Consensus Options Report

Options Report &
Preliminary Committee Recommendations

www.consensuscny.com
Table of Contents
A Call to Action: We Can Do Better
Process Background
This Report and What Comes Next
Infrastructure
Street and Highway Maintenance
Water Infrastructure
Wastewater Infrastructure
Solid Waste Collection
Summary of Alternatives
6
6
12
13
16
18
22
Public Safety
Fire Protection
Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
Law Enforcement
Corrections
25
25
28
30
32
34
35
41
42
43
Municipal Operations
Tax Assessment
Financial Administration
Courts
Code Enforcement
Clerk
Social Services and Health
Libraries
44
44
46
47
52
53
54
55
56
61
Economic Development
We Can Do Better
The Fiscal Reality Facing Local Government
Uneven Regional Growth
Minnesotas Shared Growth Program
Land Use Planning
64
64
65
67
67
69
70
ii
Governance
Laying the Groundwork for Systems Change
Why Do Places Explore the Idea of Thinking Bigger?
A Syracuse-Onondaga Story, Not Just a City Story
A Policy Motivation to Thinking Bigger
A Fiscal Motivation to Thinking Bigger
71
71
72
73
73
74
74
Conclusion
77
The Commission
79
iii
A Call to Action: We Can Do Better

Since January 2014, the Commission
on Local Government Modernization
has been working to shape a vision
for more effective and efficient
governance across the SyracuseOnondaga community.
This summary report on the issues and
opportunities we have identified is the
next step in developing that vision.
This is not our final set of
recommendations, but rather a
foundation for community dialogue. In
presenting the options and
preliminary recommendations crafted
by the Commissions committees, we
hope to catalyze an inclusive regional
conversation on what we as the
residents who call the SyracuseOnondaga community home want
our local government structures to
look like over the next generation.
The report is the product of thousands of
collective hours invested by members of
the Commission, residents and
stakeholders, all made for one reason: A
shared desire to improve our community.
more competitive and an even better

place to live, work and play.
Though our work continues, we know
this: Following 18 months of review,
discussion, analysis and conferral with
leaders in other regions across the
country, the Commission has concluded,
simply, that we the SyracuseOnondaga community can do better.
Better than 294th in economic
performance.1 Better than highest in
extreme poverty concentration.2
Better than 19 of 35 municipalities
losing population in the last Census.3
Better than an average wage that is
20% lower than the nations.4 Better
than a 9% decline in jobs since 1990.5
Our regions truth that too many
economic opportunities have gone
elsewhere, too many residents have left,
and too few of our children and
grandchildren are in a position to remain
here is uncomfortable, but it doesnt
make it any less truthful.
We can do better.
As we continue our work, we must

recognize that the vision we are
creating is about the present, but
more specifically about the future. A
future in which the SyracuseOnondaga community is stronger,
And we can start by creating a local

government structure in the SyracuseOnondaga community worthy of our
people. A globally-competitive future
depends upon the modernization of each
and every one of our governmental
http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports2/2015
/01/22-global-metro-monitor
2
http://apps.tcf.org/architecture-of-segregation
http://centerstateopportunity.com/files/9213/8383/
3393/CenterState_AEO_Summary.pdf
5
http://www.bls.gov/lau/
http://www.ongov.net/about/populationTrends.ht
ml
structures. While every level of

government our County, City, Towns
and Villages has found ways to
innovate and improve both service
delivery and cost-efficiency over the
years, it is also true that every level of
government has more work to do to
transcend what are in some instances
centuries-old traditions, practices and
ways of doing business.
We know these changes cannot
happen overnight. Nor will they be
easily achieved. The experiences of
peer communities nationwide that
have paved the path of modernization
tell us as much. Changes of this
magnitude require effort, difficult
decisions, and a willingness to
challenge a thats the way weve
always done things mentality.
But those experiences also tell us that
while change will be difficult, it is, frankly,
essential to our regions economic future.
So, too is ensuring that the changes
we make are inclusive and respect the
voices of our diverse communities.
This is especially important for
traditionally underrepresented
constituencies. Ensuring a place for
all at the new regional table is key to
our overall success. The experiences
of Nashville, Jacksonville and
Indianapolis prove these changes can,
in fact, enhance the voice and
leadership position of traditionally
underrepresented communities. We
can and must do it, too.
There are many reasons the SyracuseOnondaga community has struggled to
compete for the past two generations,
and it would be wrong to blame a local
government system that has persevered
despite incredibly challenging financial

circumstances.
It would be equally wrong to conclude
these challenges are exclusive to our
central city. We feel them in many
corners of our community. And a
region performing well in pockets is
not a region performing well overall.
Budget deficits arent exclusive to the
City: 15 of our 19 towns face projected
deficits based on current spending /
revenue trends.
Population loss isnt exclusive to the
City: 7 of our 19 towns, and 11 of our
15 villages actually lost population
between 2000 and 2010.
Job losses arent exclusive to the City:
The employment base in our towns is
down 3.2% in the past 25 years.
Systemic challenges call for systemic
solutions, and modernizing how we
do local government will take
systemic change on the part of all of
us and all our governments: County,
City, Towns and Villages.
We also need the commitment of state
government to being a willing partner in
our modernization. Not only in relieving
our local governments of costly
mandates, but actively empowering our
efforts to help ourselves and supporting
efforts to carve out a more positive
direction for our community.
Change is hard, but change we must.
The preliminary recommendations in
this report require change from each
and every unit of local government.
Some changes are bold and dramatic
and likely to generate significant
debate. Others are more subtle, but
2
equally necessary. Some changes can

and should be made quickly. Others
may take years to fully implement.
But two things are constant in each and
every case. First, these changes require
our well-intentioned public servants to
take the risk associated with bold
leadership. Second, they require all of us
to envision a better and more prosperous
future that will only be achieved through
a shared commitment to continuous
improvement.
Our history tells us we can come
together as a community to produce
positive change. We have success
stories in our past, having already
regionally reorganized and
modernized services such as 911
communications, public health, solid
waste disposal and libraries. That
cooperative spirit fuels this effort.
These changes alone are hardly a silver
bullet, but they can be part of a stronger,
more vibrant and more competitive
foundation for our region and its future.
Communities that have gone before us in
modernizing their structures have sent
important signals about their willingness
to improve, compete and grow. This
effort offers a greater potential for
economic growth.
And for the sake of our children and

grandchildren, and those that will call
the Syracuse-Onondaga community
home in the generations to come,
they are opportunities we simply
cannot ignore.
This report, which sets out the
Commissions preliminary committee
recommendations, is intended to launch
a robust public engagement process.
That conversation as important as any
the Syracuse-Onondaga community has
had.
Now its your turn. We need to hear
from you. What do you like? What
dont you like? It matters not whether
you support or oppose our findings
and preliminary recommendations.
What matters is that you engage and
help us understand why.
The Commission is committed to
producing a final recommended plan in
early 2016. Your feedback over the
coming months is essential to building on
our progress to date.
Working together, we will make this
vision for the Syracuse-Onondaga
community even better and more
reflective of what we all desire for our
region.
Our future deserves nothing less.
Process Background
Consensus the Commission on Local Government Modernization was launched
in 2014 as a partnership of SYRACUSE 20/20, CenterState CEO, the County of
Onondaga, the City of Syracuse, FOCUS Greater Syracuse, the League of Women
Voters of the Syracuse Metropolitan Area, the Onondaga Citizens League and the
Homebuilders & Remodelers Association of CNY, with the expressed goal of
shaping a vision for more effective and efficient governance across Onondaga
County.
With representatives from Onondaga County, the City of Syracuse, the Onondaga Town
Supervisors Association, the Onondaga Village Mayors Association, and the business,
nonprofit, higher education and K-12 education communities, the Commission designed a
process where residents and stakeholders across the community are taking a leadership
role in defining how it wants to be organized and governed locally, with high quality
standards at an affordable price.
Complete information on the Commission, its members, reports and public
engagement can be found online at www.consensuscny.com.
The Commissions process has been built around two key phases. The first, a Baseline
Phase, was completed in early 2015 with a review of existing conditions across all local
governments countywide. The baseline review culminated with the release of a
comprehensive report to the community, entitled Who Does What & What it Costs,
detailing the local government universe in Onondaga County.
Following release of the baseline report and a series of public engagement forums
throughout the County, the Commissions process pivoted to a second phase: An
Options Review, during which it has reviewed and critically assessed local
governance and municipal services in the County, examined best practices
offered by peer communities across the country, and explored opportunities to
enhance the efficiency, effectiveness and responsiveness of Onondaga Countys
local government universe.
To facilitate its options review and enable further data collection and deeper dive
analysis, the Commission established committees:
Infrastructure, focusing on street and highway maintenance, water, wastewater,
solid waste collection and parks;
Public Safety, focusing on fire protection, emergency medical services, police and
corrections;
Municipal Operations, focusing on tax assessment, financial administration,
courts, code enforcement, clerk, social services, public health and libraries;
4
Economic Development, focusing on fiscal and economic relationships among

the Countys governments, as well as the land use and policy impacts of local
government actions; and
Governance, focusing on the overarching structures of local and regional
governance and the extent to which the Countys key policy issues are adequately
aligned with its policy making capacity.
Each committee was chaired by a voting member of the Commission. Committees also
sought out technical and service delivery experts to further inform their reviews. In some
cases, committees had outside experts serve as regular members of the committee; in
others, outside experts served as invited presenters, facilitating more detailed discussions
of specific municipal services and the challenges and opportunities relating thereto.
A sixth committee, Public Engagement, was established at the beginning of the process
to ensure a consistent and robust community conversation takes place regarding the
Commissions work, both during the process and following release of the final
recommendations.
This Report and What Comes Next

This is not the Commissions final report. It is intended as a new tool for engaging
the public in this vitally important conversation about the future of our community.
As a launching pad for that conversation, it offers readers the following:
Overviews of information the Commission has reviewed since the release of the
baseline report, with its committees having completed more detailed examinations
of nearly every local government service provided in the Syracuse-Onondaga
community;
Highlights of key issues identified by each committee regarding the current
service delivery and governing frameworks serving the Syracuse-Onondaga
Community;
Options the committees have reviewed to improve service delivery and governing
frameworks within the Syracuse-Onondaga community; and
Preliminary recommendations reached by committees on opportunities to
modernize and improve the effectiveness, responsiveness and efficiency of service
delivery and governing frameworks within the Syracuse-Onondaga community,
along with the rationale for those preliminary recommendations.
Readers should note a critically important point about these Preliminary
recommendations. They are, in a very real way, preliminary. They represent the work
5
completed (or in-process) at the committee level to identify, flesh out and bring forward
ideas, concepts and strategies to build a stronger local government system in the
Syracuse-Onondaga community.
No recommendations have been officially voted on by the full Commission. No final
decisions have been made. No final report has been drafted.
The Commission has done this intentionally in order to benefit from the wisdom of
residents and stakeholders in the Syracuse-Onondaga community, all 468,000 of us.
Your voice is so critically important over the coming months. Please take the opportunity
to engage be it through a public forum, letter to the editor, feedback to the Commission
via our website (www.consensuscny.com), or other medium.
Our goal, following what we hope will be an engaging and powerful community
conversation on these issues, is to incorporate your feedback and issue the
Commissions final recommendations early in 2016.
Infrastructure
The Infrastructure Committee focused on four critical service areas:
Street and Highway Maintenance;
Water;
Wastewater; and
Solid Waste Collection.
STREET AND HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

