new subdivision 3 was added to Section 17-1708 to (in effect) allow the Town board to submit to the ,,oters a proposition providing that the offices of Town board and Town councilmen shall be declared vacant and that the mayor and the board of trustees constitute the supervisor and Town board. In effect, this allowed the incumbent Town board to run for Village board and, if elected, to fill both functions. It followed the thrust of then existing provision relative to allowing consolidation of the Town board and Village board. In 1976, the following changes were enacted: 1. Section 17-1720 concerning fire districts was amended by adding subdivisions 2 and 3 to allow fire districts, fire protection districts and fire alarm districts to con tinue to exist and allow the officers and employees to continue as though the Village were not incorporated if the board of trustees adopts a local law to that effect. 2. Section 17-1729 (Change in fiscal years) was added to allow the Village board of trustees, subject to approval by the voters, to change to a calendar fiscal year. If this occurs all of the dates applicable to a Town budget are applicable to the Village, The current Village fiscal year is extended to include the interim period between the last day of the current fiscal year and the first day of the new fiscal year unless the board elects to treat that period as a separate fiscal year .. Provision is made for either event. 123. 3, Section 17-1728 (Town budgets) was amended to take into account the possibility of a change in fiscal year pursuant to Section 17-1729. 4. Section 17-1735 added in 1977 to continue Town legislation, i.e., local laws and ordinances in effect in the Village beyond the two-year period provided in Article 2 - Incorporation. MOUNT KISCO The Town of Mount Kisco was created in 1977 to be co-terminous with the already existing Village of Mount Kisco. Prior to 1977 - Article 17 of the Village Law applied to Villages incorporated to embrace the entire territory of a Town. The }fount Kisco situation was, as noted, just the reverse. Thus, Article 17 was amended (Section 17-1700) to apply to Towns created to be co-terminous with any Village. There were several other changes to Article 17 designed to accommodate the new Town/Village - as follows: l. A new Section 17-1703a. was added to require the voters of the Village to determine to operate "prin cipally as a Town" or "principally as a Village." Alternative provisions were provided - depending on the choice of voters as to Town or Village. If a Village: Holders of Village offices hold Town offices a) Hayor and Board - Supervisor and Town Board b) Assessor - Assessor Clerk - Clerk Treasurer - Receiver of Taxes and Assessments 124. c) Town Highway Superintendent - as designated by Village Board d) Village Justice - Town Justice If a Town: At the general Village election - officers shall be elected for a term ending m.th calendar year. Terms of all ocher Village officers end with calendar year. At the November election - Town officers are elected. Town officers constitute corresponding Village officers. Depending on whether the election is held in an odd or even numbered year - the terms of supervisors and councilmen will be full 2 and 4-year terms (odd) or 1 and 3-year terms (even). 2. Section 17-1729 concerning change of fiscal years was amended to be applicable to Mount Kisco by the reference to Section i703a. Procedural Aspects: Two alternatives are suggested to achieve a co-terminous Town/Village status when a Village is already in existence. a) Creation of a new Town to be co-terminous with the boundaries of the existing Village. b) Creation of a new Village to be co-terminous with the Town in which the Village is located. 125. Port Chester is located in the Town of Rye in Westchester County. Part of the Village of Mamaroneck is also in the Town of Rye. This, as a practical matter, eliminates creation of a new Village to be co-terminous with the Town in which the Village is located since there is no single procedure to dissolve existing Villages in a Town and incorporate a new Village co-terminous with the Town. Creation of a New Town The Attorney General in 1975, issued an informal opinion to the Vil lage Attorney, Mount Kisco, to the effect that a new Town could be incorporated pursuant to Article 5 of the Town Law, notwithstanding the enactment in 1963 of the Municipal Annexation Law and partial repeal of Article 5. Pursuant to this opinion, the Village of Mount Kisco proceeded to have a new Town created to be co-terminous with the Village. The pro ceedings had and taken by the Village to create the new Town were validated and confirmed by the State Legislature in 1977. (See Laws of 1977, Chapter 960, Section 1) The procedure as contained in Article 5 of the Town Law is as follows: 1. Petition signed by voters of the Town in number equal to at least 5% of the total votes cast for Governor in the To1~1 at the last general election of State officers. The petition must describe the boundaries and be accompanied by a map showing the new Town boundaries. It must contain a statement of all Town indebtedness and the reasons for change. 126. 2, (Note above - Article 5 is the remnant of what was once a complete procedure for the alteration of Town boundaries which included the division of a Town into two or more Towns.) The petition is filed with the Clerk of the County Legislature. It must be filed at least 120 days before a biennial Town election (every odd numbered year). 3. The County Legislature must fix a date for a public hearing on the petition. Notice of the hearing must be delivered to the Town clerk of the Town(s) affected. The Town clerk shall have the notice published - once a week for four successive weeks - and posted on the Town sign board. 4. Public hearing may be held by County Legislature £E_ committee thereof. After public hearing - the County Legislature by a two-thirds vote may grant the petition and provide for the submission of a proposition to the voters of the Town(s). 5, The form of the proposition is as prescribed in County Law, Article 3. 6. The proposition is submitted to the electors of the Town(s) at the next biennial Town election held at least 40 days after the adoption of the resolution by the County Legislature. 7. If the proposition is approved by a majority vote, the new Town is erected. 127, 8. Clerk of the County Legislature - within 60.days after .the adoption of the proposition - shall file a copy with th_e Secretary of State and State Comptroller and Co.unty Clerk. Section 74 (2) provides that - for purposes of exercising general government powers - the proposition shall be effective on the first day of January-next succeeding the.first biennial Town election at which Town officers for the new Town may be elected. 128. DISSOLUTION Article 19 of the Village Law prescribes the procedure for the dis solution of Villages. The full text of Article 19 is attached. What follows is a narrative of the important aspects and considerations of a dissolution. Procedure: The process of dissolution can be commenced either (a) by petition signed by one-third of the resident electorate in the Village, qualified to vote at the last general or special election; or (b) by resolution of the Village board of trustees. In essence, the process involves submission to the voters of the Vil lage of the question - Should the Village be dissolved? The proposition, in substance, must contain a "plan of dissolution", that is, it must describe to the voters a plan for the disposition of Village Property (real and personal), how its outstanding obliga tions will be handled, services continued, taxes collected. In short, the plan should specify, as clearly as possible, the. manner in which the Village will wind up its affairs as a governmental entity. Once the proposition is proposed - the board of trustees of the Vil lage must conduct a public hearing at which interested parties can be heard on the question of dissolution. Once the hearing is conducted, the question is submitted tc the residents of the Village (See Village Law, Section 9-912). If ap proved, the dissolution is effective on December 31 of the year following the year of the election at which the dissolution proposi tion is submitted. The heart.of the matter is the "plan of dissolu tion". Formulation of the plan is the responsibility of the board of trustees. (Opinion: Attorney General, 12/20/78.) 129, While it is clear that the Village board of trustees can elect to propose dissolution to the voters - and tbe voters can decide to dissolve - without approval of or participation by the Town board of the Town in which the Village is located - it is preferable for the Village board and Town board - to jointly work out and agree to a plan of dissolution. What Should the Plan Contain: Continued provision of services (e.g., water, sewer, police, fire, etc.) - Disposition of Village real and personal property - Outstanding debts and obligations Unless the plan provides otherwise - the Town assumes the duties and functions of the dissolved Village and continues to provide the services provided by the Village. The cost of those services is a charge upon the taxable property in the former Village, The Town may, prior to effective date of the dissolution, establish one or more improvement districts to carry on and operate existing services or improvements; the Town may pro-rate Village debt or portion thereof against each such district as it may de.termine. (Opinion: State Comptroller 78-1058) Unless the plan provides otherwise - all property of the Village upon dissolution vests in the Town. This includes Federal revenue sharing funds due the Village as well as State revenue sharing funds which are phased out over a five-year period. (Opinion: State Comptroller 78-692) Unless the plan provides otherwise - all legislation (i.e., local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations) in effect on the date·of dissolution, including zoning, remain in effect for a period of two years following 130. dissolution - except that the Town has the power at any~ to amend or repeal such legislation. If the Village has a zoning board of appeals or a planning board, or both, and th~ Town doesn't, the Town board, upon dissolution, acts as each board, The point here in discussing the plan is that once the Village is dis solved the area becomes part of the Town for all purposes or Town legislation. ¾That the plan can consider are unique situations which exist in the Village which have necessitated special Village legisla tion and which the Village board desires to treat as such in the future. Continuance of Village employees - for example - that enforce a Vil lage licensing ordinance for particular business - where the Town has no similar regulation or enforcement needs can be dealt with in the plan. 131. AN OUTLINE OF CONSIDERATIONS OF VILLAGE/CITY INCORPORATION I, CREATION Cities are created by special act of the State Legislature, the special act embodying the city charter. Charters are generally submitted to voters of the proposed city by the Legislature. Factors considered by the Legislature are the size of the new city as measured by population, property valuation and geographic area; and the effect, economic and otherwise, on the area remaining; i.e., Town. A critical consideration is the effect on school districts which may be located wholly or partially within the new city since such districts have constitutional real property tax limits. The Constitution does not prescribe any criterion for the incorporation of new cities. II, LEGISLATIVE POWERS The legislative authority of cities and villages, respectively, pur suant to the Municipal Home Rule Law is essentially identical. Each may adopt local laws relating to the property, affairs or government of their respective jurisdictio~. Accordingly, there would be no significant advantage or disadvantage to city status as it related to local legislative powers . . III, OVERALL ORGANIZATION Both cities and villages have similar powers to structure a govern mental organization responsive to local needs (see Municipal Home Rule, § 10). With the minor exceptions noted below, there are no significant differences between Village and city. Both Villages and cities have authority to prescribe the type of local government structure appropriate to local needs and circum stances; e.g., strong or weak mayor-council, council-mayor, manager-council, administrator-council, etc. 132. A. Courts The court system represents one area of difference between a city and Village. It should be emphasized, however, that in either case, the existence of any court organization is optional. Where a Village has elected to establish a Village court, the justice(s) of the court are elected for a four year term. _The jurisdiction of the court is set forth in the Uniform Justice Court Act, as amended. The Village Justice is not required to be an attorney. If the Village were to be incorporated as a city, a city court could be established by the charter. The term of the city judge and the jurisdiction of the court should be set forth in the charter. The city judge would have to be an attorney. With respect to the court system, it is difficult to des cribe one system as particularly "advantageous" compared to the other; they are somewhat different. The weight of the differences is a local decision. B. Civil Service Cities are required co provide for administration of the Civil Service Law, either through a local organization or through arrangements with the county. Villages receive this service from the counties in which they are located and cannot establish a local civil service organization. Whether local administration of civil service constitutes an advantage is a local judgment trading off the potential additional costs against any perceived benefits of local administration. 133. C. Eleetions The eity would be responsible for eonduct of all elections, where a Village is responsible only for the Village elections. Since this would probably result in inereased costs, it is a disadvantage. D. Weights and Measurers In a Village, this function is provided by the eounty; while cities are responsible for provision of the serviee. In the latter case, however, the provision of service could be through an agreement with the county. If there is a strong local perception of need for this ser vice being administered locally, then it would be advantageous for the Village to become a eity. IV. MUNICIPAL SERVICES A. Highways If incorporated as a city, Villages must assume responsibility for the maintenance of County and State highways - the latter excepting interstate and arterial highways. The number of miles of such highway in the Village will determine the fiscal impact. (Note: The Department of Transportation is proposing a complete revamping of the State's highway aid program, which could impact this consideration.) B. Public Safety Services Much depends on what services are presently provided. Generally speaking, there would be no significant changes to the existing police and fire services (if any) within the current Village, if it were to become a city. 134. fiowever, services of the State Police are generally pro ·:d.ded within cities. A similar situation frequently exists as it respects operations of the county sheriff. Therefore, if the Village relies heavily on these services, incorporation as a city might be disadvantageous unless ad ditional unallocated revenues offest the cost of providing the service locally. V. FINANCES A. Assessments T'he assessment function would become a city charge. The Vil lage now, presuma~ly, is using the Town role. B. Tax/Debt Limits There would be no charge in the tax or debt limits if the Vil lage were to be incorporated as a city (N,Y.S. Constitution, Arti.de VIII, § § 4-10). Impact on the school district serv ing the area is a critical consideration. (See section on impact on other governments.) C~ Scace }.. id If the Village were incorporated as a city, there would be a ·s,fr,s;;antial increase in the amount of State aid received. 'l'h~ ~ formula provides $3. 60 per capita to Villages and ;,J.60 per capita for cicies, with an additional five cents per capita for every $100 the community's full value per capita falls below $8,000 .. However, since the enactment of the State revenue sharing program in 1971, the actual amounts received have exceeded the basic amount. Currently, com munities receive about twice the basic formula amount. 135. Special city aid, now representing about $37,00 per capita, is restricted to cities in existence on April 1, 1968. Special legislation would be required for new cities to share in this aid, Additional revenue is usually cited as a major reason to city incorporation. However, the degree of the advantage is depen dent on: 1, The ability of incorporation supporters to secure special city aid. 2. The offset of additional expenditures re sulting from city incorporation against increased aid. D, Mortgage Tax Receipts A city receives the entire amount of the mortgage tax involv ing properties in the city, less administrative costs. A Village shares in the tax revenue received by the Town in a proportion that the assessed valuation- of the Village (on the Town roll) bears to twice the assessed valuation of the town. A study would be needed to determine whether incorporation would be a plus or minus in this instance. E, Federal Revenue Sharing Revenues from Federal Revenue Sharing would be roughly the same. This should be checked with the Department of Audit and Control, and new Federal legislation, when enacted. F. Town Taxes and Debt Where a Village is incorporated as a city; the residents of the former Village no longer pay Town taxes, since the new 136. city is no longer part of the Town. This is a major concern to the Legislature in terms of impact on the area of the Town remaining if the city is incorporated. The considera tion relates to taxes and outstanding Town-wide debt (if any). The special act incorporating the new city can make provision for these factors. G. Sales Tax A city may enact a sales tax up to a maximum rate of 3%. If the county in which the city is located also levies a sales tax, the city has prior rights to only up to a rate of 1.5%. Where the county levies a sales tax and distributes a portion to other local governments, analysis would be required to ascertain whether a city sales tax would be desirable. H, Other Nonproperty Taxes Cities are authorized to impose a number of miscellaneous taxes, including: - Taxes on coin-operated devices - Taxes for the privilege of selling liquor, wine or beer - Taxes on passenger cars - A tax on admissions to places of amusement - A tax on hotel room occupancy The ability to impose these taxes can be viewed as a positive factor of city status. I. Responsibility for Unpaid Taxes Villages are responsible for providing for unpaid real property taxes. Most provide for a "Reserve for Uncollected Tax.es." A new city would be responsible for its own unpaid taxes and could also be responsible for unpaid county taxes on properties 137. in the city. This responsibility varies among cities. Negotia tion with the county would be recommended during charter draft ing. VI. EFFECTS ON OTHER GOVERNMENTS A. School Districts The effect of city incorporation on school districts within the incorporated area is one of the most significant barriers to the creation of new cities. Under current law, school districts outside cities do not have constitutional tax or debt limits. Referendum requirements for the annual budget and major borrowings serve both as a check on spending and a method of direct citizen participation. If part of an area served by a school district were to become located in a city, the district would become a "city school district" and be subject to both constitutional tax and debt limits. (Additionally,the electors of the district would no longer have the opportunity to vote on the budget.) This con sideration is critical if an affected district (or districts) is currently levying in excess of constitutional maximum real property tax limit of 2% of average full valuation. Although this impact would not directly affect the. government of a new city, opposition,which can be expected from school officials,must be considered. B. Town As noted, where a Village is incorporated as a city, it is no longer part of the Towr,(s) in which it was located. As a re sult, the Town loses that portion of its revenues derived from real property taxes levied in the former Village area. 138. The Town would also lose that portion of State and Federal aid attributable to the population of the former Village. The impact on a Town of city incorporation will be a factor in legislative and gubernatorial consideration of a proposed charter. GENERAL COMMENTS The Village of Port Chester proposed to be incorporated as a city as recently as 1971. A copy of that special legislation is attached. It did not pass. Several other Villages have also considered incor poration as a city including Baldwinsville in Onondaga County, Newark in Wayne County, East Rochester in Monroe County. None had legisla tion passed by the Legislature. In 1950, the Village of Tarrytown did have a new charter passed by the Legislature. However, the proposal was not approved by the voters. As noted earlier in the note on creation, new cities are established by special act of the State Legislature which embodies the city charter. The charter is the fundamental body of law concerning the organizations, functions and responsibilities of the new city. The foregoing comments can stand or fall, be modified, altered and so forth, depending on the determinations of the State Legislature in enacting the city charter. In this respect, it may be advisable to review the factors concerning the 1971 efforts concerning incorpora tion as a city, If the subject of incorporation as a city is to be pursued, it would also appear desirable to consider a broader geo graphic area - namely, the Town of Rye excluding the Village of Mamaroneck. This would have one obvious plus - it eliminates the important issue of impact on the remaining portion of the Town. APPENDIX3 PACE UNIVERSITY MICHAELIAN INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY AND MANAGEMENT An Examination of the Service, Legal, Fiscal, and Structural Impacts of the Village of Port Chester Becoming a City Prepared by The Edwin G. Michaelian Institute for Public Policy and Management of the Dyson College Pace University March 1996 Table of Contents The study Team i Acknowledgements ii r. Introduction & Mission l II. Historical Background 3 A. History of Port Chester 3 B. Development of Villages 3 c. Development of Cities 5 III. Programs & Services Provided by the Village 7 of Port Chester and by the Town of Rye to the Village of Port Chester IV. From Village to City: A Legal Perspective 13 A. The Process of Incorporation as a city 13 B. Governmental Powers 18 c. School District 18 D. Finance 20 E. Services 27 F. Transition Provisions 39 G. Summary 39 V. The Fiscal Impact on Port Chester: converting 41 from a Village to a City A. Categories of Fiscal Impacts 41 B. The Present Financial Situation: FY95 44 c. A Comparison to Comparably-Sized 48 Hudson Valley Cities D. Fiscal Impacts on Revenues and 67 Expenditures for Port chester E. Summary 95 vr. Demographic Analysis_ ~f Village of Port Chester 97 VII. Structural Impacts 107 A, council Manager Form. 107 B. strong/Mayor Form 109 c. council Elections: At Large or District 111 D. summary 113 VIII. Appendices The Study Team Anthony A. cupaiuolo, o.s.w. Lorraine Monaco Director Government Program Specialist Michaelian Institute for Michaelian Institute for Public Policy and Management Public Policy and Management Professor of Public Pace University Administration Pace University Sharon Merritt Administrative Assistant Lester D, Steinman, Esq. Michaelian Municipal Law Director Resource center Michaelian Municipal Law Pace University Resou.rce Center Adjunct Professor of Law Pace University Isabell McHugh Administrative Assistant Department of Public Joseph c. Morreale, Ph.D. Administration Chair and Professor Pace university of Economics Department of Public Administration Clara Swee Pace University Administrative Assistant Michaelian Institute for Public Policy and Management Gregory M. Holtz, Ph.D. Pace university Research Associate Michaelian Institute for Public Policy and Management Bernice Spina Pace University Administrative Assistant center For Professional Education Nava Bat-Avraham, Esq. Pace University Research Consultant Michaelian Institute for Public Policy and Management Pace University Kimberly Kiely Graduate Assistant Department of Public Administration Pace University -i- Acknowledgements The Study Team would like to thank Mayor Christine Korff, former Mayor John Branca, the Village Board of Trustees, Village Manager Michael Graessle, and all of the staff and others who generously gave their time in gathering data for the study, in offering insights and suggestions, and in providing assistance in countless other ways. We also would like to thank the Westchester County Planning Department, in particular Commissioner P. Lynn Oliva, for their assistance with maps and census data. -ii- • Populations demanding an intensity and breadth of services similar to those generally provided by cities. • Freedom from paying town taxes for services they do not receive. • Receipt of additional State aid. • Elimination of constitutional tax limit for small city school districts. For these reasons and others, the Village of Port Chester retained the Michaelian Institute for Public Policy and Management of Pace University ("Michaelian Institute") to evaluate the administrative, fiscal, legal and operational impacts on the Village of Port Chester of achieving status as a city. In this report, the Michaelian Institute has detailed the relevant economic, political, demographic, institutional and legal considerations, together with the process to be followed, to assist the Village in determining whether to pursue a change from a village to a city form of government. A demographic analysis comparing Port Chester to the villages and cities within Westchester County is also part of the overall design. The study does not seek to arrive at a single conclusion but rather as objectively as possible to present the data that would enhance the Village's ability to make a sound decision. -2- I, INTRODUCTION AND MISSION one of the most common refrains heard today in and around city halls throughout the United states is "the need to do more with less." In an era of declining inter-governmental aid and growing hostility to tax increases, local governments find themselves struggling to meet mandates imposed on them by the federal and state governments and to meet the service needs and demands of their citizens. Therefore, local governments must seek creative and effective ways to reduce the costs of government and to increase revenues so that service levels can be maintained and even enhanced. It is within this context of trying to insure that the resources available to.local governments are commensurate with service needs that there arose the incentive for this study. The Village of Port Chester in 1981 had commissioned a study to explore alternative forms of government in order to determine how the Village could most effectively and efficiently carry out its functions. Now 14 years later t_he Village decided that current exigencies required that this issue be re-visited. According to the New York State Conference of Mayors and Other Municipal Officials1 (NYCOM), numerous villages throughout New York State have recently indicated an interest in exploring the feasibility of incorporation as a city. The factors stimulating such an interest include: 1NYCOM Special Report "From Village to city: A Guide to New City Incorporation" by Peter A. Baynes and Joseph D. Porter, January 1987. -l- II. Historical Background A. History of Port chester situated in the Town of Rye, the Village of Port Chester is bounded on the. west and northwest by the Village of Rye Brook, on the northeast and east by Connecticut, .with a small coastline at the southeast on the Long Island Sound, while to the south lies the City of Rye. Port Chester covers 2.4 square miles and is about 40 minutes from Grand Central Terminal in Manhattan. According to the 1990 census, Port Chester has a population of 24,728, ranking it as the fifth largest population among New York State's 557 villages. Port Chester was incorporated as a village on May 14, 1868. Port Chester adopted the Council-Manager form of government in 1975. Port Chester is one of the twelve charter villages in New York State. A demographic profile of Port Chester and a series of maps showing population changes between 1980-1990 are attached as Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 respectively. B. Development of Villages The first Dutch rulers of New York did not draw a sharp line between their colonial or provincial government and that of their major settlement, which was called New Amsterdam. It was not until 1646 (only 18 years prior to English takeover) that the Dutch west India company (which ruled the colony under a charter from the government of the Netherlands) granted what appeared to -3- have been certain municipal privileges to the inhabitants of what was known as the "Village of Brenckelen," -- lineal ancestor of the Borough of Brooklyn -- across the ~iver from New Amsterdam. once the British took control, tt.e state, as it then existed, was organized into 17 towns a:,d one county, "Yorkshire." Under the first State Constitution (1777) only counties, towns and cities were recognized as units of local government. The village emerged as the fourtt. unit of local government in the 1790's through a series of legislative enactments granting recognition and powers to certain hamlets. This trend culminated in 1798, when the Legislature incorporsted the villages of Troy and Lansingburgh. Lansingburgh long aqo ceased to exist as an independent entity upon absorption into what became the City of Troy. The pre-Revolutionary War villages were formed primarily to overcome legal confusions that existed Nith the then governing English statutes. Generally, villages :ormed after the Revolution had the purpose of providin~ and paying for special select services (i.e., police, fire, eco.) for population centers that existed in various sections of the town. In a sense, Villages were multi-purpose special dis~ricts. Though villages were incorporated, the State Constitution made only sparing mention of them in 1a21. During this time, until 1874 when ~he revised Constitutic:, (1874) forbade special incorporation, villages were foroed by special legislation. of the -4- state Legislature and unique charters were granted creating a variety of governmental forms. In 1897 the Village Law was amended so that charter vil~ages were subject to general Village Law in those instances where an inconsistency existed. The amendment gave the option to charter villages to reincorporate under general Village Law, which many did. Twelve villages, including Port Chester, have remained charter villages. There are 557 villages in New York State today with 1993 populations ranging from 29 in Dering Harbor (Suffolk County) to 49,941 in Hempstead (Nassau county). The majority of villages have a population under 10,000, although there are 21 villages between 10,000 and 20,000 population, and 10 villages with more than 20,000 population. Since 1990, 7 villages have elected to dissolve. They include Holcomb and East Bloomfield of Ontario County, Westport and Ticonderoga of Essex County, Schenevus of Otsego County, Fillmore of Allegheny County, and Mooers of Clinton County. Four villages have incorporated including Airmont and Kaser of Rockland county, West Hampton Dunes of Suffolk County, and Bloomfield of Ontario County. c. Development of Cities In New York, the need to provide services for population centers has historically pro~pted the creation of cities. There are currently 62 cities in New York State. Each of these cities is a unique governmental entity with its own separate charter.