INTERIM REPORT

(December, 2010)

Shared Services Committee

Town and Village of Cazenovia, New York

The Mission of the Shared Services Committee

To "study and identify opportunities for cooperative efforts by local
government entities in order to achieve more efficient services,
control costs, and enhance community life”

Committee Members

Helen Beale, Chair; Graham Egerton; Howard Hart; Michael Lee; Randy Light;
Anna Marie Neuland; Jack Rooney; Sharye Skinner
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTIONS ......................................................................................................................... PAGES

Introduction.……………………………………………………………………………………..1-2
Reports.…………………………………………………………………………………………3-11
Topics Pages
Administrator/Manager………………………………………………3-4

Highway Department………………………………………………......5

Office Building.………………………………………………………6-7

Police………………………………………………………………..8-11

Appendix – On Computer Disk

Material on Computer Disk:

Administrator/Manager:
1. Outline of all study materials
2. Information about professional governance from academics and
organizations
3. Interview results from towns and villages using
administrator/manager type governance
4. Town and Village of Cazenovia census and demographic data
5. Local laws concerning administrator/manager position
6. Cost comparison of select administrative/manager positions

Highway Department: 2010 Budget Data from Town and Village of

Cazenovia

Office:
1. Crawford & Stearns Report
2. Town of Cazenovia building renovation documents

Police:
1. Response from Madison County Sheriff’s Office concerning
services and function
2. Notes from meeting with Police Chief English
3. Village of Cazenovia 2010 Police Budget Analysis
4. Madison County Sheriff’s Proposal
5. Summary of information from Police Chief Amico
6. Graphs of police activity in the Town and Village of Cazenovia

! i
 Miscellaneous:
1. Summary of the joint September, 2008 meeting of the Town and
Village of Cazenovia
2. New York State Local Government Efficiency Grant Application
3. New York State Grant Guidance Document

Shared Services Committee Interim Report

! ii
 INTRODUCTION

History of Shared Services

The idea of shared services between the Town and the Village of Cazenovia has been a
subject of much conversation in recent years. In September 2008, the Town and the Village
Boards met to begin a more formal initiative. In response to this initiative, a group of citizens
representing residents in the Town and in the Village formed in the winter of 2009 a Shared
Services Committee. Helen Beale was selected to be the chair and spokesperson of this group.
In March of 2009, Ms. Beale went to the Boards of the Town and the Village to report that a
Shared Services Committee had been formed. She advised that the goal of the Committee was to
support the efforts toward enhancing the sharing of services, equipment and materials which the
Town and the Village had initiated in their September, 2008 joint meeting. Ms. Beale said that
the Committee was prepared to research and to examine various ways to enhance this sharing
between the two municipalities. In view of the extended scope of the task, Ms. Beale asked the
Town and the Village to acknowledge and to support the Committee's efforts. During their
respective March, 2009 meetings, the Town and the Village Boards recognized and endorsed the
Shared Services Committee.

Research Plan

The Shared Services Committee has met several times a month for the last year and a
half. In addition to full Committee meetings, specific tasks were done in small groups.

The first task was to begin to understand the budgets, revenues and expenses of
the Town and the Village of Cazenovia. This effort involved numerous meetings,
emails and phone calls with members of the Boards of the two municipalities.
Budgets from the municipalities of Clinton and Hamilton were also examined.

The second task was to ascertain where areas of shared services may possibly
exist and to determine the best means of gathering information in order to learn
about the shared services efforts and experiences of similar communities.

The third task was to research the pertinent information and resources available
from New York State.

The next and final task was to synthesize all the information gathered; make
possible recommendations for further action; and write an initial report of the
findings.

This document is an interim report on the topics for which the Committee presently has
information and recommendations. These topics are: administrator/manager, highway, office

! 1
building and police. Attached to the text of this interim report is an appendix on a compact disk
of all the supporting documentation. The Committee hopes that the Boards of the Town and the
Village will find this material useful in their review of the recommendations of the Committee.
The Committee welcomes the input of the Boards to its interim report and recommendations and
stands ready to meet with each Board at its earliest convenience. The Committee anticipates
studying in the immediate future additional subjects, such as water and sewer services and the
Town and Village Justice Court systems, as well as other relevant matters. Thus, the Committee
would be most appreciative of timely responses from the Boards regarding the Committee’s
current interim report and recommendations as well as guidance regarding its future efforts.

