DOCSLIB.ORG

The Top 250 Safest Small Towns in the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Top 250 Safest Small Towns in the United States The Top 250 Safest Small Towns in the United States Rank State City Population Violent Violent Crimes Per 1,000 Crimes Residents 1 New Jersey Waldwick 9,997 0.00 0 1 South Dakota Brandon 9,992 0.00 0 1 Connecticut Redding 9,344 0.00 0 1 Utah Mapleton 9,336 0.00 0 1 New York Whitestown Town 9,252 0.00 0 1 Maine Cape Elizabeth 9,230 0.00 0 1 New Jersey Chatham 9,039 0.00 0 1 New York Malverne Village 8,581 0.00 0 1 Tennessee Signal Mountain 8,579 0.00 0 1 New York Kirkland Town 8,351 0.00 0 1 Massachusetts Boxford 8,275 0.00 0 1 New York Briarcliff Manor Village 8,028 0.00 0 1 Nebraska York 8,008 0.00 0 1 New Jersey Chester Township 7,964 0.00 0 1 Pennsylvania Camp Hill 7,892 0.00 0 1 New Jersey Bernardsville 7,763 0.00 0 1 Illinois Gilberts 7,727 0.00 0 1 Connecticut Easton 7,663 0.00 0 1 Maine Cumberland 7,641 0.00 0 1 Illinois Inverness 7,639 0.00 0 1 Michigan Kinross Township 7,571 0.00 0 1 Kentucky Villa Hills 7,455 0.00 0 1 New Stratham 7,400 0.00 0 Hampshire 1 Kentucky Flatwoods 7,380 0.00 0 1 Pennsylvania Eastern Adams Regional 7,347 0.00 0 1 Pennsylvania New Cumberland 7,268 0.00 0 1 Florida Longboat Key 7,206 0.00 0 1 New Jersey North Caldwell 6,938 0.00 0 1 Minnesota St. Joseph 6,883 0.00 0 1 Pennsylvania East Earl Township 6,800 0.00 0 1 New York Horseheads Village 6,734 0.00 0 1 New York Stillwater Town 6,701 0.00 0 1 New Jersey Rockaway 6,494 0.00 0 1 Nebraska Plattsmouth 6,484 0.00 0 1 New Jersey Lebanon Township 6,421 0.00 0 1 Michigan Gaines Township 6,209 0.00 0 1 New Jersey Fair Haven 6,029 0.00 0 1 Massachusetts Dover 5,952 0.00 0 1 Missouri Glendale 5,926 0.00 0 1 New Jersey Tewksbury Township 5,908 0.00 0 1 Pennsylvania Luzerne Township 5,900 0.00 0 1 New Jersey Norwood 5,843 0.00 0 1 New York Elmira Town 5,820 0.00 0 Rank State City Population Violent Violent Crimes Per 1,000 Crimes Residents 1 New Jersey Blairstown Township 5,802 0.00 0 1 Illinois Spring Grove 5,712 0.00 0 1 Michigan Cambridge Township 5,671 0.00 0 1 Minnesota Corcoran 5,562 0.00 0 1 New Jersey Greenwich Township, Warren 5,539 0.00 0 County 1 Ohio Waterville 5,515 0.00 0 1 Rhode Island Jamestown 5,494 0.00 0 1 New New Boston 5,484 0.00 0 Hampshire 1 Texas Terrell Hills 5,296 0.00 0 1 New Jersey Mount Arlington 5,252 0.00 0 1 Oregon Warrenton 5,218 0.00 0 1 Pennsylvania Paint Township 5,156 0.00 0 1 Vermont Waterbury 5,105 0.00 0 1 Pennsylvania Granville Township 5,062 0.00 0 1 Michigan Lapeer Township 5,054 0.00 0 1 Minnesota Thomson Township 5,054 0.00 0 1 Wisconsin Richland Center 5,038 0.00 0 61 Minnesota Arden Hills 9,956 1.00 0.1004 62 South Carolina Tega Cay 9,501 1.00 0.1052 63 New Jersey Washington Township, Bergen 9,341 1.00 0.107 County 64 Illinois Glencoe 8,971 1.00 0.1114 65 New Jersey Park Ridge 8,872 1.00 