· -5- Two cities, New York and Albany, have charters of English colonial origin, which were later ratified by the adoption of the first State Constitution in 1777. By 1834, six more cities had been chartered along the State's principal trading routes, ·the Hudson and Mohawk Rivers. Thirty-two more cities were created between 1834 and 1899 as the population of New York expanded with the influx of immigrants from Europe. Twenty additional cities were chartered during the first quarter of the twentieth century. The two cities most recently incorporated were Peekskill in 1940 and Rye in 1942. -6- III. PROGRAMS AND SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER AND BY THE TOWN OF RYE TO THE VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER The tables below present, categorically, the combined service provision of the Village of Port Chester to its residents and the Town of Rye to the residents of the Village of Port Chester. The left hand column lists the services which are provided to the Village. The middle column indicates what services are provided independently by the Village of Port Chester. This column will contain an x or a listing of the subdivisions or programs offered under a specific department or a number which will signify people employed or equipment owned or leased by the Village, or the name of the entity which provides the service. The right hand column indicates what services are provided jointly or entirely by the Town of Rye to the Village of Port Chester. This column will contain an x or a number which will signify people or equipment provided to the Village by the Town or an abbreviated description of that service. -7- I TAX AND ASSESSMENT SERVICES I Service Village of Town of Rye Port Chester Assessment X Collec:.tion and X Guaranteed Payment of Taxes Tax Liens X In-Rem Sales X Audits Bennet Kielsen lie Company Treasurer Appointed ' NOTE: The Town of Rye guarantees the payment of village, school, county and state taxes for the Village of Port Chester. I COURTS, LICENSES AND ELECTIONS I Service Village of · Town of Rye Port Chester Village Justice X Acting Justice X Town Justice court X Judges Two Licenses and Birth Marriage Registrations Death Death Dog Hunting Taxi Fishing Laundromat Other as required Hawking lie Peddl~~g by law Rooming House Parking Marina Permits Elections Staff for voting Machines Village elections -a- I LEGAL SERV:ICES I service Village of Town of Rye Port Chester corporate counsel X Deputy corporate One counsel Village Attorney X Legal counsel water co. Lawsuit Legal Fees water co. Lawsuit I POL:ICE, F:IRE AND :INSPECT:ION SERV:ICES I Service Village of Town of Rye Port Chester Po.lice Department Detective Bureau Traffic Department Youth Officer Anti-crime Unit 58 Police Personnel lS Vehicles (including 4 patrol cars and l spare, meter maid scooter, Chief's car, 2 undercover cars, 3 detective cars, and one van to transport prisoner) Fire Department l2 full-time .--· .-, firefighters :Inspections Building/Plumbing Board of Electrical Control Plumber's Examiner . Board Fire Inspector NOTE: The Village of Port Chester also has a federally funded program of special undercover police to patrol high crime areas. -9- PUBLIC WORKS Service Village of Town of Rye Port Chester sanitation Municipal Department Collection Recycling Program 40 F/T, 8 P/T 35 Trucks Part of county Refuse Disposal District Water works New York American Water works (private company) sewage county Highways X I PLANNING PROGRAMS I Service Village of Town of Rye Port Chester community X Development Agency Planning commission X zoning Board X of Appeals Architectural Board X of Review Port Chester X Housing iuthority Port Chester X Industrial Development Agency Master Plan - 1968 X -10- I RECREATIONAL SERVICES I Service Village of Town of Rye Port Chester Recreation X commission Recreational X Leader Park commission X Parks 8 parks - Rye Town Park 49.64 total acreage Oakland Beach Crawford Park I HEALTH AND WELFARE SERVICES I Service Village of Town of R:z::e Port Chester ·Nutrition Program X Health Officer county Drug & Alcohol X Abuse Program Ambulance Service Volunteer Corps - shared service arrangement with the city of Rye and Village of Rye Brook -11- I MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES I Service Village of Town of Rye Port Chester computer/ X Data Processing Shared Offices X special Districts sewer - County water - county Sidewalk veteran's organizations Budget allocation for veteran organizations _ Payment for burial of indigent veteran's , Celebrations: X Memorial Day Independence Day Columbus Day war Memorial X Deficit (Regent street. Park) Civil service County Summary The Village of Port Chester has, for the most part, a set of autonomous services. In several important respects, the Town of Rye supplies essential services to the Village. If Port Chester were to become a city, provisions would have to be made for those services essential to the conduct of business as a city. The legal and fiscal ramifications of the service changes are presented and analyzed in the following sections. -12- IV. FROM VILLAGE TO CITY: LEGAL PERSPECTIVE A. The Process of Incorporation as a city Historically, new cities have been created by special act of the Legislature. Implicit authority for this practice can be found in Article X, §1 of the New York State Constitution which exempts "corporations for municipal purposes" from that section's prohibition on the creation of corporations by special laws. The special legislation enacted by the Legislature takes the form of an Act to provide a charter for the newly created city. Although the original city charter must be adopted by the State Legislature, the Municipal Home Rule Law ("MHRL") provides for the amendment of such a charter by local law. MHRL §§10(1) (i) (ii) i 36(5), 37. currently, there are no specific constitutional or statutory procedures or criteria for the creation of a city or for the transition from a village to a city form of government. Nor are there constitutional.or statutory minimum area or population requirements for cities. Also, there is no constitutional or statutory requirement for local consent to a proposed incorporation. However, the Legislature will not act absent clear evidence that the Village's residents desire to become a city. such desire has traditionally been manifested through the preparation of a proposed city charter which ultimately is approved by the voters at referendum. Typically, a Charter Commission, appointed by the Board of -13- Trustees is established to oversee the drafting of a proposed charter for the new city. Once the proposed charter is introduced as a bill in the state Legislature, a home rule message from the village should be transmitted to Albany in support of the legislation. support should also be solicited from the school district. Finally, while the issue is not free from doubt, it would appear that home rule messages from the Town of Rye and the County of Westchester, although politically essential, would not be legally required. This is so notwithstanding the fact that both the town (loss of territory and tax base) and the county (possible preemption of sales tax) would be directly affected. Traditionally, the plenary power of the Legislature to create and dissolve municipalities has not been seriously questioned. See City of New York v. Village of Lawrence, 250 N.Y. 49 (1929); Adler v. Deagan, 251 N.Y. 467 (1929); but~, the dissenting opinion in City of New York v. State of New York, 76 N.Y.2d 479 (1990) where two judges of the Court stated that under Article IX of the State Constitution, the Home Rule Amendment which restricts the authority of the Legislature to act in relation to the "property, affairs or government" of a local government, a home rule message would be required from New York city prior to the enactment of State legislation permitting Staten Island to secede from New York City. However, the -14- majority of the Court of Appeals avoided the resolution of this question in that case.' Noteworthy in this regard is the fact that while the Legislature has conditioned the effectiveness of incorporation on the approval at referendum of the Charter by the voters of the proposed city, the approval of the voters of the affected town(s) or county was not required. ~ _g_,_g_,_ Ch. 194 L. 1938 and Ch. 505, L. 1940 respectively conditioning incorporation of the City of Peekskill and the City of Rye on approval of the voters in the areas proposed for incorporation only. A prior effort to incorporate the Village of Port Chester as a city failed in 1971. A copy of "An Act to Provide a Charter for the City of Port Chester", S4051-A, February 18, 1971 is attached as Appendix 3. The most recent effort to incorporate a new city involved the Village of Arcadia and the Town of Newark in Wayne county. Legislation proposing a charter for the new city, the City of Newark-Arcadia (S5055-B) was adopted by the Legislature in 1987 but vetoed by Governor Mario Cuomo. A copy of the proposed Charter is attached as Appendix 4. Governmental efficiency, economy and accountability were the justifications for the proposed Arcadia incorporation. The 'Even assuming that legislation for the proposed incorporation of Port Chester as a city was deemed to be a matter pertaining to the "property, affairs or government" of the county or town, the City Charter could nevertheless still be enacted as a special law without home rule messages from those municipalities upon a certificate of necessity from the Governor and the approval of two-thirds of the State Senate and Assembly. -15- legislation originally had the support of both the Town of Newark and the Village of Arcadia. However, at the last minute, the Town withdrew its support for the legislation. As proposed, Arcadia, with a population of about 15,000, would have been the first city in Wayne County. Although, calling the bill "well-intentioned" and one that he was "eager to sign" Governor Cuomo, cited numerous substantive . deficiencies and technical problems1 that precluded him from signing the legislation: "For example, the charter appears to be. inconsistent with provisions of the State Constitution and statutes concerning the structure and operation of the courts of the unified court system; does not formally dissolve the Village of Newark or the Town of Arcadia; contains no explicit provisions for the type or procedures for the referendum or notification of voters; and provides for provisions that are inconsistent with statewide real property tax administration policy." Moreover, in a letter to Governor Cuomo regarding this bill, the Office of the State Comptroller, although taking no position on the legislation, raised the issue of whether the availability of additional State aid could, in and of itself, justify incorporation as a city: 'The commentary received from various State agencies on the deficiencies in the Arcadia Charter will be helpful in avoiding constitutional and statutory pitfalls in drafting·the Port Chester charter. The bill jacket for the Arcadia legislation, including the Governor's veto message and the letters submitted to the Governor by various State agencies and legislators, municipal associations and local governments either in support or in opposition to the legislation, is attached as Appendix 5. -16- "We note that one of the stated purposes of this bill is to allow the new city to 'secure the financial benefits to be derived' from its status as a city (bill section 1.02). similarly, the bill would provide that part of the City be 'deemed a town' in order to secure benefits granted to towns for the improvement, maintenance and repair of State highways passing within its jurisdiction ...• " (Bill section 16.01). Presumably the. benefits referred to in these provisions are the larger amounts of State aid for highways and revenue sharing purposes that may be available to the newly created city. Thus, in our view, this bill raises the question of whether the possibility of additional State aid, without more, constitutes a sufficient reason for permitting a town or village to become a city. In this regard, we note that if the possibility of additional State aid is the only criteria applied to determine whether a new city should be created, and the proponents of the new city are not also required to demonstrate that the new city could provide existing services on a more cost-efficient basis or provide new services which cannot presently be provided, it would seem that the formulas for providing state aid should be changed and not the form of local government. However, because we believe that any determination in this regard should be made by the State Legislature and the Governor, we express no opinion on this issue. 11 Letter from Gail H. Gordon, Counsel to the Comptroller, to Ho.n. Evan Davis, counsel to the Governor dated August 5, 1987 attached as part of Appendix 5. Clearly, in making its case politically, Port Chester must document the efficiencies and economies that will inure to the city's benefit as a result of incorporation as a city. consideration will also have to be given to the effects of such incorporation on the Town of Rye, including lost property tax revenues and State Aid attributable to loss of properties and -17- population of the former Village, and the effects on the school district. B. Governmental Powers Article.IX of the New York State Constitution, as implemented by the Municipal Horne Rule Law, confers essentially the same legislative powers on cities and villages. Both forms of local government are authorized to enact and amend local legislation with respect to their government organization and operation consistent with the State Constitution and State general laws. Thus, transition from a village to a city form of government provides no significant advantages with respect to local legislative powers. c. School District The Port Chester-Rye Union Free School District presently encompasses the Village of Port Chester and portions of the Village of Rye Brook. Port Chester's conversion from a village to a city would not, in and of itself, affect the territorial integrity of the school district. Under the Education Law, when a city is created, the school district shall become a city school district which, on the effective date of the incorporation of the city, is either "(l) coterminous with the city; (2) partly without and partly within the city and then contains the whole or tne greater portion of the children of the city between birth and eighteen years of age ... ; or (3) wholly within but not coterminous within the city -18- and then contains the greater portion of the children of the city between birth and eighteen years of age.". Education Law §2 (16) (b). Thus, although the school district would now be classified as a city school district, its boundaries would not change as a result of the village's incorporation as a city. According to the state Department of Education, the type of expanded city school district that would be created upon Port Chester's incorporation as a city already exists in other portions of the state. 1 As a small city school district , the district will operate under and be governed by the provisions of Article 51 of the Education Law. Small city school district budgets are approved by the board of education of the district after public hearing, without requirement for voter referendum. In school districts outside cities, the district voters, at referendum, determine the school budget and the accompanying real property tax levy. Neither the present school district nor a newly created small city school district would be subject to a constitutional tax limit. In 1985, Article 8, §10 of the New York State constitution was amended so as to abolish the tax limit for school districts coterminous with or partly or wholly within cities having less than one hundred and twenty-five thousand inhabitants. 'small city school districts are city school districts of cities with less than 125,000 inhabitants. -19- Previously, such constitutional tax limit had adversely impacted potential new city incorporations. School districts located in villages, which were not subject to tax limits, would oppose incorporation of a village into a new city because this would subject the school district's tax levy to constitutional limitations. Presently, bonding of capital expenditures by the existing school district is subject to a statutory debt limit of ten (10) percent of the full valuation of real property subject to taxation in the district.. Local Finance Law §104. Changing to a city school district would subject the district to a constitutional debt limit of five (5) percent of the five year average full valuation of taxable real property in the district. such limit may be raised under certain circumstances for specified objects or purposes with the approval of 60% of the voters of the district at a general or special election, and the consents of the State Board of Regents and the state Comptroller. See N.Y.S. Const. Art. 8 §4. D. Finance 1. State Aid Prior to the 1991-92 State fiscal year, the State-Local Revenue Sharing Program had been composed of four distinct components: a. Per capita/Revenue Sharing Aid b. Special City, Town, Village Aid -20- c. Excess Aid d. Needs-Based aid However, State legislation enacted in 1991 merged these four components into a single program of per capita aid. In the State fiscal year 1993-94, cities and villages received the same amount of aid received in the prior fiscal year. State aid formulas have traditionally been more generous to cities than villages. However, it is impossible to predict whether the Legislature will incorporate into its aid formula a provision that would permit a newly incorporated city to receive a higher level of aid than it was previously receiving as a village prior to incorporation. Thus, whether a village's State aid payment would change upon incorporation as a city is a function of the provisions of the legislatively approved city charter as well as the exact distribution formulas for state revenue sharing in effect at the time of final passage of the new city charter. The same uncertainty as to level of aid to which a newly incorporated city would be entitled applies with respect to the consolidated Local Streets and Highway Improvement Program ("CHIPS"). This State aid program provides funds to municipalities to assist in the construction, operation and/or maintenance of local streets, highways, bridges·and highway railroad crossings which are not part of the State highway system. Highway Law §10-c. -21- The CHIPS program has both an operation and maintenance and a capital reimbursement component; Parameters used in the formula for distributing CHIPS aid include center line and lane _miles of locally-owned highways, vehicle registrations and vehicle miles of travel. Historically°; cities as a class have been treated more generously than villages in connection with the distribution of this form of State aid. Each city receives a share of the total city allocation based upon the ratio of the number of lane miles under that city's jurisdiction as compared with the total number of lane miles under the jurisdiction of all cities. While the same formula applies to villages, the total allotment for cities has traditionally far exceeded the total allotment for villages. Again, the same caveats apply with respect to any projection of increased aid resulting from the incorporation of Port Chester as a city. The Legislature, as a condition of creating the new city, could freeze CHIPS aid for Port Chester at current levels. 2. Tax & Debt Limits Small cities and villages have identical tax limits, 2% of the five year average full valuation of taxable real property in the municipality. N.Y.S. Const. Art. 8, §10. Similarly, small cities and villages have identical debt limitations, 7% of the five year average full valuation of taxable real property within the municipality. N.Y.S. Const. ~rt. 8 §4. In cities, a referendum is not required on bond issues unless the city enacts a local law providing for a mandatory or -22- permissive referendum on all bond issues, on only those bond issues for certain objects or purposes or those bond issues above specified dollar amounts. Local Finance-Law §34. By contrast, in villages, bond issues are generally subject to a permissive referendum, with specific exceptions, pursuant to Local Finance Law §36. 3. Property Tax. Should Port Chester become a city, its residents would be relieved of the obligation to pay property taxes previously levied by the Town of Rye for the support of general Town functions. The levy for such purposes on Village properties totalled $173,915 in fiscal 1995. This town levy may disappear in 1996 with final retirement of the debt. 4. Non Property Taxes (a) sales Tax Under Article 29 of the Tax Law, a county, and cities within a county, are generally authorized to adopt and amend local legislation establishing in any such city or county; sales and compensating use taxes ("sales tax") up to a maximum of 3% in conformity with Article 28 of the Tax Law. 1 Tax Law §1210. The sales tax may be a general sales tax, [Tax Law §1210 (a), (l)J or a limited sales tax on utility services, restaurant meals, hotel 'certain cities in Westchester County have obtained special state legislation authorizing them to impose an additional 1% (Yonkers, Mount Vernon and New Rochelle) or an additional 0.5% (White Plains) sales tax for city purposes. Tax Law SS1224(d), (fl, (m) and (n). -23- room occupancy, amusement admissions, or any combination thereof. (Tax Law §121O[b][l], ~ also Tax Law §11O5(b) (d) (e). Each jurisdiction is given the prior right to enact a general sales tax up to a rate of 1.5%. Tax Law §1224. since Westchester County currently imposes a general sales tax of 1.5% in the cities, absent special state legislation permitting a higher rate, a new city could impose a general sales tax of up to 1.5%. Alternatively, a new city could impose a limited sales tax as described above up to a maximum of 3%. Under these circumstances, the county sales tax on the types of transactions taxed by the city may not be imposed within the city. Tax Law §1224; 1995 op. st. comp. 3. By contrast, villages are not empowered to impose a sales tax. ijowever, villages in Westchester County (and those cities in Westchester that do not impose sales tax) share on a per capita basis in a Westchester county Sales Tax Distribution One Percent Tax Relief Program based upon a percentage of the receipts of 1% of the total 2.5% sales tax imposed by the county in areas outside cities imposing a sales tax. See Tax Law §1262- b(2) (c). School districts in the areas of the County outside cities imposing a sales tax also share on a per capita basis in 25% of the receipts of the additional one percent county sales tax in those areas. Tax Law §1262-b(2) (b). Upon the creation of a new city, a determination would have to be made whether to impose a city sales tax of up to 1,5%. If -24- such a sales tax was imposed, neither the city nor the city school district' would be entitled to distributions made on a per capita basis from the county Sales Tax Distribution Relief Program. (b) Utility Tax Both cities and viilages are authorized to impose up to a 1% tax on the gross operating income of utility companies. Village Law §5-530; General city Law §20-b. Any school district which is coterminous with, partly within or wholly within a city having a population of less than one hundred twenty-five thousand is authorized to impose a tax of up to 3% on consumer utility bills. Tax Law §1212. 5. Mortgage Tax Both cities and villages receive State mortgage tax monies but under different formulas. Tax Law Article 11. The mortgage tax is administered by counties and imposed at a minimum rate of $.75 for each $100 of mortgage debt on real property. Each county retains $.50 of this portion and, after deducting administrative expenses, semi-annually distributes the net proceeds to cities, towns and villages within the county. Tax Law §261. As a village, Port Chester receives a share of the mortgage tax proceeds allocated to the Town of Rye. That share is based 'At least that part of the city school district within the new city. -25- upon the proportion which the assessed valuation of the Village bears to twice the total assessed valuation of the Town as shown on the most recent Town assessment roll at the time the apportionment is made. Tax Law §261(3). By contrast, no such apportionment takes place with a city. A city receives the entire net tax revenue generated by mortgages on property within its jurisdiction. Thus, for a village with a healthy real estate market in relation to the town as a whole, incorporation as a city would increase mortgage tax aid under the existing apportionment formula. 6. Responsibility For Town Indebtedness Unless otherwise provided by the City Charter adopted for Port Chester by the Legislature, in the event that there is Town indebtedness outstanding at the time Port Chester becomes a city, real property within the new city at the time of city incorporation would remain liable for taxation to pay a, proportionate share of such indebtedness as if the Village remained in existence. see Town Law §76. The village's share of prior town indebtedness will be computed based upon the ratio of the value of taxable real property in the village to total taxable real property in the town as shown on the last town assessment roll prior to the date of incorporation as a city. -26- E, Services (l) Civil Service The County of Westchester acts as the agency for civil service administration within the Village of Port Chester. Upon becoming a city, Port Chester could establish its own city civil service commission or appoint its own personnel officer to administer the provisions of the Civil Service Law within the city and the city school district. Alternatively, absent the city's establishment of its own civil service commission or appointment of its own personnel officer, the county Personnel Officer would continue to administer civil service matters within the city and the school district. Civil Service Law §§15, 17. (2) Courts The operation of village courts is governed by the Uniform Justice Court Act ("UJCA"). All. the expenses of maintaining a village court, including the fees of a village justice, if he or she is not paid a salary, constitute a village charge. Village Law §4-410(2). Fees for the services of magistrates and other officers in certain criminal proceedings are deemed to be a county charge. Id. The operation of city courts is governed by the Uniform City court Act ("UCCA"). Unlike village courts, city courts are courts of record of the State's unified court system. As such,. they are subject to the guidelines established for New York State court facilities. 22 N.Y.C.R.R. §34. -27- State funding is provided for court operations, including personnel, equipment and supplies, but cities remain responsible for facility costs and maintenance. However, State aid is provided to reimburse participating cities for between 10% and 25% of the facility cost and maintenance expenses paid by each city during the preceding year. State Finance Law §54-j(2). Receipt of such aid is conditioned upon compliance with the maintenance standards for court facilities established by the Chief Administrator of the courts. 