Street and highway maintenance is among the most visible services any local
government provides, especially so in a community that receives average annual snowfall
of 12 feet. From plowing and salting roads seasonally, to repairing drivable infrastructure
year-round to ensure access and safety, high-quality public works services are essential
to the quality of life, sustainability and growth of the Syracuse-Onondaga community.
What we have today
There are 36 separate service providers in the Syracuse-Onondaga community,
including the County, City, 19 towns and 15 villages.
There is vast disparity in the scale of these providers. Land area responsibilities
range from mi2 to 780 mi2; populations served range from fewer than 400 to
more than 468,000; and centerline miles covered range from 1 mile to 794 miles.
Collectively, street and highway maintenance services had costs totaling $141
million in 2013, making them the third-highest cost function in the community.
Challenges and opportunities
1. The 36 separate service providers have independent workforces, fleets, staff
experts and planning processes, which results in some duplication of staff and
capital equipment.
2. Service deadheading occurs at municipal borders (e.g. snow plow blades being
lifted up at the municipal line), with legal boundaries dictating service areas /
routes more than considerations of efficiency and responsiveness.
3. Although a material amount of cooperation occurs between public agencies, much
of it is informal meaning that it can be subject to interpersonal dynamics rather
than what makes the most sense in terms of service delivery.
4. Public works agencies that serve communities with smaller tax bases can find it
more difficult if not cost prohibitive to fund larger infrastructure investments.
5. There is a statistical correlation between the scale of public works agencies in the
Syracuse-Onondaga community and their unit costs, with those serving more
square miles and / or larger populations tending to have lower unit costs.
6. Collectively, local governments in the Syracuse-Onondaga community operate 39
public works facilities.
10
11
WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
Water is a major economic resource for the Syracuse-Onondaga community. Its
importance to our communitys vitality is heightened by water access challenges that are
increasingly impacting other parts of the country. Ensuring access to clean, cost-effective
water is critically important to our future economy and quality of life.
What we have today
There are three main entities (two major retail providers) with primary responsibility
for providing water services in the Syracuse-Onondaga community The
Metropolitan Water Board (and the Onondaga County Water District), the
Onondaga County Water Authority and the City of Syracuse Water Department.
Collectively, they supply approximately 90% of residents in Onondaga County. The
Metropolitan Water Board supplies 2/3 of the water volume and has 32 major
industrial users.
In addition to these primary providers, residents in some parts of the County get
their water from local municipal wells (in Baldwinsville and Tully) or individual
wells.
The current water infrastructure network in the Syracuse-Onondaga community
faces significant and growing needs, and deferred maintenance has compromised
the systems integrity.
Federal funding assistance has been waning.
The fragmentation of the ratepayer base among suppliers and districts can make
major investments even when necessary cost prohibitive and exacerbate the
deferred maintenance problem.
There is some functional duplication across the two major retail providers in terms
of administration, meter reading, billing and treatment plant operations.
12
WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
The proper functioning and maintenance of our network of pipes, treatment plants and
outfalls are critically important not only to the Syracuse-Onondaga communitys economic
viability, but our environment and quality of life.
What we have today
Wastewater treatment for most municipalities in the Syracuse-Onondaga
community is provided by the County Department of Water Environment
Protection, which operates 6 treatment plants and more than 150 pumping stations
in the Consolidated Sanitary District. County sewer service is confined to this
district and includes all or portions of 21 municipalities. Several villages own and
maintain their own sewage treatment plants.
Wastewater costs in the Syracuse-Onondaga community totaled $147 million in
2013, making it the second-highest cost of all government functions. County
government is responsible for approximately 88% of these expenditures, with the
remainder comprised of the City (2%), towns (7%) and villages (3%).
Reflecting national trends, capital investment needs for wastewater and storm
water infrastructure in our community are growing.
We are not currently structured to meet the Environmental Protection Agencys
Ten Attributes for an Effective Wastewater Utility (see following page), which
includes elements such as infrastructure stability, operational optimization and
financial viability. This creates issues not only for the sustainability of our
infrastructure both in capital and financial terms but regulatory compliance
risks.
There is a growing number of pump stations in the Syracuse-Onondaga
community. In the past ten years the number of stations has increased 36%, from
116 to 158 while population remained flat.
Eight towns in the Syracuse-Onondaga community are not in the Countys
Consolidated Sanitary District.
There is a broad scale in size of sanitary districts, with the smallest covering 19
homes and a pump station.
Every sewer district bills for services independently, which results in a diversity of
approaches.
External pressure is increasing to upgrade collection and treatment infrastructure,
and towns and villages are being pushed to meet more stringent standards.
13
Aging collection infrastructure in the County has more extraneous groundwater

infiltration and inflow, increasing the cost of treatment and general operating costs.
Source: A Primer for Water and Wastewater Utilities, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Product Quality
Produces potable water, treated effluent, and
process residuals in full compliance with
regulatory and reliability requirements and
consistent with customer, public health, and
ecological needs.
Customer Satisfaction
Provides reliable, responsive, and affordable
services in line with explicit, customeraccepted service levels. Receives timely
customer feedback to maintain
responsiveness to customer needs and
emergencies.
Employee and Leadership Development

Recruits and retains a workforce that is
competent, motivated, adaptive, and safeworking. Establishes a participatory,
collaborative organization dedicated to
continual learning and improvement.
Ensures employee institutional knowledge is
retained and improved upon over time.
Provides a focus on and emphasizes
opportunities for professional and leadership
development and strives to create an
integrated and well-coordinated senior
leadership team.
Operational Optimization
Ensures ongoing, timely, cost-effective,
reliable, and sustainable performance
14
improvements in all facets of its operations.

Minimizes resource use, loss, and impacts
from day-to-day operations. Maintains
awareness of information and operational
technology developments to anticipate and
support timely adoption of improvements.
Financial Viability
Understands the full life-cycle cost of the
utility and establishes and maintains an
effective balance between long-term debt,
asset values, operations and maintenance
expenditures, and operating revenues.
Establishes predictable ratesconsistent
with community expectations and
acceptabilityadequate to recover costs,
provide for reserves, maintain support from
bond rating agencies, and plan and invest for
future needs.
Infrastructure Stability
Understands the condition of and costs
associated with critical infrastructure assets.
Maintains and enhances the condition of all
assets over the long-term at the lowest
possible life-cycle cost and acceptable risk
consistent with customer, community, and
regulator-supported service levels, and
consistent with anticipated growth and
system reliability goals. Assures asset repair,
rehabilitation, and replacement efforts are
coordinated within the community to
minimize disruptions and other negative
consequences.
Operational Resiliency
Ensures utility leadership and staff work
together to anticipate and avoid problems.
Proactively identifies, assesses, establishes
tolerance levels for, and effectively manages
a full range of business risks (including legal,
regulatory, financial, environmental, safety,

security, and natural disaster-related) in a
proactive way consistent with industry trends
and system reliability goals.
Community Sustainability
Is explicitly cognizant of and attentive to the
impacts its decisions have on current and
long-term future community and watershed
health and welfare. Manages operations,
infrastructure, and investments to protect,
restore, and enhance the natural
environment; efficiently uses water and
energy resources; promotes economic
vitality; and engenders overall community
improvement. Explicitly considers a variety of
pollution prevention, watershed, and source
water protection approaches as part of an
overall strategy to maintain and enhance
ecological and community sustainability.
Water Resource Adequacy
Ensures water availability consistent with
current and future customer needs through
long-term resource supply and demand
analysis, conservation, and public education.
Explicitly considers its role in water
availability and manages operations to
provide for long-term aquifer and surface
water sustainability and replenishment.
Stakeholder Understanding and Support
Engenders understanding and support from
oversight bodies, community and watershed
interests, and regulatory bodies for service
levels, rate structures, operating budgets,
capital improvement programs, and risk
management decisions. Actively involves
stakeholders in the decisions that will affect
them.
15
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION

Sanitation services are critically important to the quality of life and environment in the
Syracuse-Onondaga community.
What we have today
Sanitation services are handled in a variety of ways throughout the SyracuseOnondaga community. Three basic approaches are used. Some municipalities
provide the service directly using their own employees and equipment; others
broker the service on behalf of their residents by contracting to a private service
provider and levying costs on homeowners through property taxes or district-based
fees. Further, some municipalities have no involvement in the function at all, in
which case property owners can directly contract with private haulers or selftransport their waste to a landfill.
Six municipalities including the City and five villages deliver the service
themselves.
Twenty municipalities including 13 towns and 7 villages contract with an
outside vendor to provide the service to residents.
The remaining local governments have no involvement in sanitation services either
as a provider or broker.
Of the local governments in the Syracuse-Onondaga community that directly
spend on sanitation and recycling, $22.2 million was spent in 2013. This figure
does not include the cost of contracts between individual property owners and
private haulers in those communities where the local government is not involved in
the service. The true overall cost of the service is therefore higher than this figure.
OCCRA the Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency is a public benefit
corporation created in 1981 under state law and made responsible for
implementing the County Solid Waste Management Program, as well as the
construction, operation and availability of solid waste management and recycling
facilities for municipalities in the County. The Agency is a model regional
cooperation framework.
There is little intermunicipal coordination regarding solid waste services in the
Syracuse-Onondaga community aside from the Southern Onondaga Trash System
(SOTS), which is a multi-town consortium in the southeast quadrant of the County
that jointly contracts for service.
The diversity of approaches used across the County, and the absence of
coordination outside of OCCRA and SOTS, compromises economies of scale that
16
could otherwise yield lower costs. A previous benchmarking report produced by

the Maxwell School at Syracuse University found that, of the varied approaches to
handling residential trash services in the Syracuse-Onondaga community,
municipally-brokered / contracted was the least costly. By contrast, in those
communities where the municipality had no involvement in the service, residents
individually contracted for trash collection at roughly double the cost of municipallybrokered communities.6
Residential Trash Collection in Onondaga County: A Study Comparing Cost and Type of Service,
June 1999, Syracuse University, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.
17
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
In reviewing street and highway maintenance, water, wastewater and solid waste
collection, the Infrastructure Committee explored a range of service delivery options.
Although certain options are more applicable in the context of some infrastructure-related
functions than in others, the following summary generally outlines the range of
alternatives.
Models of local government public works and street / highway maintenance services
range from local models in which multiple governments bear responsibility for providing
services in individual communities (as is the case in the Syracuse-Onondaga community
today), to countywide models in which a single provider is responsible for a broader
geographic area.
In the middle of the range are intermunicipal / hybrid models based on intermunicipal
shared services, where administrative functions, operations and / or capital equipment
are shared between or among otherwise independent government units.
Model 1: Local Approaches
At one end of the continuum is the delivery of public works services using a local model of
administration, operations and capital. Under this framework, individual local
governments deliver the service independently within their boundaries and retain
autonomy over the type, level and cost of services provided. As a result, some service
differentiation exists across local governments.
For example, some governments provide trash collection as a municipal service, some
contract it out to a private vendor, and others play no role at all. Similarly, some public
works departments have the capacity, equipment and expertise to perform major capital
repairs in-house; others contract the function out completely.
The local model characterizes most public works services in the Syracuse-Onondaga
community today. In total, the county is home to 36 separate public works agencies one
each in the County, City, 19 towns and 15 villages. Though the agencies do collaborate
typically on an informal, as needed basis they handle administration, operations and
capital equipment independent of one another. Examples of collaboration include interagency support for large scale jobs, shared facilities, shared fueling depots and bulk bid
purchasing of common supplies.
Perceived Advantages
Department administration is closer to community it serves
Constituent connection with public works agency
Local structure creates greater direct tie to communities served
Greater sensitivity to (and prioritization of) local community service needs
Quicker response time to local needs
Local decision-making autonomy over type and level of services provided
18
Each government can match its own equipment to its own desires, needs
Each government has ready access to its own equipment for local use
Perceived Disadvantages
Administrative duplication across neighboring municipalities
Administrative cost concentrated on smaller tax base and geographic area
Services not prioritized based on regional needs
Operational cost concentrated on smaller tax base and geographic area
Facilities often in close proximity to one another
Service delivery can dead head at municipal borders, creating inefficiencies
Equipment redundancy in neighboring jurisdictions and countywide
Equipment redundancy creates maintenance redundancy
Absence of pooled purchasing compromises economies of scale
Municipal-level equipment tracking is often less sophisticated and makes it difficult
to determine life costs of maintained equipment
Capital cost concentrated on smaller tax base and geographic area
Model 2: Hybrid / Intermunicipal Shared Services
Next are hybrid models that leverage inter-municipal shared services in administration,
operations or capital equipment to collaboratively deliver public works services across
otherwise independent governments. This may happen broadly and cover all services
(e.g. a full operational or administrative merger of public works agencies), or more
narrowly focused on a specific type of service (e.g. county contracting with local
governments to handle ice and snow removal on county roads), such as occurs in the
Syracuse-Onondaga community on certain street maintenance functions.
An examination of select hybrid models within New York illustrates the diversity of intermunicipal approaches:
Onondaga County contracts with several towns and villages to provide snow and
ice removal on county-owned roads during the winter.
Monroe and Jefferson Counties provide technical assistance to local
governments throughout the county, while local governments maintain all localand county-owned roads within their boundaries.
A large number of public works agencies throughout the state, including in the
Town of Philadelphia and Town of Addison, operate fuel depots that are jointly
used by public works agencies of the counties, towns and villages, as well as the
local school districts.
Chemung County has provided public works administrative and staff supervision
under contract to the Town of Big Flats for the past year. More recently, the county
announced in January 2015 that it had reached agreement with the City of Elmira
to consolidate the two governments public works agencies. Under that plan, city
19
public works employees will become county employees, yielding a geographically