The Committee is most grateful to all of those individuals who gave their time and
supplied it with valuable information for this report, but in particular it would like to convey
special recognition to the following people who gave considerable assistance to the Committee
in its review of shared services between the Town and the Village of Cazenovia.

Town of Cazenovia
Town Supervisor, Liz Moran (retired)
Town Supervisor, Ralph Monforte
Town Highway Supervisor, Tim Hunt

Village of Cazenovia
Village Mayor, Tom Dougherty
Adm. Department of Public Works, Bill Carr
Deputy Clerk, Susan Dady
Police Chief, David Amico

Madison County
Sheriff Ronald Cary (retired)
Sheriff Allen Riley
Captain Matthew Episcopo

! 2
 ADMINISTRATOR/MANAGER

During the past months, the Shared Services Committee has reviewed the work of the
Village and Town of Cazenovia Departments and has interviewed numerous Village and Town
officials. The complexity of the work performed and the issues at stake have presented
difficulties for the Committee members acting in a part-time capacity to understand fully the
work of the Village and Town and, thus, make comprehensive recommendations regarding
improvements, savings or shared services. The constraint confronting the Committee of having
only limited time to focus on these issues is one that surely is shared by each of the elected
officials within the Village and the Town.

One of the issues that the Committee has investigated is having a full time administrator or
manager for a village or town. The employment of such a professional executive appears to be a
promising practice that would allow part-time elected officials to work more efficiently and to
use their time more productively. The Committee has investigated several communities
(Villages of Brockport, Canastota, Hamilton, etc.) with a professional management type of
government. This investigation suggests that an administrator/manager is a person with the
professional experience and often the formal education who is responsible on a full-time basis
for the smooth and efficient running of a municipality. The duties of the position may or may
not include the authority to hire and to fire, but normally encompass among other tasks:

! Overseeing and coordinating the daily activities of municipal departments;

! Addressing the concerns of citizens;
! Negotiating with various employee collective bargaining units;
! Interacting with other municipalities and governmental entities;
! Conducting the budgeting process;
! Writing and coordinating the solicitation and administration of financial
grants and other funding.

With respect to the Village of Cazenovia for example, a professional executive if retained
could be held, among other responsibilities, to be directly accountable to the mayor and to the
other elected officials within the municipality. He or she could be required to report regularly to
the Village officials on the status of municipal operations and could be obligated to collect
needed information for the officials as requested by them in order to facilitate their governmental
decision-making. With the presence of an executive officer conducting daily operations, elected
Village officials would become freer to focus on planning and other “big picture” issues. At the
same time, they would be able to maintain their control and ultimate superintendence over
municipal operations as they are charged as duly elected public officials. This form of
government for the Village would seem to provide the opportunity for its elected officials to
work smarter and to ensure the more efficient running of the municipality.

! 3
 Various groups such as the Schoharie Citizens for Professional Governance have more
thoroughly detailed the inefficiencies of public governance without full-time professional
management. Material relating to the Schoharie Citizens’ study, including a cost/benefit analysis
questionnaire, is set forth in the attached appendix. In addition, the attached appendix contains
information such as job descriptions, statutes and interview responses from people in the position
of a professional manager that may be of interest.

The Committee believes that the question of a professional management type of

government merits further consideration by the Village and the Town of Cazenovia. This
consideration should entail a studied assessment of the financial and operational effectiveness
that professional management could offer to the Village and the Town both from a near term and
a long term planning perspective. Also, the Village and the Town may desire to explore the
option of sharing an executive officer as opposed to each having its own officer. No one is
suggesting that professional management could be the answer for each and every challenge that
the Village and the Town are facing today, but it is difficult to imagine multimillion-dollar
enterprises or governmental entities of any significant size that are capable of being truly
successful without full-time executive oversight and coordination. Thus, the implementation of a
professional management type of government deserves to be given a full review by the Village
and the Town of Cazenovia.

! 4
 HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT

Before looking at any particular governmental services to study, the Committee examined
the budgets of both the Town and the Village of Cazenovia. Inasmuch as the expenses of the
Town Highway Department account for more than 60% of the Town Budget, the Committee
looked to see if there might be some shared services between the Town and the Village in this
area. To that end, the Committee interviewed Town Highway Superintendent Tim Hunt and
Village Public Works Administrator Bill Carr and inventoried the equipment and the current
sharing practices of the two governmental bodies. Because of the differences in the type of
equipment needed for the disparate highway maintenance tasks within and outside the Village,
the Committee could see no potential for savings in the sharing of equipment. The larger
equipment needed for Town snow removal is unsuitable for the narrower streets of the Village.
Moreover, there are different equipment needs, such as street cleaners and sidewalk plows,
within the Village. Combined purchasing of materials and supplies offers no savings, as both
municipalities get state of New York contract pricing, which does not improve with volume and
which is already below market rates. There is presently a cooperative relationship between the
department heads of the Town and the Village that facilitates sharing of equipment and of
personnel as occasions arise.