22 N.Y.C.R.R. §34.1. State aid for debt service (amounting to between 25% and 33% of the interest paid during the current year) is also available to participating municipalities that issue notes or bonds to fund capital projects for court facilities or enter into agreements with the Dormitory Authority to issue debt for such purposes. state Finance Law §54-j(l). The Village of Port Chester presently has an appointed Village Justice and an appointed Acting Village Justice. The number of judges for the new city and the method of their selection would be set forth in the city charter or in separate State enabling legislation to establish the city court. N.Y.S. Const. Art. 6, §17. City judges must be attorneys admitted to practice law in New York State for at least five (5) years. By contrast, village justices are not required to be lawyers admitted to practice in New York state. However, to serve as a village justice, an individual who is not a lawyer must complete a course of -28- education and training prescribed by the Administrative Board of the Judicial Conference of the State prior to taking office. UJCA §105. The Village Court has both civil and criminal jurisdiction. In civil matters, the court has jurisdiction over actions and proceedings for recovery of money or property, other than real estate, where the amount sought to be recovered or the value of the property does not exceed $3,000, exclusive of interest or costs. UJCA §§201, 202. The Village court also has jurisdiction over summary proceedings to recover possession of real property within the boundaries of the Village, to remove tenants from such property and to render judgment for rent due without regard to amount. UJCA §204. The town court and a village court within such town have concurrent subject matter jurisdiction in civil matters arising within the village. UJCA §20l(b). No such concurrent jurisdiction exists over criminal matters arising within the village. As prescribed by the criminal Procedure Law, village courts are local criminal courts possessing trial jurisdiction over all offenses other than felonies and preliminary jurisdiction over all offenses, subject to divesture by a superior court. UJCA §2001; Criminal Procedure Law §§10.10, 10.30; People v. Hickey, 40 N.Y.2d 761 (1976). Like the village court, the city court has both civil and criminal jurisdiction. Although these courts exercise similar criminal jurisdiction, the monetary jurisdiction of city courts is more extensive, extending up to $15,000, and the subject -29- matter jurisdiction of city courts may be more expensive. UCCA, Article 2. Generally, fines and penalties collected by village justice courts, in the first instance, must be paid over to the State Comptroller. UJCA §2021; 1987 Op. St. Comp. 86. Thereafter, the state comptroller distr.ibutes these monies to the state and its municipalities in the manner prescribed by law. UJCA §2020; State Finance Law §99-a; Vehicle and Traffic Law §1803. Except as otherwise provided by law, all fines and penalties imposed for a violation of a village local law, ordinance or regulation shall be the property of the village, whether or not the village has established the office of village justice. Village Law §4-411. One of the exceptions to this rule concerns the disposition of fines or penalties for traffic offenses under §1803 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law ("VTL"). Village Law §4- 411. Vehicle and Traffic Law §1803(1) (b) establishes the following formula for the distribution of all such fines and penalties collected for violations of the VTL ''or any act relating to the use of highways by motor vehicles or trailers" occurring within villages: "§1803. Disposition of fines and forfeitures. 1. Except as otherwise provided in subdivision five of section two hundred twenty-seven of this chapter and as provided in section eleven hundred ninety-seven of this chapter, section ninety of the state finance law and sections fourteen-f and one hundred forty of the transportation law [in which cases all fine monies are the property of the State), all fines and penalties collecte_d under a sentence or judgment of conviction of a violation of this chapter or of any act relating to the use of highways by motor vehicles or trailers, now in force or hereafter enacted, shall be distributed in the following manner: -30- b. for a violation which occurs in a village in which the office of village justice is established, any fine or penalty shall be paid to the village in which the violation occurs, when such violation is of (1) any of the provisions of title seven of this chapter', but including violations of section eleven hundred eighty (speed restrictions) only when involving maximum speed limits in state parks established by the office of parks, recreation and historic preservation pursuant to section sixteen hundred thirty a.nd when involving maximum speed limits established [by a village] pursuant to section sixteen hundred forty-three [speed limits on highways], sixteen hundred forty four [speed limits on bridges or elevated structures] or sixteen hundred seventy [regulation of traffic within municipal facilities], and excluding violations of sections eleven hundred eighty-two [speed contests and races], eleven hundred ninety-two [operating a vehicle under the influence of drugs or alcohol] and twelve hundred twelve [reckless driving], or (2) any ordinance, order, rule or regulation adopted pursuant to section sixteen hundred thirty by the East Hudson Parkway Authority or by its successor, or the county of Westchester Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation, or the state office of parks, recreation and historic preservation. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this paragraph, all fines, penalties and forfeitures for violation'of a village ordinance, local law or regulation adopted pursuant to the authorization of paragraph six of subdivision (a) of section sixteen hundred forty of this chapter prohibiting, restricting or limiting the stopping, standing or parking of vehicles shall be paid to such village whether or not the village has established the office of village justice. 112 Additionally, villages are entitled to receive certain fees for the services of the village court in criminal actions and other proceedings. General Municipal Law ("GML'') §99-1. Village courts are also entitled to fees from deposits of bail money in 1Title VII of the Vehicle and Traffic Law entitled "Rules of the Road" includes numerous violations such as obedience to traffic signals, passing, rights of way, pedestrians' rights and duties. 'Notwithstanding the foregoing_, villages are subject to a maximum recovery of $5.00 per capita for speeding fines, penalties and forfeitures. VTL §1803(5). Amounts in excess of that limit go into the state's general fund. Id. -31- certain proceedings. GML §99-m. See also UJCA §1911 establishing a fee schedule payable to the clerk of a village court in civil matters. Cities retain for their general fund all fines for violations of Title 7 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (Rules of the Road), with specific exceptions. VTL §1803. In cities, the city court only remits fine money to the state which belongs to the state. In villages, however, all fines are first remitted to the state comptroller, but then those monies which are the property of the village pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law §1803 are returned to the village. ( 3) Elections Village elections are held annually in Port Chester on the third Tuesday of March. Cities generally conduct elections on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November. Election Law §8-100. City elections are conducted in accordance with the general provisions of the Election Law under the supervision of the State and County Board of Elections. Village elections are conducted under the special provisions of Article 15 of the Village Law. Pursuant to that Article, villages may adopt resolutions changing the date for elections to the date of the general election and opting for the village elections to be conducted by the Board of Elections. Neither type of resolution has been adopted by the Village of Port Chester. cities and 1towns are responsible for the conduct of primary and general elections for local, state-wide and national offices. Villages are responsible only for village elections. As a result, a new city would likely incur additional costs for providing election services. ~ Election Law §4-136. 1 For example, the Town of Rye currently supplies the Village with voting machines for use at Village elections at no cost. Since, cities and towns have similar responsibilities with respect to primary and general elections, it is unlikely that this arrangement will continue if Port Chester becomes a city. Thus, Port Chester would have to purchase voting machines for its own use. See Election Law §7-203. (4) Licenses & Records Functions now performed for the village by the Rye Town Clerk such as the issuance of marriage, hunting and fishing licenses would become the responsibility of the clerk of the newly incorporated city.- Record keeping, issuance of birth and death certificates, issuance of miscellaneous licenses and other functions now performed by personnel in the Village Clerk's office would also devolve upon the City Clerk's office. 'Election Law §4-136 provides that the expense of furnishing polling places, voting booths, supplies, ballot boxes, etc., for any election and the compensation of the election officers in each election district shall be a city (or town) charge or, for village elections, a village charge. -33- (5) Parks and Recreation As part of the Town of Rye, Port Chester and its residents have access to Town of Rye parks (Rye Town Park and Crawford Park). In turn, village taxpayers contribute their proportionate share of the operating and capital costs of those parks. Upon becoming a city, village residents would no longer be residents of the Town entitled to use the Town parks and would not be subject to Town taxes for park purposes. Accordingly, provision would have to be made either in the new city charter or through an intermunicipal agreement permitting the continued use of the Town parks by Port Chester residents ..Such provision or agreement would also likely address the financial contribution, if any, to be made by Port Chester to the Town for the maintenance and improvement of the Town parks. Specifically, the new charter could provide that the rights, duties, privileges and obligations conferred or imposed on the Village of Port Chester under State legislation creating the Rye Town Park (Ch. 711, L. 1907 as amended) shall be transferred to and assumed by the City of Port Chester. Similar legislation was adopted in connection with the creation of the City of Rye from the Village of Rye. Ch. 505, L. 1940. Under that legislation, the City of Rye was granted all rights relative to Rye Town Park as had been previously enjoyed by the Village of Rye, including membership on the Rye Town Park Commission. That legislation also required the .;ity of Rye to contribute to the upkeep of Rye -34- Town Park in the same manner as the Village of Rye had previously done. (6) Planning & zoning In view of the State Legislature's continuing efforts to make planning and zoning enabling law provisions uniform for cities, towns and villages, there will be no significant differences in jurisdiction or operation in these areas if the village incorporates as a city. (7) Police and Fire Services Police and fire services presently rendered by the Village of Port Chester through its own police and fire departments may continue to be provided in the same fashion upon the village's incorporation as a city. The city charter would confirm those departments as city fire and police- departments. ( 8) Road Maintenance. The Village constitutes a separate road district, exempt from the authority of the Town of Rye highway superintendent, with jurisdiction over all public highways in the village. Village property is exempt from taxation or assessment for the maintenance of Town roads outside the Village. Port Chester Charter, Title V, §1. Cities, like villages, are responsible for.the maintenance of their own streets. Upon conversion to a city, village streets would become city streets and the city would bear responsibility for their maintenance. -35- Maintenance of county roads within the Village of Port Chester is currently the responsibility of Westchester County. Through an intermunicipal agreement with the County, one aspect of such maintenance, responsibility for snow and ice removal, has been assumed by the Village. Negotiations are currently underway between municipal officials and the County with respect to the county's proposal to enter into intermunicipal agreements covering all aspects of County road maintenance. The County Executive has stated that as of January 1, 1996, County road maintenance will be sharply reduced to emergency levels only. Any such maintenance agreement entered into by the Village would presumably bind the City as well. Generally, the State is obligated to maintain and repair state highways. However, except as otherwise provided in the State Highway Law for designated arterial highways and thruways, such maintenance obligation does not extend to portions of State highways within the limits of any city. Highway Law §344. Thus, to the extent that there are state roads passing through Port Chester that are not already designated as state arterial highways or thruways, provision should be made in the Charter or through separate state legislation for such designation of those roads and their continued maintenance by the state. Otherwise, Port Chester would assume responsibility for the maintenance of those roads if it becomes a city. The State may enter into agreements with cities to repair and maintain those portions of State designed arterial highways -36- within such cities, including snow and ice removal (Highway Law §349-c], and with villages to remove snow and ice from those portions of State roads within such villages (Highway Law §12]. (9) Special Districts The Village of Port Chester is part of the following Westchester county special districts: Water District #4, Port Chester sanitary Sewer District and Refuse Disposal District #1. Incorporation as a city should have no effect on the continued participation of Port Chester properties in such districts. By contrast, to the extent that any portion of the Village of Port Chester is encompassed within a Town special district, that portion would have to be removed from that district upon the Village's incorporation as a city. Under current law, special districts may not extend into cities. Town Law §190. Provision would have to be made for the continued payment by village properties formerly within the district of their proportionate share of any outstanding indebtedness of the district at the time of city incorporation. (10) Tax Collection Assessment and Enforcement Presently, the Village does not have its own assessor. Assessment of properties and collection of property taxes within the Village of Port Chester are services provided to the village by the Town of Rye. The Town also guarantees 100% collection of state, county, county district and school taxes. Laws of Westchester county Chapter 283. -37- By contrast, as a city, Port Chester will be responsible for the assessment and initial collection of property taxes as well as all subsequent efforts to collect unpaid property taxes, including delinquent city school district taxes levied on properties within the city. Moreover, the city would be responsible for guaranteeing the collection of 100% of the state, county and county district property tax levies on city properties and compensating the school district for the amount of uncollected school district taxes levied on properties within the city. Real Property Tax Law §§1512, 1332. Theoretically, the change from city to village should not affect Port Chester's equalization rate. However, as a practical matter, a change in the equalization rate is likely based upon. the difference in property values and assessment practices between the City of Port Chester and the Town of Rye. As a city, the State Office of Real Property Service's surveys will be confined exclusively to Port Chester properties. currently, the Village's equalization rate is derived from a Town-wide survey of properties. We are unable to predict whether the change will be beneficial to Port Chester. (11) Intermunicipal Cooperation Villages and cities have similar powers to agr_ee with the federal, state or local governments "to provide cooperatively, jointly or by contract any facility, service, activity or undertaking which each participating local government has the power to provide separately." N.Y.S. Const. Art. X §l(c); see -38- G.M.L. Art. 5-G. The use of iritermunicipal agreements remains an option for the new city to replicate services now provided to the village by the Town of Rye and to continue existing arrangements for sharing programs, facilities or costs. F. Transition Provisions The charter for the new city should provide a suitable transition period between the time the charter, after being adopted by the Legislature, is approved by the voters at referendum, and the date Port Chester would commence operation as_ a city under the new charter. Provision must be made in the charter for the continuation of services and the continued applicability of Village laws, and for the election of city officers during this transition period. Finally, provision must also be made in the charter for the disposition of Town owned property situated within the boundaries of the new city. G. Summary A new city is created by a special act of the Legislature approving the new city's charter. However, the process of incorporation as a city is ultimately a political process. There are no constitutional or statutory criteria to guide the Legislature in determining whether to incorporate a new city. Nevertheless, in order to marshall the necessary political support, a village must document the efficiencies and economies that will inure to the city's benefit as a result of incorporation as a city, and.demonstrate that the towns(s) in -39- which the village is located and any school district or special district situated wholly or partially within the village will not be adversely affected by such incorporation. Although enjoying similar governmental powers, there are significant structural and operational differences between villages and cities, including revenue sources, court operations, civil service administration, tax assessment and collection and elections, which must be accounted for when drafting a proposed city charter. As is evident from prior unsuccessful attempts by villages to incorporate as cities, the proposed charter will be closely scrutinized by the Governor, the Legislature, State agencies, municipal associations and affected local governments to insure that the City's form of government is consistent with the state Constitution and relevant State laws. In short, formidable political obstacles stand in the way of city incorporation. However, from a strictly legal perspective, there is no impediment to city .incorporation that could not be overcome by careful draftsmanship of the proposed city charter. -40- V, THE FISCAL IMPACT ON PORT CHESTER: CONVERTING FROM A VILLAGE TO A CITY This section of this study will present an estimate of the fiscal impact on the Village of Port Chester changing from Village to city status in .Westchester County in New York state. The current budget of Port Chester is first presented to gain some understanding of the present revenues and expenditures of the Village. A comparative analysis follows in which Port Chester is compared to five small cities, two in Westchester and three in the greater Hudson Valley region. The comparative analysis demonstrates potential fiscal implications for Port Chester residents if they choose to become a city based on the experience of other comparably sized cities in this region. The third section provides estimates of specific revenue and expenditure impacts on Port Chester based on the service and legal discussion earlier in this study. This includes an analysis of the impact on the Port Chester-Rye Union Free School District. This section ends with a discussion of the overall impact on revenues and expenditures to Port Chester of a change in municipal status. A. Categories of Fiscal Impacts There are three general areas of financial impact on a city: Tax and debt limitations, Revenues, and Expenditures. This section defines the three categories for purpose of analysis. -41- (1) Indebtedness The village tax limitation for operation purposes is two percent of the five-year average full valuation of taxable real property. The New York State constitutional debt limit for villages is seven percent of the five-year average full valuation of real property taxable for village purposes. The city tax limitation for operating expenditures is two percent of the five-year average full valuation of taxable real property, except for New York City which has a limit of two and one-half percent of that base. In cities with populations over 125,000 levies for education are considered as city purposes and subject to the city tax limit (Comptroller's Special Report on Municipal Af°fairs, 1994) , The New York state constitutional debt limit for cities of less than 125,000 population is seven percent of the five-year average full valuation of real property taxable for city purposes. For cities of 125,000 or more population other than New York City, the limit is nine percent; the limit for New York City is ten percent. (2) Revenue The Comptroller's Special Report on Municipal Affairs presents five broad categories of revenues: Real Property Taxes, Non-property Taxes, Intergovernmental Revenues, Interest on Investments, and Other Revenues. Real Property Taxes include the.total amount of ad valorem real property taxes plus special assessments levied on real -42- property on the basis of benefit. Also included is the interest and penalties on taxes, penalties on assessments, settlement of railroad taxes, payments in lieu of taxes (PILOT), surplus on extension of county taxes, and gain from sale of tax acquired property. Non-property Taxes include a sales tax levied by the city or distributed to the city by the county. Also included are all other non-property taxes imposed by cities such as utilities gross receipts tax, consumer utility tax, off track betting surtax, etc. Intergovernmental Revenues include state aid in form of general purpose, mortgage tax, health services, maintenance and construction of sewage treatment facilities, youth bureaus, libraries, veterans' service agencies, mental health, urban renewal, recreation for the elderly, natural resources, public safety, etc. Federal aid includes revenues for civil defense, public works planning, sewage treatment facilities, airports, community development, etc. Also included are revenues, including utility revenues, received from other local governments. Interest on Investments consists of interest from monies invested or deposited. Other Revenue includes all revenues not otherwise classified such as departmental income, licenses, permits, rentals, sales, fines and forfeitures, recoveries, refunds, etc. -43- (3) Expenditures Expenditures are reported by functions including General Government (executive, legislative, judicial and financial operations), Police, Fire, Other Public Safety (traffic control, animal control, building inspection, civil defense, etc.), Health (city hospitals, public health administration, registrar of vital statistics, ambulance services, etc.), Transportation (maintenance and improvement of city roads and bridges, snow removal, street lighting, public transportation, etc.), Economic Assistance (social services, etc.), Culture-Recreation (parks, playgrounds, youth and adult recreation programs, libraries, recreational facilities, etc.) and Home and Col!1lllunity Services (utilities systems, garbage collection and disposal, drainage and storm sewers, housing and col!1lllunity development, natural resources, and activities intended to improve the general environment). B. The Present Financial Situation: FY 95 We begin with a review of the present Port Chester Budget in fiscal year 1995. This sets the baseline from which we will analyze the impact of the change in municipal status to a city. (1) Revenues As can be seen from Table 1, two-thirds of the Village of Port Chester's revenues come from Property Taxes. Almost one quarter is accounted for from Sales Taxes, Gross Receipts Taxes, Fees, Charges, Licenses, and Permits and Office Planning and -44- Development Reimbursements. State Aid and Other Intergovernmental Revenues account for another .8% with the Reimbursement for Fire Protection from Rye Brook accounting for half of these revenues. The remaining 3% is composed of Interfund Transfers and Interest on Investments. Clearly, as the data shows, the Village of· Port Chester's financial base is from Property Taxes. The overall revenue projected is $15.6 million or $631/resident. -45- Table 1: Port Chester's Present Finance State: Revenues (1994-95 Budget) REVENUE SOURCES AMOUNT PER CENT TOTALS ($000) ( %) ($000) Property Taxes 10., 225. 7 Real Property Tax.es 10,002.7 64.2 (65.6) Other Property Taxes 223.0 l.4 Non-Property Taxes > 1,870.0 Sales Taxes 1,550.0 9.9% (12.0) Utilities Gross Receipts Tax 255.0 1.7% Cable TV Gross Receipts Tax 65.0 0.4\ Other Revenues 1,782.6 Fees, Changes, Licenses, Permits 1,466.6 9 .4\ ( 11.4) Office of Planning & Development 316.0 2.0% Reimbursements Intergovernmental Revenues 1,261.0 State Per Capita 280.0 1.8% ( 8 • l) Mortgage Tax 130.0 0.8% Fire Protection-Rye Brook 607.4 3.9% Nutrition Program 105.5 o. 7% Youth Program 47.0 0.3% Miscellaneous 91.l 0.6% Interest on Investments 20.0 0.1% · 20.0 ( 0. i) rnterfund Transfer 89.5 0.6% 89.5 ( 0. 6) Appropriated Fund Balance 346.0 2.2% 346.0 ( 2. 2) Total Revenues 15,594.8 100% 15,594.8 (100.0) Sources: The Budaet of the Villaae of Port Chester 1994-95 -46- (2) EXPENDITURES Table 2 presents the breakdown of the Village of Port Chester's expenditures for FY 95. There are 6 categories of expenses by function. There are also two general categories for employee benefits and debt service. The largest single category of public services expenditures is for the Police Department. This accounts for almost one-quarter of the Village's total spending. General Government is the second highest category taking about one-fifth of the budget, and Streets and Sanitation account for another one-sixth. Expenses for Employee Benefits take another one-fifth of the budget. Debt Service, Fire, Parks and Recreation, and the Library Fund each take 3.5-6.1% of expenditures. overall, the Village is spending $15.6 million for public service or $631/resident in FY 95. TABLE 2: PORT CHESTER'S PRESENT FINANCIAL STATE: EXPENSES (1994-95 BUDGET) Expense categories Amount Percent ($000) ( %) General Government 3,163.0 20.3 Police 3,736.2 24.0 Fire 829.4 5.3 streets/Sanitation 2,52a;4 16.2 Parks & Recreation 631.9 4.1 Library Fund 553.5 3.5 Employee Benefits 3,194.2 20 .. 5 Debt service 949.l 6.1 TOTALS 15,594.8 100,0 source: The Budget for the Village of Port Chester 1994-95 -47- c. A comparison To comparably-sized Hudson Valley Cities We have selected five other comparably-sized Hudson Valley cities to which to compare the Village of Port Chester to get a good idea of the revenue and expenditure structure that could be anticipated if Port Chester chooses to become a city. The data for these comparisons are for FY 93 as reported in the State comptroller's Special Report on Municipal Affairs: FY 93. We first present the comparisons and then discuss the potential impacts on Port Chester. Based on these comparisons, we conclude with a simulation of. what Port Chester's budget might have looked like in FY 93 if it had been a city. 1. The Five cities Used For comparison Five cities were selected as comparable to a proposed City of Port Chester. Two are in Westchester, Peekskill and Rye, and three are outside Westchester but in the Hudson Valley Region: Kingston (Ulster County), Middletown (Orange County) and Poughkeepsie (Dutchess County). Tables 3A and ·35 present socio demographic, and economic and financial comparisons of the five cities with the Village of Port Chester to provide a clear indication of comparability of these cities. Some critical characteristics that are comparable are population and geographic size, economic base and socio demographic background. In terms of population, all of the five cities range from 14,900 (Rye) to 28,900 (Poughkeepsie). Port Chester's population (24,728) falls right near the mean of these cities populations (22,174). The geographic size of the five -48- TABLE 3A: SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC COHPARISOtlS Of' FIVE CITIES WITH THE VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER: 1993 WESTCHESTER NON-WESTCHESTER Village of City of City of city of City of City of Pot't Chester Peekskill Rye Kingston Middletown Poug~keepsie Population 24728 19536 14936 23095 24160 28844 Amer Indian O.lOt 0.2n 0.07'1; 0.24\ 0.52\ 0.00-1:: Asian/Pac Isl l.72t 2.24\ 6. 90\ 1.40-1:: l.42\ 20.00\ Black 10.22' 21.21\ 1.62% 10.1n 11.lll 31.00\ White 79.40\ 73, 18\ 90. 3 J\ 87.39\ 82.17\ 65.00t Other 8,561 J .17\ l.09\ 0.87'1; 4.7U LOOt Hispanic JO .11 \ 9.71\ 4. 65\ 2.7Jt 13.32\ 4 .oot 17 and Under l'L99'.i 23 .OH 23.Jl\ 2l.89t 26.08% 23.00t 18 to 39 40.65\ 40.lH 29.87t 35.17t 36.99.\: 30,00\ to 64 24. 28\ 23.86\ 32.58\ 24.25\ 2 2. 77\ 23.00\ "65 anr.1 o,.,er 15.0H 12.97\ 14.25t 18,69\ 14, 16-1:: 16.00\ !lousing Units 9513 8401 5616 10387 9475 13112 Median Value/Own 260500 164400 435700 94700 118400 128700 Median Rent 600 590 859 450 500 566 SOURCE: NYS Comptt'ollet"'S Office, Ibid. TABLE JB: COMPARISON OF ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL DATA FOR FIVE SMALL CITIES WITH THE VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER: 1993 WESTCIIESTER NOH-WES'l'CHESTER Port Chcstcr Peekskill Rye Kingston Middletown Poughkccp!iic. po Village City City City city City unty Westchester Westchester li'cstchcstcr Ulster Orange Dutchess 90 Pol> 24,728 19,SJG H,9.JG 23,095 24,160 28,86.