larger and more streamlined public works agency. Efficiency savings to the city
from merging administrative functions are estimated at $1.8 million.
Chemung Countys experience offers an additional model that, had it been fully
implemented, would have represented a first of its kind in New York. In 2010, the county
released a study of highway services that recommended a regional-hybrid model of
administration and operations. It consisted of three main components.
First, a consolidated urban highway services area (UHSA) would have been
created among the county, the City of Elmira and the citys dense inner-ring
neighbors, including the towns of Horseheads and Elmira, and the villages of
Elmira Heights and Horseheads;
Second, a mechanism for providing certain common and specialized highway
services on a countywide basis instead of on a municipal basis, capitalizing on the
benefits of larger scale service delivery; and
Third, transferring routine seasonal maintenance and repair duties on countyowned infrastructure to municipal public works agencies in an effort to better
coordinate local road maintenance.
Though the Big Flats and City of Elmira administrative consolidations with the county
have moved forward, the broader tenets of the plan have not.
Collaboration where efficiency opportunities can be leveraged
Individual local governments retain some autonomy over services, levels
Mitigate administrative, operational duplication where it exists
Mitigate some service deadheading at municipal boundaries
Mitigate some service duplication in neighboring jurisdictions
Standardize services and equipment across communities
More coordinated and broader capital equipment replacement strategy across
communities can yield economies of scale
Enlarged / joint tax base over which to spread capital expenditures, some of which
are significant (e.g. dump trucks, plows, trash collection trucks)
Reduced accountability as administrators are further from constituents
Local governments relinquish some authority / control over services, levels
Loss of service differentiation among communities
Service delivery can still dead head at municipal borders, creating inefficiencies
Shared or jointly-owned equipment can be complicated to schedule and maintain
equitably
20
Model 3: Countywide
At the other end of the continuum are services delivered through a countywide model by
a single government / service provider. Under this model, all public works services are
consolidated into a countywide organization, with local presence established through
satellite facilities strategically located throughout the region. A unified, streamlined
administration oversees the entire operation and deploys personnel and capital resources
in response to both regional and local service needs.
Countywide coordination of services, personnel, equipment and facility deployment
Standardized policies and procedures to ensure consistent service levels, job
training and safety
Mitigate administrative duplication
Deeper organizational capacity for jobs requiring concentrated expertise or
manpower
Mitigate operational duplication
Eliminate service deadheading at municipal boundaries
Enlarged tax base over which to spread expenditures
Standardize services and equipment across county
Larger pool of personnel allows for specialization and more technical projects to be
done in-house
More efficient facility distribution throughout county
More coordinated and broader capital equipment replacement strategy across
region can yield economies of scale through single procurement agency
Reduced duplication of specialized equipment
Enlarged tax base over which to spread capital expenditures, some of which are
significant (e.g. dumps, plows, trash collection trucks)
Reduced accountability as administrators are further from constituents
Loss of local decision-making authority over services, levels
Less responsiveness to local / neighborhood-level concerns
Local governments relinquish control over services, levels
Local governments relinquish control over equipment, supplies
Asset distribution may be less responsive to community / neighborhood needs
21
PRELIMINARY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Infrastructure Committee has developed the following preliminary
recommendations regarding street and highway maintenance, water, wastewater and
solid waste services. These have not yet been formally accepted by the full
Commission.
Street and Highway Maintenance
1. Create a coordinated Core Highway Services Area (CHSA) that integrates the
City of Syracuse and more densely developed suburban communities to its
North, East and West, in order to leverage highly consistent service delivery
menus, equipment needs and the public works service similarities that result
from density.
a. Standardize equipment
b. Share services
c. Coordinate capital planning for equipment and infrastructure
d. Revise operational plans to address municipal border areas where
services often dead head
e. Standardize all contracts
2. Deliver common specialized / technical functions on a shared countywide basis
instead of within each agency, via intermunicipal agreement.
a. Engineering
b. Purchasing
c. Pavement marking and striping
d. Bridge and culvert maintenance
e. Sign fabrication and maintenance
f. Salt storage and equipment barns
g. Insurance, HR, development and training
3. Appoint a Highway Advisory Services Committee to provide oversight
countywide.
22
4. Transfer (or maintain, where applicable) routine seasonal maintenance on

County-owned infrastructure outside the CHSA to municipal street and highway
departments.
a. Build on precedent of County-municipal snow removal agreements that
are already in place
5. Establish a model intermunicipal agreement to facilitate additional
collaborations and mitigate planning / implementation barriers.
6. Move to appointed street / highway administrators instead of elected officials.
Water Infrastructure
1. OCWA has been incrementally taking over the assets and operations of smaller
water districts; this process should continue and be expedited.
2. Merge OCWA and the City Water Department to leverage internal efficiencies in
administration and operations, and to broaden the ratepayer base.
3. Digitize the entire countywide system to provide a basis for planning in a more
comprehensive way.
4. Create a countywide comprehensive plan for water infrastructure.
Wastewater Infrastructure
1. Prepare an Asset Management System for treatment and collection systems
countywide to serve as the basis for integrating and evaluating systems
countywide.
2. Access Department of State planning grant to conduct a system audit and
develop an asset management system / plan.
3. Develop a plan to retire / assume debt carried by districts not already part of the
Consolidated Sanitary District.
4. Shift engineering, system planning / design / construction and map maintenance
to the County Department of Water Environment Protection.
5. Create a single countywide basis for billing.
23
Solid Waste
1. Expand the Southern Onondaga Trash System into contiguous towns that
already have contracts with a private hauler.
2. Pursue bulk bidding of hauler services across multiple municipalities to increase
collection volume and drive down unit costs.
3. In towns with no current involvement, develop service districts and bid collection
services in aggregate to drive down costs for individual property owners who are
currently paying direct to private haulers on a property-by-property basis.
Additional Recommendations
In the course of the Infrastructure Committees work, several additional areas were
examined and opportunities to improve were identified. The following preliminary
recommendations are therefore offered:
1. Parks Maintenance: All agencies in the Syracuse-Onondaga community should
be merged under a single roof, in a way that retains individual community / park
identities but maximizes economies of scale.
2. Broadband Access: This is a crossover issue with the Economic Development
Committee. The opportunity should be pursued to provide high speed access to
all in the community. The State of New York currently has a funding opportunity
of $50 million for expansion of broadband to underserved areas.
3. Mass Transit: There should be regional discussion to support CENTRO the
Central New York Regional Transportation Authority and work together on a
sustainable long term plan. Research vouchers and contract models for
effectiveness.
24
Public Safety
The Public Safety Committee focused on four critical service areas:
Fire Protection;
Emergency Medical Services (EMS);
Law Enforcement; and
Corrections.
FIRE PROTECTION
Fire protection is not only one of the most visible services provided by local government,
but one of the most essential. A robust and effective response system is necessary to
protect life and property.
What we have today
The Syracuse-Onondaga community is served by nearly five dozen separate
agencies. Excluding the Onondaga Nation Fire Department, 57 agencies provide
fire protection to portions of the County.
In 2013, 57 different fire departments responded to 55,286 requests for service in
the Syracuse-Onondaga community. This amounts to about 150 calls per day and
about one call for every 8.4 residents. Fifty percent of calls were answered by the
City of Syracuse, 19% by the next 8 busiest departments in the neighboring
suburbs (each with more than 1,000 calls per year), and 20% by 18 departments
that handle between 400 and 1,000 calls per year each. The remainder are
handled by 29 agencies that each respond to about a call per day or less.
The agencies serving the Syracuse-Onondaga community represent a variety of
types. There are municipal departments, where the City and some villages directly
provide the service themselves; there are fire districts, which are separate units of
local government with their own elected boards of commissioners, some of which
have their own fire associated fire departments; and there are fire protection
districts, which are geographic areas created by towns to receive service pursuant
to a formal contract between the town government and one or more fire service
providers.
In cities and villages, fire services are funded by property taxes. In fire protection
districts, the town government levies the property tax on properties in the areas
served. In fire districts, town governments levy (and collect) the district tax but
otherwise have no direct input into the district budget.
Although Onondaga County itself is not formally involved in the actual delivery of
fire services, its Office of Emergency Management plays a coordinating and
oversight role.
25
Among the agencies serving the Syracuse-Onondaga community, service areas

range from less than 1 mi2 to more than 38 mi2.
Fire departments already cooperate heavily on the hardest part of their job
working at emergency scenes.
The Syracuse-Onondaga community is served by a large number of fire
departments with rising costs.
There is a challenge in recruiting and retaining volunteers, exacerbated by the
need to spread that limited base across 57 agencies.
There is lack of inter-agency coordination in purchasing apparatus and planning
capital facility projects, which results in higher costs and inefficiency distribution of
assets serving smaller geographic areas.
Response resources are not always matched to location.
Resource distribution challenges are compounded by the decreasing availability of
volunteers, especially during daytime hours.
Any decisions about changes in the fire service need to consider the large number
(and variable characteristics) of the different fire agencies and acknowledge the
challenges to enacting change.
There are coverage differentials across the Syracuse-Onondaga community, with
the City and inner ring suburbs closer to fire response resources than the ex-urban
areas on the Countys outskirts.
26
27
FIRE PROTECTION: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

Options range from local models in which multiple service providers cover smaller
geographic areas, often a single municipality or portions of a single municipality, to
regional models in which service delivery is consolidated across many or all municipalities
in the region. In the middle of the range are intermunicipal / hybrid models where multiple
municipalities share the function in an effort to generate economies of scale and produce
efficiencies through higher call volume.
Model 1: Local
The local model characterizes the current approach to fire protection in Onondaga
County. Fifty-seven different fire protection agencies serve the County, each with primary
jurisdiction over a small geographic area consisting of one city or village, or a portion of
one town. Many of these agencies are operated outside of the general municipal
governments in fact, 48 of the 57 agencies serving Onondaga County are not
municipally-based but rather are independent companies or districts. Each is responsible
for administering its own operations from recruiting appropriate human resources to
acquiring the necessary equipment for suppressing a fire.
In Onondaga County, each department sets its own policy for responding to calls,
identifies the necessary equipment for its department and is responsible for budgeting
its own capital costs. There is substantial local control, with each department having a
chief that is empowered by state law with certain authority and the ultimate responsibility
to mitigate emergencies in their jurisdiction. Each department supplies its own personnel
and equipment for emergencies in its territory, but will request outside assistance as
needed.
Within the local model, is important to acknowledge the cooperation that exists between
and among departments. Fire agencies have a long history of providing mutual aid to
each other when responding to an event that requires resources or capacity not available
in the home community. Examples include:
Tanker relays in rural areas where water is scarce
Rapid Intervention Crews to assist at working fires
Aerial apparatus to large fires
Pooling equipment / personnel for specialty teams, such as hazardous materials
Additional manpower and equipment for long term incidents
A number of departments also have automatic aid whereby a neighboring department is
automatically dispatched for certain types of events under specific conditions. An
example would be one department requesting a neighbor to automatically send a ladder
truck for reported house fires or two departments sending resources to each others calls
during hours when there might be fewer volunteers.
28
Model 2: Hybrid / Sub-Regional or Collaborative

Between the local and regional models are examples of communities where restructuring
or merger has resulted in new provider combinations serving multiple communities. In
New York, this has generally been the result of fire district consolidation or joint
contracting with a single service provider.
Under state law, the most common result of a consolidation or merger is either a joint fire
district or a new fire district with larger borders. Although the governance of the two is
slightly different, the result is a special purpose governmental unit providing services to a
slightly larger area. Towns can also enable the expansion of a fire departments territory
by changing how they contract with fire departments to provide services to their fire
protection districts. Towns can adjust their contracts so that individual departments have
larger service areas.
Model 3: Countywide or Regional
Under the regional model, a bigger geographic area is serviced through a single unified
provider.
Variation A: Models in which a single government serves essentially as the exclusive fire
service provider in the entire county. While this model is seen in New York City, it is also
found in many areas of the country outside of the Northeast and Midwest. It is common to
find fire departments covering entire counties in Florida, California, Virginia and Maryland.
One such county with comparable size to Onondaga is Brevard County on the east coast
of Florida. Brevard County Fire Rescue (www.brevardcounty.us/FireRescue) provides fire
and EMS transport services for a county of about 540,000 people in 1,500 square miles.
The department utilizes some volunteers in auxiliary roles including emergency
preparedness and wild land firefighting.
Kern County, California, (including the city of Bakersfield) has a single fire department
that provides service for 8,100 square miles (including several large parks) and about
840,000 people. The department has some seasonal personnel to assist with wild land
firefighting, but otherwise it is an entirely paid department (www.kerncountyfire.org).
Variation B: Models in which a regional approach to fire service exists alongside a local
approach. This form has a variety of different origins and is common across the country.
One variant is a county government providing services to much or all of the area outside
of a city while the city operates a separate department.
Fairfax County, Virginia: The County began providing paid staff to support
volunteer fire departments in the 1970s. The County fire department has been
invited by volunteer fire departments to provide additional services over time.
There are some cities in the county that maintain their own separate departments.
The County department now staffs 42 paid fire apparatus (including paramedic
ambulances) while the volunteers staff 12 county-owned apparatus. Some of the
29
stations are owned by separate volunteer departments while others are owned by
the County. The volunteers maintain their branding on many stations, uniforms
and apparatus. However, all turn out gear is owned by the County and has
consistent markings; all members (paid or volunteer) need to meet consistent
training standards; and all operate under a single unified command structure. All
essential functions are funded through County funds and patient billings, while the
volunteer departments have separate fundraisers to support their activities. The
County department provides both fire and EMS transport services. In sum, this
model is the result of regionalization by evolution as volunteer departments have
slowly turned to the County for support over many decades to the point where the
majority of services are provided by paid staff, but volunteers still play an important
role. (www.fairfaxcounty.gov/fr/)
Indianapolis: The city and surrounding Marion County merged in 1970 by act of the
state legislature. Eleven included towns that existed outside the former City of
Indianapolis were permitted to retain some autonomy and local governing / service
delivery responsibilities. Some of these towns provide their own fire protection,
while others contract with the Indianapolis Fire Department. The city fire
department only provides fire and rescue services; EMS transport is performed by
a separate regional organization. (www.indy.gov/egov/city/dps/ifd/)