Currently, the Town leases its equipment over a seven year period. Upon the expiration
of the seven year period, the Town becomes the owner of the equipment, which it then sells and
secures a new lease for any necessary replacement equipment. This arrangement has proved
financially beneficial for the Town and keeps its vehicles and equipment up to date at a cost
more reasonable than would be an initial purchase of the equipment. The Village, on the other
hand, purchases without any leasing arrangement its equipment, which it then attempts to
maintain without any replacement for a ten year period. The Committee would recommend that
the Village look into a possibly more cost effective leasing/purchase practice similar to the Town
instead of outright purchasing its equipment and maintaining it for ten years.

Should the Highway Departments of the Town and the Village ever combine, there could
be savings in management costs.

The Committee notes that it was favorably impressed with both Mr. Hunt and Mr. Carr of
the Town and the Village respectively. The Committee is most grateful for their cooperation.

! 5
 OFFICE BUILDING

In May of 2009, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Cazenovia received at its request
from the architect and planning firm, Crawford & Stearns (“C&S”), a report to determine: “. . .
the feasibility and possible impacts upon the Gothic Cottage if an addition were considered to
address spatial needs.” See attached C&S Report. In its Report, C & S reviewed the existing
structural quality of the Gothic Cottage, projected expansion of the building to meet existing and
future space needs of the Town, renovation cost estimates in 2009 dollars, and possible funding
sources. C&S stated that the estimated cost of modifications to the existing building and a new
addition would range from $983,500 to $1,158,500. C&S calculated the existing size of the
Town offices at 2,668 sf as well as an expanded size with new offices at 4,393 sf. The
calculation of the combined amount of existing and new office space by C&S (see attached C&S
Plan Drawings) includes rooms that are a duplication of some present offices that exist at the
Village of Cazenovia Municipal Building (meeting room, courtroom and a conference room).
With this duplication and a better floor plan, which could be accomplished with new space, the
total needs for new Town offices are less than 3,050 sf. The second floor in the Village
Municipal Building could accommodate this need.

Questions about the Gothic Cottage have been raised regarding its future use, sale or
lease and the continuing maintenance of its historic integrity, if it is no longer used for Town
offices. The C&S Report reads: ‘The distinctive character of the Gothic Cottage as expressed
through period design and construction represents the historical design and development of the
building and is important to retain.” Should the sale of the property be considered, the sale
could have a covenant running with the property that would continue to protect its historic
uniqueness. This covenant would be similar to that which was part of the initial gifting of the
property to the Town. Should a lease be considered, the Town would continue to control the
historic character of the property. The use of the property as a local museum, a Chamber of
Commerce office, or a hospitality tourism center would appear to be some of several possible
leasehold uses of the property that would not be adverse to its historic character.

As an option to a renovation and expansion of the Gothic Cottage, the Town could move
its offices to the Village of Cazenovia Municipal Building. The second floor of the Village
Municipal Building has approximately 3,100 sf, most of which is open space. Thus, the second
floor of the Village Municipal Building could accommodate the spatial needs of the Town. In
addition to the area of its second floor, the first floor offices in the Municipal Building have
meeting areas and a courtroom that could be utilized by the Town given appropriate scheduling.

In order to access the second floor of the Village Municipal Building for Town offices, an
elevator would be needed and appropriate exits made available for public use. It is understood
that the Town has for some time been escrowing certain money for new construction of Town

! 6
offices. This money along with funding resources identified by C&S in its Report would provide
for the construction of new Town offices in the Village Municipal Building, shared building
operating costs with the Village and possible other shared costs given the proximity of the
offices to each other in the same building.