-\ uarc Hiles 2.4 '.J 5.8 7.4 5.2 5.1 n::.ity(pop per sq mi) J.OJOJ.JJ 454J.2G 2575.17 3120.95 46'1.G.15 5,656 scsscd Value Go,s02,000 67,247,000 126,270 432,531,000 2JJ,741,000 247, 4·17 ,ooo 11 V<1luc l,410,773,000 008,259,000 2,19G,1J7,000 BJJ,071,000 954,!JJS,OOO l,155,J54,000 nta Equ.il. Rate •1.27 8.32 5.75 51.92 23.43 21.'12 ci.· Tax Limit 10,439,000 11,5JJ,OOO 34,418,000 ll,J79, ODO 11,GJJO,OOO 17,792,000 x Levy Limi tcU B,763,000 5,776,000 8,776,000 9, 7'.Jl, 000 · 5,GGJ,000 0,467,000 tal t.:,,x levy 9,975,000 7,102,000 9,057,000 10,371,000 7,408,000 10,0GO,OOO nd:; I:;sued 0 4,775,000 817,000 4,700,000 4,745,900 7,380,000 u~ issued 525,000 0 ,192,000 900,000 0 0 her Jlotc:. I:;suecl 0 0 0 0 0 0 nds: llnicl 70,000 850,000 370,000 GOO,D00 1,770,000 1,457,000 lit; 11,::dtl 616,000 2,079,000 0 2,701,000 0 764,000 he>.· Uotcs Paitl 0 0 0 0 000,000 0 tal Out Debt 2,791,000 5,750,000 4,159,000 12,119,000 20,oos,000 22,435,000 ns:t. Debt Limit 76,091,000 46,750,000 134,-iG2,000 40,927,000 49,623.,000 G2,272,000 'l'ax Rev 9,966,800 7,116,700 8 1 916,JOO 10,45-4,300 6,,755,900 9,4813,700 other tux rev 250, !JOO 2,736,300 212,300 512 1 600 450,800 887 1 300 s.:ilco 'l'ax Rave 1,584,100 1,296,200 991,200 4,211,200 2,G5J,'100 4,75'1,000 othcl: tax )42,500 2-18,500 206,500 306 1 600 -153,800 '16-1, 800 ate Aitl 648,000 1,581,200 1,524,100 2,077,000 700,700 2,4'15,500 t1eral uid 1,712,500 3,-175,400 10,GOO G!M,, 900 6GG,200 4,;n2,Goo her IJOVtS 53-4,100 595,200 92,300 148,500 25,'100 l,lJJ,500 tcrcst 111,000 209,GOO 2GJ,GOO 278,300 325,000 410,600 her Rev l,Gl4,900 4,253,000 4,085,100 5 1 -159,B00 5,055,900 6,457,100 till Rev 16,764,700 21,592,100 16,302,200 24,22'.J,200 17,095,000 J0,254,700 SOURCE: NYS Comptroller's Office, Ibid. -50-· TABLE 38: COMPARISON OF ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL DATA FOR FIVE SMALL CITIES WITH THE VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER:. 1993 WESTCHESTER NON-HE~TCl(Es·.rmi Port Chc:::tcr Pe:ckskill Rye King$t:on Hiddlctown Pouqhkccp:: i rcr::.onal :.vc::. G,901,000 9,JGO,GOO 7,J70,000 10,8S4,B00 Employee 0,067,DOO 12,GOS,JOO Dancfil:s 3,272,100 2,022,soo 2,773,500 4,350,400 2,9,SJ,GOO 5,570,000 contractunl E>.'.p s,121,soo J,17-4,000 S,7Dl 600 5,795,200 J,990,000 r.quip/C.:ip Outlny 1 12,790,000 l,O ◄ l,GOO 1,001,200 1]05 1 900 1 1 001,JOO 2,508,700 7,239,100 Debt :.vcc Pl•in 70,000 9 ◄ 6,600 0 1,597,900 1,470,000 1,457,100 Debt Svea Int 152,600 271,700 118,400 GJ2,JOO 1,201,600. rol:~l Exp by 1,269,200 Obj 16,GJ!J,GOO 21,J7G,500 16,929,400 2s,oss,ooo 20,102,400 '10,930,700 Cen covt current op 2,J09,000 2,012,400 J, O~M, 100 J, :nl, JOO 2 1 2GO,JOO ,,1, 20'1, 000 cc.n Govt Equip/Cap 204,900 61,000 120,400 15,4.00 rolicc. l,SGl,100 .G,?52,1D0 CUl.'l."Cl\t op S,051,!lOO 4,2JO,OOO J,90G,JOO 4,JOJ,000 J, !Ml, GOO Polic Equip/Cup G,212,noo 117,JOO 37,200 13;900 123,500 70,GOO 75,JOO Fira current op 909,000 1,G00,400 1,159,400 J,657,700 1-"il."a 2 1 323,GOO 1,G7!l,OOO cquip/c.:ip 170,200 192,100 27,200 151,700 59,700 :;;1(c.ty 2G 1 900 l'ublir.: cm:rcnt op 101,500 GlJ,200 400,100 5JG,100 l'ubllc :;.irct:y 2G,-100 :iJ0,000 c.qui1>/cap G,000 !lJ,200 1,000 300 14,000 0 Ilea l th cun·c.nt op 17J,JOO 5,100 0 121,000 nC,1lth 0 91,200 equip/cap 0 0 0 0 Tran::. 0 2,200 cul."rent op !lGl, 400 1,524,JOO G!l4, 000 l,7SJ,900 1,311,500 J,1~1,000 Tr.:,ns equip/c.ip . 4JJ,JOO 315,900 47,200 J!l,600 s,ooo 231,400 Le A!.st cul"rc.nt op 2!lG,700 .. . J_O ◄, GOO . . so,-1og 50,100 i:c J\:'..~t:. equip/cap .. ·- .!L 1~.~., ~?~ . ··~•·. 0 2,400 ·2 1 GOO 0 Rec currenl:. op 1,208,700 l,SG!l,900 J,7G0,100 1,392,500 G!JG,700 1,102,!)00 Hee equip/cap 27 1 400 75,700 OJ,500 17,400 28,200 0,000 Utilities currc:nt op 181,GOO 1,428,800 17J,SOO :1,oso,000 2,710,900 J,871,200 Ul:ilil:.ies equip/cap 23,GQO 235,600 0 1,290,200 G,100 lJ,t, 200 11/C SVC!. current op J,642,400 4,215,800 2,J-19,600 2,02J,700 l,'194,500 G,9G9,190 11/C Svcs equip/cap 24l 4.00 47,800 787,600 58 ◄, 000 1 755,200 8,700 rotal Exp by Function 22,t184,900 lG,417 1 200 20,101,100 16,811,100 17,510,800 27,175,400 Per Capita Funct Exp (Svcs) GGJ.91 1029.23 1125.54 990.90 724.7(1 942.15 Per C.i.pit.i. Rc:vcnuc G77,9G 1105.25 1091.'17 1'040.85 101.n 1018.91 SOURCE: NYS comptroller's Office, Ibid. -SOA- cities range from 4.3 square miles (Peekskill) to 7.4 square miles (Kingston). Port Chester's area is much smaller than these cities being only 2.4 square miles. As a result, Port Chester is also much more densely populated having a population per square mile of 10,300 versus the average for the five cities of only 4,108. From an economic base perspective, the five cities are also similar to Port Chester. The five cities' full value of assessed valuation range from $808.3 million (Peekskill) to a high of $2,196.1 million (Rye). Port Chester's full value of assessed valuation is $1,418.8 million which is close to the average of the five cities ($1,189.6 million). considering the socio-demographic background of the five cities with Port Chester also shows some important similarities. Whites comprise anywhere from 65% to 90% of the five cities' populations. For Port Chester, the figure is 79.4% which is right at the mean of the five cities (79.6%). Minorities', (Hispanics, Blacks, Asian/Pacific Island, American Indian, and others) comprise anywhere from 14% to 56% of the five cities populations with Port Chester having 51% minorities being very close to the highest percentage of these cities (Poughkeepsie). Where Port Chester differs from all of these 5 cities is in its 1The reader should note that Hispanics are counted as both whites and minority members. The accounts for the seeming contradiction in the percentage of whites (79.4%) and the percentage of minorities (51%). Note that non-white minorities (other than Hispanics) account for 20.6% which is comparable to their being 79.4% whites. -51- much greater proportion of Hispanic members of the population (30%). In terms of age distribution, we can see very similar demographic breakdowns by the four age categories across the five cities and Port Chester. And finally in terms of housing costs, Port Chester looks similar to the five cities. The median rent in Port Chester was $600 and the range of.median rents across the five cities is $450 (Kingston) to $859 (Rye), the average of the five being $593. In contrast, the median value of home awnership_is somewhat higher in Port Chester than in the five ·cities. The range in these homeownership values is from $94,700 (Kingston) ta $114,400 (Peekskill) in four of these cities. Rye stands out very differently at $435,700. The Village of Port Chester's median value of $260,500 places it above the four cities of lower value but much below Rye. The average far the five cities is $188,380 which is below that of Port Chester. Yet, the real property taxes levied an real estate is very similar across the five cities and Port Chester. The range is from $6.76 million (Middletown) to $10,45 million (Kingston). Port Chester's real property tax revenue is $9.97 million somewhat above the average levied by the 5 cities of $8.55 million. Given the general similarity of these five cities to Port chester, we feel that there is a good basis of comparison for Port Chester's consideration to become a small city. -52- 2. REVENUE STRUCTURE: PORT CHESTER VS. FIVE OTHER CITIES Table 4 provides a comparison of the revenue structure of Port Chester to the five Hudson Valley area cities of comparable size. The total revenues for all five cities range from $16.3 million (Rye) to $30.3 million (Poughkeepsie) which correlate well with city population size (smallest to largest). The revenue per capita in each city adjusts for size of city and ranges from a low of $708 for Middletown to a high of $1,105 for Peekskill. It is clear that most of these cities are collecting $1,050-$1,100 per capita and that this is almost 60% higher than the amount being collected in the Village of Port Chester at present ($678). (a) Sources of Revenues In considering the structure of revenue sources, real property taxes and assessments account for 31% to 55% of revenue sources. If we include "other real property" tax sources to obtain a composite of all property tax revenues, the percentage differences remain as wide ranging from 34% to 56%. Port Chester's comparative reliance on these tax revenue sources are 59.5% and 61% respectively. so clearly, Port Chester and Rye both rely much more heavily on real property taxes for most of their financing than do other comparable cities. -53- Table 4: Revenue Structures of Comparable-Sized Cities FY 1993 ($000) i--- Westchester Non-Westchester I Per Capita Five Revenues Kingston Middletown Poughkeepsie Port Across Five Revenue Sources Peekskill Rye (UL) {OR) (OT) Chester Cities Real Property Taxes 7,166.7 8,916.3 10,454.3 6,755.9 9,488.7 9,966.8 4,054 Assessments • (33, 2 I (54.7) (43 ,2 I (39.5) (31.4) (59.5) (40.4) Othec- Tax Items 2,736.3 212. 3 512.6 458.8 887.3 250.9 _ 47 ( 12, 7) {1.3) ( 2, l) (2. 7 l C2 ,9 I ( l. 5) (.4. 7) Non-Property Taxes 1,296.2 991.2 4,211.2 2,653.4 4,754.0 1,584.1 118 Sales Tax I 6. O) ( 6. I) ( 17. 4 I ( 15. 5) ( 15. 7) C9 .5 I ( l l.8 I Other Taxes 248.5 206.5 386.6 453.8 464.8 342.5 15 (1.2) (1.3) (1.6) (2.7) (1.5) (2.0) (1.5) Intergovernmental Revenues State Aid 1,581.2 1,524.1 2,077.0 700.7 2,445.5 648.0 77 (7 .3) ( 9. 3) (8.6) (4.1) (8. l I (3 .9) (7. 7) Federal Aid 3,475.4 10,6 694,9 666. 2 4,212.6 1,712.5 77 ( 16. 1) (0.1) (2,9) (3 ,9 I (13.9) ( 10. 2) (7. 7) Other Government 595.2 92.) 148. 5 25.4 1,133.5 534.l l6 , 2. 0 l Co. 6 l 10. 6 I (0.1 l ( 3. 7) (3.2) ( 1.6) Interest 289. 6 263. 6 278.3 325.0 410.6 110.0 14 (1.3) (1.6) (1.1) (1.9) (1.4) {0. 7) (1.4) Other Revenue 4,253.0 4,085.1 5,459.8 5,055.9 6,547.7 1,614.9 232 ( 19. 7) (25,1) (22.5) (29.6) (21.6) (9, 6 I (23,2) Total Revenue 21,592.1 16,302.2 24,223.2 17,095.0 30,254.7 16,764.7 -- I 100. o I ( 1,00 .O I (100.0) {100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Population 19,536 14,936 23,095 24,160 28,884 24,728 -- Per Capita Revenue 1, 105 1,091 1,049 708 1,047 678 1,000 Source: NYS Comptroller Special Report on Municipal Affairs: FY93 Table No. 3, pp. 1, 28-29 and Table No. 5 pp. 300-04, -54- The question that follows then is, What revenue sources do the other cities rely upon? The main sources that are seen are: other revenues. sales tax and state aid. In all of the five comparable cities, "other revenue" sources account for 20% (Peekskill) to 30% (Middletown) of their revenue flow. As we have seen, the category "other revenue" includes departmental income, licenses, permits, rentals, sales, fines and forfeiture revenues, refunds, etc. In effect, this category is a catch all for revenue flows from city departmental economic activity, licenses, fees, permits, and charges. These types of revenues are usually classified by economists as "user fees." The data show the increased reliance by small city governments on these funding sources. The sales tax is a second important source of non-property tax revenue. In the two comparable Westchester cities (Rye and Peekskill), 6% of revenue is accounted for by the sales tax. While neither of these cities impose a sales tax, they both receive distributions of sales tax revenue from Westchester 1 county • By contrast, for the three non-Westchester cities, there is much greater reliance, 15%-17% of their revenues, on the sales tax. Here, too, none of the cities impose their own city sales tax. Rather, they have opted to receive a distribution of their county's sales tax revenue. Their reasoning is that the volume of sales activity is much greater outside their city 1Westchester County's sales tax distribution formula is discussed at pages 24-25 of this report. -55- limits than within and, therefore, they gain more in sale.s tax revenue under their County distribution formula than if they were to impose their own sales tax. 3. EKpenditure Structure: Port Chester vs. Five Other Cities Having analyzed the Revenue structure of comparable cities, we turn our analysis to the Expenditure Structure of these same five cities. This is seen in Table 5. Of the 11 expenditure service categories, three account for almost two-thirds of all five small city budgets: Police (16-23%), Hpme-community Services-Other (8.5-22%), and General Government (11-18%). The Village of Port Chester seems to match these three at 31%, 22%, and 15%, respectively .. Three other relatively high expenditure items for most cities are Fire Protection (8-11%), Recreation culture (3-22%) and Home~community Services-Utilities (7-19%). Port Chester is quite different in all three with their respective percentages being 6%, 7.4%, and 1.1%. In terms of the city which is closest to this structure of Port Chester, we would select Peekskill. overall spending across the cities range from $14.9 million to $28.8 million again reflecting the size of the city. However, per capita spending differs. Poughkeepsie has the highest expenditure per person at $1,325; Kingston, Peekskill and Rye are closer ranging from $990-$1,126. And Middletown spends the least at $725 per capita. However, note again that Port Chester's expenditures are the lowest at $664 per capita. -56- 4, Per Capita Expenditures of Comparable Cities A useful way to analyze the potential impacts of expenditures of Port Chester as a city is to compare it to the five similar cities in the region on a per capita expenditure basis (FY 93, see Table 6). The overall range in expenditure per person across these five cities is $725 to $1,325. It is striking to see that Port Chester as a Village is only spending $664 per person at present. This contrast does support the assertion that Port Chester as a City might have to significantly increase its expenditures per person if it ~s to match its counterparts in the region. The five most expensive city-provided services on an expenditure per capita basis are Police, Home-Community Services, General Government, Fire, and Equipment and Capital outlay. on the average across the five cities, these five services account for almost three-quarters of small city spending. For Port chester as a Village at present, they account for a comparable four-fifths (80%) of total spending. However, if we compare the per capita dollar amounts spent by the 5 cities on each of these functions, we see a significant potential increase in three areas: General Government, Fire, and Equipment and Capital outlay. Expenditures per capita on Police and Home and Community Services seem similar across the five cities and Port Chester. -57- TABLE 5; EXPENDITURE STRUCTURES OF COMPARABLE-SIZED CITIES: CURRENT OPERATION: FY 1993 (SOOO) IWESTCHESTER-1 ·-NON-WESTCHESTER EXPENDITURE 1--- -- CATEGORIES PEEKSKILL RYE KINGSTON(UL) HIDDLETOWN(OR} POUGHKEEPSIE(OT) PORT CHESTER GENERAL GOV'T. 2,812.4 3,094.1 3,311.3 2,260.3 4,284.5 2,389.0 ( 14. 4) (18.4) ( 14. 5) (12.9) I 11.2 l (14.6) POLICE 4,230,8 3,906.3 4,303.0 3,943.6 6,242.8 5,051.9 (21.7) (23.2) I 18. 8) (22 .s) I I 6. 3) (30.8) FIRE 1,600.4 1,459.4 3,657.7 2,323.6 4,679.8 989 .o (8.2) (8.7) {16.0) (13. 3) I 12 .2) (6. 0) PUBLIC SAFETY 613 .2 488 .1 536. I 326.4 530.3 482,5 (3.1) (2 .9) I 2. 3) (J.9) I I. 4) (2.9) IIEAr,T!I 8.7 o.o 121.8 0.0 91.2 173.3 (0.0) {0,0) ( 0. 5 J (0,0) (0 .2) 11.11 TRANSPORTATION 1,524.3 694 .o 1,753.9 1,341.5 3,151.0 961.4 (7 ,8 I (4.1) (7. 7) (7. 7) I a. 2) Is. 9 I ECON. ASSISTANCE 304.6 0 so. 4 196.6 50.4 296.7 (1.6) (0.0) (0.2) (J. I) (O. l) (1.8) RECREATION-CULTURE 1,569.9 3,760. I 1,392.5 696. 7 1, I 02. 9 1,208.7 ( 8. O l {22.4) ( 6. l l c4 • ol (2.9) (7 .4) HOME-COHHUNITY SERVICES-UTILITIES 1,428.8 3,173.5 3,050.0 2,718.9 3,871.2 181.6 (7.3) ( 18. 9 I ! 13. 3 l I I 5. 5 I (10.1) (l.l) HOME-COMMUNITY SERVICES-OTHER 4,215.8 2,349.6 2,823.7 1,494.5 6,969.1 3,642.4 ( 21. 6) (14.0) ( 12. 3) ( 8 .s) I 1a .2 l (22.2) EQUIPMENT & CAPITAL OUTLAY I, 801.2 885.9 1,884.3 2,508.7 7,239.1 1,04 L 6 ( 9 .2 I (5.3) 1a.21 I 14. 3) (18•• 9) (6.3) TOTAL EXPENDITURES 20,107.1 16,811. l 22,884.9 17,510.8 38,212.J 16,417.2 ( 100. 0) (100.0) ( l 00, 0) (100.0) ( 100. 0) (100.0) POPULATION ( 19 90 l 19,536 14,936 23,095 24,160 28,844 24,728 PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES 1029 1126 991 725 1,325 664 Source: New York State Comptroller, Special Report on Municipal Affairs: FY93. Table No. J, pp. 130-31 and Table No. 5, pp. 302-0J. -58- TABLE 6: PER CAPITA EXPENDITURE STRUCTURE OF COMPARABLE-SIZED CITIES CURRENT OPERATION (FY 1993) !WESTCHESTER · -·-1 ~-----NON-WESTCHESTER------~ PER CAPITA AVERAGE PC. EXPENDITURES PEEKSKILL RYE KINGSTON(UL) HIOOLETOWN(OR) POUGHKEEPSIE(OT) PORT CHESTER S CITrES GENERAL GOV'T. 144 .o 207.2 143. 4 93.6 148.S 9tL6 147.3 POLICE 216.6 261 . 5 186.3 163.2 216. 4 204.3 208. 8 FIRE 81.9 97.7 15 B. 4 96.2 162.2 40.0 119.3 PUBLIC SAFETY 31. 4 32. 7 23.2 1.1 l B .4 19.S 7.0 HEALTH 0.5 o.o 5.3 0.0 3 .2 7.0 1.8 TRANSPORTATION 78.0 4 6. 5 75.9 55.S 109.2 38.9 73,0 ECO. ASST. 15. 6 o.o 2. 2 7.9 !. 7 12. 0 5. 5 RECREATION-CULTURE 80. 4 251. 7 60.3 28.8 38.2 48.9 91.9 HOHE & COMMUNITY SERVICES UTILITIES 73.1 11.6 13 2. l 112. S 134.2 7.3 92.7 HOHE & COMMUNITY SERVICES OTHER 215.8 157.J 122.J 61.9 241. 6 147.3 159. B EQUIP. & CAPITAL OUTLAY 92.2 59. J 81. 6 103.8 251 .o 42, 1 117.6 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,029.~ 1,125.5 990.9 724. .B 1,324,B 663. 9 1,039.0 source: Author's Estimates -59- The average of the five cities for per capita General Government expenditures is 50% higher than the Village of Port Chester. Only Middletown has a similar expenditure per person to the Village of Port Chester. What would account for this potential increase is the increase in responsibilities discussed in the legal section of this paper (e.g., such as assessor and tax collection services, etc.). The five city average per capita for Fire Protection is three times the per capita expenditure paid by Port Chester at present. The City with the lowest expenditures per person for ' Fire Protection (Peekskill) is still twice what the Village of Port Chester is spending. This could be due to switching to a fully paid city employed fire department from a mixed paid and volunteer fire department as now exists in Port Chester. Legally Port Chester would be able to maintain its mixed fire department and, thereby, keep its expenditures comparatively low. A few other service areas bear some further discussion concerning potential impacts on the proposed City of Port chester. Transportation is seen as an area where the average expenditures per capita could potentially increase. This needs to be explored further to see how the City of Port Chester compares to other cities of comparable size. Recreation-Cultural services also en average show a potential 80% increase compared to the average. However, this is very skewed by the per capita expenditure of the City of Rye of $252/person. This is largely due to expenditures related to the -60- city of Rye Golf Course. If we compare the Village of' Port· Chester's present per capita expenditure ($49) to the average of the other 4 cities ($52) we see much more similarity. The real question for the residents of Port Chester is how will the impact of their becoming a city effect their use of Town of Rye recreational facilities. If they can negotiate the same usage as the city of Rye has, then there should be no net increase in expenditures for recreation services. The other major impact on service expenditures is from Home/Community Services-Utilities. At present, the Village of Port Chester spends very little per person ($7). This contrasts sharply with the average for four of the other five cities ($113). Due to its relatively high wealth, the City of Rye also spends very little per person on this service. What needs to be looked at here is why cities spend so much on these services and Rye does not. s. Taxatior. and Debt Limits All cities and villages are subject to a 2% tax limit and 7% debt limit of the :ive year average of full valuation of taxable property. Given ~~e fact that the limits are the same for cities and villages, no ciange in requirements would occur for Port chester. We have ~eported these limits for the five cities and the Village of Por~ Chester (Table 7). All are well within their ceilings. In FY ~3 the Village of Port Chester was carry'ing a debt of $2.791 mi::ion. -61- In FY 93, the Village was only at 50% of its Real Property Tax ceiling. Present FY 95 property tax revenue of $10.003 million is still significantly below the property tax limit for operating expenses. 6, Simulation of Revenues and Expenditures for a City of Port Chester Having completed our discussion of the financial comparison of the Village of Port Chester to five comparably sized cities, we now offer a simulation of the potential revenue and expenditure structures for a City of Port Chester. Tables SA & ' 8B summarize the revenues and expenditures by categories for the actual FY93 Budget, a simulated FY93 budget holding total revenues and expenditures constant at the FY93 level, and a simulated FY93 budget scaling up revenues and expenditures to those for the average size small city in our five city comparison. Some important changes in the revenue and expenditure structure for a City of Port Chester are discovered. -62- TABLE 7: CONSTITUTIONAL REAL ESTATE TAX LIMIT PROVISIONS (FY 93) TAXABLE VALUES OF REAL PROPERTY LIMIT FOR TOTAL PROPERTY CONSTITUTIONAL TOTAL DEBT FULL VALUE OPERATIONS TAX REVENUE DEBT LIMIT OUTSTANDING ( $M) ($M) ($M) ($m) ($M) Westchester Peekskill 808.3 11.533 2 .. 736 46.750 5. 750 Rye 2,196.1 34.418 8.916 134.462 4.159 Non-Westchester Kjngston 833.1 12.379 10.454 48.927 12. 719 Midd_letown 954.9 11.682 6.756 49.623 20.085 Poughke.ep_~ie 1,155.4 17.782 9. 489 62. 272 5.610 Village of 1,418.8 18. 439 9.967 76.091 2.791 Port Chester Source: NYS Comptroller Special Report on Municipal Affairs: FY93 (Albany: NYS Comptroller, Dec. 1994) Table No. 3, p. 127-8 and Table No. 5, p. 299. ~63- on the revenue side, the major effect is that there would be .much less reliance on Property Taxes and much greater reliance on other Revenues. The Other Revenue sources (non-property taxes, intergovernmental revenues and interest on investments) would remain relatively the same. The other major finding is that if Port Chester became like its comparable sized small cities, it conceivably might raise its revenues by almost 50%. Most of this revenue increase would be derived from Other Revenues and also Intergovernmental Grants. on the expenditure side, some significant relative shift in ' . expenditures on public services would occur. There would be less emphasis on Police expenditures and more on Fire Protection expenditures. Moreover, there would be much greater outlay for Equipment and Capital. In addition, if Port Chester mimics its comparable sister cities, it will increase expenditures per resident by over 50% (to $1,039/resident). Much of this increase would be seen in General Government, Fire Protection, Transportation, Recreation Culture, Home-community Services, and Equipment and Capital outlay. This is not to imply that Port Chester must increase such expenditures. It is only necessary to do what is legally required of a city. It is possible that Port Chester might be able to continue to provide the same services at their present levels. -64- Table BA: A Simulation of a City of Port Chester Budget FY93 Based on the Average Revenue Structure of Five Comparable Cities: FY 93 Village of Port Chester city of Port Chester City of Port Chester Actual Budget Simulated Budget Simulated Budget FY 93 1 FY 93 2 FY 93 3 Revenues Amt. % Amt. % Amt. % ($000) ($000) ($000) Property Taxes 10,218 61.0 7,561 45.1 11,152 45.1 Non-Property Taxes 1,927 11.5 2,230 13.3 3,289 13, 3 Intergovernmental 2,894 17.3 2,850 17 .o 4,204 17.0 Revenue Interest on 110 0.7 235 1.4 346 1.4 Investments Other Revenue 1,615 9.6 3,889 23.2 5,737 23,2 Total Revenues 16,765 100.0 16,765 100.0 24,728 100.0 Per Capita Revenue 678 678 1,000 Notes: 1Approved ~Y93 Budget Village of Port Chester. 2Simulated FY9J Budget Based on Average Revenue Structure of Five Comparable Cities and Holding Port Chester Revenues Equal to FY93 Budget. 3Simulated FY 93 Budget Based on Per Capita Average Revenue Structure of Five Comparable Cities at the New Average Higher Level of Spending. -65- Table 88: A Simulation of a City of Port Chester Based on the Average Expenditure Structure of Five comparable Cities: FY93 ($000) Village of Port Chester City of Port Chester City of Port Chester Actual Budget Simulated Budget Simulated Budget FY 93 1 FY 93' FY 93 3 Present Level Present Exp. Level Average 5 City Exp. Level Expenditures Arnt. % Arnt. % Arnt. % General Government 2389 14. 6 2,331 14.2 3,642 14.2 Police 5,052 30.8 3,300 20.1 5,163 20.1 Fire 989 6.0 1,888 11.5 2,950 11.5 Public Safety 483 2.9 345 2.1 526 2.0 Health 173 1.1 33 0.2 45 0.2 Transportation 961 5.9 1,149 7.0 1,807 7.0 Recreation-Culture 1,209 7.4 1,445 a.a 2,273 8.8 Economic Assistance 297 1.8 82 0.5 136 0.5 Home & Community 3,824 23.3 3,989 24.3 6,244 24.3 Services Equipment & Capital 1,042 6.3 1,855 11.3 2,908 11.3 outlay Total Expenditures 16,417 100.0 16,417 100.0 25,694 100.0 Per Capita 664 664 1,039 Expenditures - - - Notes: 1, 2, 3: Same as Table SA except for Expenditures -66- o. Fiscal Impacts on Revenues and Expenditures for Port Chester Having looked at a comparison of Port Chester to five comparable cities we now present a more in-depth analysis of the specific impact on Port Chester if it were to become a city. We specifically focus on the major fiscal impacts that flow from the legal and service impact section of this study. ,The main revenue impacts of changing from a Village to a City that come forth from the previous analyses are related to (1) the Sales Tax; (2) the Mortgage Tax; (3) State Aid; (4) CHIPS Aid. The major expenditure impacts on Port Chester are derived from the required services that a City must provide that a Village need not. We will analyze each of these fiscal impacts separately and then bring together the separate analyses to draw some general conclusions. 1. Revenue Impacts (a) Sales Tax As we have seen, changes in the sales tax revenues represent the main impact of potential increased revenues to a City of Port Chester. But much has to be considered in such an analysis of potential impact. At present, the Village of Port Chester receives $1.584 min sales tax revenue from the County of Westchester (see Table 9). This is determined by the decision by Westchester county to adopt the 11 1% option." That is, Westchester County has obtained approval from the State Legislature to add 1% sales tax onto the -67- TABLE 9: WESTCHESTER COUNTY SALES TAX DISTRIBUTION ONE PERCENT TAX RELIEF PROGRAM: 1995 PROJECTIONS VS, 1993 ACTUAL 1993 Actual 1995 Projected ($000) ($000) Port Chester 1,584.1 1,718.4 Rye 991.2 1,037.9 Peekskill 1,296.2 1,357.6 1.5% already collected for county purposes, the 4% for state purposes and the 1/4% that goes to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The Village of Port Chester presently receives a part of the 1% option which is distributed proportionately by population. A new city of Port Chester would be able to impose up to a 1.5% sales tax on sales revenue within the boundaries of the city limits. The best way to estimate such potential revenue would be to estimate sales activity within the boundaries of· the city of Port Chester and apply the 1.5% sales tax rate. However, no agency or organization familiar to.the author collects such data. At present, all sales tax collected in the Village of Port Chester is reported directly to the NYS State Department of Taxation and Finance by individual businesses. After intensive discussions with the state comptroller's Office and the Office of Tax Policy and Analysis, the author discovered that it ~as impossible to. -68- separate out the data for Port Chester's sales tax.i Therefore, no direct estimates could be obtained. The next best method for estimating the potential sales tax revenue was to collect data on all of the present cities in Westchester and estimate a city of Port Chester projection based on these present flows of sales tax revenue. We use the comparative data for FY 93 and Table 10 summarizes the comparison across the nine cities considered and Port Chester. Indirect estimates are then attempted based on the experiences of the four Westchester cities imposing their own sales tax and also the five comparably-sized cities in this study. Table 10 summarizes the results for all of these cities for FY93. As can be seen, the estimates of the potential sales tax revenue to Port Chester as a city range from $1.641 million to $3.767 million for FY 93. It should be realized that these cities break down into two distinct groups: (1) those that do not impose their own sales tax but rather accept a distribution from their county government and (2) those that impose a 1 1/2% sales tax within th·eir own city limits. Also, these latter cities have obtained special legislation to add an additional 0.5-11 to their sales tax levi, In talking to each of the financial officers from Rye, Peekskill, Kingston, Middletown and Poughkeepsie, all felt that they received more revenue from the County distribution than they 'Interview of Joseph Hilton, Office of State comptroller and James Stevens of the Office of Tax Policy and Analysis. -69- would if they imposed their own sales tax. The argument rested on the idea that the greatest sales volume occurred outside the city boundaries, most often in suburban shopping malls, and not in the city proper. The Village of Port Chester in FY 93 received $1.584 min sales tax revenue from the Westchester county distribution. At present (FY 95) it is projected to receive $1.718 million. But what if the City of Port Chester imposed its own sales_ tax? For this estimate we turn our attention to those Westchester cities that do so, namely New R9chelle, Mt. Vernon, Yonkers and White Plains. We divided the comparison into two categories: the three cities with probably "more similar" economic bases to that of Port Chester (New Rochelle, Mt. Vernon and Yonkers) and the one' with the nicire expanded and greatest sales base (White Plains). The results for the average sales tax for the first three Westchester cities shows an average per capita sales tax revenue of $135/person. This is calculated for the present full 2.5% sales tax rate allowed to these three cities. It would result in an esti~ated sales tax revenue for a city of Port Chester's size of $3,341 million. However, it should also be pointed but that these cities all obtained special legislation to increase their sales tax by one full percentage point above the 1.5%. It is uncertain whether or not Port Chester could at this time successfully obtain legislation to allow it to do likewise. So we also calculated a lower sales tax_result as if Port Chester -70- imposed only a 1.5% sales tax. This resulted in an estimate of $2.005 million of increased sales tax revenue based on the FY 93 data. Should Port Chester choose to only impose a 1% sales tax in order to retain the present total sales tax, then the estimated increased revenue would be $1.34 million. -71- TABLE 10: A COMPARISON OF SALES TAX REVENUES FOR ALL WESTCHESTER CITIES AND THREE OTHER HUDSON VALLEY CITIES TO PORT CHESTER (FY 1993) Sales Tax Sales Tax Population Revenue Revenue Per City 1990 census ($000) Capita Westchester Yonkers' 188,182 32,583.6 173.15. New Rochelle' 67,265 7,801.5 115.98 Mount Vernon' 67,153 7,807.0 116.26 White Plains' 48,718 19,117.3 392.41 Peekskill2 19,536 1.296.2 66.35· Rye' 14,936 991.2 66.36 Port Chester 24,728 1,640.21" 66.33" Non-Westchester Kingston (Ulster)' 23,095 4,211.2 182.32 Middletown (Orange)' 24,160 2,653.4 109.83 Poughkeepsie (Dutchess)' 28,844 4,754.0 164.82 All of these cities have had special legislation passed to increase their sales taxes by an additional 1% (except White Plains is 0.5%). These cities have remained in 1% Westchester County tax relief ' program and, therefore, do not impose their own sales tax. J These cities have opted to receive distributions of their County's sales tax collection_s. * Author estimates. source: NYS Compcroller's Office, Special Report on Municipal Affairs FY 93, Table No. 3, pp 126-28 -72- TABLE 11: ESTIMATED SALES TAX REVENUE FOR PORT CHESTER (FY93) Average Port Chester Sales Tax Sales Tax Population Revenue Estimate Basis Per Capita (1990 Census) ($000) ales Tax PC for Comparable verage Sized Cities - estchester Rye, Peekskill) 1 66. 