The Public Safety Committee has developed the following preliminary
recommendations regarding fire protection. These have not yet been formally accepted
by the full Commission.
Note
Decisions about changes to the fire service need to consider the large number and
variable characteristics of the different fire agencies and acknowledge the challenges to
enact substantive change. While a broad change in the service model might ultimately
provide better service in a more cost effective manner, it will likely require incremental
change to develop and move to that model.
Initial Steps
Over the next 3 years, the fire service should consider the following steps that will not
require a substantial change in their operations:
1. Group specification and purchasing of apparatus and equipment on a
countywide basis. In particular, turnout gear, hoses, SCBAs, radios and
computers could all be purchased in bulk at a discounted price leading to
standardization and reduced costs. Group specification and purchasing could be
30
accomplished under existing organizational structure using Onondaga County

Division of Purchase.
2. Share resources for the training of firefighting skills including the construction of
props and development of in-service education. Develop strategically located
and centrally managed training facilities to assist both paid and volunteer
firefighters develop and maintain their skills.
3. Develop community wide performance measures for responding to emergencies,
training, and recruiting with a standardized method for reporting to the
community.
4. Focus responses on calls where fire department resources are truly needed by
eliminating response to low priority EMS calls and service requests that can be
handled by other organizations.
5. Lobby for the expanded presence of residential sprinklers in new one- and twofamily homes.
6. Centrally coordinate and fund the provision of specialized fire response assets
such as hazardous materials, confined space, high angle, and trench rescue.
Syracuse Fire Department already performs many of these functions.
Intermediate Option
In order to improve coordination of service and address escalating costs in service
provision, a metropolitan fire authority should be created. This authority would have
commissioners that represent the diverse stakeholders of the fire service including
elected officials, other government representatives, volunteer firefighters, and career
firefighters. Planning for this option should begin quickly, but it is not anticipated to take
effect for at least five to seven years.
The authority would support the existing service providers through providing
administrative support, long term planning, and coordination of capital expenses,
recruiting and training of firefighters. One of the objectives that could be facilitated by
this organization would be to reduce the number of separate government and taxing
jurisdictions among the agencies serving ex-urban portions of the county. This could be
accomplished through a merging of fire districts and / or towns redrawing fire protection
district boundaries in a way that results in a quadrant-type district system outside the
City / inner ring.
Reducing the number of separate districts would improve upon two issues. First, fewer
districts reduces capital / apparatus needs (e.g. ladder trucks) by planning over a larger
geography.
31
Second, it would mitigate the current reality that response resources are not always
effectively matched to location; that is, occasionally the system responds to calls with
something other than the closest resource, simply because of the extent of territorial
boundaries created when the area was sparsely populated.
Note: As much as possible under this option, fire departments should retain their
current names and stations to continue to foster tradition and community connection.
Long-Range Option
While certain departments are an exception, most volunteer fire departments are facing
a long term decrease in the number volunteers and consequently may soon have
growing difficulty in responding to emergencies appropriately. For the more densely
populated, commercially developed suburban areas adjacent to the City of Syracuse, a
transition to a predominately career, centrally-managed metropolitan department would
be the best solution. This alternative would need to be cost effective and provide at
least the same level of service to the communities, with no decrease in objective
performance measures. In the outlying areas, the strategic allocation of paid resources
from the metropolitan department would augment the existing volunteer departments.
The long term option would be an opt-in system whereby fire departments could
choose to join based on their ability to sustain their current operations. The opt-in
system would focus on ensuring services in areas where volunteers need assistance
and departments could choose to have assistance only during certain periods of the
day.
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMS)

Emergency Medical Services is a distinct public safety service that is provided by a
combination of commercial ambulance services, non-profit combination paid / volunteer
services (including fire departments), and completely volunteer services (primarily in rural
areas). The system has already been evolving in the Syracuse-Onondaga community, to
a point where remarkably few calls in the Syracuse-Onondaga community are currently
handled by purely volunteer organizations.
What we have today
In 2013, 17 different EMS providers responded to 72,815 EMS calls in the
Syracuse-Onondaga community. This amounts to 200 calls per day and about one
call for every 6.4 residents. Sixty percent of calls were answered by Rural / Metro
Medical Services and another 20% by three large non-profit ambulance companies
with substantial paid staff.
More than 90% of EMS calls were answered by agencies that bill for service and
pay at least a portion of their staff.
32
Nearly all agencies respond with their own advanced life support (paramedics) or
have arrangements for that service from an immediate neighbor.
Advanced life support is present in all communities.
A substantial paid staff is spread throughout the Syracuse-Onondaga community,
with most of them being purely EMS professionals employed by private
organizations (non-profit and commercial). The remainder are dual EMTfirefighters employed by municipalities, which are more expensive than single
purpose employees.
In general, the Syracuse-Onondaga community has a relatively rapid response
from qualified providers. However, additional coordination of resources and other
organizational changes could lead to improved services.
Service levels in the City and pockets of the inner suburbs meet the expectations
of the communities and are close to industry high performance targets. The goal
should be to get 80% of the total population up to a high level of service, rather
than just having high service in specific pockets of the county (e.g. City,
Fayetteville, portions of Clay and Dewitt, East Syracuse). There are coverage
challenges in more rural areas where limited call volumes make high service levels
less economically viable.
Absence of dynamic positioning of ambulances and personnel resources reduces
system efficiency.
Territorial boundaries represent a real inefficiency. State public Health law
prohibits agencies from sharing resources across these boundaries prior to there
being a call request, so the more territorial boundaries that exist, the lower the
efficiency / effectiveness of the system. Reducing the number of boundaries would
yield a more efficient deployment of ambulances and personnel. Specifically, fewer
boundaries would allow for more dynamic positioning of resources and reduce
response times.
There is no central measurement of performance in the Syracuse-Onondaga
community for key indicators such as appropriateness of care, survival rates,
transport to correct facilities or cost of operation.
There is no reliable data on EMS workforce in the Syracuse-Onondaga community
including pay rates, level of certification, hours worked / volunteered and the
agencies that volunteers work for in the community.
Anecdotally, there are fewer EMS volunteers than just a few years ago and the
existing paid workforce is spread thinly across multiple agencies, with the majority
of employees working for multiple organizations.
33

recommendations regarding emergency medical services. These have not yet been
formally accepted by the full Commission.
Note
The EMS system has already been evolving to become more efficient and improve
operations because of market forces and changes in funding sources. The suggested
alternative is a further step along the path that they have already traveled.
Preferred Model
A countywide system in which there are fewer service providers serving larger
territories. The future agencies would preferably be independent nonprofit agencies,
private commercial agencies (under a contract with specific performance criteria), or a
combination. A sample model could include dividing the County outside the City into
quadrants. Each area would be served by a single large organization that would benefit
from economies of scale, efficiencies in management, resource allocation and planning
across a broader geography and population. A central coordination entity would set
levels of service and provide essential support such as purchasing, human resource
management and fiscal planning.
Note: A single service provider for the whole county would face challenges in
maintaining adequate staff. The existing system functions because individual EMS
workers work for multiple employers, allowing the employers to limit benefit and
overtime costs.
To address the challenges of serving rural areas, the opportunity exists to tie the rural
areas to more dense suburbs by reducing the number of boundaries through use of the
quadrant system. Coverage challenges abound in the outlying areas precisely because
their limited call volume does not make a robust service economically viable for any
service provider absent a subsidy (or significant taxpayer expense). As part of this
system, the primary source of funding should be fee-for-service with municipal funding
being limited to support areas that need a subsidy to provide appropriate service.
Other Opportunities to Enhance Service
Group specification and purchasing of equipment, ambulances, insurance coverage,
billing for service and benefits on a countywide basis. Group specification and
purchasing could be accomplished under existing organizational structure using
Onondaga County Division of Purchase. Establish performance standards for response
times, call coverage, staffing minimums and adequate training.
34
LAW ENFORCEMENT
The Syracuse-Onondaga community is served by 15 local law enforcement agencies that
span two levels of government: The County, through the Onondaga County Sheriffs
Office, and those municipalities which maintain and fund their own police departments.
Among the municipal agencies, the City of Syracuse Police Department is the largest in
force size, budget and call volume.
The accompanying map illustrates the distribution of police departments throughout the
Syracuse-Onondaga community. Although the County Sheriffs Office technically has
countywide jurisdiction, it serves as the primary law enforcement agency only in those
localities not otherwise covered by their own municipal department (in the map, those
areas shaded in light gray). Including the City of Syracuse, there are fourteen such
municipal departments, concentrated generally in the northern half of the County (in the
map, those areas shaded in color).
What we have today
In 2013, and including the State Police, 17 different law enforcement agencies7
responded to 407,564 calls for service in the Syracuse-Onondaga community. This
amounts to an average of 1,117 calls per day and about 870 calls per thousand
residents.
Based on calls for service, the Syracuse Police Department, Onondaga County
Sheriff and New York State Police were the top 3 busiest agencies. They
accounted for roughly two-thirds of all calls for service and served more than 60%
of the countys population as primary responder for law enforcement calls for
service.
The total expense for law enforcement (excluding State Police) was over $88
million or about $188 per capita in 2013.
Village and town police officials interviewed in the course of the project report that
their rapid response time and detailed knowledge of the community are valued by
residents and worth the additional cost. All residents in the County pay taxes for
both the Sheriffs Office and State Police; individual municipal police departments
are property tax funded in addition to paying for these two services.
In many areas the different agencies work well together through both formal and
informal arrangements. Some examples include joint training, criminal investigative
There are several other law enforcement agencies that serve specific locations such as the Syracuse
University Public Safety Department and the Onondaga Community College Public Safety Department that
are excluded from the report because they primarily serve only a specific small area and do not routinely
respond to 911 calls. They are an important part of law enforcement in the community, but their
responsibilities would not change based on report recommendations.
35
task forces, using the closest resource for serious calls and information sharing.
Other specific operational examples include the availability of Air One to all
agencies, joint training for tactical teams, and coordinated traffic safety and
enforcement campaigns such as Buckle Up and Stop-DWI.
All law enforcement agencies are dispatched through the Onondaga County 911
Center, and all law enforcement vehicles have automatic vehicle locator
technology. This technology works in parallel with computer aided dispatching and
a mutual assistance agreement to ensure that the closest police agency is
dispatched to high priority calls.
Challenges and Opportunities
The total number of sworn officers in the community has decreased by 10%, or
102 officers, from 2007. The Citys force has shrunk by 7.8%, or 38 officers over
the same period. The Onondaga County Sheriff has lost 11.2%, or 29 officers. The
total loss of officers for every other department in the community was 13.4%, or 35
officers.
The number of law enforcement calls for service has been relatively steady for the
last eight years while the number of officers available for all agencies in the County
to respond is going down. The result of the steady demand and the declining staff
has been an increased workload by about 10 percent, as measured by calls per
officer. The result is that officers are spending more time responding to calls and
less time conducting proactive police work such as foot patrols or establishing
community rapport.
36
Federally reported serious crime data for the last 25 years shows that the rate of
reported property crime has decreased substantially in the Syracuse-Onondaga
community. The amount of serious crime reported is, on average, 44% lower in
2014 than it was in 1990.
37
The number of reported violent crimes in Syracuse has dropped in the last several
years from the long term average of about 1,400 incidents per year. Anecdotally,
there is an increase in number of violent crimes committed by gang members and
incidents related to the drug trade. The reported crimes in 2014 were 28% below
the high year in 2005.
In the remainder of Onondaga County, the rate of reported violent crime has
remained essentially level for the last 25 years. There are about 375 violent crimes
per year on average in the rest of the County, compared to 1,400 in Syracuse.
38
The cost of providing law enforcement in the Syracuse-Onondaga community

continues to climb at a steady rate higher than inflation.
Several of the interviewed officials indicated that a rise in crime committed by
younger individuals, and particularly by gang members, is a concern. The entire
community needs to work to reduce poverty, improve education and provide a
pathway away from criminal behavior.
39
40