0.1127 66 New Jersey Long Hill Township 8,812 1.00 0.1134 67 New Jersey Cresskill 8,796 1.00 0.1136 68 Illinois Clarendon Hills 8,714 1.00 0.1147 69 Wisconsin Oconomowoc Town 8,654 1.00 0.1155 70 Pennsylvania O'Hara Township 8,594 1.00 0.1163 71 California Los Altos Hills 8,485 1.00 0.1178 72 Ohio Wyoming 8,426 1.00 0.1186 73 Pennsylvania Pleasant Hills 8,287 1.00 0.1206 74 New Jersey Bedminster Township 8,222 1.00 0.1216 75 New Jersey Montvale 8,207 1.00 0.1218 76 New Jersey Lopatcong Township 8,091 1.00 0.1235 77 New Jersey Byram Township 8,035 1.00 0.1244 78 Ohio Bellevue 8,025 1.00 0.1246 79 Illinois Hawthorn Woods 7,905 1.00 0.1265 80 Ohio St. Clair Township 7,772 1.00 0.1286 81 New Jersey Fanwood 7,727 1.00 0.1294 82 New York Eden Town 7,707 1.00 0.1297 83 New York Baldwinsville Village 7,702 1.00 0.1298 84 New Jersey Emerson 7,656 1.00 0.1306 85 Pennsylvania Spring Township, Centre County 7,612 1.00 0.1313 86 Michigan Raisin Township 7,574 1.00 0.132 87 Washington Selah 7,505 1.00 0.1332 Rank State City Population Violent Violent Crimes Per 1,000 Crimes Residents 88 Pennsylvania Hatboro 7,441 1.00 0.1343 89 Illinois West Dundee 7,405 1.00 0.135 90 Pennsylvania West Cocalico Township 7,395 1.00 0.1352 91 Pennsylvania East Marlborough Township 7,302 1.00 0.1369 92 Illinois Lincolnshire 7,295 1.00 0.137 93 New York Lakewood-Busti 7,218 1.00 0.1385 94 Maine Rockland 7,202 1.00 0.1388 95 New York Mount Hope Town 7,095 1.00 0.1409 96 Ohio Bellbrook 7,052 1.00 0.1418 97 New Jersey Linwood 7,042 1.00 0.142 98 New Jersey Mountainside 6,860 1.00 0.1457 99 New Jersey Allendale 6,845 1.00 0.146 100 New York Tuckahoe Village5 6,656 1.00 0.1502 101 New York Irvington Village 6,620 1.00 0.151 102 Michigan Adrian Township 6,352 1.00 0.1574 103 Iowa Orange City 6,173 1.00 0.1619 104 Wisconsin Freedom 6,062 1.00 0.1649 105 California Villa Park 6,002 1.00 0.1666 106 Illinois Lakemoor 6,002 1.00 0.1666 107 New Jersey Old Tappan 5,980 1.00 0.1672 108 New York Rosendale Town 5,957 1.00 0.1678 109 New Jersey Little Silver 5,910 1.00 0.1692 110 New Jersey Woodcliff Lake 5,895 1.00 0.1696 111 New Jersey Mendham Township 5,889 1.00 0.1698 112 Minnesota Medina 5,880 1.00 0.17 113 Ohio Indian Hill 5,814 1.00 0.1719 114 Illinois Lake Bluff 5,695 1.00 0.1755 115 Pennsylvania Wright Township 5,645 1.00 0.1771 116 Utah Nephi 5,537 1.00 0.1806 117 Pennsylvania Vernon Township 5,502 1.00 0.1817 118 Illinois Northfield 5,497 1.00 0.1819 119 Pennsylvania Redstone Township 5,445 1.00 0.1836 120 New Jersey Englewood Cliffs 5,400 1.00 0.1851 121 Arkansas Greenbrier 5,339 1.00 0.1873 122 Wyoming Worland 5,335 1.00 0.1874 123 California Kensington 5,329 1.00 0.1876 124 Idaho Weiser 5,321 1.00 0.1879 125 Ohio Russell Township 5,262 1.00 0.19 126 Oklahoma Lone Grove 5,248 1.00 0.1905 127 Wisconsin Slinger 5,193 1.00 0.1925 128 New Jersey Holland Township 5,183 1.00 0.1929 129 New York Kings