36 24,728 1,640.9 .verage Sales Tax Per :apita for comparable sized :ities - Non-Westchester .Kingston, Middletown, 'oughkeepsie) 1 152.33 24,728 3,766.8 ,verage Sales Tax For Three lestchester Cities {New tochelle, Mount Vernon, ' 'onkers)' 'ully Imposed Sales Tax· 135,13 24,728 3,341.5 jess 1% Extra Sales Tax' 81. 08 24,728 2,004.9 :ales Tax For White Plains' 'ully Imposed Sales Tax 392.41 24,728 9,703.5 ,ess 0.5% Extra Sales Tax' 235.45 24,728 7,277.6 1ese cities do not have their own sales tax but receive a istribution from their county government. 1ese cities have had additional legislation passed to ncrease their own sales tax by an additional 1%. tis represents 60% of full average rate {60% = 1,5/2.5) to :count for the impact of assuming that Port Chester is only armitted a 1.5% sales tax and not the additional 1% certain ther cities in Westchester have obtained. ,ite Plains had additional legislation passed to increase its ,n sales tax by 0.5% . .is represents 75% of full average ratio for White Plains 75%=1. 5/2. 0). -73- It is interesting to speculate what would happen if the City, of Port Chester were to develop an economic base sufficient in size to the sales volume per capita that is seen- in the City of White Plains. Clearly, the sales tax revenue· per capita in White Plains is almost three times the average of the other three. Westchester Cities imposing their own sales tax (Yonkers, New Rochelle, Mt. Vernon). We have estimated the much higher impact of the sales tax revenue to Port Chester if it were to become a city and if it were to develop an economic sales base equivalent to the City of White Plains. We have also estimated the range of increase of a fully imposed sales tax with special legislation of 2. 0% and a more likely 1. 5% rate. These estimat.es are much higher ranging from $9.704 million to $7.272 million, respectively. (b) Non-Property Taxes Cities are authorized to impose a 1% tax on utility gross operating income. Villages are also permitted to impose this tax. The Village of Port Chester already imposes this tax so there is no net gain to the City of Port Chester in tax revenue from the utility income tax. The Mortgage Tax is a potential source of increased revenue to a city of Port Chester. Cities and Villages receive state mortgage tax monies but under different formulas. At present the Village of Port Chester receives a share of the total mortgage tax collected by the Town in proportion to the assessed valuation of the Vil.lage to. twice the assessed valuation of the Town. -74- Incorporation as a city would increase their aid under the city mortgage tax formula, since a city's aid allotment is directly proportionate to the value of mortgages taken on real property within the city. At present, the Town of Rye estimates a Mortgage Tax Collection of $430,00 for FY 95. The Village of Port Chester is projected to receive $130,000 in mortgage tax revenue under the present distribution system. In order to estimate the actual mortgage tax revenues that the City of Port Chester would receive, we estimated the ratio of taxable valuation of Port Chester to that of the Town of Rye at 42.9%. Therefore, we estimated that of the $430,000 total collection by the Town of Rye, $184,500 could be the amount that a City of Port Chester would be expected to collect. (c) New York State Aid From our comparative analysis for FY 93, we have also seen that other cities place a greater reliance on state aid for their revenue flow. The five cities rely on anywhere from 4 to 9% of their budgets on state aid appropriations. The average for the group is 7.5%. Therefore, the relative importance of state aid is almost double the present proportion (3.9%) in the comparable Village of Port Chester Budget. The difficulty for Port Chester is to determine the amount of state aid it might anticipate receiving as a city. This is a very complex question. According to State law related to the State's Revenue Sharing Program, when per capita full value is $8000 or more, per -75- capita aid amounts are provided for cities@ $8.60 and for villages@ $3.60. Therefore, Port Chester would be eligible for a $5/person increase in state aid. In FY 95 the Village of Port chester was projected to receive $280,000 in State per capita aid. It did not an,ticipate receiving any other state aid. Therefore, given the higher rate of state aid for cities, the "City" of Port Chester could potentially receive $746,700. 1 The problem here is that the State Legislature must approve this increased aid. It is not automatic with becoming a city. Given the financial restraint in Albany it is unlikely the State I Legislature would approve of such an increase and so this increased revenue cannot be assured to Port Chester. Moreover, all of the cities being compared to Port Chester were incorporated at least 50 years ago and have been eligible for state aid based on a formula developed by the state Legislature. The problem is that the formula has not been updated and is still using population estimates for distribution from the 1970 census. After a careful analysis of this program, the Office of the State comptroller drew the following conclusions: The current Problem The lack of one uniform per capita/revenue sharing funding formula has resulted in a series of special add-on programs being created in response to specific needs while the basic formula distributed monies annually using 1970 population figures. Currently the formulas have lapsed resulting in usually only one or 'This estimate is arrived at by taking the present state aid received by the Village of Port Chester ($280,000) and applying a scaling up factor of the ratio of city per capita aid to village per capita aid. -76- two payment dates and percentage reductions being applied to the total amount a municipality received in the previous year. · While certain municipalities have been granted some financial relief as a result of special local assistance programs, others with similar but less apparent problems may have been overlooked. Critics of the state's program charge that: 1. the state's fragmented response to difficulties at the local level in lieu of a comprehensively designed funding plan has left localities unsure of the State's future commitment to provide long term assistance; 2. local governments are without an ~quitable, predictable source of funding. With reductions in Federal aid and with local government's ability to raise local taxes restricted, municipalities lack the flexibility they need to respond to local economic and demographic changes, and; 3. equity among classes of local government has not been fully evaluated. Recommendations The entire structure of unrestricted.State aid to local governments needs to be reviewed and revised. 1 So again, even though the Village of Port Chester might be "entitled" to a higher state per capita aid formula and, thereby be eligible for significantly higher funds, this outcome is very unlikely to occur. The funding amounts must be agreed upon by the state Legislature and approved by the Governor when the new 'NYS Comptroller's Office A Brief History of General Purpose State Aid to Local Governments (Albany: NYS Comptroller's Office, December 1993) p. 17. -77- Charter is passed for the local government. A more plausible and realistic position to hold is that assuming a Charter is passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor in these times of extreme budget tightening, stipulation will be made that the new city receives no more funds in state aid than it is presently receiving as a Village. (d) CHIPS AID New York State supplies funds to municipalities to assist in construction operation and/or maintenance of local streets and bridges which are not part of the State highway system. Under the Consolidated Local Street and Highway Improvement Program (CHIPS) the aid is distributed to counties, cities, towns and villages into two separate categories. Cities receive about 43% of the total CHIPS aid package whereas Villages receive about 11% of the total.' The funds are distributed based on numbers of lane miles under each municipality's jurisdiction to the total number of such lane miles under the jurisdiction of each's particular category. Since cities have about twice the eligible lane miles of that of villages and receive quadruple the aid, the CHIPS aid available to a City of Port Chester as opposed to a village could double. In FY 95, the Village of Port Chester received about $101,000 in CHIPs Aid. It is possible then that Port Chester could receive twice this amount if it became a city. 'Baynes, Peter A. and Joseph B. Porter, From Village to city: A Guide to New City Incorporation (New York State conference of Mayors and other Municipal Officials January 1987), pp. 22-23. · -78- 2. Expenditure Effects of Service Impacts Aside from the revenue impacts of a change in municipal status, there are a series of changes in meeting requirements for various city public services. As we have seen from prior sections of this study, there are four service- categories that would potentially have significant expenditure impacts: Taxation/Assessment/Collection, the Court, civil Service and Elections. We first review the potential impacts on all public services and then estimate the significant expenditure implications. There is no change in expenditures for Port Chester in order to meet the city requirement of a Police Department, Fire Department or Planning Board. This is because the Village presently has its own Police and Fire Department and its own Office of Planning and Development. The mixed paid and volunteer fire department could be maintained. City taxation requires the hiring of a City Assessor and a City Tax Collector. 1 The new City of Port Chester would also be required to have a City Court but it already has its own Village Court. The State would provide funding for the salaries of 1Section 576 of the Real Property Tax Law expressly authorizes a person to serve as an Assessor for more than one municipality pursuant ·to a municipal cooperative agreement entered into in accordance with Article 5-G of the General Municipal Law. While no similar statute addresses the position of tax collector, we see no constitutional impediment that would prohibit such an arrangement under Article 5-G of the General Municipal Law or pursuant to the provisions of the new City of Port Chester Charter. The Charter would also have to address any applicable residency requirement imposed by State law on the position of tax collector. -79- judicial personnel and for equipment and supplies expenses for operations, but the city would have to bear most of the expense of operation and maintenance of court facilities. Moreover, the city of Port chester would have to meet a higher state standard for court facilities. The City of Port Chester would also become neligible for state subsidies of 10-25% of such court facilities expenditures. The Issuance of Licenses is now handled by the Town of Rye and the Maintenance of Records is now handled by the Village Clerk. Both would be required by the City and would necessitate the establishment of a City Clerk position. We assume this would simply be the existing renamed Village Clerk. The administration of civil Service which is now under the jurisdiction of the county would be transferred to the City. Therefore, the City might need to hire a Personnel Officer, establish a civil service Commission, or it might opt to leave this function in the County Personnel Office. There is much complexity concerning the impact on local streets services. It was pointed out in the legal section, consideration would have to be given to the many factors (see pages 35-37 of the legal section of this report). The impact of these factors was not possible to estimate in this. paper. There could be an expenditure increase but it could be counterbalanced by any CHIPS aid increase. There does not seem to be any impact on county Special Districts. The use of Recreation Services would have to be ~so- determined through negotiations with the Town of Rye. As precedent, City of Rye residents do have full access to Town of Rye recreational facilities. If the City of Port Chester were able to make the same arrangement, there should not be an increase in recreational service expenditures. Finally, the City of Port Chester would have to administer- and finance all city, state and Federal elections. At present, the Village is only responsible for the administration of Village elections. This will have an impact on election expenditures. Table 12 summarizes the key public service expenditures and revenues presently being spent by three comparably sized cities used in this study. We use these expenditures to estimate the impact on expenditures for Port Chester's becoming a city. -81- Table 12: Key Public Service Expenditures and Revenues of Comparative Cities Peekskill Poughkeepsie Middletown (FY95)' (FY 95)' (FY 94 )' Expenditures Tax Assessor l00,900 103,300 133,597 Tax Collector -- 192,700 176,100 Court Operation and -- l0,200 -- Maintenance City Clerk 131,500 94,000 116 ,.000 Civil Service 77,200 44,100 32,100 Personnel Local Streets and 647,500 459,700 516,100 flighways Elections 32,900 40,700 47,200 Revenues CHIPS 160,000 24,500 -- Total State Aid l,625,500 2,455,000 l,304,681 PC State Aid 1,193,000 l,917,000 l,255,000 sources: lCity of Peekskill Adopted Budget and City Managers Recommendation FY95. 1City of Poughkeeosie Adopted Budget 1995 'city of Middletown 1994 Budget ~a2- 3. Other Financial Impacts The residents of the Village of Port Chester now pay property taxes to the Town of Rye for Town provided services. Should Port Chester become a city, the residents would no longer have to pay these property taxes. At present, the property tax rate is 3.011/$1000 assessed value. Given the FY 95 assessed valuation of $57.76 million, the total amount being paid by the residents of Port Chester to the Town of Rye is $173,915. Therefore, there potentially is a net gain to the residents of the city of Port Chester if they were to become a city. The other major holdover financial effect of becoming a city is the requirement that the new City of Port Chester residents would still be required to contribute their share of the prior town indebtedness. The Village share would be in proportion to their value of taxable real property to the total taxable property valuation townwide, estimated at 42.9%. Given the present debt service of the Town of Rye of $522,000/year, the present and future Port Chester residents are subject to $223,938 of the Town's debt. This would not change should they become a city. However, in an interview with the Accountant for the Town of Rye, this author learned that the Town debt is being eliminated as of FY 1996. This has two impacts on the residents of Port Chester. First, it would reduce to zero any future debt liability should they become a city. And secondly, it would sharply reduce the town taxes paid by residents of Port Chester. -83- The estimate given was to reduce the property tax ratio to about 1,50/1000 assessed valuation. Therefore, town required taxes of the residents of Port Chester would be reduced to $86,640. 4, Fiscal Impact on School District As outlined in the legal section of this paper, the present Port Chester-Rye Union Free School District would be impacted by a change of Port Chester to city status. The school district would then become a small city school district. Aside from the loss of the voting privilege by residents on the school budget, this would result in a few fiscal .impacts on the school districts. First of all, and most importantly, the city school district of Port._Ch_ester-Rye would not obtain any greater funding in state aid. State aid is indifferent to school district status. Nor would there by any change in Federal Aid to the district. There is also no change in the constitutional tax limit. However, there are other important fiscal impacts of a change in.status. The new city school district would now be subject to a new lower debt limit of five percent of the five year average full valuation of taxable real property in the district, rather than its present 10% limit of full valuation. If Port Chester imposed its own general sales tax, the other important change is that the schoo.l district would lose its guaranteed allocation of the county's 1% sales tax distribution program. The City of Port Chester could make this loss up to the -84- School District, but is not legally bound to do so. If the City of Port Chester did not adopt its own sales tax, then the school C district would continue to obtain its present distribution from the County. We estimated the fiscal impacts on the new City of Port Chester School District. In FY 93, the fort Chester-Rye Union Free School District had a total indebtedness of $4.15 m. The constitutional or statutory debt limit as an independent school district was $197.8 m. The District's full value -assessed valuation was $1,977.8 m. The change in status would have reduced the Port Chester-Rye Union Free School District's debt limit in half to $98.89 m. The second fiscal impact is the County sales tax. The Port Chester-Rye Union Free School District in FY 95 is projected to receive $625,000 from Westchester County's distribution. If the City of Port Chester were to impose its own sales tax, this revenue would be totally lost to the school district unless the City of Port Chester decided to reimburse this loss to the school district. The third change is the ability of a city school district in cities under 125,000 population to charge a Consumer Utility Tax of up to a maximum rate of 3%. The only school district in our sample of five comparably sized small cities that imposes this tax is Middletown School District (and they do so at the maximum -- rate). In FY 95, Middletown received $1.07 million from such a tax. Given the similar size to Port Chester, imposing such a -85- Utility Tax could allow for additional revenues of similar magnitude to Port Chester city Schools. 5. Estimated Fiscal Impacts on Revenues and Expenditures we now bring together the discussion of the fiscal impacts on revenue and expenditures in regard to Port Chester's consideration of city status. (a) Revenues Table 13 presents the estimated revenue changes that would occur if Port Chester became a city. It compares the potential revenue gains to the present revenues in the FY 95 Village of Port Chester Budget. We have included estimates of the impacts on the Sales Tax, Mortgage Tax, Per Capita State Aid, CHIPs, the court, Reduction in Payment of Town Tax and the potential revenue gain (Utility Tax) and loss (Sales Tax) to the Port Chester-Rye Union Free School District. We estimate the specific revenue impacts in the following manner. In all cases we estimate the potential revenue flow and subtract the existing revenue flow from that source. The difference measures the net revenue impact. The estimates for the Sales Tax revenues are taken from the analysis provided in Table 11. We use the three smaller sized cities average and also the much higher White Plains result. The Mortgage tax is estimated by taking the proportion of taxable real estate property valuation in Port Chester to the total Town of Rye taxable real estate-property valuation and calculating the value -86- in Mortgage Tax solely derived in Port Chester proper.• Per capita state aid is assumed to be at the proportionately higher city per capita rate. For CHIPs, we double the present CHIPs that is received by the Village of Port Chester. court revenues are a plus and a minus. The positive addition is for increased state aid for operation and maintenance of court facilities. The· lost revenues are due to the loss of the $10/criminal case no longer paid to the county by the State. We estimated earlier the reduction in taxes paid to the Town of Rye. And finally, we use the Middletown School District experience for the positive flow of revenue for the 3% utility tax. But,- we also recognize the loss of revenue to the Port Chester-Rye Union Free School District from the new city status and imposition of the local sales tax. (b) Expenditures Table 14 presents potential significant expenditure impacts due to new requirements for city services for Port Chester. The estimates made are based on data collected for comparable small cities for certain categories (Taxation, Civil Service and ~lections - See Table 12). The estimates for the Court were taken from the present Village of Port Chester Budget. We also calculate the average change in each category. -87~ Table 13: Revenues Changes Due to Additional Sources from City Status for Village of Port Chester: 'FY 95 ($000) City of Village of Port Chester Port Chester Impact Revenue Sources Potential Revenues Present Revenues Net Change ($000) ($000) ($000) Sales Tax Average for 3 2,005 l, 718 287 Small Westchester to to Cities 3,342 1,624 Based on 7,278 l, 7l8 5,560 White Plains to to 9,704 7,986 Mortgage Tax 184 130 54 PC State Aid 747 280 467 CHIPS 202 101 101 Court Court Revenues: 0 13 ( 13) ~·•· (loss) & @ $10/criminal case School District Revenue Loss 0 625 (625) (Sales Tax) Revenue Gain 1,070 0 1,070 (Utility Tax) Note: It should be pointed out that the Village of Port Chester residents will no longer pay Town of Rye taxes. After Town of Rye deb_t is retired, we estimate this reduction in taxes paid to Rye to be $87,000. Sources: Author's Estimates -88- Table 14: Potential significant Expenditures Impact Due to Requirements for City Services for Port Chester FY 95 ($000) Increased Present Expenditure Expenditure Net Change Average Change City Services (!;,000) ($000) ($000) ($000) Taxation Tax Assessor 101-158 0 ·101-158 130 Tax Collector 160-192 0 160-192 176 Courts 1 Two Judges (Paid 0 36 (36) (36) by NY State) Other Court 0 197 (197) (197) Personnel (Paid by NY State) Equipment and 0 61 (61) (61) Supplies (Paid by NY State) Civil Service Personnel Officer 32-77 0 32-77 55 or Civil service Commission Elections 33-55 12 33-55 32 Sources: See Table 12 'The court expenditures are taken from the Village of Port Chester FY 95 budget. -89- (c) Two Plausible Case Scenarios We attempted to bring all the results together into some _type of overview of the fiscal impacts on Port Chester. After consideration of many possible outcomes, we selected two plausible case scenarios. Since many estimates have a range of values and many outcomes are uncertain•, we made a variety of assumptions and best guesses to determine the two cases. The estimates for the two cases are all contained in Tables 15A and 15B. critical to this analysis is the assumption made about sales tax revenue to be gained by a city of Port Chester. we assumed that the sales tax revenue would be equal to the average of the three Westchester cities who impose their own sales tax (Mount Vernon, New Rochelle and Yonkers) and then assumed two possible sales tax rates ( 1. 5% and 2. 5%). The two rates reflect whether or not the City of Port Chester would politically be able to gain approval of the additional 1% sales tax rate above 1.5%. The other three Westchester cities have been able to achieve this but only after a long period of time as a city. It is uncertain whether a new city such as Port Chester would be able to gain approval by the New York State Legislature at the time of becoming a city. The revenue assumptions for this analysis are as follows: -90- Revenues • Sales Tax Revenues: Equal to the average of three Westchester cities with two possibilities: a 1.5% imposition of sales tax and passage of legislation for an additional 1% sales tax rate. • Mortgage Tax Revenues: Present housing market activity and tax revenues are proportioned to assessed taxable valuations in Port Chester. • Per Capita State Aid: State Legislature agrees to allow Port Chester to become a city but,maintain its present allotment of state aid. • CHIPS: State Government allows City of Port Chester to receive comparable city aid. • Court Aid/Revenues: The new city court obtains State aid to operate and maintain court facilities but city loses $10/criminal case@ 1,300 cases per year. • School District: Revenue reduction suffered through the loss of 1% sales ta~'distribution from the County is reimbursed by the City of Port Chester. Also, no utility tax is imposed. Similarly, we make estimates of the expenditure impact of service changes. To do so, we had to make certain expenditure assumptions: Expenditures • Taxation Expenditure: Average increase of personnel costs of a new tax assessor and new tax collector as seen in other small cities in the Hudson Valley region. • Courts: state takeover of payment for court personnel, equipment and supplies which are being paid at present by the Village of Port Chester. · -91- Table 15A: Plausible Scenario (Case A) for Potential Impact on Revenues and Expenditures for a New City of Port Chester (FY 95) city of Village of Port Chester Port Chester Impact Potential Present Net Change ($000) ($000) ($000) Revenues Sales Tax1 2,005 1,718 287 Mortgage Tax 184 130 54 Per capita State 280 280 0 State Aid CHIPS 202 101 101 Court 650 663 (13) Revenue Transfer to ( 625) 0 ( 625) School District Net Revenue Change (196) Expenditures Taxation Assessor/ 306 0 306 Collection courts 0 294 (294) civil Service 55 0 55 Elections 44 12 32 Net Expenditure Change 99 Total Fiscal Impact ( 2 95) (Net Loss) source: Tables 13 and 14. Note: 'sales tax rate is assumed to be 1.5%. civil service could remain with the county and therefore not·be an additional expense to the new City of Port Chester. -93- • Civil Service: Increased personnel cost§ of a new city personnel officer for Port Chester based on the average for comparable smai'l cities. • Elections: Increased cost of city required administration and financing of city elections based on average of election expenditures for other small cities in this region. The results of these two possible case scenarios are quite different. Case A shows that the City of Port Chester would receive a decrease in revenue flow of $196,000 in its present FY 95 revenue budget. Case B shows that Port Chester would gain $1.141 million in revenues. However, it would also incur a $99,000 increase in net expenditures for new services. The total change in net revenue to Port Chester would then be between a $295,000 loss and a $1.042 million gain. These two scenarios constitute the plausible limits, inside of which exist a range of possibilities. For example, it is possible that city status would also bring additional per capita aid but that the city would not get approval for the additional 1% sales tax. This would likely result in a smaller loss than $295,000 and even a possible gain but less than $1.042 million. We do not believe it politically plausible to assume that a City of Port Chester would get both additional State per capita aid and the authority to raise the sales tax an additional 1%. Therefore, we have not made any calculation based on both additional revenue flows occurring. -92- Table 15B: Plausible Scenario {Case B) for Potential Impact on Revenues and Expenditures for a New City of Port Chester (FY 95) City_ of Village of Port Chester Port Chester Impact Potential Present Net Change ($000) ($000) ($000) Revenues Sales Tax' 3,342 1,718 1,624. Mortgage Tax 184 130 54 Per Capita State 280 280 0 State Aid CHIPS 202 101 101 Court 650 663 (13) School District 0 625 (625) Net Revenue Change 1,141 Expenditures Taxation Assessor/ 306 0 306 Collection Courts 0 294 {294) civil service 55 0 55 Elections 44 12 32 Net Expenditure Change 99 Total Fiscal Impact 1,042 Source: Tables 13 and 14. Note: 1Sales tax rate is assumed to be 1.5% plus an additional 1% tax rate granted by legislation by the New York State Legislature. civil Service could remain with the County and therefore not be an additional expense to the new City of Port Chester. -94- E. Summary There are significant fiscal impacts stemming from a change in municipal status from a village to a city for Port Chester. We have attempted to estimate these impacts using two different methods. One is to offer a financial comparison of revenues and expenditures of a future city of Port Chester to five comparably sized cities of similar socio-economic-demographic backgrounds. The other method is to estimate the actual impact on specific revenue sources, services and expenditures in becoming a city. The comparative analysis allows the Village of Port Chester to relate itself to five comparable cities in the region. The results of this analysis indicate that the revenue structure of the five cities relies much less on the property tax and much more on other revenues (e.g. fees), the sales tax and state aid than does the Village of Port Chester at present. In terms of expenditures, the five cities spend proportionately higher amounts on fire protection and equipment and capital. Moreover, the five comparable cities have much higher overall per capita expenditures and revenues (approximately 50% higher) than the Village of Port Chester. The specific fiscal impact analysis sheds more detailed light on important categories of revenue and expenditures. We have highlighted four major categories of revenue impacts: the sales tax, mortgage tax, state aid, and CHIPS aid. All show potentially significant increases to a city of Port Chester. For the school district, however, there would be a loss of sales tax -95- revenue but also a potential utility tax gain. We also estimate the reduced tax payments to the Town of Rye by the new city of Port Chester residents. We have highlighted the four major service expenditure impacts: taxation, civil service, elections, and the court. The first three all show potential increased expenditures while the court shows a potential decrease. Using very carefully considered assumptions of fiscal impact, we construct two plausible case scenarios. Case A assumes that the City of Port Chester imposes a 1.5% sales tax. Case B assumes that it also gains special legislation from the New York state Legislature to charge an additional 1% sales tax rate. cases A and B's respective estimated net changes in revenue flow are a $196,000 loss and a $1.141 million gain. In both instances, we estimated a net increase in service expenditures of $99,000. This results in an estimated total change in net revenues in the current year of $295,000 loss (Case A) and of $1. 