recommendations regarding law enforcement services. These have not yet been
formally accepted by the full Commission.
Note
The Syracuse-Onondaga community has already seen two police departments dissolve
or join others. There is a great deal of cooperation already, starting with the 911 center,
joint task forces for serious crimes and the sharing of specialty teams.
Preferred Option
A consolidation of the Sheriffs Police Department and the City of Syracuse Police
Department into a single metropolitan police department would allow for a larger pool of
resources, especially personnel, to be deployed more effectively. Eliminating
managerial positions through consolidation would free up money to put more officers on
the street and acquire technologies (such as more street cameras and information
systems) to aid in solving crimes. A key tenet will be that the number of police
personnel patrolling needs to keep pace with the calls for service in the community.
Also, specialized units could be consolidated and strengthened. The remaining local
police forces would be encouraged to join the metropolitan police department.
It is important to acknowledge that moving toward this option would have substantial
challenges, including different labor unions, competing political interests and separate
work practices.
Interim Actions
A consolidated department will take substantial political will and several years of
planning to implement. Some interim actions were identified as being helpful to improve
the law enforcement environment. To combat the perception of increased violent crime
in the urban core, additional resources should deployed including an emphasis on
community policing and targeted patrolling of high crime areas. This can be
accomplished by additional hiring of sworn officers, increasing sworn staff through
reassignment of tasks to non-sworn personnel, and temporary task forces. Another tool
that may assist in this area is expanding the use of technology to both deter and solve
crime. A further recommendation is to expand and enhance the sharing of resources
between law enforcement agencies including coordinated grant applications.
Shape the law enforcement workforce to better reflect the community it serves by
evaluating the existing screening process for potential biases and taking further
proactive steps in recruiting qualified minority candidates.
41
CORRECTIONS
The County is exclusively responsible for providing and administering corrections and
incarcerations in the Syracuse-Onondaga community. However, there are inefficiencies
created by the Countys operation of two separate corrections departments one by the
Sheriff for prisoners that have not yet been sentenced, and one by the Department of
Corrections for prisoners that have been sentenced. Onondaga is the only New York
county that has not unified its prison operations.
What we have today
For 2013, the average daily census of the Onondaga County Justice Center, operated
by the Sheriff, was 614. Ninety-two percent of the prisoners were unsentenced. The
Sheriffs Office has about 280 sworn personnel assigned to different roles in the
Custody Section. The Justice Center operates at nearly full capacity, especially during
the summer months. Any overflow prisoners are sent preferentially to Jamesville and
the alternative is to board them with another county for a fee.
Also in 2013, the average daily census of the Jamesville Correctional Facility,
operated by the Department of Corrections, was 476. Seventy percent were
sentenced. The Department of Corrections has 184 funded positions, including a
small percentage of non-sworn support staff.
Challenges and Opportunities
The County operates separate facilities and administers them across separate
departments.
There is cooperation with certain shared administrative tasks, including using the
same records management system, human resources, purchasing, food service and
correctional health.
There are two separate union agreements, with the Department of Corrections staff
earning less than the Sheriffs deputies. While the officers and deputies that directly
work in custody of prisoners have similar training, union rules prevent them from being
assigned at the other facility.
42

recommendations regarding corrections services. These have not yet been formally
accepted by the full Commission.
Note
The changes that would result from this preferred option can be made by the actions of
the County without involvement of other municipalities in Onondaga County. The
preferred option has been considered a number of times previously, but has not been
adopted.
Preferred Option
The preferred option would be a single organizational structure responsible for
operating both County facilities and holding all prisoners. This would involve moving to
a single labor agreement and unified operating structure. In the near term, there would
not be substantial cost savings as the size of the work force supervising prisoners is
unlikely to change, but there may be efficiencies gained with increased flexibility in
assigning the workforce to both locations (which would enable some overtime savings)
and a single capital plan.
43
Municipal Operations
The Municipal Operations Committee focused on those service areas that were neither
infrastructure nor public safety related, including:
Tax Assessment;
Financial Administration;
Courts;
Code Enforcement;
Clerk;
Social Services and Health; and
Libraries.
TAX ASSESSMENT
Property taxes are a critically important revenue source for local governments. As a
result, an effective and equitable tax assessment system is the basis for funding
municipal government and the services it provides.
What we have today
There are 17 separate tax assessment units in the Syracuse-Onondaga
community, including the City and 16 town-based providers.
There are broad scale differences in the jurisdiction of these agencies. The largest
is the City, which maintains assessments on more than 42,000 parcels; the
smallest unit administers 1,539 parcels.
Although villages have the authority to run their own assessment operations in
New York State, none do in the Syracuse-Onondaga community. Each villages
assessment function is effectively consolidated within its surrounding town, and
village property taxes are levied using the town-derived assessment for each
property.
There are three Coordinated Assessment Programs (CAPs) in the SyracuseOnondaga community, whereby multiple towns have effectively merged their
assessment functions under authority granted by the State Real Property Tax Law.
There is functional and administrative duplication across separate assessment
units, particularly in back office capacity required by each office.
There is variability in the level of assessment across the Syracuse-Onondaga
community, with equalization rates ranging from as low as 2% to as high as 100%.
44
There are large scale differences across the assessment units: Eight units handle
more than 10,000 properties each, while five units handle fewer than 3,000
properties each.
The technical expertise required to administer accurate, equitable assessments is
in limited supply, creating succession challenges beyond the current group of
assessors in the Syracuse-Onondaga community.
Tax certiorari lawsuit defense is costly and can create substantial burdens for
smaller municipalities.
There is a statistical correlation between scale of assessing units in the SyracuseOnondaga community and their unit costs, with those serving a higher number of
parcels tending to have lower unit costs, as shown in the following graph.
45
FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION
A strong financial administration function is critically important to prudent fiscal
management in local government, especially in light of the budgetary challenges
municipalities increasingly face.
What we have today
Financial administration is disaggregated across the local governments of the
Syracuse-Onondaga community. Every general purpose local government has a
treasurer, budget officer and / or finance department to administer its financial
management responsibilities.
The size, cost and capacity of the function varies, with the largest-budget
governments tending to have the greatest investment in financial administration. In
smaller governments, the budget officer responsibility is borne by the town
supervisor or village mayors office, with input from department heads who oversee
46
specific functional areas; in larger governments, the function is typically a separate

department.
In the County, the Finance Department serves the financial management role.
Additionally, the County has a separately-elected Comptroller charged with
independently overseeing finance and audit functions across County government.
The check and balance role of financial administration makes some level of local
oversight important.
Technological capacity important for financial management generally and the
data that supports it varies across local governments.
There is no standard financial software system in use across the local
governments of the Syracuse-Onondaga community.
Procurement processes are handled separately by each local government, except
for occasional procurement off State or County bids (and with the exception of the
County, City and City School Districts joint procurement framework).
There is limited information technology capacity in some local governments,
especially smaller municipalities where the investment may be cost prohibitive.
COURTS
The organization of New York States court system results in different levels of local
government having markedly different responsibilities. At the town and village level,
locally-funded justice courts handle a range of criminal proceedings including felonies,
misdemeanors / violations and traffic infractions.
What we have today
There are 19 town courts and 9 village courts, all of which are locally-funded.
Separate City and County courts are state-funded.
Total judicial costs in the Syracuse-Onondaga community totaled nearly $18.3
million in 2013. County costs, which also included state-mandated functions such
as district attorney and public defender, accounted for 80%; town and village costs
accounted for 17% of the total.
Every town government in the Syracuse-Onondaga community operates its own
court, while 9 of the fifteen villages do so. For those 6 villages that do not maintain
their own court, proceedings are handled by the surrounding towns court.
47
Town and village justice courts do generate some revenue to offset a portion of
their local cost burden. The net municipal share (after State and County fees are
assessed) of court revenues generated in 2013 ranged from a high of $1.0 million
to a low of less than $10,000.
There is limited intermunicipal sharing of administrative capacity, justices or
facilities at the present time.
NYS Uniform Justice Court Act, Section 106-a, authorizes two or more contiguous
towns to share a court.
Adequate facilities are a real and growing concern for many justice courts.
Town and village courts do generate some revenue through fines and fees, but
most run a deficit with local taxpayers funding the difference. The average deficit
across all town and village justice courts in 2013 was approximately $54,000; the
cumulative deficit was more than $1.4 million.
There is a statistical correlation between scale of justice courts in the SyracuseOnondaga community and their deficit level, with the smallest courts (measured by
caseload and revenue) having the highest deficit as a percentage of revenue.
48
49
50
51
CODE ENFORCEMENT
Code enforcement, which is critically important to ensuring the health and well-being of
persons and property, involves the investigation and enforcement of State laws and local
ordinances pertaining to building standards, property / land use, and important quality of
life measures.
What we have today
Nearly every municipality in the Syracuse-Onondaga community handles its own
code enforcement, though there is some collaboration between towns and their
villages (e.g. Town of Elbridge and the Villages of Elbridge and Jordan).
Code enforcement responsibilities span both the State Uniform Code (which is the
same for all local governments equally) and specific provisions of the municipal
code (which is different across municipalities and often reflects certain quality of
life matters the local community wants to focus its enforcement efforts on). On
balance, the state-established Uniform Code covers about 90% of enforcement
responsibilities, with local ordinances representing the other 10%.
Neighboring communities with similar development density and land uses tend to
have common code approaches and face similar enforcement challenges.
Code enforcement expertise and staff capacity is limited, particularly in smaller
municipalities where the function is less than full-time.
The technical expertise required to implement effective code enforcement is in
limited supply, creating succession challenges beyond the current group of code
enforcement personnel in the Syracuse-Onondaga community.
There are disparities in technology utilization for record keeping across
municipalities.
52
CLERK
Often the face of municipal government, every general purpose local government has a
clerk position. Duties typically include interfacing with the public on permit and license
applications, and maintaining the books, files and records of local government.
What we have today
There are 36 separate municipal clerks in the Syracuse-Onondaga community
one in each general purpose local government. In many cases, those positions are
supported by deputy clerk and / or clerical personnel.
In the County, the clerk is an elected position in accordance with State County
Law. In the City, it is an appointed position in accordance with the City Charter. In
towns, clerk positions are almost always elected, pursuant to State Town Law
(although some towns in New York State have sought to convert the position to an
appointed one in recent years). In villages, clerks are appointed by the mayor and
board, in accordance with State Village Law.
Although progress has been made, local governments in the Syracuse-Onondaga
community are not yet making optimal use of online / electronic opportunities for
the filing and permit processing responsibilities that clerk offices generally handle.
There is a range of information technology capacity in place across clerk offices,
with some having significantly more robust capabilities than others.
53
SOCIAL SERVICES AND HEALTH

Social services and public / mental health are among the largest governmental cost
centers in the Syracuse-Onondaga community. Although much of the programming is
determined by the State, the County is primarily responsible for administering and
delivering these functions.
What we have today
Social services represents the single largest functional cost center among
governments in the Syracuse-Onondaga community. With $267.6 million in 2013
spending, the function equates to approximately $571 per capita.
Public health functions represent the fifth-largest local government cost center, at
$66.5 million in 2013 or $142 per capita. Mental health functions accounted for an
additional $22.9 million in 2013, or $49 per capita.
Social services are vested entirely at the County level, as are all major public /
mental health programs.
Caseload numbers for these services within the Syracuse-Onondaga community
are significant. In 2014, the Department of Social Services Economic Security
served over 143,000 unduplicated county residents through programs such as
Temporary Assistance, SNAP (Food Stamps), Subsidized Child Care, Heating
Energy Assistance Program (HEAP), Child Support and Medicaid.
Caseload numbers are growing in certain programmatic areas. For example, since
2007 there has been a 17% increase in total Temporary Assistance applications,
including increases of 58% for families (Family Assistance) and 97% for singles
(Safety Net Assistance). Over that period there has also been an 80% increase in
the number of individuals and families applying for SNAP (Food Stamp)
assistance; a 30% increase in the number of working families receiving subsidized
child care assistance; and a 35% increase in the number of individuals receiving
Medicaid.
Caseloads have stabilized, but at very high levels causing continued stress on staff
and resources.
Technology advances, like the Countys self-service kiosks, continue to propel the
system forward.
New York States takeover of Medicaid administration is progressing more slowly
than originally planned.
54
LIBRARIES
Library services in the Syracuse-Onondaga community are essentially consolidated under
the Onondaga County Public Library (OCPL). The product of a 1976 merger of the
Syracuse Public Library and the nonprofit Onondaga Library System, OCPL is one of 23
public library systems chartered by the New York State Board of Regents. It is
responsible for providing library development and resource sharing support across the
systems member libraries, as well as an integrated records system that links member
libraries.
What we have today
OCPL operates a Central library downtown, 8 branch libraries within the City, 2
satellite libraries and 12 independent suburban member libraries.
The libraries within OCPL are a variety of different types, which impacts their
governance structure and funding framework. The types include public school
district libraries, public special legislative district libraries, association libraries and
public / municipal libraries.
55
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
In reviewing these functional areas, the Municipal Operations Committee explored a
range of service delivery options. In general, there is a range of ways in which these local
government services can be provided. The diversity of approaches is evident in the
Syracuse-Onondaga community today.
At one end of the continuum are services that are based at the most local level, delivered
by individual local governments or service providers generally operating independently of
one another. Examples include financial administration and clerk, both of which are
provided by 36 separate entities. While there is occasional inter-municipal collaboration in
these services, the basic structure is disaggregated across the County.
At the other end of the continuum are services that are based at the regional or
countywide level, delivered by a single government with service jurisdiction spanning
otherwise independent municipalities. These include social services, public health and
mental health, each of which is provided exclusively by Onondaga County on a
countywide basis in accordance with state law.
In between are hybrid models in which services are delivered over geographies that are
larger than individual communities, but smaller than the entire County. Examples in the
Syracuse-Onondaga community include tax assessment (17 separate agencies, with all
villages already merged into their towns and three consolidated multi-town agencies) and
libraries (where a single regional umbrella system serves 31 libraries, including 21
independent suburban libraries).
Model 1: Local
Under this model, a service is delivered more or less independently by a multitude of
service providers. Typically those service providers are municipalities, although in some
cases (e.g. fire protection) they are not general purpose local governments. The model is
enabled by state law granting local governments (i.e. individual communities) the
autonomy to decide which services they will provide and at what level.
The local model is not devoid of inter-municipal cooperation, however; indeed, much of
the cooperation (formal and informal) that exists in the delivery of services across the
Syracuse-Onondaga community occurs in services that use a local delivery structure. But
even with examples of collaboration, the local model is based on a disaggregated
approach where local communities budget, fund, deliver and administer particular
services at the municipal level. In most cases where service autonomy is granted at the
local level, there is no requirement that governments collaborate in the delivery of the
service.
Local control, choice and decision-making authority
Local democracy and resident access to elected officials and department heads
56
Ability to provide personal or more tailored types of services to residents