Point Village 5,138 1.00 0.1946 130 Massachusetts Carlisle 5,126 1.00 0.195 131 Indiana Bluffton 9,985 2.00 0.2003 132 Pennsylvania Northampton 9,912 2.00 0.2017 133 Ohio Bath Township, Summit County 9,858 2.00 0.2028 Rank State City Population Violent Violent Crimes Per 1,000 Crimes Residents 134 New York Rye Brook Village 9,602 2.00 0.2082 135 Pennsylvania Economy 9,371 2.00 0.2134 136 Texas Highland Park 9,045 2.00 0.2211 137 New York Macedon Town and Village 8,962 2.00 0.2231 138 Connecticut Woodbridge 8,907 2.00 0.2245 139 New Jersey Ocean Township, Ocean County 8,730 2.00 0.229 140 Maine Topsham 8,703 2.00 0.2298 141 New Hampstead 8,607 2.00 0.2323 Hampshire 142 New Jersey Northfield 8,600 2.00 0.2325 143 Maine Yarmouth 8,552 2.00 0.2338 144 New Jersey North Haledon 8,521 2.00 0.2347 145 New Jersey Upper Saddle River 8,376 2.00 0.2387 146 New York Hornell 8,367 2.00 0.239 147 Texas Heath 8,176 2.00 0.2446 148 Illinois West Frankfort 8,025 2.00 0.2492 149 Michigan Houghton 7,985 2.00 0.2504 150 Pennsylvania Conshohocken 7,908 2.00 0.2529 151 Washington Duvall 7,882 2.00 0.2537 152 Pennsylvania North Cornwall Township 7,795 2.00 0.2565 153 Missouri Carl Junction 7,709 2.00 0.2594 154 Connecticut Middlebury 7,594 2.00 0.2633 155 Massachusetts Dighton 7,376 2.00 0.2711 156 Indiana Tell City 7,254 2.00 0.2757 157 Pennsylvania Buffalo Township 7,229 2.00 0.2766 158 Kentucky Highland Heights 7,214 2.00 0.2772 159 Massachusetts Groveland 7,211 2.00 0.2773 160 Wisconsin Delafield 7,181 2.00 0.2785 161 New Jersey Milltown 7,054 2.00 0.2835 162 Ohio Delphos 7,024 2.00 0.2847 163 Oklahoma Piedmont 6,996 2.00 0.2858 164 Ohio Cortland 6,931 2.00 0.2885 165 New Atkinson 6,853 2.00 0.2918 Hampshire 166 Illinois Greenville 6,847 2.00 0.292 167 Oklahoma Tuttle 6,679 2.00 0.2994 168 New York Canton Village 6,677 2.00 0.2995 169 Pennsylvania Tiadaghton Valley Regional 6,611 2.00 0.3025 170 Colorado Cherry Hills Village 6,530 2.00 0.3062 171 Ohio Beaver Township 6,530 2.00 0.3062 172 Washington Brier 6,521 2.00 0.3067 173 New Jersey Maywood 9,776 3.00 0.3068 174 New York Cairo Town 6,465 2.00 0.3093 175 Illinois Winfield 9,679 3.00 0.3099 176 Texas Kermit 6,446 2.00 0.3102 177 New York Potsdam Village 9,667 3.00 0.3103 178 Michigan Huntington Woods 6,386 2.00 0.3131 Rank State City Population Violent Violent Crimes Per 1,000 Crimes Residents 179 Pennsylvania Tunkhannock Township, 6,334 2.00 0.3157 Wyoming County 180 Connecticut Portland 9,430 3.00 0.3181 181 New Jersey Carlstadt 6,267 2.00 0.3191 182 Missouri Shrewsbury 6,199 2.00 0.3226 183 Kentucky Wilmore 6,179 2.00 0.3236 184 Pennsylvania Ohio Township 6,162 2.00 0.3245 185 Michigan Grosse Pointe Farms 9,242 3.00 0.3246 186 Pennsylvania Bethel Township, Delaware 9,198 3.00 0.3261 County 187 New Jersey Leonia 9,170 3.00 0.3271 188 Virginia Bridgewater 6,029 2.00 0.3317 189 Ohio Shelby 9,038 3.00 0.3319 190 Washington