042 million gain .(Case B). It must be emphasized that these fiscal analyses are based on the best data available and best guess assumptions. They can be used as a guide for decision making concerning a change in municipal status, but they are subject to wide interpretation and debate. Moreover, the actual outcomes of_ ftscal impact on Port Chester are much more highly dependent on the political process, as manifested in the Charter and enabling legislation creating the City, and the future development of Port Chester's economy. -96- VI. DEMOGRAPHIC COMPARISONS This section of the report addresses the following question. From a demographic, statistical point of view does Port Chester look more like the cities or villages of Westchester County? Seven variables are considered as the basis for this comparison: 1. Population Density 2. Per Capita Income 3. Hispanic Population 4. Housing Costs 5. Crime Rate 6. Land Use, Residential 7. Land Use, Non-residential Tables 16 through 23 contain the data which are organized in the following way. The municipalities of Westchester County are in the left-hand column. Westchester County data are the first listed; the six existing cities of Westchester are next. The ' twenty-one villages minus Port Chester are then listed. Across the top of each table is the variable or trait under consideration, i.e. population density in Table Number 16. At the bottom of each table, are two sets of averages, one for cities and one for villages. Port Chester data are the last entry on each table. This arrangement invites a comparison between city average, village average, and Port Chester data. A final table summarizes the findings of the preceding statistical analysis. The entries on the table are the result of a calculation which determine whether the Port Chester data were -97- closer to the village average or the city average. If, on the variable under consideration, the Port Chester data were closer to the city average, then the check mark appears in the city column; if, on the other hand, the Port Chester data were closer to the village average, then the check mark is in the village column. -98- Table 16 - Village-City Com~arisons -19~§ Variable - Population Density 1990 People Per Square Miles Population Square Mile I MUNICIPALITY I I I I Westchester County 450 874,866 1,942 Cities Mount Vernon 4.4 67,153 15,262 New Rochelle 10.4 67,265 6,468 Peekskill 4.6 19,536' 4,247 Rye 6.1 14,936 2,449 White Plains 9.9 48,718 4,921 Yonkers 18.4 188,082 10,222 Villages Ardsley l.3 4,272 3,286 Briarcliff Manor 6.0 7,070 l, 178 Bronxville i.ci 6,028 6,028 Buchanan l.5 l,970 1,313 Croton 4.9 7,018 1,432 Dobbs Ferry .2. 4 9,940 4,142 Elmsford l.0 3,938 3,938 Harrison l7. 4 23,308 1,340 Hastings 2.0 8,000 4,000 Irvington 2.8 6,348 2,267 Larchmont l.l 6,181 5,619 Mamaroneck 3.3 17,325 5,250 Mount Kisco 3. l 9,108 2,938 Ossining 3.2 22,582 7,057 - Pelham .8 6,413 8,016 Pelham Manor l.3 5,490 4,223 - Pleasantville l.8 6,592 3,662 Rye Brook 3.5 7,765 2,219 Scarsdale 6.7 16,987 2,535 Tarrytown 3.l 10,739 3,464 Tuckahoe .6 6,302 10,503 Averages. Cities X X 7,261 Villages X X 4,019 . PORT CHESTER 2.4 24, 728 10,303 * S0 urce: · Westchester County De p artmen1: of Planning - A pril, 1990 -99- Table 17 - Village-City Comparisons - 1996 Variable - Income Measurement I I Family Mean I Household Mean I Per Capita I I MUNICIPl\LITY I I I I Westchester County $81,846 $62,264 $25,584 Cities Mount Vernon 48,978 42,194 15,835 New Rochelle 76,848 62, 34 l 23,745 Peekskill 47,541 41,912 16,589 Rye 154,413 128,425 46,038 White Plains 72,877 59,499 24,404 Yonkers 52,123 44,843 17,484 Villages Ardsley 87,080 83,116 27,050 Briarcliff Manor 165,137 145,025 43,499 Bronxville 200,467 160,109 60,125 Buchanan 57,302 49,379 18,481 Croton 84,109 75,745 28,008 Dobbs Ferry 82,789 69,924 25,693 Elmsford 65,147 56087 17,!ll Harrison lll,867 96,248 32,154 Hastings 89,202 78,528 29,898 Irvington 115,658 105,143 39,337 Larchmont 142,260 117,048 42,430 Mamaroneck 84,960 71,573 27,130 Mount Kisco 61,822 52,448 21,965 Ossining 56,408 51,132 18,387 Pelham 87,045 74,177 26,118 Pelham Manor 137,318 119,998 42,326 Pleasantville 81,183 71,604 26,816 Rye Brook 101,918 94,872 33,303 Scarsdale 202,962 188,724 59,868 Tarrytown 75,134 64,297 24,378 Tuckahoe 58,555 49,840 20,551 Averages Cities X X 24,015 Villages X X 31,635 PORT CHESTER. 50,512 43 ,.159 15,901 *Source: Westcnester Coun-c y De p artment or P~ann1.ng - April, 19l0 ) -100- Table 18 - Village-City Comparisons - 1996 Variable - Population by Race I I Total I White I Black I Hispanic I I MUNICIPALITY I I I I I Westchester County 694,308 120,195 86,194 Cities Mount Vernon 26,698 37,138 5,237 New Rochelle 51,141 12, l 66 7,247 Peekskill 14,295 4,143 l,897 Rye 13, 49l 242 694 White Plains 35,883 9,271 6,900 Yonkers 143,339 26,547 31,476 Villages Ardsley 3,772 57 138 Briarcliff Manor 6,528 145 217 Bronxville 5,558 44 172 Buchanan l,948 4 38 Croton 6,623 130 257 Dobbs Ferry 8,510 593 482 Elmsford 2,634 l,099 455 Harrison 21,684 357 1,145 Hastings 7,194 317 332 Irvington 5,688 lll 218 Larchmont 5,856 85 295 Mamaroneck 15,378 900 1,822 Mount Kisco 7,852 749 1,108 Ossining lS, 83 6 5,214 3,692 Pelham 5,532 563 244 Pelham Manor 5,249 57 . 181 Pleasantville 6,201 126 280 Rye Brook 7,249 117 387 Scarsdale 14,227 381 372 Tarrytown 9.178 769 1,399 Tuckahoe 4,579 928 239 Averages Cities X X X 8,908 villages X X X 641 PORT CHESTER 24,728 19,633 2,528 7,446 *Source: westcnester County Department ot P!anning - April, 1990 ** Hispanic population may be of any race -101- Table 19 - Village - City Comparisons - 1996 Variable - Rousing Cost Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Mean value Mean Rent MONICIPALITY Westchester County $320,123 $593 Cities Mount Vernon 240,067 505 New Rochelle 327,203 551 Peekskill 167,902 594 Rye 436,634 858 White Plains 326,849 612 Yonkers 240,948 503 Villages Ardsley 310,739 928 Briarcliff Manor 408,057 662 Bronxville 525,050 998 Buchanan 193,407 596 Croton 244,226 739 Dobbs Ferry 325,187 655 Elmsford 228,571 673 Harrison 450,426 759 Hastings 320,343 681 Irvington 405,455 778 Larchmont 444,012 720 Mamaroneck 346,607 697 Mount Kisco 260,647 644 Ossining 214,113 660 Pelham 336,425 773 Pelham Manor 420,937 893 Pleasantville ·295,400 802 Rye Brook 382,105 611 Scarsdale 512,696 1,156 Tarrytown 291,367 642 Tuckahoe 288,303 688 Averages Cities $289,934 $603 Villages 332,480 750 PORT CHESTER $264,352 $611 •Source: Westchester Count y De p ar~ment ot Plannin - A p ri.1., 1990 -102- Table 20 - Village - City Comparisons - 1996 Variable - Criminal Justice Robbery Aggravated Burglary Larceny Auto Crime Rate Assault Theft Per 1000 MUNICIPALITY Westchester County 1832 1643 5037 17,747 4,750 35,2 Cities Mount Vernon 439 380 855 1,453 917 61.0 New Rochelle 132 84 476 l, 727 407 41.9 Peekskill 32 594 138 491 57 44.6 Rye 2 l 42 215 38 19.8 White Plains 61 67 192 1,973 237 51.0 Yonkers 868 427 1,624 3,871 1,879 46.7 villages Ardsley 0 9 21 48 8 20.1 5riarcliff Manor 0 2 20 ' 76 3 14.0 Bronxville 3 5 24 70 30 21.8 Buchanan 0 7 7 27. 2 21.2 Croton 0 10 16 89 11 17,4 Dobbs Ferry 2 21 33 166 8 22.9' Elmsford 11 9 11 109 16 38.2 Harrison 4 5 90 321 75 21.3 Hastings 7 3 18 79 15 14,9 Irvington 0 5 31 50 10 14, 7 Larchmont 1 9 54 169 39 43 ,4 Mamaroneck 17 7 80 405 89 34.0 Mount. Kisco 9 45 3l 210 14 33,8 Ossining 43 58 149 397 31 29,9 Pelham 6 2 43 142 14 321 Pelham Manor 9 0 25 169 57 45.6 Pleasantville 6 17 14 63 8 16.4 Rye Brook 2 5 24 175 19 28.9 Scarsdale 0 1 46 163 27 14. 0 Tarrytown 7 13 41 219 34 27,l Tuckahoe l 11 5 79 14 17.6 Averages Cities X X X X X 44.2 Villages X X X X X 25.0 PORT CHESTER 51 53 114 760 101 44.0 •source: crime and Justice Annuai Re po rt: - b,- -103- Table 21 - Village - City Comparisons - 1996 Variable - Residential Land use Low Density Medium Density High Density less than 2 Dwelling 2-16 dwelling over 16 dwelling Total % units/acre % units/acre \ units/acre HUNJ:CJ:PALJ:TY - westchester county 39.4 19.9 18.5 1.0 Cities Mount Vernon 57.2 0 45.6 11.6 New Rochelle 64.6 2.6 57.3 4.7 Peekskill 49.7 0 48.1 1.6 Rye 56.4 22 .1 34.l 0.3 White Plains 48.0 1.9 43.4 2.6 Yonkers 55.8 0.5 44.3 ll.O Villages Ardsley 62.3 18.0 44.2 o.o - Briarcliff Manor 49.0 31.5 17.5 o_o Bronxville 79.9 o.o 68.4 11.4 Buchanan 26.4 o.o 26. 4 a.a Croton 40.7 26.l 14. 6 a.a Dobbs Ferry 49. 6 2.2 47.3 a.a Elmsford 4 2. 7 o.o 42.2 0.5 Harrison 42.7 26.7 15. 8 0.2 Hastings 56.7 a.a 56.7 a.a Irvington 46.7 18.2 28.4 a.a Larchmont 74.3 20.4 53.9 0.04 Mamaroneck 62.4 5.4 4 6. 7 10.3 Mount Kisco 36.4 14. 0 21.3 1.1 Ossining 55.3 4. l 50.0 1.2 Pelham 90.2 80.0 10.2 0.0 Pelham Manor 67. 5 o.o 66.9 0.6 Pleas;,ntville 57.1 6.7 48.9 1.5 Scarsdale 71.9 24. 6 4 7. 0 0.3 Tarrytown 46. 3 3.5 41. 0 1. 7 Tuckahoe 66.0 o.o 54 .1 11.9 Averages . Cities 55.7 3.6 45.9 6.3 Villages 51.0 17.6 32.4 1.1 PORT CHESTER 63,0 3.2 59.6 0.2 •source: Westchester County Department of Planning - April, 1990 -104- Table 22 - Village - City Comparisons - 1996 Variable• Non-Residential Land Use \ Commercial \ Manufacturing/ & Retail Industrial Warehouse \ Mixed HUHIC:IPALITY Westchester County l.5 l.l 0.7 Cities Mount Vernon 1.0 9.1 9.5 New Rochelle 3.2 l.4 2.1 Peekskill l.8 6.7 3.1 Rye 0.8 0.1 1. 4 White Plains 3.8 0.4 l.2 Yonkers 4.3 2.8 2.7 Villages ' Ardsley 1.6 l.7 0 Briarcliff Manor 1.4 0.2 0 Bronxville 4.5 o.o o.o Buchanan 5.7 28.5 o.o Croton 2.1 1.2 0.0 .. Dobbs Ferry 1.2 1.6 2.7 Elmsford 9. 5 1.9 6.8 . Harrison 0.6 o.o 0.7 Hastings 1.7 3.6 l.2 Irvington 0.0 1.4 l.2 Larchmont 0.8 0.0 11.4 Mamaroneck 3.5 4, 2 5. 8 Mount Kisco 9.3 4.9 o.o Ossining l.9 2.7 6.0 Pelham 0.0 0.0 5. l Pelham Manor· 4.2 5.3 o.o Pleasantville 2.0 2.2 4.0 Rye Brook Scarsdale 1.0 0.0 0.0 Tarrytown 2.8 l.9 0.0 Tuckahoe 0.0 o.o 23.4 Averages Cities 3.1 2.6 2.7 Villages 2.3 2. l 1.7 PORT CHESTER 10.7 4.3 5.8 •source: Westchester Coun-ey De p art:ment of Planning - Ap r1.l, 1990 -105- Table 23 - Village-City Comparisons summary From a statistical point of view Port Chester is more like: Village City Population Density X Per Capita Income X Hispanic Distribution* X Housing Costs X Crime Rate X Land Use - Residential X L'and Use - Non Residential X *May be of any race. Population density The average for cities is 7,261 per square mile. Villages have an average population density of 4,019 per square mile. Port Chester exceeds the city average by over 3,000 people, with 10,303 per square mile. Population density in Port Chester places it in the city column. Per Capita Income Per capita income in cities on the average is $24,015; in the villages of Westchester County the per capita income is $31,635. Port Chester's per capita income is $15,901, a figure that places it at the City end of the distribution. Hispanic Distribution For cities the average number of Hispanics is 8,908; for villages the average number is 641. In Port Chester there are 7,446 people of Hispanic origin, very close to the city average. Housing Costs The average cost of a house in the cities of Westchester is $289,934. In the village the average cost of a house is $332,480. The Port Chester average is $264,352 placing it in the city distribution. The same pattern holds true for rental prices. Crime Rate The city crime rate per thousand is 44.2; the village crime rate per thousand is 25.0. The Port Chester crime rate of 40.0 is almost identical to the city average. Lane Use - Residential Port Chester residential land use patterns are almost identical to those of the six cities of Westchester County. Low density and medium. land use patterns are roughly the same for cities and for Port Chester. Land Use - Non-Residential In non-residential land use Port Ches·ter "outcities" the six Westchester cities in the study. commercial and retail space occupies 10.7\ of available land in Port Chester. The comparable figure for villages is 2.3% and for cities 3.1%. -106.- VII. STRUCTURAL IMPACTS Assuming that Port Chester decides to become a city, .the mechanism for accomplishing this change is the charter. The most important element of any charter is the form of government selected. In this section we will compare the current Village government structure, the council-manager form, with the most feasible alternative, the strong mayor-council form. There are two other options: the weak mayor-council and commission forms. We will not discuss either of these, however, because they are inappropriate for a government that is the size of Port Chester and which provides a significant array of services. Neither form includes an executive who has overall responsibility for administering the government and, who therefore, can ultimately be held accountable for service delivery. A. Council Manager Form The Village of Port Chester currently operates under a council-manager form of government. This form could also be used if Port Chester were to become a city. It has the following characteristics: - an appointed administrator, professionally educated, to serve as administrative head of the municipality - manager has power to appoint and remove department heads and employees'* 'currently Port Chester's Village Manager's power to appoint, suspend or dismiss department heads is subject to approval by the Village Board. -107- - manager has power to prepare budget and submit to council for approval - manager does not have veto power over council actions - manager serves at the pleasure of the council; can be removed at any time, unless otherwise specified in the contract of employment. - Mayor is a member of the council but may have additional ceremonial responsibilities as well as assume a leadership role regarding'policy making and external relations. In the United States, the council/manager form is the most prevalent form of government in communities between 10,000 and 250,000 in population. Variants of the mayor/council form predominate in the smaller and larger communities. Listed below are the advantages and disadvantages of the council/manager plan: Pros: - The presence of competent administrative leadership is assured through the appointment of a professionally trained manager. - Democracy is safeguarded by holding the manager directly accountable to the council members who are the citizens' representatives, - If the manager in any way fails to fulfill effectively his/her responsibilities, he/she can be removed at any time by the council; there is no need to wait for the next election. - It is easier to dismiss a manager than an elected official. - A more representative body of council members is possible since technical expertise is not-required. - The council can devote more time to long-term issues and concerns and policy matters in general, being -108- relieved of the responsibility of day-to-day administration. - It is easier to fix responsibility and accountability for municipal operations when one person coordinates the city administration. - The council is relieved of many of the pressures which lead to patronage and favoritism because appointments and other administrative powers are delegated to the manager. cons: - Since the manager is often hired from outside the community, the manager may lack an understanding of local situations and problems. - Although the .manager is accountable to the elected council, citizens cannot directly affect the appointment or removal of a manager. - Political leadership may suffer because although the position of mayor remains, it is a part-time position with reduced powers and responsibilities. - Conversely, since the position of mayor remains, there is the possibility that conflict might develop between an overly assertive mayor and a manager. - Although the council retains policy-making authority, the difficulty of always keeping policy and administration separate may result in a manager having de facto a significant policy making role. B, Strong/Mayor Form The most viable alternative to the council/manager form if Port Chester were to become a city is the strong mayor-council form. The term "strong mayor" can be misleading; it has· absolutely nothing to do with personality or personal characteristics of any kind. A more accurate way of describing this model is to refer to it as incorporating the separation of powers between the executive (mayor) and council. Since much of -109- the literature as well as colloquial usage more commonly refers to the strong mayor-council form, we will use the same terminology. The strong-mayor council form has the following characteristics: - Almost complete responsibility for administrative control is concentrated in the office of an elected mayor; the mayor has the power to appoint and remove most department heads, has the responsibility for preparing and submitting the budget for consideration by the council, and possesses veto power over council actions (usually the veto can be overridden by an extraordinary council majority). - The mayor shares in the policy making function of the council, but ultimate responsibility for policy making rests with the council. - The mayor generally exercises strong political leadership both within the city administration and the broader community; usually this political leadership, especially consensus building, is essential for effective governance because this form is usually associated with communities characterized by a myriad of competing and conflicting interests. - Usually the terms of the mayor and council members last longer than in the weak mayor form and typically last four years in duration. - The council is a relatively small body of odd numbered members (typically seven or nine) who may be elected at large or by district - some of the issues related to at large versus district election will be noted later on in this section. - In some cities especially larger ones, this form has been modified to include a chief administrative officer to assist the mayor with administrative duties. Pros: - The clear location of a administrative authority and responsibility in the office of the mayor; administrative accountability also clearly rests with the mayor. -110- - Democracy is safeguarded because this important position is decided directly by the electorate. - The mayor can exert political leadership as well as administrative leadership. - Since department heads are appointed by the mayor, it can be generally assumed that they will espouse and carry out the policy positions of the mayor, and by extension, that of the citizens who elected the mayor. - Checks and balances are provided because the mayor has administrative authority and the council has legislative authority. - Political parties could be energized because they exercise substantial influence as to nominations for mayor; the council may attract more talented candidates because it may be seen as a springboard to being mayor. cons: - The possibility exists for friction between the mayor and the council because they share in the policymaking role. - Even worse than occasional friction or conflict, competition between the mayor and the council can result in political gridlock which will adversely affect the city's functions and services. - Mayors who get elected because of their political leadership may lack the expertise and experience for administrative leadership; this is especially problematic when there is no provision for a professional chief administrative officer. - This form has often been associated with extensive political patronage which can lead to the appointment of key city employees without adequate qualifications. c. council Elections: At Large or District Historically, good government organizations and political reformers have favored at large elections over election by district for council members. The prevailing belief is that at large elections lead to the election of council members who are -111- committed to the city's interests on the whole and not specific groups or interests who may dominate a particular ward. Election by wards can result in a fragmented, conflict-ridden council with each council member acting only for the benefit of his or her ward and to the neglect of what benefits the greater community welfare. More recently it has been argued that especially in cities characterized by extensive diversity in race, culture, and income, election by wards more effectively insures that diverse interests are adequately represented. There exists justifiable concern that with at large elections the more powerful, generally more affluent, interests tend to dominate city council elections. This leads to the de facto disenfranchisement of the less powerful interests, often minorities and low income groups. Even when this does not actually result in inequities, such as the unequal distribution of benefits and resources, a council which is not broadly representative of a diverse city will lack credibility and will be unable to engender trust in an electorate. At large elections in a city with sizeable concentrations of minorities can have legal repercussions as well. When minorities over time fail to get elected in the city, a city using the at large method can run afoul of the federal Voting Rights Act. Under such conditions, courts have usually ordered cities to convert to a district method, with special attention to creating minority concentrated districts, to better insure the likelihood -112- that one or more minority members will be elected. However, recent'decisions of the United States supreme Court cast doubt on the validity of creating districts solely on the basis of race. D. Summary Conversion to city status would provide Port Chester with the opportunity to consider forms of government other than the council-manager form currently employed. The most viable alternative would be what is commonly referred to as the strong mayor council form. Each form has advantages and disadvantages. While it is certainly possible that Port Chester could be effectively governed under the strong-mayor council form, there appears to be no compelling reason for Port Chester to adopt this form and abandon the council-manager form. The other question to be answered is whether to continue to select council members on at large basis or to elect them by districts. -113- VIII, Table of Contents for Appendices Appendix The Village of Port Chester: 1 ·statistical Review Maps of Port Chester ·2 "An Act to Provide a Charter for the 3 city of Port Chester", S4051A, February 18, 1971. Proposed Charter for the City of Newark-Arcadia 4 (S5055-B) Bill Jacket for S5055-B 5 Sales Tax 6 -114- APPENDIX4 VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER STRATEGIC PLAN 2017-2022 Village of Port Chester · :::: _ . Stratem~ Plan 2017-2022 • ,~. ·~J!iiS: >' - - , M ch 2017 -~II' • ,' ar Pagei Cover Photos: Port Chester Village Hall; Village Seal; The Mariner Waterfront Apartments Prepared for the Village of Port Chester by Management Partners Port Chester Strategic Plan March 2017 Table of Contents Page ii Table of Contents Approach and Methodology...... 1 Vision ...... :...... 4 Mission ...... 5 Values ...... 6 Goal Area A - Resiliency ...... 7 Goal Area B - Smart Growth ...... : ...... 8 Goal Area C - Resource Management ...... 10 Conclusion ...... 11 Attachment A - Environmental Scan ...... 12 Attachment B - Survey Summary...... 13 Port Chester Strategic Plan Marcl1 2017 Page iii This Page Purposely Left Blank . _:.:.1 Port Chester Strategic Plan March 2017 Approach and Methodology Page 1 Approach and Methodology Inputs into this strategic plan include: • Interviews with Village leaders • Stakeholder survey of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) • Environmental Scan Photo: Recreation Park Introduction The Port Chester Strategic Plan, covering fiscal years 2017 to 2022 includes the vision, mission, values, goals and strategies that will guide resource allocation and work planning for the next five years. This operational strategic plan builds on, yet is broader in scope than the prior FY 2014 to 2016 Strategic Plan, which was primarily focused on specific development sites in Port Chester. Accompanying the Strategic Plan is a separate Implementation Action Plan that specifies the activities and tasks required to bring each of the three goal areas to fruition. Context for Strategic Planning Historically, the Village of Port Chester has used the annual budget, the Village Manager's strategic priorities, and the Comprehensive Plan to manage staffing, financial resources, and the work of the organization. In recent years, Village leaders determined that formal strategic planning was needed to set a course for the future that would clearly specify where the Village is headed in the next five years, and identify strategies to guide work planning to accomplish results. In 2013, the Village Manager and staff prepared an Economic Development Strategic Plan identifying five opportunity areas for redevelopment. The Economic Development plan was based in part on information and recommendations included in the Port Chester Comprehensive Plan. In 2014, the Board of Trustees adopted the Economic Development Strategic Plan. The development areas outlined in the plan remain important elements of the Viilage vision and goals that are included in this strategic plan document. Port Chester Strategic Plan March 2017 Approach and Methodology Page 2 Strategic Planning Workshop and Elements The process for creating the strategic plan began with individual interviews with the Mayor, Board of Trustees, the Village Manager, department directors, and managers. Interviewees were asked to share their perspectives about strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) facing the Village and key challenges to overcome in the future. The key themes that emerged from the SWOT interviews and analysis were used to inform the development and distribution of a SWOT survey for employees and stakeholders. In total, there were 74 survey responses. To supplement this information, Port Chester staff prepared an environmental scan of key data and trends for demographic, housing, finance and crime indicators. The environmental scan data provided an important source of information in the process of strategy formation. In preparation for two strategic planning workshop sessions, the Board of Trustees were provided with materials summarizing the individual interviews and the survey results. The survey results identified preferences among the two groups relative to strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. The environmental scan and the survey summary are included as Attachments A and B, respectively. Strategic planning workshops were held on February 3 and 4, 2017and resulted in the strategic planning elements included Vision in this plan. There are five major elements: the vision, a mission statement, values, and goals with supporting strategies. Together these elements set the direction that will guide the Village in resource allocation and Goals operational focus for the next five years. Strategies The vision statement is aspirational. It describes a future state that the Board of Trustees has identified as the intended outcome of the actions taken to implement the strategies. The vision indicates where the Village is headed; it is the destination. The mission states the purpose of the organization. It is the rationale for programs carried out by the organization and guides the prioritization of opportunities. It defines what the organization stands for and what it will do. Values express the ideals that drive the execution of service delivery. Values provide Village staff with guidance on how services and programs are to be provided. Port l:hester Strategic Plan March 2017 Approach and Mefuodology Page 3 Goals provide clear guidance about the direction and focus of fue organization, budget decisions and allocation of other resources, such as staff time. They state fue direction the organization will move over a period of time and fue desired outcomes to be achieved. The goals will guide the Board of Trustees and the Village Manager in deciding which of fue many worfuy projects should be done and when, within available resources. Strategies are fue means to achieve fue goals. They describe an approach or method and begin to answer fue questions: How will we go about accomplishing fue goal? What actions will we take to realize fue goals? Port Chester Strategic Plan March 2017 Vision Page 4 Vision Rich History, Great Future Photo: Christopher Columbus statue at Columbus Park Port Chester Background The vision for Port Chester acknowledges the past and expresses a fuhire that has a wealth of opportunities and possibilities, as articulated in the phrase Rich History, Great Future. The Village of Port Chester was incorporated as a municipal government in 1868 and is vested with specific powers and responsibilities of municipal government pursuant to the provisions of the New YCJrk Legislature. The Village has an independent public school district, the Port Chester-Rye Union Free School District, and has taxing and debt-issuance authority. Village residents also pay real property taxes to the Town of Rye and the County to support programs in these government entities. The Village of Port Chester is located in southeastern Westchester County along the Byram River, within one mile of the Long Island Sound. It is surrounded by the Village of Rye Book to the north and west, Greenwich, Connecticut, to the east and Rye City to the south. Total land area of the Village equals 2.4 square miles and the U.S. Census in 2014 reported a population of 29,000 residents. Port Chester Strategic Plan March 2017 Mission Page 5 Mission The mission is a statement of purpose that defines what the Village stands for and directs the day-to-day actions for the Board of Trustees and employees. Photo: Memorial Park Easter egg hunt To enhance the quality of life within the cotn1111tnity and provide for the professional delivery of public services. We are co11in1-itted to open government, public involven1ent, responsible economic developn1ent and being good ste1vards of Port Chester's public resources. Port Chester Strategic Plan March 2017 Values Page 6 Values Values drive the organizational culture and are the operating principles that govern the actions and behaviors of leaders and employees of the Village. Photo: Historic Bush•Lyon Homestead, circa 1750 • Respect- We will display fairness, equity and responsiveness in the delivery of services to the public. • Integrity- We are committed to honesty and transparency in operating and managing the affairs of the Village. We pledge accountability and openness through consistent communication with residents, property owners, stakeholders and visitors. • Leadership - We will achieve excellence through our commitment to carry out our work professionally and responsibly, and to collaborate with internal and external partners. • Passion- We are passionate public servants who are committed to getting the job done through hard work and innovation. Port Chester Strategic Plan March 2017 Goal Area A - Resiliency Page 7 Goal Area A Resiliency Plan for organizational and community resiliency. Photo: North Main Street looking north toward the Lifesavers Building 1. Systematically identify and prioritize areas of concern about the organization, environment, finances, emergency management, and risk management. 