Ability to provide different levels and types of services based on community
desires
More responsive to community / neighborhood concerns
Duplicative service delivery infrastructures, esp. at managerial level
Lost economies of scale in procurement and capital planning
Disaggregation of regional tax base concentrates local fiscal burden and makes
certain investments cost prohibitive
Model 2: Hybrid
Under this model, a service is delivered at a geographic level greater than individual
municipalities but less than the entire county / region. There are at least two basic
models:
Inter-municipal, where individual governments otherwise authorized to deliver a
service independently have opted instead to deliver, administer and fund the
service collaboratively. Tax assessment is an example although 17 separate
governments provide this service in the Syracuse-Onondaga community today,
there is existing collaboration in that town governments provide the service for all
villages. By contrast, there are portions of New York in which village governments
still handle their own tax assessment. Further, the Syracuse-Onondaga community
has three examples of consolidated multi-town assessment operations.
Sub-regional, where essential services are delivered through a combination of
municipal service providers and county government. Police is an example the
county operates a law enforcement agency (i.e. Onondaga County Sheriff) that
has countywide jurisdiction and serves as primary agency in 14 towns and 3
villages. At the same time, there are 14 municipal-level law enforcement agencies
serving specific portions of the county, including the City of Syracuse Police
Department. The municipal departments are funded by taxes from only those
municipalities they serve; by contrast, the Sheriff is funded on a countywide basis
through taxes from all Onondaga County taxpayers.
Though hybrid models do not cover the entire region, they can serve as important
building blocks for exploring more countywide service delivery by building on existing
collaboration / service delivery infrastructure spanning multiple communities.
Mitigate some service duplication in neighboring jurisdictions, reducing the
administrative and capital overhead that would otherwise be required
Enlarged / joint tax base over which to spread expenditures
Leveraging of existing commonalities and connections of neighboring jurisdictions
57
Standardize delivery of complex services requiring specific expertise (e.g. tax

assessment)
Loss of local control over service level
Loss of some service level choice and differentiation among communities
Reduced accountability as administrators and service providers are geographically
further from constituents
Model 3: Countywide
Under this model, a service is delivered at the county level. Key distinguishing features
include a unified service delivery infrastructure and administrative framework, and the
spreading of costs across the entire county (as opposed to a disaggregated
administrative framework and concentrated cost burdens on smaller geographic areas).
Several services are already provided on a countywide basis to the entire SyracuseOnondaga community. Among them are social services and public / mental health, which
are exclusively delivered and administered by county government pursuant to state law.
Just because a service is delivered by the county does not necessarily make it a regional
service. For example, the county delivers law enforcement services, but that function is
technically a hybrid model since it is simultaneously delivered by individual
municipalities. In such cases the countys existing service delivery / administrative
infrastructure may provide a stepping stone to regional service delivery.
Unified service delivery minimizes duplication
Regional structures permit greater ability to address regional service needs and
issues that transcend governmental boundaries
Spreading costs over larger and more robust regional tax base
Elimination of deadheading (i.e. delivery of common services that terminates at
municipal borders yielding inefficiencies)
Moves service administration and decision-making further from constituent level
Greater geographic distance between constituents and service administration
Loss of local control and access to community-level department heads
Loss of power to effect immediately local / neighborhood service issues
Loss of personal forms of service
One size fits all approach can minimize service differentiation
58
Summary of Alternative Models by Service Category

Service
Tax
Assessment
Model 1: Local
Model 2: Hybrid
Model 3: Regional
Does not appear feasible

given that villages are
already out of the tax
assessment function.
Shifting to this model
would require village
governments to create
their own assessment
infrastructure, including
investments in professional
expertise and specialized
software.
Exists today.
Exists today but an

expansion is feasible by
creating new Coordinated
Assessment Programs
serving multiple
jurisdictions and / or
expanding the existing
CAPs to include additional
neighboring communities.

given that every town
already handles courts
independently and, in the
case of the 6 villages who
do not have their own
court, establishing one
would require staffing,
capital and facility
investments both at startup
and on a recurring basis.
Exists today but could be

expanded further. The
States Uniform Justice
Court Act, Section 106-a,
authorizes two or more
towns that form a
contiguous geographic
area within the same
county to establish a single
justice court with justices
elected from each town.
Would be feasible. At
present there are three
counties in New York State
that deliver tax
assessment services on a
countywide basis
Nassau, Tompkins and
Schuyler, although
Schuylers structure
involves each town
appointing the county
assessor as its own.
Is technically feasible,
although there are
challenges in maintaining
local-level accountability,
checks and balances over
financial transactions
through a regional
framework that spans
many individual
governments. Further, the
use of different financial
software systems makes
full administrative
integration difficult.
under current state law,
though a quasi-regional
model could be envisioned
in which municipal-level
courts share common
facilities and staff in
strategically located
sections of the County
(e.g. quadrants). Such an
arrangement would be
further enabled by an
expansion of the current
hybrid model.
Financial
Administration
(including
purchasing)
Courts
Is feasible and could be

implemented and enlarged
over time through
intermunicipal
collaboration and shared
services. Common tasks
could be shared e.g.
payroll, purchasing, HR
and benefits).
59
Summary of Alternative Models by Service Category

(continued)
Service
Model 1: Local
Model 2: Hybrid
Model 3: Regional
Exists today.
Is feasible and could be

implemented and enlarged
over time through townvillage and town-town
collaboration in providing
code services in shared
fashion.
Exists today.
Is feasible, though the

elected position and the
role clerks often play as
the municipalitys primary
public interface would
complicate integration.
Not feasible, given role

counties are required to
play as primary
administrator.
Not feasible, given role

counties are required to
play as primary
administrator.
Would not be advisable to

roll back the regionally
collaborative model
already in place.
Exists today.
Is technically feasible,
though it could
compromise individual
local governments desire
to focus the enforcement
function on specific issues
of local concern. Under
state law, the minimum
required enforcement
pertains to the Uniform
Building Code.
Municipalities can legally
opt out of enforcing that,
in which case state law
requires the county
government to handle
enforcement functions.
Would be less feasible as
long as independent
municipalities exist, since
the clerk function is
responsible for maintaining
the books and
documentation of each
municipal government.
Exists today. Primary
opportunities involve
decisions at the state level
regarding programmatic /
benefit offerings and cost
share.
May be feasible, though
politically difficult in that
local independent libraries
may lose governance
authority and, in some
cases, current funding
vehicles based on their
legal structure. Efficiency
improvements may be
minimal, given the hybrid
regional system already in
place under OCPL.
Code
Enforcement
Clerk
Social Services
and Health
Libraries
60

The Municipal Operations Committee has developed the following preliminary
recommendations regarding tax assessment, financial administration, courts, code
enforcement, clerk, social services / health and library services. These have not yet
been formally accepted by the full Commission.
Tax Assessment
1. Create new Coordinated Assessment Programs (CAPs) serving multiple towns
and / or expand existing CAPs to include neighboring towns, since a reduced
number of units would yield higher standardization, enable sharing of limited
expertise across municipalities, mitigate succession challenges and sharing of
back office capacity. Potential new CAPs might include:
a. Expand Pompey-Fabius CAP to include Tully-Otisco-Spafford-Lafayette
(combined 12,944 parcels)
b. Expand Camillus-Elbridge CAP to include Marcellus-Skaneateles
(combined 20,690 parcels)
c. Create Geddes-Onondaga CAP (combined 16,960 parcels)
2. Create a centralized approach to tax certiorari lawsuit defense, since these
proceedings often require specialized and costly legal counsel and create
substantial burdens for smaller municipalities.
Financial Administration
1. Migrate local governments to a common financial accounting system with the
goal of consolidating finance administration. A common financial accounting
system would enable shared services and create efficiencies while improving
effectiveness.
a. The County is willing to host the PeopleSoft Enterprise Resource
Planning application at no cost to municipalities. Municipalities would
continue to administer their own finances and would incur implementation
costs under this option.
b. The County is willing to assume the financial administration function for
municipalities under an intermunicipal agreement (IMA).
2. Centralize information technology to ensure at least a base level of service to all
local governments in the Syracuse-Onondaga community.
61
a. Jointly purchase hardware / software, and provide information technology

support via shared service.
Courts
1. Aggressively pursue shared services to reduce the number of separate justice
courts in the County and serve larger populations.
2. Migrate remaining village courts into the court of their surrounding town to
leverage common administrative and back office needs and resources.
3. Continue exploration of a regional court system.
Code Enforcement
1. Leverage opportunities to share back office functions across neighboring code
offices.
2. Pursue shared / contracted code enforcement services between and among
neighboring municipalities where development density, type and code issues are
relatively similar.
3. Increase interaction between code enforcement officers in contiguous
municipalities to ensure rational and consistent application of codes at municipal
borders and gateways.
4. Integrate code enforcement information into the Real Property Tax System.
5. Create an educational program for code enforcement officers to ensure
adequate succession pool going forward. Training should be coordinated and
centralized.
Clerk
1. Shared efforts to enhance information technology sophistication and deliver
more services (e.g. licenses and permits) via the Web.
2. Shared digitalized system of public records with access to all municipalities.
Social Services and Health
1. The New York State Department of Health has taken over approximately 25% of
the administrative function of Medicaid eligibility from Onondaga County. The
states intention is to take over all of Medicaid administration by March 2018.
The states current progress in this assumption of responsibilities appears to be
well behind its established timeline. This move has allowed the County to reduce
staffing in Medicaid. The local savings, however, is not commensurate with the
total cost of the positions because of the state share of Medicaid costs.
62
The state has not announced any additional plans to assume responsibility for
other public benefit programs. Once the Medicaid technology platform is
completed, SNAP (Food Stamps) could logically be considered for takeover by
the state since there is no face-to-face interview requirement.
Libraries
1. Create a statewide library card, waive library fines for children, and pursue
opportunities for regional purchasing and material sharing within a broadened
framework that includes libraries at higher education institutions.
63
Economic Development
WE CAN DO BETTER
The Economic Development Committee focused on the regions economic
competitiveness, its nexus with local government services / policy, and the extent to
which issues like land use and fiscal growth capacity (both of the Syracuse-Onondaga
community as a whole and as individual communities) impact its ability to grow and thrive.
Framing the Committees work is the reality that, by any objective measure, economic
performance in the Syracuse-Onondaga community continues to lag the state and nation.
The employed labor force in Onondaga County is smaller today than it was in
1990, and that contraction has not been confined to the City the City is down
23.5% in that period, while the suburbs are down 3.2%. The entire SyracuseOnondaga community is down 9.5%, compared to 7.4% growth in the State and
23.2% growth nationally.
Population growth in the Syracuse-Onondaga community has been anemic, and
declines have not been confined to the City. Between 2000 and 2010, nineteen of
the 35 municipalities in the County lost population. Since 1970, the entire
Syracuse-Onondaga community has lost 0.9% of its population, compared to 8.2%
growth in the State and 55.4% growth nationally.
Despite population decline in the Syracuse-Onondaga community since 1970,
urbanized land area over that time period has increased 92% such that fewer
people are spread across a larger area and creating new infrastructure investment
and maintenance demands that are borne by a smaller number of residents.
The challenged economic performance of the Syracuse-Onondaga community is
validated by a host of rankings, including most recently Brookings Institutions Metro
Monitor, which ranked the metropolitan area 294 out of the worlds 300 largest in its
economic performance over 2013-2014. According to Brookings, since the trough of the
recession, the metropolitan areas combined performance on job growth, unemployment,
output (i.e. gross product) and housing prices ranked 98 out of the nations 100 largest
metros. Further, since the trough of the recession,
The total number of full- and part-time jobs in the Syracuse metropolitan area has
increased 2.4%, roughly one-quarter the national growth rate; and
The gross product output of the Syracuse metropolitan area has increased 6.1%,
less than half the national growth rate.
Brookings own work on the 2013 CenterState Agenda for Economic Opportunity found
that the CenterState region lags the nation in most critical indicators of economic
performance from 2000-2012, including change in economic output (11.8% vs. 19.7%),
64
change in employment (-0.8% vs. 1.3%), output per worker ($91.15 vs. $96.24), and
household income ($39,660 vs. $49,200).
THE FISCAL REALITY FACING LOCAL GOVERNMENT