Liberty Lake 8,911 3.00 0.3366 191 Kentucky Edgewood 8,775 3.00 0.3418 192 New Jersey Rochelle Park Township 5,834 2.00 0.3428 193 West Virginia Charles Town 5,816 2.00 0.3438 194 New Jersey Matawan 8,696 3.00 0.3449 195 New Jersey Wood-Ridge 8,657 3.00 0.3465 196 Indiana Angola 8,631 3.00 0.3475 197 New Jersey Closter 8,629 3.00 0.3476 198 Massachusetts Georgetown 8,615 3.00 0.3482 199 Missouri Park Hills 8,581 3.00 0.3496 200 Illinois Willow Springs 5,720 2.00 0.3496 201 New York Wappingers Falls Village 5,618 2.00 0.3559 202 Ohio Highland Heights 8,373 3.00 0.3582 203 Pennsylvania North Londonderry Township 8,343 3.00 0.3595 204 Pennsylvania Millcreek Township, Lebanon 5,557 2.00 0.3599 County 205 New York Waterford Town and Village 8,332 3.00 0.36 206 Pennsylvania Shippensburg 5,550 2.00 0.3603 207 New York Highlands Town 8,303 3.00 0.3613 208 Missouri Pleasant Hill 8,280 3.00 0.3623 209 Pennsylvania Findlay Township 5,513 2.00 0.3627 210 New Jersey Independence Township 5,512 2.00 0.3628 211 Illinois Pinckneyville
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Housing Diversity and Affordability in New
    HOUSING DIVERSITY AND AFFORDABILITY IN NEW JERSEY’S TRANSIT VILLAGES By Dorothy Morallos Mabel Smith Honors Thesis Douglass College Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey April 11, 2006 Written under the direction of Professor Jan S. Wells Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy ABSTRACT New Jersey’s Transit Village Initiative is a major policy initiative, administered by the New Jersey Department of Transportation that promotes the concept of transit oriented development (TOD) by revitalizing communities and promoting residential and commercial growth around transit centers. Several studies have been done on TODs, but little research has been conducted on the effects it has on housing diversity and affordability within transit areas. This research will therefore evaluate the affordable housing situation in relation to TODs in within a statewide context through the New Jersey Transit Village Initiative. Data on the affordable housing stock of 16 New Jersey Transit Villages were gathered for this research. Using Geographic Information Systems Software (GIS), the locations of these affordable housing sites were mapped and plotted over existing pedestrian shed maps of each Transit Village. Evaluations of each designated Transit Village’s efforts to encourage or incorporate inclusionary housing were based on the location and availability of affordable developments, as well as the demographic character of each participating municipality. Overall, findings showed that affordable housing remains low amongst all the designated villages. However, new rules set forth by the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) may soon change these results and the overall affordable housing stock within the whole state.