2. Create emergency management, continuity of operations, and organizational resiliency plans using the following process: a) Perform risk assessment b) Develop resiliency plans that include the following elements: • Practices and procedures, • Resources, • Training, and • Partners. 3. Conduct drills and modify plan, as needed. 4. Document and formalize the plan. Port Chester Strategic Plan March 2017 Goal Area B - Smart Growth Page 8 Goal Area B - Smart Growth Use smart growth to maximize current resources while leveraging existing and future opportunities for investment and revitalization. Photo: Downtown along Main Street Strategies Short Term 1. Identify strategies and develop timelines to complete implementation of the development priorities included in the 20t4 Economic Development Strategic Plan. 2. Complete a rewrite of the zoning code using . form-based zoning and include a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS), streamlined development applications and approval processes and application fast-tracking. 3. Prepare shovel-ready development projects. 4. Identify short- and long-term parking solutions for the downtown area. 5. Provide greater access to the waterfront and repair the bulkhead. Port Chester Strategic Plan March 2017 Goal Area B - Smart Growth Page 9 Long Term 6. Develop mechanisms for increasing and broadening the tax base. 7. Create incentives to diversify the housing stock. 8. Develop a business diversification plan. 9. Identify ways to preserve the historic character of the Village. 10. Assess the infrastructure capacity for new and proposed development and redevelopment proposals. 11. Develop a multi-modal transportation plan. 12. Create a visual identity and directional signage plan. 13. Implement a process for Comprehensive Plan updates and evaluation. 14. Identify resources and partners to expand opportunities for public access to and usage of the waterfront. Port Chester Strategic Plan March 2017 Goal Area C-Resource Management Page 10 Goal Area C - Resource Management Maximize and improve the management of Village resources and assets. Photos: Byram River waterfront promenade; Gazebo at Columbus Park Short Term 1. Conduct process improvement analysis to optimize operations and identify needed technology. 2. Identify resources needed to meet service delivery expectations. 3. Develop an employee recognition program and highlight current and past workforce successes. 4. Develop and formalize policies and procedures to guide the operations of Village programs and services. 5. Design a capacity-building programs to improve employee recruitment, retention and training. 6. Implement a performance management program. Long Term 7. Identify and implement the process required to pursue city status. 8. Develop a long-term capital plan for Village infrastructure, equipment and facilities. 9. Assess service fees and update as needed. Port Chester Strategic Plan March 2017 Conclusion Page 11 Conclusion This Strategic Plan includes goals and strategies to accomplish the three areas of importance for the future identified by the Mayor and Board of Trustees for the future, which include: • Resiliency, • Smart Growth, and • Resource Management. The goals inform the ac;companying Implementation Action Plan, which describes the sequence of actions required to carry out each strategy enumerated in the three goal areas. These will enable the Village to continue · to leverage its rich history into a great future for the residents, visitors and stakeholders of Port Chester. BartDidden Photos: Train Ride in Columbus Park; Tarry Market, _North Main and Mill Streets Trustee Christopher Steers Village Manager Port Chester Strategic Plan March 2017 Attachment A- Environmental Scan Page 12 Attachment A - Port Chester Environmental Scan Port Chester Strategic Plan March 2017 Data Sources • U.S Census Bureau (2000, 2010) • U.S Census American Community Survey, 2010-2014 5-Year Estimates • Port Chester, NY Adopted Budget FY 16-17 Demographics Population 31,000 29,000 27,000 Population growth continues but growth 25,000 C: rate has slowed in recent years: 0 ·;::; !2 23,000 :::, 5% growth from 1980-1999 C. 0 13% growth from 1990-2000 Cl. 21,000 4% growth from 2000-2010 19,000 1% growth from 2010-2014 17,000 15,000 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Year =>opulation Population by Age Group '" " " Median Age M .9 r,; 5. " 0 ~ 0 " c ~ 8 ~• 0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 S0-59 60-69 70-79 so, Percent2000 Percent 2010 Percent 2014 Population 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 Port Chester· experienced a demographic shift between C: 0 12,000 2C00 and 2010: ·;::; .!!! :, 10,000 33.4% Hispanic population increase C. 0 22.4% White Non-Hispanic population decrease a. 6,000 23.6% Black Non-Hispanic population decrease 24.5% Asian/Other Non-Hispanic population decrease· 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic- Asian/Other Non-Hispanic- 2000 ■ 2010 Housing Existing Land Use Map Existing Land Uses Village of Port Chester New York Port Chester's central and southern regions have a mix of uses, while Port Chester's northern region and far southern tip are mostly composed of single family homes. LAND USE Single fon,ilr Re 2000 ".-..-.. r;,,·~; ' t ,I ! / . -_ ,,,,,- '' r' Port Chester's housing stock remains old, but close to 200 units have been added since 2000. Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms 3,500 3,000 One-bedroom unit .t:"' quantities decreased from C: ::, 2,500 2000 to 2014 while OD C: multiple-bedroom and no ·.;; :, 2,000 bedroom unit quantities 0 I increased. 4-- 0 ~ Q) 1,500 ..a E :, z 1,000 500 0 11 Ill 0 1 2 3 4 Sor more ■ 2000 ■ 2014 Residential Units by Type 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 LJ 1-unit, detatched 1-unit, attached 2 units 3 or 4 units 5 to 9 units 10-19 units 20 or more units ·: 2000 2010 ~ 2014 12,000 Housing Tenure 10,046 9,9S3 9,772 / 10,000 / Total housing supply increased from 2000 to 2010, then ··1 decreased between 2010 and 8,000 2014. ,t:"' 'i C: ! ::::, I : I t>.O -, Total number of renter- C: ·.;; 6,000 I occupied units has steadily :::, i 0 decreased. :r: I ! 4,000 2,000 0 2000 2010 2014 -owner-Occupied Units :-_ Renter- Occupied Units -Total Housing Units Housing Tenure Rent as% of Household Income 2,000 2,010 2,014 Median Household Income $52,983 $52,758 $53,482 Median Family Income $56,733 $61,478 $65,443 Per Capita Income $21,131 $26,744 $26,256 Percentage of Families below Poverty line 9.50% 11.40% 11.50% Percentage of Individuals below Poverty line 13.80% 16% 15.60% Unemployment Rate Ages l 6+ 6.40% 8.30% 7.70% ...... , ______More than half of Port Chester's population is considered less than l 5% of income ■ l 5-l 9% of income "rent burdened" and pays more than 30% of household ■ 20-24% of income ■ 25-29% of income income on rent. 30-34% of income ■ 35% or more of income ---·························---- Revenues 5ummary Sources of Revenues Summary of Sources of Revenues - Primary Government 2015 2014 Dollars Percent(%) Charges for services s 9,243,886 s 8,413,749 s 830,137 9.9 Operating grants and contributions 175,185 184,534 (9,349) (5.11 Capitol grants and contributions 338,348 400,591 (62,243) (15.5) Taxes 28,553,601 27,864,787 688,814 2.5 Use of money and property 9,803 13,774 (3,971) (28.8) Miscellaneous 349,756 682,979 (333,223) (48.8) State sources-unrestricted 647 784 434 366 213 418 49.1 Total revenues P9,31 a,363 $ 37,994,780 $ 1,323,583 3.5 Beyond taxes, the Village's primary sources of revenue are through charges for services. Between 2014 and 2015, the Village increased its revenues by approximately 1.3 million dollars. Adopted Amount % Revenues I ·······"·••u••·····••uuo,uu ...... FY l 1.12 FY12-13 FY13-14 FY 14--15 FY 15-16 FY 16--17. 1/(D) 1/(D) Real Property Tax Items 21,958,225 21,896,468 ~l.,8_?6,4~7 22,550,?87 ...... 22,91}, 160 .. 22f99:3,..840'. 80,680 0.35% Other Tax Items 740,262 738,001 818,194 857,697 93J,_2_32, -~--····91?,916 {15,31•) (1.64%) Non-Property Tax Items 4,199,000 4,379,001 4,772,000 4,?:46,000.,.,, 5,226,009 5,233,QQQ 7,00,9 0.13% Departmental Income 2,958,821 3,130,393 3726,736 4,064,.~69 4,0~9,6?_9, ...... Ai lA.B.Z§.1-! 8_§~109 2.16% Use of Money & ~-~operty 411,700 221,167 1_04,966 A07,3D? ...... -~78,8~-~-- . 13,6?~ 3.60% Licenses & Permits 154,630 185,430 224,522 234,167 280,5~! ············· 286,597 6,040 2.15% Fines & Forfeitures 2,019,QQQ 2,204,001 2,014,000 2,254,500 . 2,554,000 ·•· •• 2,404,000 {150,000) (5.87~} Miscellaneous Revenues 76,9.®. BJ.,QOO .1_.:;tt),000 "' •.. 66,00Q.. ··•-·-· 86,.1..QQ ·• ... ~§.c.1.99. ..0 ·······0.00%. State Aid 616,569 ,604,936,_ 695,1 .. 29 743,_Q17 72.:4,311 ...... 8~7,Ql:3J.. 13_2,770 18.33% Federal Aid 107,360 124,282 1.,24,082 ]39,738 .. ... J29,5JJ. ., ... J.4!>.~04 1s,69e 12.l 2% Total Revenues 33,241,567 33,564,679 34,812,096 39,264,384 37,304,393 37,482,995 178,602 0.48% Since last fiscal year, the Village experienced modest gains in real property tax, licenses and permit fees, departmental income, and state/federal aid, This resulted in a slight increase in total revenues (0.48%), Business Establishments in the Village Va!ue of sales. shipments, Number of receipts, revenue. or business Number of Meanino of2012 NAICS code Meanino ofT""'e of on;;ration or tax status code Year establishments done rs 1.0001 emolovees 1ance and insurance Total 2012 23 N C ·ucational services All establishments 2012 13 D b ucalional services Establishments exemct from federal income tax 2012 3 D b :s, ent11rtainment. and recreation Establishments subject to federal income tax 2012 a D b :s. enler1ainment. and r-ecreation Establishments exemot from federal income tax 2012 1 D tail trade Total 2012 140 624.420 1.997' commodation and food services Total 2012 98 0.382 948 allh care and social assistance All establishments 2012 54 110.028 883 inufacturinn Total 2012 33 130.052 874 ministrative and suooort and waste mar Total 2012 68 54.569 544 alth care and social assistance Establishments subiect to federal income tax 2012 39. 7.880 469 1o!esale trade Merchant wholesalers. exceot manufacturers' sales branches 2012 44 18!:!.049 428 alth care and social assistance Establishments exempt from federal income tax 2012 15 32,148 414 1er services iexcect oublic administrati All establishments 2012 as 40.112 312 1er services (except public administrati Establishments subiect to federal income tax 2012 3 34.384 282 irmation Total 2012 19 N 227 ifess1onal. scientific. and technical ser,; All establishments 2012 61 27.425 187 ifessional. scientific. and technical ser,; Establishments subiect to federal income tax 2012 61 27.425 187 1nsportation and warehousinQ (1041 Total 2012 15 .929 140 al estate and rental and leasina Total 2012 40 33-412 119 s. entertainment. and recreation All establishments 2012 9 12.605 64 ucational services Establishments subiect to federal income tax 2012 10 J.703 48 ,er services {except public administrati Establishments exempt from federal income tax 2012 12 5.728 30 Port Chester remains a heavy-leaning arts, entertainment, recreation, retail, and food service economy. ~argest Taxpayers in the Village '6ofTot:al Assessed Assessed Name .Property Use Valuation Valuation (1) DPPC Holdings LP. (2) Shopping Center 60,680,000 2.6 Consolidated Edison Utility 41,621,700 1.8 Wll/LH l00-110 Midland LLC Service-based Commercial and Retail \2) Commercial 20,381,400 0.9 uses, alongside ConEd comprise the Mariner Port Chester Commercial 18,880,400 0.8 Home Depot USA Inc (2) Retail 18,050,800 0.8 largest taxpayers in the Village. LongviewOwners Inc. (2) Utility 16,545,600 0.7 United Water (Westchester) Commercial 14,115,000 0.6 Summit Apartment Corp. (2) Apartments 14,055,700 0.6 Westy's New York Inc. Commercial 13,295,400 0.6 Port Chester Projectll LLC Commercial 13,258,200 0.6 Total $230,884,200 10.00% (1) Tot,11 assessed valuation for 201$-2015 is !2,377,321,251 (2) Taxpayer has filed tax certiorari proceeding for one or more years, rotal Tax Assessments, FY '10-11 to FY '16-17 .S'S,200.000,QOO ••""" $3,078,2.45.074 Total tax assessments by the Village decreased steadily between $3,0CO,LlC0,1.i'JG 2010 and 2014, but have increased gradually since. $2,30$,l',0.795 ,2. ~1.:;1,"J,t'h)!l,OOO _, _____ ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ___ _ ' S2,Sl5.fj09,8!>1' St.,,1,;rJ,tlt)(),rJUG $7..3T/,32l,1.'.il .$2,;r,o.nco.,xm $1.,000.000/J()[J !.0-11 '11-11 12-13 15··!\l 15-·!7 Fiscol Yecr How Your Tax Dollar is Spent WC W.C. PC Sewer /10% 2% . W.C. Solid Waste / 1% ,/ .... Town 0% Over half of all tax dollars go to schools in the Village. Just over a quarter (28%) went to the Village. The rest is split between the Town and County services. . ... Village 28% ■ WC aW.C. PC Sewer ■ W.C. Solid Waste ■ Town ■ Village School Property Taxes S251 000,000 $23,019,830 522,631,895 $22,885,770 S22i9931840 $21,896,467 S20, 000,000 S15,000,000 S10,000,000 S5,000,000 _,S28,374 $27,579 S26,785 $, FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 · Tax Cap ■ Tax Levy I Sewer Assessment rax Levy and Collection Record, FY '10-11 to FY '16-17 Tax Levy and Collection Record Fiscal Years Taxes Current Current Ended May Levied For Taxes Taxes to 31: Year Collected Levy The Village has been 2016 $22,913,160 Not Available Not Available successful in collecting nearly 2015 22,550,987 22,550,987 100.0% all of its tax levy since 2010. 2014 21,896,467 21,896,467 100.0 2013 21,896,467 21,814,719 99.6 2012 21,958,225 21,988,638 100.0 201 l 23,187,552 23,188,625 100.0 rraditional Single Family Tax Comparison FY 2015-2016 FY 2016-2017 Average Assessed Value $434,397 $458,909 Homestead Tax Rate (per $1,000) $8.599074 $7.770877 Average Village Tax $3,735 $3,566 Average Tax Bill Decrease ( $1 69) Average Percentage Decrease (4.53%) While property values continue to rise, the property tax rate for the Village has decreased since the previous fiscal year; resulting in an average reduction of $169.00 on a typical household's tax bill. Expenditures GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS BY FUNCTION Adopted Adopted Adopted Adopted Adopted Adopted FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FYZOlS-16 FY 2016-17 1/{D) %1/jDI General Government Support 5,277,166 5,223,832 5,751,397 5,777,905 6,174,779 6,868,562 693,783 11.24% Public Safety 10,563,255 11,151,690 10,927,965 10,943,903 11,595,881 11,119,906 (475,975) (4.10%) Health 275,834 275,834 275,834 275,834 261,723 261,723 0 0.00% Transportation 1,531,750 1,598,036 1,582,232 1,619,827 1,581,820 1,558,056 (23,764) (1.50%) Economic Opportunities & Dev, 412,393 380,660 373,681 393,935 401,915 417,979 16,064 4.00% Culture & Recreation 2,016,864 1,919,095 1,932,843 2,031,001 2,108,593 2,129,216 20,623 .98% Home & Community Services 2,285,216 2,184,371 2,308,668 2,348,214 2,381,190 Z,373,196 (7,994} (0.34%) Employee Benefits 8,713,731 9,100,192 9,698,077 10,075,458 10,171,522 9,919,421 (252,101) (2.48%) Debt Service: Principal Z,716,000 Z,740,000 Z,830,000 3,163,750 3,260,650 3,001,600 (259,050) (7.94%) Interest 1,413,198 1,140,909 1,047,217 1,004,339 925,548 996,810 71,262 7.70% Total Appropriations 35,205,407 35,714,619 36,727,914 37,634,166 38,863,621 38,646,469 (217,152) (0.56%} (Deficiency) of Rev. (under) Exp. (1,963,840) (2,149,940) (1,915,818) (1,369,782) (1,559,228) (1,163,474) 395,754 (25.38%) 25 5 Year Projections Revenues and E.xp~-nditurc>'/'rran~fors out Projected R,"·enues ""d Expenditures/Tn1n5for,. out -#1,000,000 ·------'------r--"------'----''------ 46,000,000 _,...,,_, -E•!""'dm•,./T,..,,r,,.~"' ------.1.-a.,..,..,,-i;.,.,.-..i~..,,./T,.,.,f,·"··•••______FY 16'-17' +i,000,000 As~r•a~ k l.061!. Budget Projections E -12,000,000 ~ .W.000,000 ...:: .•. Q JS,uOO,IJ00 J.6,000,000 ~-u-.-,-....- .. - •------34,1100,Ul~) -~==--.-=-.-.-.-,,-,-,.-"" " : __::: i' .. -...- ... "5 ············i·.! -t:= ,~.... " '·"· n,000,000 C------ J0,000,000 2012 201.l 2014 2015 :?016 2017 201:S 2tll9 2020 2021 (ul,) Y,-:,r ,-nrllng May Jl, Rc,·cnucs nnd Expcnditurcs/Transfou ou1 Pmjccu,d Rc,·enucs and Expeoditures/Transfcrs out 4!1,000,000 At 6 Months 46,000,000 +l.,000,000 E 42,000,000 i -W,00,),000 Q - J~,llOO,IJIJO .s::c ai..;. ◄ • - .-----.. '"'f .M,000,000 - t--··.oo==·=··--- 1.75~ 34,000,000 >------~eugo..4:...-.J..SJ~--+------ l2,000,000 30,000,000 201.j 2015 2016 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 y,.,., end.,d Mny 31, y,.,., endini;:- Mny Jl, 26 5 Year Projections (At 6 months) =• u'1rn11te.OI 'r =~~.;,.,;,;,art !l.4U.ll7 !I.H-1,'41 ,,ul,401 ,,01.,u ,,uo,::i, ,..-u,in '-"l,4l-S. 7,U::1,l!llli 7,l:U,ll-3 7,447.,~, Pi..aic:~ u.o,.;.uo U,HJ,fl!I U.lU,401 U.Co'Ulll U,,IJ-1...Qll U,l,t,!IH 11.Q7-'l7 U.1.u,3!11 :l~~.,9,1. 12.u,.a:u lU.,7:tJ n1.nJ lU,7ll lU,:nJ 170,l.!I-I 2:l'lli.171 lU.7'7 U7,-I.Jl nu.u 1.!IU,7:0 :t.71!.l!I! 1.r.,.011 1.,nsn 1,7C0.(,.l() 1,7.t7,JO,l; 1,;,u.i!S UU..&12 1,,.Sli!l,!10, 1.SO!l,!IU -Ea:>r>omic~-~ 11','-U l!K,7.M Ul,!IU. lU,1!!1 4.::Z,.74' •u.n, =·= •"2.11.1 •IU,,$'7 --cz.,5-1 QM.;e-rc,aeali"" '-""~ U17,lQ4 1,,11.u.1 z.cw.,.,n11 2..11-1,.A.77 .Z,1.0·"·''" ~ .. u,1,11?.& l,2.7'1.&.7U - ~ ~~«~- ,_..,...... , l!l:l,..l.a:!) fl..l!2.,:s,1 H.3,llJ 1:,..,.1.2a11 ruru... onJ !1,llJ.71.&! 11.,H,016) f1,U:S,79l} (!..U0,01') l1.'1J-U71J 0Tl10! R1<,U,1C1Mi50UIIC13(USES) -.... 2:iu,::i, UU.4-l.t ,QO,t»:I 1.111.:sn 1.1!J,.l;N 1.lS0.4,:S 1.JOii,.10, UUJ:Z7 1..J!ll..l'n 1,.ll!l;l ,.__,.,.~ ~ ~ .,.,o.t-<.ns 7,4lf.O. ~ -,,012.0JI f.,u.:u ,.:s4t.no 1.on.1,, ,_...,.,._,n -,,,u,,IJ'l'I ':' ..a.u.::o $ T.CU.OU ,.u.z.u2 5,3-11.UO :S •.&V',,~ -~- ~ ~ ' ' ' ' ~ ' ·--·= Jse of Contingency FY 2016-17 Adopted Contingency Budget $1,057,145 Use of Contingency: Mobility & Parking Management Study 8/1/16 $36,500 E. Coast Abstract-Land records-Fox Is. 9/69/16 $28,725 Strategic Planning Srvs.-Management Partners 10/5/16 $20,900 Acting Judge Salary Increase-Castaneda 11/21/16 $13,110 CSEA Cont. Ratification-FY2015-16 &FY2016-1711/21/16 $167,291 Police Pension Liability-NYS Retirement 11/21/16 $118,925 Police Overtime Adjustment-11/21/16 $200,000 Total Use of Contingency $585,451 Modified Contingency Budget $471,694 28 UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE Thirteen Year History (in millions) $6.00 ss.oo $4.00 :9 $3.90 $3.00 $2.50 $2.00 $1.20 $1.00 $0.00 .10 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 -UN FB -FB App. 29 Property Tax Levy Against Tax Cap, FY '12-'17 23,200,000 23,000,000 0.12% 22,800,000 1.61% $80,680 $224,952 22,600,000 ~ 0 4.25% 22,400,000 $932,555.00 Beginning in FY 14-15, and ,5 ' 2.66% 0 continuing until the present, , 2.2,200,000 $583,488.00 - the Village levies almost 3 100% of the available levy as < 22,000,000 < dictated by the tax cap. 21,300,000 21,600,000 21,400,000 21,200,000 2012#13 2013~14 2014-15 2015-16 2016~17 -fax Cap -T2x Levy 5taffing Needs (Highlights) "As financial constraints increase the easy response is to reduce staffing through attrition or the not so easy response is to implement layoffs; however we are at the point of diminishing returns as staffing levels are below appa~ent minimum needs." -Adopted Budget FY 16-17, pg. 17 Department of Public Works Village Manager Department -2 Sanitation Workers -1 Assistant Village Manager -2 Highway Workers -1 Assistant to the Village Manager -1 Automotive Mechanic -1 Office Assistant -1 Office Assistant (full-time) Finance Department 34 new Police Department -2 Administrative Assistants -10 Police Officers - employees IT/Helpdesk - Code Enforcement -1 Technical Support Specialist -2 Code Enforcement Officers needed Recreation Department Building Department -1 Recreation Leader r------1I I -1 Office Assistant -1 Park Foreman -2 Assistant Building Inspectors -2 Park Groundsman i Cost? i I ______J Engineering Department Justice Court -1 Junior Civil Engineer -1 Assistant Court Clerk -1 Intermediate Clerk MAXIMUM EXPEt011JRE/ FUNDING MATURITY !!!QJECTf.lAME G/lCODE COST ~UNOINGSOURCE (l'PU} COMPUTER SE]WERBAOC-UPS'teSwTEM='------''""'"' :apital Project Plan 22l GRACE Cl, SERVER·CFF SiGl-lT S>\CK•U? 1650.~.2015.# ~0,000 TRANSFER FR GF Sl0,000 HEARS POLICE S!II.VER-OFF SrTEiµQ:•U~ 3120.200.2tll6. # 520,000 TRANSFERFRGf $20,000 7YEARS VEHICUS: Z POLJCEV!:H1CI.ES 3120.103.2016.;I 5100,000 SfRIAl!IOND S?00,000 S YEARS ?ARKING METl;ll TRUO: 3320.203-2015.# $50,000 SER!ALBONO SS0,000 5 YEARS CHEVYTAHOEAW ORIVf•FlRECHiEF 3410.. 203.2-0tii.it S-:S,000 SER!ALBONO S-:5,0C-O HEARS SANDE~ C!-i.A.SSl fOR i! MAO:TRUCK.. HGW 5110.203.1!115,~ SS0.000 SERIAL BONO '50,000 lOYEAilS 6UC~HTRUC~·HIGHWAY Sl10.20S.!015.# 5120,000 SERIALSOrlO 5120,000 lOYtARS NEWGAMBAGETJ:IUCK Sl.60.l03.2015,lt SlS0,000 SERIALeOND S250,000 10Yt,1.RS SUll,PINGIMPROV~MHIT,cS,c______POL;{€ surtDING l!.1J>ROVEMENT mo.i:oo.ms.it SlSC.COO 5ERIAL!ION0 $15¢,000 25 YEARS f IRE au1LDING$ 'MPROVEMENT 3!10.100.2016;, S!SD,000 SERIIIUONO S!SC,000 25 YEARS Planned Capital Projects for C,H,/,J>.S-NYS s1SO,ooo STft~n R~SuRi~N.Gf:qo1&-11______s11q ..:.ocq:m:, ___ S~.?CO 0CC ""-""- 5ERJ.\l eOtJO ---·" suso,ooo lS YEARS this fiscal year include ~~PIIOGA.AM 5110.~.lClS:: $.500.,_XO SERIAL em10 ssoo 000 15 YEARS 1/J!.~.§.~ ..Qv..'NJ.0:Jll,),(W!,lX SllC_,_,;_:ig,~()_161:1 .... S~CQ.~.. HB_l~~.~Cltl.Cl •. Uoo ~ ·-····-i~ YµR5 infrastructure upgrades, S,!,~EfTJ.~~_ElMtfl:QYJM~NT .. ___,_ Sl10--.:C-❖.m5.# 21SOOO ___ HR_IAL BONO-·- 530.000 1$ rEARS building improvements, new L~SICSIGmu 01'<.RADE 51!0.~"1J.JD15.# 5)40000 SERIAL BOND SlJ.2016.;t 5780C-OO SER!ALBONO SrSOOOO lSYEARS vehicles and park t~-~_l(_IM..~-~-~IM~m: 1110..:cqo1,;. .:: __ s100;-oo _. __ S~Rl/1,lBONO _ SlOOAQ!L__lAfEARS A.!!HlCRO'T;; P,!,,Rl( improvements. COl!JMWSPAj:i~ EDGEWOOD PARK lYONl'.:.RK Ri;CP.:.RI!. PAAI( EQUIPMENT: m11ALeONO 515¢ 000 lOYEARS AaErlOROTHPARK COLUMBUS PARI( fDG1:WOOO PARK' LYCfJPAl TOTALGF $5,!SS.000 SS.JSS,000 SEWERIMPROVEMENJ 4TH YEAR ______8120.!00.~ -····-$']00 !lOO --·"·· S~RJ.\LBONO ---·-·Sl,~ 000 _ 30 YEARS COBG GRANTS s100.ooo TOTAi.Sf $2,700.000 TOiJ.LDE8T s;.%s,ooo GRANO TOTAL $7,SSS,000 $1,855,000 5yr Capital Project Plan Planned Capital Projects for future fiscal years also include infrastructure upgrades, building improvements, new vehicles and park improvements. However, the five year plan reflects the bigger picture specifically identifying the pending needs for more effective rolling stock/fleet management, minimizing emergency purchases due to equipment and/or infrastructure failures,· and provides for better planning overall. Debt (Long and Short Term) _ong Term Debt Summary In spite of severe budget constraints, the Village has been working aggressively to reduce its long term debt. During this fiscal year, the Village will reduce its principal $2,875,000. Long Term Debt Projections (10-year) 31-May-20XX Principal Interest Total 2017 $2,875,000 $768,299 $3,643,299 2018 $2,950,000 $699,378 $3,649,378 2019 $3,010,000 $623,553 $3,633,553 2020 $3,075,000 $542,790 $3,617,790 2021 $3,155,000 $455,928 $3,610,928 The Village projects that its long 2022 $2,845,000 $365,409 $3,210,409 term debt will be significantly 2023 $2,635,000 $282,181 $2,917,181 reduced over a 10-year period. 2024 $2,230,000 $205,212 $2,435,212 2025 $2,295,000 $132,680 $2,427,680 2026 $1,345,000 $73,983 $1,418,983 2027 $675,000 $34,705 $709,705 2028 $480,000 $15,990 $495,990 Total: $27,570,000 $4,200,018 $31,770,108 Jutstanding Debt Obligations S4,000,000 Pension Costs by Fiscc,I Yem, 2002-2017 $3,500,000 S3,000,000 S2,500,000 S2,000,000 S 1,500,000 S 1,000,000 $500,000 so ■ I I I I I I I I I I I c,q .__C> I I - <>' c,b & c,'b !V O{ b' b' d' .,. q• C, "'" C, C,•• "'" "' <::i C, C, " ■ ERS INCENTIVE PFRS Pension costs, while lower than the previous fiscal year, have been steadily trending upward since FY '02-03. Crime ...... rime SOD 450 400 From 2014 to 2015, total 350 crime has slightly increased from 568 to 595 300 reported crimes. 250 Increases in murder, rape, aggravated assault, and 200 larceny accounted for this 150 change. lOO 50 0 ■ I I Murder Rape Robbery Aggravated Burglary Larceny Vehicle- Theft Assault 2014 ■ 2015 :rime - 2016 Data CATEGORY Jon. Feb. Mor. April Moy June July A,g Sept Oct Nov Dec Total PARKING 4550 4279 4802 3451 3819 4528 4217 4606 4454 4410 4570 4402 52088 TRAFFIC 539 452 493 321 649 494 334 377 505 377 392 370 5303 ARRESTS 115 127 113 111 165 113 118 131 127 141 120 151 1532 SCOFFLAWS 25 31 15 13 10 20 18 8 18 8 21 19 206 Average arrests per month= 128 Police Staffing Municipality Population Pop. Density per sq. mile Police Officers Officers per 1000 Ardsley 4523 3425 19 2.3 Bedford 17627 439 37 2.1 Briarcliff Manor 7976 3425 19 2.4 Bronxville 6390 6323 21 3.3 Croton 8180 1647 20 2.4 Eastchester 19800 902 45 2.2 Elmdord -4735 4664 18 3.8 Greenburgh 44787 2408 115 2.6 Harrison 27876 1579 59 2.1 Irvington 6530 2293 22 3.5 Momoroneck Town 12146 3422 37 3.3 Mamaroneck Village 19164 5736 49 3.5 Peekskill 23908 5127 54 2.3 Pelham Manor 5558 4220 26 5 Pelham 6983 8000 25 3.6 Port Chester 29328 12070 58 2 ,,. 