It is abundantly clear that all municipalities not just those in the Syracuse-Onondaga
community face a fiscal imperative: As the cost of delivering public services rises, the
need for each local government to have sustained, recurring revenue growth also rises.
But there are mitigating factors.
First, not all communities have the same fiscal growth capacity, meaning some can
offset cost increases more easily than others. One byproduct of this capacity differential
across a region is the potential to create pockets of relative wealth and need from a
local government standpoint, where some municipalities are capable of continuing to
invest in services and offset cost growth, while others cannot.
Second, this shared imperative facing all local governments in the region creates the
potential for an intra-regional competitive framework, a byproduct of which is zero sum
fiscal growth. That is, local governments have incentives to compete against one another
for the same investment since the direct fiscal benefit is confined to whichever community
wins it. This challenge is further exacerbated when economic investments migrate from
one part of the region to another, as opposed to wholly new investments in the region.
A communitys fiscal growth capacity its ability to grow its taxable base is impacted by
a host of factors. One may be the degree to which it is already built out; communities with
less developable property have lower fiscal growth capacity. Another may be its distance
from the regions core; communities that are further from the regions commercial
corridors and transportation hubs may have lower fiscal growth capacity. Still another
may be the degree to which a community wishes to remain undeveloped; areas that wish
to retain community character, greenspace or other natural public spaces and make
policy decisions to do so create real financial impacts, one of which is opting to have
lower fiscal growth capacity.
The Economic Development Committee examined fiscal growth capacities of the
individual municipalities in the Syracuse-Onondaga community by applying a measure
used in the Twin Cities Region8 of Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota. Known as
relative fiscal capacity, the measure plots municipalities within the region based on a
calculation of the hypothetical revenue that would be produced if the mean countywide
tax rate were applied to each municipality. The measure reflects the range of tax base
capacities across the individual local tax bases in a region.
Within the Syracuse-Onondaga community, municipal tax base sizes (excluding the
County itself) range from as small as $2 million to as large as $2.1 billion, a difference of
http://www.metrocouncil.org/Communities/Planning/Local-Planning-Assistance/Fiscal-Disparities.aspx
65
more than seventy-nine thousand percent. The same tax rate applied in these two
different contexts, therefore, produces hugely different property tax revenue levels. The
following graphics plot out relative fiscal capacity vs. population covered for municipalities
in the Syracuse-Onondaga community. The first graphic includes the City plus all towns
and villages; the second graphic shows only the towns and villages.
66
Not surprisingly, tax bases covering larger numbers of residents tend to be larger, and
thus capable of producing more sheer dollars when the mean countywide property tax
rate is applied in this hypothetical analysis. As important, however, is the capacity
challenge facing those municipalities with a smaller relative property tax base. Where the
base is smaller, overall capacity is lower, rates may need to be higher to generate the
same amount of money than would otherwise be the case with a larger tax base, and the
burden is concentrated on a smaller number of residents and property taxpayers.
UNEVEN REGIONAL GROWTH

Another factor impacting fiscal growth capacity is the rate of growth within a municipality.
In order to assess growth patterns in the Syracuse-Onondaga community, the Economic
Development Committee analyzed place-based residential building permit data from the
U.S. Census Bureau for the period 2005-2014. This offers a proxy variable for where
development has occurred at the fastest rate.
Over the entire period, countywide residential construction totaled approximately $1.3
billion. The Town of Clay ranked first with 17% of the total, followed in order by the Towns
of Camillus (11%), Lysander (9%), Onondaga (8%), Cicero (7%), and the City of
Syracuse (7%).
But as important as where this construction occurred is finding where it did not occur.
Many local governments experienced little to none of that development, compromising
their ability to offset cost increases and sustain essential services. Consider:
20 of the 35 municipalities in the Syracuse-Onondaga community had residential
construction growth shares that represented less than 1% of the countywide total;
9 of the 35 municipalities had growth shares that were less than their share of the
countywide population. The greatest disparity of this type was in the City of
Syracuse, which, notwithstanding that it ranked 7th among all municipalities in the
County with 7% of the construction value, has 31% of the countywide population;
and
Villages in the Syracuse-Onondaga community were generally not beneficiaries of
new residential construction 10 of the 15 villages claimed less than 1% of the
countywide share, and 3 others claimed 1% each. This had the effect of keeping
the average village property tax base capacity low and compromising villages
ability to offset cost increases and maintain critical services.
MINNESOTAS SHARED GROWTH PROGRAM

The same fiscal imperatives and byproducts of intra-regional competition led the State of
Minnesota to adopt the Fiscal Disparities Program in 1971 for the Minneapolis and St.
Paul region. The core element of the program is a tax base sharing framework designed
67
to, first, create regional incentives to growth and second, to bridge differences in fiscal
capacity.9
Under the program, 60% of all new growth in property tax base remains in the host
community, defined as the municipality in which the investment actually occurs. The
other 40% of new growth in property tax base flows to a regionally shared pot that is
distributed pursuant to formula. The shared pot grows over time as new investments are
made anywhere in the region. Since 1971, the shared portion of that regions tax base
has grown to represent more than one-third of the total commercial / industrial tax base,
and 10% of the overall tax base (including residential).
The goals of Minnesotas program are cross-cutting:
Shifting economic development within the region away from a zero sum fiscal
growth framework, and into one that is more collectively beneficial;
Providing a way for local governments to share in resources generated by the
regions growth without removing any existing resources they already have; and
Bridging fiscal capacity gaps among communities in the region.
Under Minnesotas system, the shared portion of the tax base is distributed by formula to
municipalities based on their respective fiscal capacity, defined as equalized market value
per capita. This means that:
A municipality whose fiscal capacity is equal to the regional average gets a payout
equal to its share of total population;
A municipality whose fiscal capacity is greater than the regional average gets a
payout that is smaller; and
A municipality whose fiscal capacity is less than the regional average gets a
payout that is larger.
An analysis of market values per capita within the Syracuse-Onondaga community finds
that the net recipients of such a tax sharing arrangement that is, those with the lowest
market values per capita would be the City of Syracuse and the majority of village
governments within the County.
It is important to note that under the Minnesota framework, market values per capita are
regularly recalculated and over time some net recipients become net contributors. Such
was the case with the City of Minneapolis itself, which has become a net contributor over
time.
http://www.metrocouncil.org/Communities/Planning/Local-Planning-Assistance/Fiscal-Disparities.aspx
68
LAND USE PLANNING

The land use and planning function is spread across all of the Countys municipalities.
Generally speaking, there are three boards per municipality involved in planning and
zoning-related decisions. Jurisdiction varies by municipality, but most typically municipal
boards handle zoning changes, ordinance changes, local laws, comprehensive plan
adoptions, moratoriums and, occasionally, subdivisions; planning boards are
responsible for site plans, subdivisions, special permits, recommendations to the
municipal boards on certain actions, and appeals of administrative decisions; and zoning
boards of appeals adjudicate use and area variances and, occasionally, special permits.
Municipal boards are elected; planning and zoning boards are generally appointed by the
municipal board.
The disaggregation of these functions across all local governments requires professional /
paid staff capacity in each. At the town and village level, planning staff work and
budgeting often occurs alongside code enforcement activities, and staff capacity is
sometimes shared across the two functions. The level of staff work is highly dependent
on the caseload, which varies greatly by community some boards see less than 10
cases per year, while others review hundreds. Some planning and zoning board
members are paid, while in other communities they are not. Boards also generally retain
attorneys and engineers to advise on matters than come before them.
In total, we estimate that more than 550 board members are involved in land use and
planning activities across Onondaga County nearly 200 municipal board members, 195
planning board members, and 169 zoning board members. Each municipality possesses
its own zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations, and other local laws / ordinances
related to planning. Each is also required to promulgate and enforce its own ordinances
and policies (though state General Municipal Law dictates that public notice must be
given to neighboring municipalities of certain planning and zoning actions).
This disaggregation of planning and zoning powers countywide creates challenges.
Notwithstanding that part of SOCPAs (Syracuse-Onondaga County Planning Agency)
mission is to coordinate countywide planning activities and cooperate on local planning
matters, the reality is that the Syracuse-Onondaga community lacks an enforceable
regional land use plan. And most importantly, the absence of an enforceable regional
land use plan has exacerbated the incentives to engage in zero sum fiscal growth
throughout the County. In addition to encouraging intra-regional competition, it has also
resulted in urbanization and new infrastructure development despite the Countys overall
stagnant population.
For example, from 2001-2008, while population remained essentially flat the SyracuseOnondaga community added:
144 miles of new water mains;
57,201 feet of new sewer lines; and
61 miles of new road.
69
Within the 1990s, the Syracuse-Onondaga communitys urbanized area grew by

approximately 50 square miles.
500,000
200
450,000
180
400,000
160
350,000
140
300,000
120
250,000
100
200,000
80
150,000
60
100,000
40
50,000
20
Urbanized Area in Square Miles
Population
Increase in Urbanized Area vs. Population

Growth, 1950-2000
0
1950
1960
Population
1970
1980
1990
2000
Census Urbanized Area

The Economic Development Committee has developed the following preliminary
recommendations. These have not yet been formally accepted by the full Commission.
Fiscal Connections
1. Create a countywide shared tax base framework modeled on Minnesotas Fiscal
Disparities Program designed to:
a. Reinforce the regional benefits of economic development;
b. Mitigate the fiscal imperatives to development facing every municipality;
and
c. Incentivize future development into developed parts of the region in a way
that preserves fiscal benefit for all municipalities.
70
2. Establish a regional land use plan that provides for consistent and enforceable
planning on a countywide basis. Provide for countywide coordination among
municipalities individual land use plans. Retain zoning and planning functions
within individual municipalities but leverage the regional plan to ensure
consistency and most effectively encourage growth in a way that optimizes
existing infrastructure and urbanized area, and reduces the creation of new
infrastructure that will require ongoing maintenance and long-term investment.
3. Combine the City and County Industrial Development Agencies and economic
development offices.
Governance
LAYING THE GROUNDWORK FOR SYSTEMS CHANGE: EFFICIENCY AND
EFFECTIVENESS
The Governance Committee focused on the overall structure of local government in the
Syracuse-Onondaga community its boundaries, how responsibilities are allocated
across levels of government, and similarities / differences across local governments in
order to assess the degree to which structure impacts efficiency and effectiveness. In
particular, the Committee considered how the current structure helps or hinders the ability
of the Syracuse-Onondaga community to make policy and manage investments that are
in the overall communitys best interest.
Several key themes emerged in the Governance Committees discussions:
The broader impacts on the Syracuse-Onondaga community of population loss
and stagnation;
The local fragmentation of service delivery, administrative responsibility, and policy
making authority on certain issues that are truly countywide in nature;
The fiscal and service sustainability of the City of Syracuse, which serves as the
regions economic engine and population hub; and
The similarly of function and scale that exists between the City and County
governments.
As with the Economic Development Committee, the Governance Committees work was
framed by a reality that, by any objective measure, economic performance in the
Syracuse-Onondaga community has lagged for at least a generation. A smaller employed
71
labor force, higher levels of poverty and stagnant population growth have increased the
management challenge for local government officials and concentrated the cost burden
on those residents and businesses who remain.
So, too has the emergence of confounding policy challenges that, in very real ways, are
cross-cutting and transcend municipal boundaries. Issues like poverty, economic
development and unemployment do not stop at the Citys edge, but rather affect other
parts of the County in fundamental ways.
Yet, our structures are not always designed to address such dynamic challenges (nor
capitalize on our regional assets) in truly regional ways. The County and Citys current
boundaries date to 1825; the towns and villages to as far back as the late 1700s.
Although over the years lines have been adjusted, and municipal powers and
responsibilities reconfigured, the reality is that the basic structure of local government we
have in place today is nearly two centuries old. The needs, challenges and opportunities
facing the Syracuse-Onondaga community have changed radically since.
The Consensus process, and the work of the Commission on Local Government
Modernization, offers a focused opportunity to examine those structures and have a
robust and engaging community dialogue about what makes the most sense for the
Syracuse-Onondaga community going forward.
WHY DO PLACES EXPLORE THE IDEA OF THINKING BIGGER?