    [Show full text]
  • Tribal Element
    Tribal Element Three federally-recognized Indian Tribes, the Sauk-Suiattle Tribe, the Stillaguamish Tribe, and the Tulalip Tribes, occupy areas of present-day Snohomish County. These Tribes and their ancestors are a land and water based people, part of a larger group of aboriginal Tribes and First Nations known as the Coast Salish peoples, who live around the Salish Sea in what is now Washington State and the Canadian Province of British Columbia. The Coast Salish Tribes and First Nations have lived here since time immemorial, enjoying a landscape rich in natural resources. Coast Salish lifeways are tied to the natural environment of the Pacific Northwest, especially the Salish Sea. Today the Sauk-Suiattle, Stillaguamish, and the Tulalip Tribes are sovereign nations recognized by the United States government. Each Tribe has its own government with its own governing charter or constitution and set of general laws. These Tribes reserved lands in what is now Snohomish County as Indian reservation homelands. The Tribes have important historic and cultural sites both on and off their reservations. Each Tribe continues to exercise off-reservation rights reserved under treaty with the United States, including the right to fish in usual and accustomed fishing grounds and the right to hunt and gather on open and unclaimed lands. Snohomish County acknowledges the historic and present-day connection between tribal people and the land base, and recognizes each Tribe’s sovereignty. Snohomish County is committed to partnering with the Tribes to protect and preserve Tribal cultural and treaty resources, the natural environment, and sacred cultural areas. The relationship between these Tribes and Snohomish County is especially important when activities of county government, particularly land use regulation, have implications for one or more Tribes.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018-2019 Audit Report
    THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH ORANGE VILLAGE ESSEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY REPORT OF AUDIT YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2019 AND 2018 TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH ORANGE VILLAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS Exhibit Page Part I Independent Auditors’ Report 1 Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on Compliance 4 and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance With Government Auditing Standards Financial Statements Current Fund Balance Sheets A 6 Statements of Operations and Change in Fund Balance A-1 8 Statement of Revenues A-2 9 Statement of Revenues – Analysis of Realized Revenues A-2a 11 Statement of Revenues – Analysis of Nonbudget Revenues A-2b 12 Statement of Expenditures A-3 13 Trust Fund Balance Sheets B 17 General Capital Fund Balance Sheets C 18 Fund Balance C-1 19 Water Utility Balance Sheets D 20 Statement of Operations and Changes in Fund Balance D-1 21 Statement of Fund Balance D-2 22 Statement of Revenue – Operating Fund D-3 23 Statement of Expenditures D-4 24 Public Assistance Fund Balance Sheets E 25 Trustees of Free Public Library Balance Sheets F 26 Statement of Revenues and Expenditures F-1 27 Statement of Governmental Fixed Assets – Regulatory Basis G 28 Notes to Financial Statements 29 TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH ORANGE VILLAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS Exhibit Page Part II – Supplementary Information Current Fund Schedule of: Cash Receipts and Disbursements – Treasurer A-4 62 Change Funds A-5 63 Due To/From State of New Jersey per Chapter 129, P.L. 1976 A-6 64 Taxes Receivable and Analysis of Property Tax Levy A-7 65
    [Show full text]
  • Local Government Primer
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PRIMER Alaska Municipal League Alaskan Local Government Primer Alaska Municipal League The Alaska Municipal League (AML) is a voluntary, Table of Contents nonprofit, nonpartisan, statewide organization of 163 cities, boroughs, and unified municipalities, Purpose of Primer............ Page 3 representing over 97 percent of Alaska's residents. Originally organized in 1950, the League of Alaska Cities............................Pages 4-5 Cities became the Alaska Municipal League in 1962 when boroughs joined the League. Boroughs......................Pages 6-9 The mission of the Alaska Municipal League is to: Senior Tax Exemption......Page 10 1. Represent the unified voice of Alaska's local Revenue Sharing.............Page 11 governments to successfully influence state and federal decision making. 2. Build consensus and partnerships to address Alaska's Challenges, and Important Local Government Facts: 3. Provide training and joint services to strengthen ♦ Mill rates are calculated by directing the Alaska's local governments. governing body to determine the budget requirements and identifying all revenue sources. Alaska Conference of Mayors After the budget amount is reduced by subtracting revenue sources, the residual is the amount ACoM is the parent organization of the Alaska Mu- required to be raised by the property tax.That nicipal League. The ACoM and AML work together amount is divided by the total assessed value and to form a municipal consensus on statewide and the result is identified as a “mill rate”. A “mill” is federal issues facing Alaskan local governments. 1/1000 of a dollar, so the mill rate simply states the amount of tax to be charged per $1,000 of The purpose of the Alaska Conference of Mayors assessed value.
