The glacier-like speed at which the state Legislature moves can be astounding.
It”™s a good thing lawmakers don”™t run a business, because they would be out of business.
But on the positive side, the Legislature, like a glacier, does move.
Last week, the state Senate passed legislation aimed at reducing the tax burden by improving the means by which county, city, town and village highway superintendents can share services. Sharing, as we learned as kids, is a good thing. And you can”™t get too much of a good thing.
The new legislation lets counties rent machinery from municipalities even if the municipality is not within the borders of the county. Under current law, counties are able to rent machinery from only a town, not a city or village, within that county.
Who came up with that original law? And why in heaven”™s name was it so provincial?
More on provincial later.
“This legislation lifts onerous and unjustifiable restrictions that have kept pro-active and cost-conscious municipalities from sharing services and equipment on a larger scale. This savings will help municipalities in their efforts to reduce property taxes,” said Sen. Darrel J. Aubertine, an upstate Democrat who was the lead sponsor of the bill.
Sharing services is not some new initiative. The Shared Services Program was established in the 2005-06 state budget and is overseen by the Department of State.
What we don”™t understand is why not every municipality feels compelled to cut taxes on their own initiative?
Must the hand always be out to Albany?
Â
A long, long time ago by Albany standards ”“ 2008 ”“ the New York State Commission on Local Government Efficiency and Competitiveness issued a report that identified more than $1 billion in savings.
Â
It also identified 4,720 local government entities in the state.
The report stated: “These estimates ”¦ include potential savings from school district restructuring, minimum employee contributions for health insurance, some policing consolidations, coordinated snow-plowing, special district reforms and others. Major savings are also available through reformed state oversight of county jails, sharing and consolidation of highway operations, Wicks and procurement reforms, and local government restructuring in general ”“ but the statewide magnitude cannot be estimated at this time.”
The report also stated: “Individual communities can realize dramatic savings from service consolidations. Perhaps the best current example is from central New York, where the Town of Clay and Onondaga County have announced a plan to consolidate the town police force with the county sheriff”™s department. This plan is expected to reduce town tax bills by 20 percent, and save up to $17 million over 10 years, without reducing service.”
Sharing plows and services is a start, but it”™s not where the big savings can be attained.
Those savings lie in the provinces of school districts and police departments, especially schools.
As we all know here in this state, school taxes represent the largest portion of the overall property tax burden ”“ 61 percent. And they keep rising.
But merging a school district, let alone even suggesting it, is akin to committing treason.
And a lot of the arguments against such mergers would span the spectrum from the inane to the elitist.
But it doesn”™t have to mean the end of school colors or the dilution of SAT scores.
It”™s the back-office operations that can be merged. Consolidate purchases of copier ink or floor wax.
Schools need to take a cue from highway departments ”“ Merge Ahead.