To inform its deliberations, the Governance Committee interviewed representatives of a
number of communities in the U.S. that have pursued high profile regional government
innovations in the past half-century, including Indianapolis, Minneapolis and Louisville,
and found that there are a number of consistent rationales that drive the push to think
bigger and beyond municipal-level structures.
Cost Savings: Efforts are often motivated in part by a desire to realize efficiency
savings through the elimination (or mitigation) of duplicative structures, services
and positions.
Economic Imperatives: Efforts are often motivated by a desire to promote
regional competition and shift the community paradigm from one of intra-regional
local competition to one where the entire region can more effectively compete with
other regions in the country and around the world.
Policy Realities: Efforts are often motivated by a realization that policy issues
especially those that bear most strongly on a regions economic health and wellbeing no longer stop at centuries-old municipal boundaries.
Fiscal Connections: Efforts are often motivated by data that evidence the
economic ties between urban cores and their surrounding suburban and rural
communities. Research suggests that, on balance, healthier cities beget healthier
72
suburbs, and that there is a positive statistical relationship between changes in

suburban and urban per capita personal income.
A SYRACUSE-ONONDAGA STORY, NOT JUST A CITY STORY

Since 1970, Onondaga Countys population growth has lagged that of New York State
and the nation. In raw numbers and rate, the greatest population decline during that
period has been in the City of Syracuse. As a result, the Citys share of total County
population has fallen substantially since 1970, declining from 42% to 31%. However, the
City has not been the only community to lose residents. From 2000 to 2010, less than half
of the municipalities in the Syracuse-Onondaga community experienced population
growth. Nineteen municipalities including the City, 7 (of 19) towns and 11 (of 15)
villages experienced declines.
With the loss of population, of course, comes fiscal stress. That stress has been greatest
in the City of Syracuse where its countywide share of property tax base decreased from
22% in 1996 to 17% in 2013. Over that timeframe, the Citys real taxable assessed value
has contracted by approximately 17%, compounded by the concentration of much of the
Syracuse-Onondaga communitys tax-exempt property within the City.
As noted, there is strong evidence in the regional economics research that a citys
economic health impacts that of its surrounding suburbs. That is, suburbs that surround
an economically healthier central city tend to have higher economic performance and
median incomes than those that surround economically struggling cities. The data on job
growth and fiscal stability strongly suggest this relationship is at work in the SyracuseOnondaga community. Consider: The size of the employed labor force in both the City
and the suburbs of the Syracuse-Onondaga community has not only lagged the state and
nation, but is actually down in the past 25 years. The City is down 23.5% over that period,
and the suburbs are down 3.2%.
The fiscal, service and social challenges facing the City of Syracuse and many of its
urban peers in New York and across the nation are well-documented. But in the face of
data showing population loss and job contraction in many of the suburbs, it becomes
increasingly difficult to write off the challenges facing the Syracuse-Onondaga community
as simply a city story. They are, in very real ways, a Syracuse-Onondaga community
story.
A POLICY MOTIVATION TO THINK BIGGER

The Governance Committee observed a number of key themes which became clear both
through its work and the work of other Committees:
First, our local government boundaries are, in many cases, too local to deal with
issues that are truly regional in nature;
Second, to address many of the bigger challenges facing our region, there is a
need to think / act / make policy over a broader geographic area; and
73
Third, our current fragmented approach yields smaller individual tax bases that
make critical investments (esp. infrastructure) more difficult and cost prohibitive,
and contribute to deferred maintenance.
There is a policy motivation to thinking bigger.
A FISCAL MOTIVATION TO THINK BIGGER

The Governance Committee also considered the long-term fiscal stability of the
Syracuse-Onondaga community a fundamental challenge to be addressed. When the
actual expenditure trends for the period 2004 to 2013 for all local governments in the
Syracuse-Onondaga community are projected forward at their current rate versus a
revenue cap of two percent, 20 of our 35 municipalities (excluding the County) find
themselves in deficit situations over the next decade absent any other action.
There is a fiscal motivation to thinking bigger.

The Governance Committee has developed the following preliminary
recommendations. These have not yet been formally accepted by the full Commission.
Creating Regional Governance Capacity
The systemic challenges facing our community call for systemic solutions. And the
process of modernizing how we do local government will require systemic change on
the part of all our governments: County, City, Towns and Villages. Under the
preliminary committee recommendations contained in this report, including those in this
Governance section, every unit of government will bear the challenge of change in
how we make policy, deliver critical services and plan for the future.
And with regard to Governance, these are process recommendations. They offer the
Syracuse-Onondaga community an opportunity to take immediate steps to strengthen
our urban core, while creating a pathway to evolve to a model whereby we govern,
deliver services, make policy and compete as one community, rather than three dozen
separate communities.
1. Establish a process toward creating a new city-county government and service
delivery structure that leverages the functional and scale similarities of the
regions two largest local governments the City of Syracuse and Onondaga
County. Together they represent approximately 85% of all local government
spending in the community. As the regions two largest local governments, the
City and County can and should be leaders in this process.
A functional mapping review of the City and County finds that there is at
least $111 million in City budget appropriations that overlap with a
74
comparable function in County government. Of those, there is

approximately $20 million in potential cost elimination through
combination of governance, administrative and service delivery
infrastructure over time.
As the City and County take the lead on this initial recommendation, it is
vitally important to bear in mind that the additional recommendations
detailed in this report represent a paradigm shift in the delivery of services
at the Town and Village levels as well. Every unit and level of local
government will bear the challenge of change, and we cannot ignore the
fiscal realities facing our suburban partners. A host of Town and Village
officials clearly and directly expressed to Consensus that the balance of
current services with projected resources has grown dangerously tenuous
in light of economically- and tax cap-challenged revenues.
For this reason, there must be a formal mechanism and defined process
whereby towns and villages in the Syracuse-Onondaga community can
join the new city-county framework over time an opt-in process
whereby they can join by a vote of the constituents in that municipality.
Fiscal pressure on towns and villages will continue to grow, making it
likely some will opt in over the near term. Each opt in will represent an
additional investment in governing, delivering services, making policy and
competing as one community.
The model of leading with the City and County as the regions largest
local governments has precedent in communities like Indianapolis
notwithstanding its Unigov city-county structure, more than a dozen
towns and excluded cities elected to retain some or all of their governing
and service delivery autonomy.
It is imperative that we ensure these changes are inclusive and respect

the voices of our diverse communities. This is especially important for
traditionally underrepresented constituencies. Ensuring a place for all at
the new regional table is key to our overall success. The experiences of
Indianapolis, Jacksonville and Nashville where the minority communitys
representative share of governing body seats increased in the years
following consolidation prove these changes can enhance the voice and
leadership of traditionally underrepresented communities.
2. Vest this new government with responsibility for specific regional matters,
including administering the regional land use plan, overseeing major
infrastructure planning and economic development planning using a countywide
model that is similar in form and function to the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council
in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota (http://www.metrocouncil.org/).
75
Empowering Local Leadership and Vision through Mandate Relief

We also need the commitment of state government to being a willing partner in our
modernization. Not only in relieving our local governments of costly mandates, but
actively empowering efforts to help ourselves and supporting our efforts to carve out a
more positive direction for our community.
Government officials in the Syracuse-Onondaga community cannot effectively confront
our economic, service and fiscal challenges within a statutory framework that mandates
certain activities and prohibits the flexibility to do others. As we make recommendations
to help our region from within, we also seek to develop a new relationship with partners
at other levels of government. At a minimum, the Syracuse-Onondaga community
needs relief from the following statutory inhibitors to effective and efficient governance:
The Taylor Law and Triborough Amendment;

The Wicks Law;
The Medicaid funding framework which splits costs with counties;
The absence of defined contribution pension options for public employees;
The absence of a strong ability to pay criterion in binding arbitration;
The ability of local governments to procure more cost-effective services through
the Boards of Cooperative Educational Services model;
Costly Civil Service provisions including 207a and 207c; and
A justice court system that is procedurally cumbersome and from which the state
is taking an increasing share of local fines and fees.
76
Conclusion
For too long, the Syracuse-Onondaga
community has struggled. That
struggle has compromised economic
opportunity for our residents, created
significant hardships for many of our
neighbors, and strained our local
governments. As troubling, it has
shrunk the promise of opportunity for
our children and grandchildren,
increasing the likelihood that they will
be forced to start their families and
careers elsewhere or for many,
continue to live in poverty.
efficiency over the years. We now call on

them to do more.
Although pockets of our community have

held their own, the simple fact is that a
region performing well only in pockets is
not a region performing well overall.
Economic and demographic data tell us
that the challenges facing our region are
systemic and transcend all levels of local
government County, City, Towns and
Villages. Those challenges call for bold,
systemic solutions that can offer a
foundation for a stronger and more
vibrant future.
These changes are about greater

competitiveness, economic growth, fiscal
sustainability, preservation of high quality
services and building capacity. And
although they are not exclusively about
saving money, we know there are clear
savings opportunities in the
recommendations contained in this
report. With greater efficiency will come
greater cost effectiveness.
There are many reasons the SyracuseOnondaga community has struggled

to compete for the past two
generations. And it would be wrong to
blame a local government system that
has persevered despite incredibly
challenging financial circumstances.
But it would be equally wrong to
conclude that local government cannot
play a lead role in pursuing the bold
actions that are required to change our
communitys trajectory. Indeed, theyve
demonstrated an ability to innovate and
improve both service delivery and cost-
Change is hard, but change we must.

The preliminary recommendations in
this report require change from each
and every unit of local government.
Some changes are bold and dramatic
and likely to generate significant
debate. Others are more subtle, but
equally necessary. Some changes can
and should be made quickly. Others
will take years.
Certain savings opportunities will be

subject to the manner and pace of
implementation, of course. But it is
reasonable to believe that these
preliminary recommendations are
capable of producing savings in the
range of $40 million overall, or the
rough equivalent of more than $200
per household in the SyracuseOnondaga community.
We know these changes cannot happen
overnight. Nor will they be easily
achieved. The experiences of peer
communities nationwide that have paved
the path of modernization tell us as
much. Changes of this magnitude require
effort, difficult decisions, and a
77
willingness to challenge a thats the way

weve always done things mentality.
Much as our challenges transcend
every level and unit of government, so
too must the solutions. These
changes will require our wellintentioned public servants to take the
risk associated with bold leadership.
History tells us we can come together
as a community to produce positive
change change built on a
cooperative spirit, change that
recognizes our similarities are deeper
than our differences, and change that
ensures every resident and
constituency a voice at our regional
table.
The next step in this process is yours.
This report is intended to launch a robust
public engagement process. The
conversation the Syracuse-Onondaga
community will have in the coming
months is as important as any we have
had.
our findings and preliminary

recommendations. What matters is
that you engage and help us
understand why. Your voice is
critically important over the coming
months. Please take the opportunity
to engage through a public forum,
letter to the editor, feedback to the
Commission via our website
(www.consensuscny.com), or other
medium.
Our goal, following what we hope will be
an engaging and powerful community
conversation on these issues, is to
incorporate your feedback and issue the
Commissions final recommendations
early in 2016.
We can do better. And we know that,
working together, we will make this
vision for the Syracuse-Onondaga
community even better and more
reflective of what we all desire for our
region.
Our future deserves nothing less.
We need to hear from you. It matters

not whether you support or oppose
78
The Commission
For additional information on the Commission on Local Government Modernization, its
members and its work, as well as to submit feedback, visit the Commissions website at:
www.consensuscny.com
COMMISSION MEMBERS
Cornelius B. Murphy, Co-Chair
Former President, SUNY ESF
M. Catherine Richardson, Co-Chair
Retired Attorney, Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC
James T. Walsh, Co-Chair
Former Representative for the 25th Congressional District of New York
Aminy I. Audi
CEO and Chairman, L. & J.G. Stickley, Inc.
Laurence G. Bousquet
Member, Bousquet Holstein, PLLC
William Byrne
Chairman of the Board, Byrne Dairy Inc.
Dr. Donna J. DeSiato
Superintendent of Schools, East Syracuse Minoa Central School District
Bethaida Bea Gonzalez
Dean, University College of Syracuse University
Darlene Kerr
Retired President, Niagara Mohawk
Patrick M. Kilmartin
County Legislator, 11th District
Melanie Littlejohn
Director of Community and Customer Management, National Grid
Andrew Maxwell
Director, Policy and Innovation for the City of Syracuse
Stephen Steve F. Meyer
President and CEO, Welch Allyn, Inc.
79
Dr. Dennis Nave

Greater Syracuse Labor Council
Mark A. Nicotra
Supervisor, Town of Salina and Vice-President, Onondaga County Supervisors
Association
Mark A. Olson
Mayor, Village of Fayetteville and President, Onondaga County Mayors Association
Sharon F. Owens
CEO, Syracuse Model Neighborhood Facility
Ann Rooney
Deputy County Executive for Human Services, Onondaga County
Chad Ryan
Syracuse Common Council, District 2
80

Consensus Options Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consensus Options Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consensus Options Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Options Report &

Preliminary Committee Recommendations

This Report and What Comes Next

A Call to Action: We Can Do Better

more competitive and an even better

As we continue our work, we must

And we can start by creating a local

structures. While every level of

despite incredibly challenging financial

equally necessary. Some changes can

And for the sake of our children and

Economic Development, focusing on fiscal and economic relationships among

This Report and What Comes Next

STREET AND HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

Aging collection infrastructure in the County has more extraneous groundwater

Employee and Leadership Development

improvements in all facets of its operations.

regulatory, financial, environmental, safety,

SOLID WASTE COLLECTION

could otherwise yield lower costs. A previous benchmarking report produced by

public works employees will become county employees, yielding a geographically

PRELIMINARY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

4. Transfer (or maintain, where applicable) routine seasonal maintenance on

Among the agencies serving the Syracuse-Onondaga community, service areas

FIRE PROTECTION: SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

Model 2: Hybrid / Sub-Regional or Collaborative

PRELIMINARY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

accomplished under existing organizational structure using Onondaga County

EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMS)

PRELIMINARY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The cost of providing law enforcement in the Syracuse-Onondaga community

PRELIMINARY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

PRELIMINARY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

specific functional areas; in larger governments, the function is typically a separate

SOCIAL SERVICES AND HEALTH

Ability to provide personal or more tailored types of services to residents

Standardize delivery of complex services requiring specific expertise (e.g. tax

Summary of Alternative Models by Service Category

Does not appear feasible

Exists today but an

Does not appear feasible

Exists today but could be

Is feasible and could be

Summary of Alternative Models by Service Category

Is feasible and could be

Is feasible, though the

Not feasible, given role

Not feasible, given role

Would not be advisable to

PRELIMINARY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

a. Jointly purchase hardware / software, and provide information technology

THE FISCAL REALITY FACING LOCAL GOVERNMENT

UNEVEN REGIONAL GROWTH

MINNESOTAS SHARED GROWTH PROGRAM

LAND USE PLANNING

Within the 1990s, the Syracuse-Onondaga communitys urbanized area grew by

Urbanized Area in Square Miles

Increase in Urbanized Area vs. Population

Census Urbanized Area