    [Show full text]
  • Borough of Stonington, Connecticut
    HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN ANNEX FOR BOROUGH OF STONINGTON, CONNECTICUT An Annex of the Southeastern Connecticut Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan PREPARED FOR: Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments DATE: June 2005 COMMUNITY CONTACTS Andrew M. Maynard Warden Robert Scala Burgess Judy DuPont Burgess Jeff Hoagley Fire Chief William Teixeira Assistant Fire Chief SOUTHEASTERN CONNECTICUT COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS STAFF James S. Butler, AICP Executive Director Lin da Parquette Senior Planner Colleen Bezanson GIS Specialist Thomas Seidel Senior Planner CONSULTANTS DELTA Environmental Services, Inc., Branford, CT. Wilbur Smith Associates, New Haven, CT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE NUMBER I. INTRODUCTION ................................................ 1 A. Setting........................................................ 1 B. Purpose of Annex .............................................. 1 C. Plan Development and Public Involvement . 2 II. HAZARD RISK ASSESSMENT..................................... 3 A. Residential .................................................... 4 B. Commercial / Industrial .......................................... 5 C. Critical Facilities ............................................... 5 D. Transportation Corridors ........................................ 5 III. HAZARD MITIGATION MEASURES................................. 7 A. Prevention .................................................... 7 B. Property Protection ............................................. 9 C. Emergency Services ...........................................
    [Show full text]
  • BOROUGH COUNCIL HANDBOOK Twelfth Edition | August 2019
    BOROUGH COUNCIL HANDBOOK Twelfth Edition | August 2019 Harrisburg, PA Commonwealth of Pennsylvania PA Department of Community & Economic Development | dced.pa.gov Comments or inquiries on the subject matter of this publication should be addressed to: Governor’s Center for Local Government Services Department of Community and Economic Development Commonwealth Keystone Building 400 North Street, 4th Floor Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120-0225 (717) 787-8158 1-888-223-6837 E-mail: [email protected] dced.pa.gov No liability is assumed with respect to the use of information contained in this publication. Laws may be amended or court rulings issued that could affect a particular procedure, issue or interpretation. The Department of Community and Economic Development assumes no responsibility for errors and omissions nor any liability for damages resulting from the use of information contained herein. Please contact your local solicitor for legal advice. Preparation of this publication was financed from appropriations of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Copyright © 2019, Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development, all rights reserved. Table of Contents I. Office of Borough Council Member . .1 Ward Redistricting . .1 Redistricting by Ordinance . .1 II. Legislative Powers . .7 General Powers . .7 The Legislative Role . .7 Quasi-Judicial Role . .8 Conduct of Meetings . .8 Parliamentary Procedure . .10 Sunshine Act . .11 Minutes and Records . .11 Intergovernmental Cooperation . .12 III. Administrative and Appointive Powers . .14 Appointed Administrator . .14 Personnel Management . .16 Appointment Powers . .17 Boards and Commissions . .18 Municipal Authorities . .19 IV. Fiscal Powers . .22 Taxes . .22 Act 50 . .23 The Budget . .24 The Budget Calendar . .25 Capital Improvements Planning and Budgeting .
    [Show full text]
  • Current Estimates of New York City's Population for July 2019
    CURRENT ESTIMATES OF NEW YORK CITY'S POPULATION FOR JULY 2019 Summary The U.S. Census Bureau has estimated New York City’s population at 8,336,817, as of July 1, 2019. This represented an increase of 161,684 residents (or 2.0 percent) over the April 1, 2010 decennial census count of 8,175,133. Post-2010 growth translates into an average annual gain of about 17,500 persons, or 0.2 percent compounded annually. Population growth has been fueled by the continued surplus of births over deaths, which has been partially offset by net outflows from the city. While the city grew by roughly 161,700 persons since 2010, New York State grew only by 75,500 people due to a decline of 86,200 persons in counties outside the city. Of the State’s 62 counties, 48 lost population since 2010. In contrast, each of the city’s five boroughs registered gains in population. Manhattan saw the largest increase, up 2.7 percent, followed by the Bronx (2.4 percent), Brooklyn (2.2 percent), and Staten Island (1.6 percent); Queens showed the smallest gain (1.0 percent) over the 111- month period. While the city’s population has shown an overall increase since 2010, these estimates also reveal a pattern of population losses in each of the last three years. It is important to remember that New York does not always have an upward growth trajectory. In some years, the city has experienced high population growth – In the first years of this decade, growth averaged around 1 percent, which the city had not seen for nearly a century, and was unsustainable in the long term.