Parking has been discussed regarding the possible move by the Town into the Village
Municipal Building. It has been stated that daytime parking needs by the Town would not be
particularly great, as day trips now to the Town offices at the Gothic Cottage are few and of short
duration. Existing street and nearby lots to the Village Municipal Building would seemingly
accommodate any parking needs of the Town during the daytime, if it had its offices in the
Village Municipal Building. Nighttime use of the Municipal Building by the Town would be
heavier, because many of its Trustee meetings and those of its Planning and other Boards and
Committees are generally held at night. However, parking is easily handled now when Village
meetings take place at night and, consequently, should not be an undue problem for the Town,
given appropriate scheduling with the Village regarding nighttime use of the Municipal Building.
In addition, a move by the Town into the Village Municipal Building would result in closer
downtown access by its personnel and customers to local businesses; and, therefore, the move
would likely have some economic benefit for local businesses.

Benefits to Town and Village of a Shared Office Building

! Shared building operating costs

! Coordination of other services
! Revenue from sale or lease of the Gothic Cottage

As the above list of benefits discloses, the sharing of an office building may generate
material cost savings and other efficiencies for both the Town and the Village of Cazenovia. The
Shared Services Committee, therefore, recommends that the Town and the Village pursue further
review of the shared building option.

! 7
 POLICE

Currently, the Village of Cazenovia (“Village”) maintains its own police force, which
provides 24 hour per day service, 7 days per week. There are usually 8 or 9 full-time equivalent
positions that are filled by a chief, 1 sergeant, 4 full-time patrol officers and 4 part-time officers.
In addition, the Village has a parking officer and several crossing guards as well as a part-time
clerk, who work for the department. All officers are sworn in as town constables and respond to
mutual aid calls in conjunction with other police departments. In this regard, the Village police
cooperate with the Madison County Sheriff’s Department and the New York State Police by
adhering to the “closest car” concept. In the Town of Cazenovia outside the Village, the
Madison County Sheriff’s Department and the New York State Police respond to calls for
assistance through the 911 Dispatch System. The Madison County Sheriff’s Department
provides one patrol car on a 24 hour basis for each quadrant of the County.

In order to study the policing situation in the Village, the Committee met with Mayor
Dougherty and then Police Chief Amico. With the assistance of Chief Amico and Village Clerk
Dady, the Committee studied the Village Police Incident Reports for a one year period. In
addition, the Committee interviewed Chief English of the Kirkland Police Force (a combined
town and village operation) and Madison County Sheriff Cary and later his successor Madison
County Sheriff Riley. The Committee also met with Captain Episcopo of the Madison County
Sheriff’s Department, who provided the Committee with a proposal for the policing of the
Village by the Madison County Sheriff’s Department. The Committee examined the Village
Police Budget; and because of the presence of Cazenovia College in the Village, the Committee
looked at police budgets and operations in the following area municipalities that also have
colleges: Clinton, Hamilton and Morrisville. This examination disclosed that Clinton and
Hamilton have their own police forces and that Morrisville does not maintain a police force, but
does contract with Madison County for part-time coverage by a Madison County Deputy Sheriff.
The Committee also examined the current collective bargaining agreement between the Village
and the Police Beneficial Association, which represents the Village police.

As part of its study of the Village Police Department, the Committee examined the
Incident Reports of the Department for a given one year period. During this one year period,
there were 1,240 police recorded incidents within the Village. (A chart of the recorded incidents
is set forth in the attached appendix.). This number does not include any juvenile arrests or other
juvenile incidents, as the records of these incidents are sealed. Approximately 10% of the total
reported incidents were arrests. According to Chief Amico, the type of recorded incidents, other
than traffic, are generally disorderly conduct, a few burglaries, open container violations, minor
assaults, flower pot dumping, bent street signs, crimes against property, petit larceny (under
$1,000.00) and one or two rapes per year. The last murder in the Village occurred in 1994.
Cazenovia College has its own security personnel, but the Village police respond to the College,

! 8
if there is an incident of a criminal nature. During the one year period examined by the
Committee, the Town of Cazenovia had 1,081 incidents, of which 445 were vehicle and traffic.
(See Tables 1-3 in the attached appendix.). For all of the incidents reported in both the Town
and the Village during the year examined by the Committee, vehicle and traffic matters
accounted for approximately 41% of the total. The Committee has included this study of law
enforcement activity within the Town and the Village so that the public will be aware of the level
of service being provided presently and to assist the elected officials in determining the
allocation of future resources.