15910 2577 35 2.2 Rye Brook 9480 2671 27 2.8 Scarsdale 17564 2562 42 2.4 Mount Kisco 11028 3509 29 2.6 New Rochelle 78800 7410 154 2 New York City 8396126 26403 34822 4.1 Ossining Village 25314 7831 55 2.2 White Plains 57559 5734 190 3.3 Yonkers 199134 10651 616 ...... rime Po!!ce Part 1 Crimes Municipality Part 1 Violent Part 1 Property Officers per Officer Rank Port Chester 48 572 58 10.6 l New Rochelle 175 1391 154 10.1 2 Mount Vernon 554 1436 207 9.6 3 Pelham 7 172 25 7.1 4 White P!o!ns 78 1232 190 6.8 5 New York 52384 141971 34822 5.5 6 Yonkers 1036 2368 616 5.5 6 Greenburgh 48 578 115 5.4 7 Peekskill 30 248 54 5.1 8 Ossining Village 36 243 55 5 9 Bedford 5 156 37 4.6 10 Mount Kisco 17 108 29 4.6 10 Scarsdale l 184 42 4.4 12 Mamaroneck Town l 1588 37 4.2 13 Harrison 6 225 59 3.9 14 Mamaroneck Village 8 181 49 3.8 15 Eastchester 2 168 45 3.7 16 Rye Brook 2 88 27 3.3 17 Croton 53 20 2.7 18 Bronxvllle 0 47 21 2.2 19 Ardsley 5 33 19 2 20 Irvington 0 23 22 l 21 Briarcliff Manor 11 19 0.6 22 Average 4.856522 Attachment B - Survey Summary Page 13 Attachment B - Survey Summary ·,.:,,... Port Chester Strategic Plan March 2017 February 3 and 4, 2017 Port Chester Senior Center Kevin Knutson, Regional Vice President Jacquelyn McCray, Senior Manager Management Partners • Respondents were asked to identify how important they believe it is for Port Chester leadership to address specific issue areas in the following categories: • Community and Neighborhoods m Economic Development and Downtown m Financial Stability " Land Use and Development " Village Structure, Operations and Facilities " Director and Manager Issue Areas • Responses were given a rating where "Very Important" = 4, "Important"= 3, "Somewhat Important"= 2, and "Not Very Important"= 1. Manageme.nn~t Partners~· 2 Community and Neighborhoods (74 Responses) Answer Options Rating Average ' Improving trust between government and the community 3.66 Addressing overcrowding of homes and residential properties 3.5 Building a strong sense of community 3.44 Improving government transparency 3.25 Maintaining active boards and commissions 3.24 Promoting neighborhood redevelopment/reinvestment 3.2 Maintaining our position as a community for young families and diverse 3.17 populations Conducting an assessment of property conditions 3.16 Using social media to provide relevant information 3.07 Soliciting more public input 2.8 Addressing the needs of a growing bilingual community 2.73 Celebrating the Village sesquicentennial 2.59 Continuing the Property Maintenance Amnesty Program 2.43 Manage men~ Partners~- 3 co.nomic Development and Downtown ;;>. -:~:- . (73 Responses) ,. Answer Options Rating Average - - Redeveloping key Village gateways (i.e., United Hospital site) 3.59 Improving downtown parking 3.49 Developing/redeveloping waterfront properties (Village-owned and privately- 3.34 owned) Redeveloping sites for their highest and best use 3.28 Redeveloping old industrial areas 3.18 Improving the development review process 3.13 Improving directional signage 3.03 Instituting innovative redevelopment tools {Generic Environmental Impact 2.81 Statement, form-based codes, Business Improvement Districts) Improving the Capitol Theatre area 2.81 Assessing the use of eminent domain to remove blight 2.65 Strengthening our relationship with the Industrial Development Agency {IDA) 2.64 Becoming a tourist destination 2.11 Allowing higher density development 2.01 Manageme.. n~tn . Partners~ 4 Answer Options Rating Average Conducting long-range financial planning 3.46 Maintaining a fiscally sound position 3.28 Addressing decreasing revenues 3.25 Restructuring the millage rate/tax cap 3.12 Addressing an inadequate tax base 3.08 Pursuing "city" status 3.02 Adhering to the capital plan 3 Addressing the lagging economy 2.99 Obtaining taxing authority 2.86 Obtaining Village control of property assessments 2.77 Manage me.. nn~t Partners~ 5 la11.d Use and Development (73 Responses) Answer Options Rating Average -- - - Implementing traffic improvements 3.48 Removing illegal rental properties 3.44 Enforcing the property maintenance code through concentrated code 3.24 enforcement Adopting a Smart Growth approach to future planning and 3.24 development Developing a strong sense of place 3.23 Updating the zoning code 3.17 Reviewing building, engineering, permitting fees 3.01 Improving development/redevelopment processes and guidance 3.01 Developing affordable housing 2.53 Developing multi-family housing 2.21 Manageme.~n.t . Partners~ 6 vtl[lage $tructure, Operations and Facilities (73 Responses) ~tt~ -i_:~J: Answer Options Rating Average Reducing employee attrition/loss of key personnel 3.49 Adopting an acceptable system to elect the Board of 3.36 Trustees (post consent decree) Focusing on policy initiatives 3.27 Demonstrating local and regional leadership 3.21 Shortening Board of Trustees meetings 3.15 Managemen Partners 7 Director and Manager Issue Areas (73 Responses) Answer Options Rating Average Rewarding dedicated and responsive staff 3.77 Recruiting and retaining talented employees 3.75 Improving workforce morale 3.68 Addressing aging infrastructure 3.64 Improving inadequate facilities/working conditions 3.56 Addressing aging equipment 3.55 Improving organizational efficiency and effectiveness 3.54 Improving technology systems and use of technology 3.51 Improving employee wages 3.5 Increasing staff capacity 3.49 Improving internal communication 3.49 Increasing opportunities for employee development 3.47 Promoting staff accountability 3.44 lncreasine: caoacitv for emernencv resoonse and oreoaredness 3.42 Addre·ssing backlogs in workload 3.35 Improving external communication 3.33 Integrating management and information systems 3.27 Implementing performance management 3.26 Improving customer service 3.25 Ootimizing work orocesses and service delivery 3.23 Evaluating contractor and vendor services 3.14 Conducting succession planning 3.08 Promoting environmental sustainability 2.97 Assessing overtime expenses 2.96 Evaluating greater use of shared services 2.89 Managemm:;>__ nt .. Partners .. · 8 < >Nhat does the Village do well? (42 Responses) • Open-End question were categorized into common themes - i: '<, ' ,, Number of Percent of Total : ' , , -''Theme ' I - Responses Responses Public Safety 7 18% Good Staff 6 15% Public Works 6 15% Community Engagement 5 13% Teamwork (internal) 4 10% Service Provision 3 8% Transportation 1 3% Building Maintenance 1 3% Fire Response 1 3% Manageme.nn~t . . Partners~ 9 111 what.areas can the Village improve? .. ,:;.·>:.{··· ...... __ ,._.., :.:;•·,·•...... ,. ·__ ·, .. ' (48 Responses) • Open-End responses were categorized into common themes , . <.:-·,: Theme , Number of PercentofTotal - · ~ _:, a- , 1 Responses Responses Board of Trustee/Staff Communication 7 18% Village Overcrowding/Traffic Congestion 6 15% Community Engagement 5 13% Employee Morale 5 13% Long-Term Planning/Economic Development 4 10% Public Housing 3 8% Internal Communication 3 8% Increase Staff Capacity 2 5% Internal Accountability 1 3% Staff Diversity 1 3% Teamwork 1 3% Streamlined Code Enforcement 1 3% Manage~ Partners ... - ·· 10 a) Maintaining our position as a community for young families and diverse populations 3% b) Promoting neighborhood 31 30 10 3 0 redevelopment/reinvestment 0% c) Continuing the Property Maintenance Amnesty 14 19 17 18 4 Program 6% d) Addressing overcrowding of homes and residential so 14 7 3 0 properties 0% 31 27 11 4 1 e) Conducting an assessment of property conditions 1% f) Improving trust between government and the 54 16 3 1 0 community 0% 36 21 10 4 2 g) Improving government transparency 3% h) Addressing the needs _of a growing bilingual 17 30 17 10 0 community 0% 13 28 18 12 2 i) Celebrating the Village sesquicentennial 3% 21 23 24 6 0 j) Soliciting more public input 0% 27 29 14 4 0 k) Using social media to provide relevant information 0% 44 19 8 2 0 I) Building a strong sense of community 0% 31 31 6 4 1 m) Maintaining active boards and commissions 86% 14% 1% Managemen Partners 11 . Ecgnomic Development i(,i an'cl Downtown Issues Very Somewhat Not Very Issues Important Important Important Important Don't Know 10 15 20 27 1 a) Becoming a tourist destination 35% 65% 1% 36 24 8 4 1 b) Redeveloping sites for their highest and best use I I 83% 17% 1% 46 I 25 1 I 1 0 c) Redeveloping key Village gateways (i.e., United Hospital site) 97% 3% 0% 27 I 35 6 I 4 0 d) Redeveloping old industrial areas 86% 14% 0% 37 23 9 2 2 e) Developing/redeveloping waterfront properties (Village- I I owned and privately-owned) 85% 15% 3% 15 I 27 17 I 5 7 f) Instituting innovative redevelopment tools (Generic Environmental Impact Statement, form-based codes, 66% 34% 10% Business Improvement Districts) 7 I 14 21 I 27 2 g) Allowing higher density development 30% 70% 3% h) Strengthening our relationship with the Industrial 13 I 23 23 I 7 6 Development Agency (IDA) 55% 45% 8% 48 I 16 6 I 3 0 l) Improving downtown parking 88% 12% 0% 25 I 27 13 I 5 2 j) Improving directional signage 74% 26% 3% 21 I 24 16 I 9 2 k) Improving the Capitol Theatre area 64% 36% 3% 22 I 34 11 I 1 5 I) Improving the development review process 82% 18% 7% 11 I 21 24 I 4 9 m) Assessing the use of eminent domain to remove blight 53% 47% 13% Manageme.nn~t· Partners~· 12 Somewhat 1 Not Don't Issues Very Important Important Important · Very Important Know a) Addressing the lagging economy 71% 29% 0% 34 I 26 8 I 4 0 b) Addressing decreasing revenues 83% 17% 0% 25 19 14 2 12 c) Restructuring the millage rate/tax cap I I 73% 27% 17% 18 24 15 9 6 d) Obtaining Village control of property assessments I I 64% 36% 8% 26 23 11 5 7 e) Addressing an inadequate tax base I I 75% 25% 10% 17 I 29 15 I 1 9 f) Adhering to the capital plan 74% 26% 13% 33 25 8 3 2 g) Maintaining a fiscally sound position I I 84% 16% 3% 40 25 5 1 0 h) Conducting long-range financial planning I I 92% 8% 0% 16 25 10 7 13 i) Obtaining taxing authority I I 71% 29% 18% 27 I 20 10 I 8 7 j) Pursuing "city" status 72% 28% 10% Managem.ee.. nn~t• Partners~ 13 .. Somewhat Not Very Don't , Answer Oh~ons ~ ·1 Very Important Important Important Important Know 29 a) Updating the zoning code 3 81% 19% 4% b) Enforcing the property maintenance code 32 I 26 13 I 1 0 through concentrated code enforcement 81% 19% 0% I 9 10 4 0 c) Removing illegal rental properties so I 81% 19% 0% 19 17 21 16 d) Developing affordable housing I I 0 49% 51% 0% 10 I 20 17 25 1 e) Developing multi~family housing I 42% 58% 1% f) Adopting a Smart Growth approach to future 32 I 20 12 I 2 6 planning and development 79% 21% 8% 42 l 25 5 I 1 0 g) Implementing traffic improvements 92% 8% 0% h) Reviewing building, engineering, permitting 28 I 20 15 I 6 1 fees 70% 30% 1% i) Improving development/redevelopment 26 I 24 17 I 4 1 processes and guidance 70% 30% 1% 32 I 26 10 3 1 j) Developing a strong sense of place I 82% 18% 1% Manageme_~nt Partners~· 14 Village. Structure, Operations and Facility Issues Somewhat Not Very Don't I Answer Options Very Important Important Important Important Know a) Recruiting and retaining talented 56 16 1 0 0 employees 99% 1% 0% 58 I 13 2 I 0 0 b) Rewarding dedicated and responsive staff 97% 3% 0% 36 20 10 I 4 3 c) Implementing performance management I 80% 20% 4% 44 I 19 8 I 2 0 d) Promoting staff accountability 86% 14% 0% 23 I 25 14 2 e) Conducting succession planning I 6 75% 25% 9% f) Increasing opportunities for employee 41 I 26 3 I 2 0 development 93% 7% 0% g) Improving technology systems and use of 43 I 25 4 I 1 0 technology 93% 7% 0% 20 31 12 8 h) Evaluating greater use of shared services I I 0 72% 28% 0% 44 I 23 3 I 1 2 i) Addressing aging equipment 94% 6% 3% 46 I 23 1 I 0 2 j) Addressing aging infrastructure 99% 1% 3% k) Improving inadequate facilities/working 46 I 23 3 I 1 0 conditions 95% 5% 0% 43 I 19 7 I 1 2 I) Increasing staff capacity 89% 11% 3% 34 I 30 5 I 2 1 m) Addressing backlogs in workload 90% 10% 1% n) Integrating management and information 28 I 35 5 I 2 1 systems 90% 10% 1% Manageme.~nt.. Partners~· 15 Village Structure, Operations and Facility Issues Somewhat Not Very Don't Answer Options Very Important Important Important Important Know o) Optimizing work processes and service 27 34 7 2 2 delivery 87% 3% p) Evaluating contractor and vendor 20 42 8 1 1 services 87% 1% 21 28 14 5 0 q) Assessing overtime expenses 72% 0% r) Promoting environmental 18 34 12 4 3 sustainabili.ty 76% 24% 4% s) Increasing capacity for emergency 41 22 7 2 0 response and preparedness 88% 13% 0% t) Improving organizational efficiency and 43 24 3 1 0 effectiveness 94% 6% 0% 33 25 11 2 1 u) Improving customer service 82% 18% 1% 45 21 5 2 0 v) Improving internal communication 90% 10% 0% 37 25 9 2 0 w) Improving external communication 85% 15% 0% 52 17 3 0 1 x) Improving workforce morale 96% 4% 1% 42 24 6 0 1 y) Improving employee wages 92% 8% 1% Manageme.~nt . • Partners~ 16 APPENDIXS BOARD RESOLUTIONS REGARDING CITY STATUS COMMITTEE RESOLUTION BUDGET TRANSFER IN ANTICIPATION OF ESTABLISHING AND CONSTITUTING A CITY STATUS COMMITTEE On motion of TRUSTEE DIDDEN, seconded by TRUSTEE ADAMS, the following resolution was adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Port Chester, New York: WHEREAS, the Village of Port Chester continues to face increasingly urban challenges and service demands unique to cities; and · WHEREAS, the Village of Port Chester has more people per square mile than the cities of Boston, Philadelphia, Miami or Portland, Oregon; and WHEREAS, in order to provide the acceptable levels of service delivery and quality of life amenities to its residents, the Village must acquire new means of resources and assistance from outside sources; and WHEREAS, the Village of Port Chester has intermittently discussed becoming a city for many years; and WHEREAS, the Village's adopted Strategic Plan identifies advancing city status as a policy issue which the entire community can unify behind; and WHEREAS, the Village Board of Trustees desires to implement the objectives set forth in the adopted Strategic Plan; and WHEREAS, in anticipation of the establishment and constitution ofa City Status Committee, the Board acknowledges the need to create a budget for this effort. Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees authorizes the Village Treasurer to transfer $25,000 from Contingency account ale 1.1990.400 to the Board of Trustees contractual line I.1010.400. Approved as to Form: Anthony M. Cerreta, Village Attorney ROLL CALL A YES: Trustees Didden, Brakewood, Ferrara, Adams, Ceccarelli, Marino and Mayor Falanka. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. DATE: November 20, 2017. RESOLUTION BUDGET TRANSFER IN ANTICIPATION OF ESTABLISHING AND CONSTITUTING A CITY STATUS COMMITTEE On motion of TRUSTEE DIDDEN, seconded by TRUSTEE ADAMS, the following resolution was adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Port Chester, New York: WHEREAS, the Village of Port Chester continues to face increasingly urban challenges and service demands unique to cities; and WHEREAS, the Village of Port Chester has more people per square mile than the cities of Boston, Philadelphia, Miami or Portland, Oregon; and WHEREAS, in order to provide the acceptable levels of service delivery and quality of life amenities to its residents, the Village must acquire new means of resources and assistance from outside sources; and WHEREAS, the Village of Port Chester has intermittently discussed becoming a city for many years; and WHEREAS, the Village's adopted Strategic Plan identifies advaricing city status as a policy issue which the entire community can unify behind; and WHEREAS, the Village Board of Trustees desires to implement the objectives set forth _in the adopted Strategic Plan; and WHEREAS, in anticipation of the establishment and constitution of a City Status Committee, the Board acknowledges the need to create a budget for this effort. Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees authorizes the Village Treasurer to transfer $25,000 from Contingency account ale 1.1990.400 to the Board of Trustees contractual line 1.1010.400. Approved as to Form: Anthony M. Cerreta, Village Attorney ROLL CALL AYES: Trustees Didden, Brakewood, Ferrara, Adams, Ceccarelli, Marino and Mayor Falanka. NOES:None. ABSENT: None. DATE: November 20, 2017. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A CITY STATUS COMMITTEE On motion of TRUSTEE ADAM, seconded by TRUSTEE FERRARA, the following resolution was adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Port Chester, New York: WHEREAS, the Village of Port Chester continues to face increasingly urban challenges and service demands unique to cities; and WHEREAS, the Village of Port Chester has more people per square mile. than the cities of Boston, Philadelphia, Miami or Portland, Oregon; and WHEREAS, in order to provide the acceptable levels of service delivery and quality of life amenities to its residents, the Village must acquire new means of resources and assistance from outside sources; and WHEREAS, the Village of Port Chester has intermittently discussed becoming a city for many years; and WHEREAS, the Village's adopted Strategic Plan identifies advancing city status as a policy issue which the entire community can unify behind; and WHEREAS, the Village Board of Trustees desires to implement the objectives set forth in the adopted Strategic Plan; and WHEREAS, the Board has appropriated the amount of $25,000 towards this effort. Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees hereby establishes a City Status Committee, to consist of 15 members, who shall be charged with assisting the Board as to whether the Village of Port Chester should become a city; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Committee shall have access to Village staff as may be appropriate as well as make request on the Board for such specialized resources as it deems necessary; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Committee shall meet at regular intervals and provide the Board an initial report within six months and a final report, which may include a draft city charter, within 12 months from this date. Approved as to Form: Anthony M. Cerreto, Village Attorney ROLL CALL A YES: Trustees Ferrara, Adams, Ceccarelli, Marino and Mayor Falanka. NOES:None. ABSENT: Trustees Didden and Brakewood. DATE: December 4, 2017. RESOLUTION APPOINTMENTS TO THE CITY STATUS COMMITTEE On motion of TRUSTEE ADAM, seconded by TRUSTEE FERRARA, the following resolution was adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Port Chester, New York: WHEREAS, Board of Trustees has duly established a City Status Committee to assist the Board in determining whether to become a city; and WHEREAS, the Board engaged in a public process to actively solicit interested persons to serve on the Committee; and WHEREAS, the Board has received a positive response to such solicitation. Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees hereby appoints the following persons, to serve at its pleasure, as members to the City Status Committee: Francis Ferrara Luis A. Marino Charles Coletti Anthony Napoli Richard Lanza Keith Morlino Marie Sileo Nancy Donahue Brian A. Devaney Joseph W. Lodato Peter Pascale Neil Pagano Joan Tosh Approved as to Form: Anthony M. Cerreta. Village Attorney ROLL CALL AYES: Trustees Ferrara, Adams, Ceccarelli, Marino and Mayor Falanka. NOES:None. ABSENT: Trustees Didden and Brakewood. DATE: December 4, 2017. Inaugural Meeting of PORT CHESTER the City Status Committee FROM VILLAGE TO CITY? April 25, 2018 • Cities by definition are denser, urban areas that require a higher level of services, whether it be public safety, public works, the need to plan and regulate building, or other services. • This often requires a far larger budget than can be generated from the property tax base of a Village. Port Chester for example finds that its property tax base is insufficient to run a modern, urban municipality. • Among the benefits of being a City are expansive taxing powers. Most importantly they can levy their own Sales Tax, which can be a significant source of WHAT IS THE municipal funding. ATTRACTION TO • The State authorizes Westchester County to charge a 3% sales tax. The County in turn keeps 1 .5% for itself and splits the balance of 1 .5% between itself and the BE COM I NG A CITY? Villages and School Districts within its jurisdiction. · • Cities have the right to "pre-empt" the 1.5% the County shares - take it all for themselves. Often, the State will allow them to charge up to 1% on top of this, making the Sales Tax a significant source of revenue in a City with a robust economy. • Notably the cities of Rye and Peekskill do not "pre-empt" the County but choose to share in the County distribution. Neither has a sufficiently robust economy on its own to generate meaningful Sales Tax. PORT CHESTER'S TORTURED HISTORY IN PURSUIT OF CITY STATUS " FDR VETOES THE CITY OF PORT CHESTER! AN ACT. . . . The Village has been trying to ·- become a city longer than To ~ate the city of Port ~ •.' many of us realize. The earliest ~ .-\lh,1ny. ;\. '{. "!'!I... attempt I have been able to unearth dates to 1931. \' e t C) .J a c k et (~ C) 11 e c ti C> n • New young Mayor, 37 year old Joe Dzaluk, wins in part on City Status as a burning issue. • Dzaluk and the Republican board chafe under the Democrat run Town of Rye. Port Chester provides vital services to TOR, feels it gets nothing in return, yet is required to pay TOR's property taxes to help support the unincorporated areas that AN EFFORT IN 1970 would become Rye Brook in 1 982, even as PC's fiscal situation SOURED RELATIONS deteriorates. BETWEEN • He commissions a report from SUNY Albany economics THE VILLAGE Professor Robert Pettengill that sees the value in pursuing City AND THE Status, citing the possibility of replacing property taxes with sales taxes, but performs no statistical analysis. TOWN OF RYE • The issue becomes a political donnybrook, souring relations with TOR. Dzaluk ultimately drops the effort to focus on less contentious matters. • New Port Chester Mayor Pete lasillo, who had been a trustee under Dzaluk, considered the issue unresolved, and thought it held promise. • Pace University is commissioned to more authoritatively study alternative forms of government and solutions to PC's chronic budget woes. • Pace recommends lobbying for a 1°/o additional sales tax within Port Chester collected by the County, which promptly goes nowhere. A 1981 STUDY SAW NO CERTAIN • They also consider dissolving the Village into the Town of Rye to escape the Village's decaying tax base and take advantage of the growth FINANCIAL potential in the unincorporated areas. ADVANTAGE TO • Can it be a coincidence that the unincorporated areas become the CITY STATUS Village of Rye Brook within a year!? • The report sees no certain advantage to any type of government change. • How times change. In 1 981 Cities were considered "less affluent" and to "need special assistance." Port Chester was cautioned not to embrace such a negative stereotype! • Mayor John Branca again hires Pace University to study the issue of governmental structural change. • They warn that there are no procedures to follow for City Status nor are there metrics the Village must meet. They point out considerable political obstacles. A 1996 STUDY WAS • They caution about the uncertain result on assessments once TOR A THOROUGH properties are excluded from the assessables base. ANALYSIS BUT DID • For the first time ever the impact of levying our own Sales Tax is documented, and it is deemed not significant unless PC would be NOT GIVE AN allowed to charge an additional 1 % in Sales Tax by Albany, which ENDORSEMENT. other cities in Westchester do but would by no means be guaranteed. THE EFFORT LOST • The report expresses concerns about "the uncertainty of the future ITS POLITICAL development of Port Chester's economy." CHAMPIONS. • Ultimately, a change in the political structure of the Board extinguished any enthusiasm for the effort at that time. The focus turns to development of the downtown. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES MAKES FORMAL INQUIRIES ABOUT CITY STATUS IN 2005, BUT THE ISSUE NEVER GAINS POLITICAL TRACTION. WITH THIS HISTORY OF UNCERTAIN BENEFIT, UNLIKELY CHANCES OF SUCCESS, AND A LACK OF POLITICAL WILL, WHY LOOK AT THIS ISSUE AGAIN? • According to the US Census Bureau, Retail Sales generated in Port Chester in 2012, the last year available, are estimated to be $624 MM. • As a City, Port Chester would be entitled to half the County's 3% Sales Tax, or 1.5°/o. • The math is compelling. 1.5% of $624 MM is over $9.3 MM. REASON: PORT CHESTER IS A • In the current fiscal year, Port Chester's share of County Sales Tax, distributed by population instead of where it's generated, was less REGIONAL than $4.3 MM. ECONOMIC • The l 996 Pace analysis suggested only 80% of PC's retail sales POWERHOUSE! would be taxable. That would still represent over $7.4 MM. • If the State allows us to charge an additional l % like the other Cities in the County, that brings in another $6.25 MM! • This is an incredible advance from l 996, when Pace suggested the amount realized from levying our own Sales Tax could be negligible. •!• School Districts in Cities that "pre-empt" the County Sales Tax no longer get a share of County Sales Tax. It all goes to the new City government. •!• Would there be sufficient funds to make the schools whole and still make the effort worthwhile? POTENTIAL ► Port Chester would have to comply with City mandates, DRAWBACKS IN but as an urban Village we appear to comply with the NEED OF FURTHER mandates at least as they were detailed in the 1 996 STUDY report. ► Mandates include our own Police and Fire Departments, Courts, Planning Commission, and administration of ALL elections. ► The only thing we don't appear to do now that's mandated is Assessments and Tax Collection, but that would likely be absorbed from TOR. ,~;;~;c1~;.lf~:~~~~1~:~i~I-TB~·'!2i"' I f'i"i)·•;))J._ Q~,._... ., a.a#" DIVISION OF LoCAL GoVERNMENT SERVICES Alan G. Hevesi & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT lJI 011tdated M11nicipal Struct11res Cities, Towns and Villages -18th Century Designations for 21st Century Communities ~i\.n examination of how traditional classifications no longer fit many of NEW YORK STATE today's local gO\'"ernments, and a discussion of policy implications HAS ACKNOWLEDGED ITS PROBLEM IN A 2006 PUBLICATION NYS HAS 63 CITIES, WITH NO NEW CITIES CREATED SINCE 1942. THIS HAS PREVENTED NYS MUNICIPALITIES FROM ADAPTING THEIR STRUCTURE AND RESOURCES AS THEY EVOLVE. AND SINCE 1961 THE SELKIRK LAW HAS PROHIBITED CITIES FROM GROWING THROUGH ANNEXATION STUNTING THEIR GROWTH. TODAY OUR INCUMBENT CITIES HAVE ERODED TO THE POINT WHERE ONLY 20 CITIES STILL HAVE MORE THAN 30,000 PEOPLE. (PORT CHESTER'S POPULATION) 12 CITIES HAVE SHRUNK TO 10,000 OR FEWER INHABITANTS. Major Urban Centers (Ranked by Population, 2000 Census) Name Class County Population Hempstead Town Nassau 755,924 B.cookhaven Town Suffolk 448,248 Islip Town Suffolk 322,612 NEW YORK STATE Oyster Bay Town Nassau 293,925 HAS MAJOR URBAN Buffalo City Erie 292,648 North Hempstead Town Nassau 222,611 AREAS IN DESPERATE Rochester City Moru:oe 219,773 Babylon Town Suffolk 211,792 NEED OF Yonke.cs City Westchester 196,086 Hunti11gton Town Suffolk 195,289 STRUCTURAL Sy.cacuse City Onondaga 147,306 REFORM Amherst Town Erie 116,510 Smithtown Town Suffolk 115,715 Ramapo Town Rocltlaud 108,905 Albany City Albany 95,658 Cheektowaga Town Erie 94,019 Clarkstown Town Rocltlaud 82,082 Southampton Town Suffolk 54,712 White Plains Westchester · Smaller Urban Centers - Upstate - -.-----·- - . - . - Towns Eli ,.....,. B:oekpo • Established Cities will have another competitor for state WHY IS BECOMING aid designated for Cities only. A CITY SO HARD? • We need to build a willing coalition in the State Assembly and Senate and have a willing Governor. What is their incentive? •!• Up to date analysis on the cost/benefit, although we are fairly certain it is worth an effort. ► Outreach throughout the County to solicit support. ► There is an equity argument to be made. ► As well as an argument regarding the importance of a healthy Port Chester within the County. WHAT ARE OUR ► Not to mention that we are this area of the County's shopping "NEXT STEPS"? destination. Will anyone ever again support these uses without getting their benefits (sales tax) while being saddled with the costs? ✓ Outreach across the state to similar communities with other Assembly and Senate representatives to build a "coalition of the determined!" I APPENDIX6 PRESENTATION AT INAUGURAL MEETING OF CITY STATUS COMMITTEE from the desk of Frank Ferrara An Analysis of Retail Sales in Port Chester Juxtaposed to Westchester County Cities Westchester County contains 4 cities that retain a portion of the Sales Tax generated within their communities: Yonkers, White Plains, New Rochelle and Mount Vernon. This income is needed to offset the added municipal costs that come with density and services. Port Chester is a village and as such only shares in a portion of Sales Tax revenue generated throughout Westchester County excluding the cities, as opposed to retaining its own income. Here is how Port Chester compares as a Sales Generating economic unit and a provider of value to the surrounding communities: %age of %age of Per %age of County Sales: Sales Value local:County Municipality Population County Retail Sales County Capita %age of County Creation Income Ratio Population Sales Income Population Ratio * Rating** Westchester County 949,113 100% $14,205,055 100% $47,984 1.00 1.00 1.00 Yonkers 195,979 21% $2,591,145 18% $29,679 0.88 0.62 1.43 White Plains 56,853 6% $2,004,619 14% $45,122 2.36 0.94 2.51 New Rochelle 77,062 8% $1,031,519 7% $40,705 0.89 0.85 1.05 Mount Vernon 67,290 7% $583,799 4% $27,454 0.58 0.57 1.01 Port Chester 28,967 3% $613,197 4% $27,174 1.41 0.57 2.50 • - %age of County Sales:%age of County Population Ratio -An indication of the attractiveness of the community in drawing outside sales. Broadly speaking, the further below 1.00, the less attractive as a retail destination. Conversely, the higher above 1.00 the more attractive. •• - Sales Value Creation Ratio - Created by crossing the County Sales:County Population ratio with the Local:County Income Ratio. As opposed to a scale, this is a reading that starts at 1.00. Broadly speaking, more affluent communities are likely to generate more sales from within their population base. The lower relative income and the further this reading is above 1.00 the more likely the community is providing valuable retail services to other communities, bearing the costs of providing those services for which retention of sales tax is required to offset. Port Chester scores as highly as White Plains in Sales Value Creation. But as opposed to White Plains its lowest in the county relative income means an outsized portion of its sales are made to residents of other communities. In fact, it could be argued that more than any other community in the County, Port Chester is the retail center more for other communities than its own. Communities that do not bear the costs associated with greater traffic and density, which sales tax revenue is designed to assist in offsetting. 29 Lafayette Drive Port Chester, New York 10573 e-mail: [email protected] cell: 914-980-7238 APPENDIX7 AN ANALYSIS OF RETAIL SALES IN PORT CHESTER JUXTAPOSED TO WESTCHESTER COUNTY CITIES