    [Show full text]
  • Borough of Naugatuck
    BOROUGH OF NAUGATUCK BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Mayor and Burgesses, in a meeting duly assembled on September 2, 2014 that Ordinance #49 Chapter 15 – Planning, Article VII – Regional Council of Elected Officials, Sections 15-134 – 15-136 of the Code of Ordinances of the Borough of Naugatuck, Connecticut is hereby repealed and Ordinance #127 is hereby adopted, to read as follows: Ordinance #127 Chapter 15 – Planning, Article VII – Ordinance Regarding Adoption of Connecticut General Statute §§4-124i – 4-124p Pertaining to Creating and Joining the Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments, Sections 15-134 – 15- 140. WHEREAS, the Borough of Naugatuck has heretofore been a designated municipality within the Central Naugatuck Valley Planning Region; and, WHEREAS, as an eligible member the borough adopted Ordinance #49, entitled, “Regional Council of Elected Officials”, voted and adopted on July 8, 1970 by the Board of Mayor and Burgesses, joining the Council of Governments for the Central Naugatuck Valley (“COGCNV”) as a regional council of elected officials and remains a member at the present time; and, WHEREAS, the State of Connecticut has determined that a reorganization and redesignation of planning districts shall be completed on or before January 1, 2015; and, WHEREAS, said reorganization recommended the consolidation of the Central Naugatuck Valley Planning Region (comprised of the following municipalities: Beacon Falls, Bethlehem, Cheshire, Middlebury, Naugatuck, Oxford, Prospect, Southbury, Thomaston, Waterbury, Watertown, Wolcott
    [Show full text]
  • Is It Time for New York State to Revise Its Village Incorporation Laws? a Background Report on Village Incorporation in New York State
    Is It Time For New York State to Revise Its Village Incorporation Laws? A Background Report on Village Incorporation in New York State Lisa K. Parshall January 2020 1 ABOUT THE AUTHOR Lisa Parshall is a professor of political science at Daemen College in Amherst, New York and a public Photo credit:: Martin J. Anisman policy fellow at the Rockefeller Institute of Government 2 Is It Time for New York State to Revise Its Village Incorporation Laws? Over the past several years, New York State has taken considerable steps to eliminate or reduce the number of local governments — streamlining the law to make it easier for citizens to undertake the process as well as providing financial incentives for communities that undertake consolidations and shared services. Since 2010, the residents of 42 villages have voted on the question of whether to dissolve their village government. This average of 4.7 dissolution votes per year is an increase over the .79 a-year-average in the years 1972-2010.1 The growing number of villages considering dissolution is attributable to the combined influence of declining populations, growing property tax burdens, and the passage of the New N.Y. Government Reorganization and Citizen Empowerment Act (herein after the Empowerment Act), effective in March 2019, which revised procedures to make it easier for citizens to place dissolution and consolidation on the ballot. While the number of communities considering and voting on dissolution has increased, the rate at which dissolutions have been approved by the voters has declined. That is, 60 percent of proposed village dissolutions bought under the provisions of the Empowerment Act have been rejected at referendum (see Dissolving Village Government in New York State: A Symbol of a Community in Decline or Government Modernization?)2 While the Empowerment Act revised the processes for citizen-initiated dissolutions and consolidations, it left the provisions for the incorporation of new villages unchanged.