The amount allocated for law enforcement in the 2010-2011 Village Budget is
$391,537.63. To that amount, the charge of $89,390.38 for employee benefits must be added to
ascertain the full cost of maintaining the Village Police Department. (The details of these costs
can be found in the attached appendix under “Police Budget Analysis.”). Thus, the total annual
cost for the Village Police Department is currently $447,928.76. However, this figure does not
include the annual obligation by the Village of $21,723.36 for the combined charge of health
benefits for retired police personnel or for the compensation of the crossing guards and parking
enforcement personnel. The current cost for the active police force is 22.5% of the Village
Budget. These costs can be expected to climb for two primary reasons. One, the current Village
Budget does not include any projected expenditures for future purchases or leases of police cars.
One or the other of these two expenditures is likely to occur. Two, Village police personnel are
scheduled next year to receive a minimum of a 4% increase in pay pursuant to their collective
bargaining agreement.

In response to the Committee’s request, Madison County Sheriff Riley has proposed 24
hour daily coverage of the Village by a Deputy Sheriff of his Department at the rate of $50 per
hour. The annual cost of the Deputy Sheriff with a fully equipped car providing patrol and
protection for the Village would be approximately $436,800. This figure does not include the
cost of any crossing guards or parking enforcement personnel. The figure is about $11,000 less
than the amount that the Village has currently budgeted for the Village Police, excluding any
charges for crossing guards and parking enforcement personnel. The Village currently
budgets the costs of crossing guards and parking enforcement personnel at about $31,500. A
copy of Sheriff Riley’s proposal is included in the attached appendix. The Village also has
occasions, especially on weekends, when there are two officers on duty. The proposal of Sheriff
Riley does not address this coverage. Overall, though, the cost for utilizing the County for police
services in the Village in lieu of a local police force is about the same. However, by contracting
with the County, the Village could eliminate future “legacy” costs of retiree health
benefits. While the Village has the responsibility of paying the promised benefits for its three
retired police officers, it would not have to add to that number in the future for other retiring
personnel. It is reasonable to assume that the charge of the County for its police service to the
Village will also increase, as the County has not given its personnel a raise since 2008 and
presently is in negotiations with its deputies over compensation and related financial matters.

! 9
 Village authorities will have to determine what level of police service the Village can
afford and desires. Currently, the Village strives to maintain 24 hour per day coverage, but the
Committee has learned that there are times when the Village has been unable to provide such
coverage due to a lack of personnel. Of the 556 villages in the state of New York, 320 do not
have local police coverage, whether it is their own or contracted from an outside source. 226
villages have some type of coverage. Madison County Sheriff Cary recommended that the
Village not go without local coverage because of the presence of Cazenovia College in the
Village. It was difficult for the Committee to ascertain how much law enforcement activity is
generated by Cazenovia College students, as only incidents that physically occur on campus are
recorded as college related (2.6%.). It is significant to note that in the several other college
towns that the Committee studied, the colleges there make a monetary contribution to local
governments in order to help support the services which they use and which are provided by
taxpayers without costs to the colleges. Cazenovia College does not make any such contribution.

In reviewing the advantages and disadvantages of transferring Village police protection

to the Madison County Sheriff’s Department, the Committee has determined that on balance, it
would be beneficial for the Village authorities to examine making the move. The previously
mentioned legacy retiree health benefit costs would be avoided by such a move; and, thus, a
financial savings to the Village would occur over time. More immediately, the Village would
get the benefits of a police agency with more levels of supervision and with higher levels of
training that can accrue in a larger operation than in the local Village police force. As it stands
now, the local force is unable to conduct many investigations due to a lack of both equipment
and specific expertise. Currently, a Village trustee has to provide oversight of the chief and of
the operations of the local police department. The Committee believes that these tasks could be
better accomplished by those professionally trained at the Madison County Sheriff’s Department
level. In addition, the training of County Sheriff personnel is superior to what the Village can
provide to its police personnel. By receiving services from the County Sheriff, the Committee
believes that the citizenry of the Village would get a higher caliber of service.

In conclusion, the Committee finds that its study of the matter indicates that the Village
should strongly consider contracting with the Madison County Sheriff’s Department for the
desired police coverage of the Village. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that the
Village explore this matter further. In addition, the Committee also recommends that the Village
formally contact Cazenovia College to request direct financial support from the College for the
municipal services, including police enforcement, that it receives from the Village.

NOTE: Should the Village be interested in a more formal study than that conducted by the
Committee, New York State grant money is available on a non-competitive basis for such a
study. Inasmuch as the Village expends in the top quartile of the State for its police services, the
Village qualifies for this grant money provided that it meets the other applicable requirements,

! 10
such as contributing 10% of the cost of the study. Included in the attached appendix is a copy
each of the pertinent grant application and of the related grant guidelines of the State of New
York.

! 11