    [Show full text]
  • Shelby Village
    ORDINANCE NO. 20200413-1 VILLAGE OF SHELBY COUNTY OF OCEANA STATE OF MICHIGAN THE VILLAGE OF SHELBY HEREBY ORDAINS: SHORT TITLE: ORV ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND REGULATING THE OPERATION OF OFF-ROAD VEHICLES {ORVs) ON VILLAGE MAJOR STREETS AND VILLAGE LOCAL STREETS IN SHELBY VILLAGE, OCEANA COUNTY, MICHIGAN, PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION THEREOF, AND FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF FINES AND COSTS RESULTING FROM THOSE PENALTIES PURSUANT TO 2009 PA 175, MCL 324.81131. Section 1. Definitions. For the purpose of this Ordinance, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning: a. County means Oceana County, Michigan. b. Direct Supervision, means the direct visual observation of the operator with the unaided or normally correct eye, where the observer is able to come to the immediate aid of the operator. c. Driver's License means any driving privileges, license, temporary instruction permit or temporary license issued under the laws of any state, territory or possession of the United States, Indian country as defined in 18 USC 1151, the District of Columbia, and the Dominion of Canada pertaining to the licensing of persons to operate motor vehicles. d. Maintained Portion means that portion of road, improved, designated, and/or ordinarily used for vehicular traffic, including the gravel shoulder or paved shoulder of the road. e. Operate, means to ride in or on and be in actual physical control of the operation of an ORV/ATV. f. Operator means a person who operates or is in actual physical control of the operation of an ORV/ATV.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Illinois City/County Management Association Officers and Board Of
    2019- 2020 Illinois City/County Management Association Officers and Board of Directors President Ray Rummel Village Manager, Elk Grove Village 901 Wellington Avenue Board Brad Burke Elk Grove Village, IL 60007 Member Village Manager, Lincolnshire Email: [email protected] Metro One Olde Half Day Road Phone: 847-357-4010 Lincolnshire, IL 60069 Email: [email protected] President-Elect Ken Terrinoni Phone: 847-913-2335 County Administrator, Boone County 1212 Logan Avenue Board Hadley Skeffington Vox Belvidere, IL 61008 Member Deputy Village Manager, Niles Email: [email protected] IAMMA 1000 Civic Center Drive Phone: 815-547-4770 Niles, IL 60714 Email: [email protected] Vice President Drew Irvin Phone: 847-588-8009 Village Manager, Lake Bluff 40 East Center Avenue Board Darin Girdler Lake Bluff, IL 60044 Member MIT Downstate Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Phone: 847-283-6883 Phone: 618-971-8276 Secretary/ Dorothy David Board Scott Hartman Treasurer City Manager, Champaign Member Deputy County Administrator, McHenry 102 North Neil Street County Champaign, IL 61820 IACA 2200 N. Seminary Ave. Email: [email protected] McHenry, IL 60098 Phone: 217-403-8710 Email: [email protected] Phone: 815-334-4924 Immediate Mike Cassady Past President Village Manager, Mount Prospect Board Grant Litteken 50 South Emerson Member Assistant City Administrator, O’Fallon Mt. Prospect, IL 60056 SWICMA 255 S. Lincoln Ave Email: [email protected] Trenton, IL 62269 Phone: 847-818-5401 Email: [email protected] Phone: 618-624-4500 Board Randy Bukas Member Accounting Supervisor/City Treasurer Board Kimberly Richardson expires: 6-30-20 314 W.
    [Show full text]
  • Borough-Based Jails Program, Design Principles and Guidelines
    DRAFT JUNE 2021 Design Principles & Guidelines Queens Facility QN NYC BOROUGH-BASED JAILS PROGRAM A DESIGN-BUILD PROGRAM PIN: 8502020CR0058P-60P 2 NYC BBJ PROGRAM [INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE] DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES DRAFT NYC BBJ PROGRAM TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary ...................................................................................... 6 1.1 Borough-Based Jails Program Background ..................................................... 6 1.2 Project Overview and Goals ......................................................................... 7 2. Design Principles and Guidelines ............................................................... 12 2.1 Introduction............................................................................................. 12 2.2 Design Principles ...................................................................................... 13 2.3 Design Guidelines ..................................................................................... 17 DRAFT DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES 4 NYC BBJ PROGRAM [INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE] DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES DRAFT NYC BBJ PROGRAM 2. DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES 5 1. Executive Summary 1 DRAFT DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES 6 2. DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES NYC BBJ PROGRAM 1. Executive Summary 1.1 Borough-Based Jails Program Background The people of New York City (the City) and the world have experienced enormous, ongoing upheaval since 2019. The City is facing both an unprecedented health crisis and
    [Show full text]