Early this week when I synopsized the public meeting regarding Johnson City, New Yori dissolution, I said I would do a second entry that dealt with the public comment period.  I am not sure about the 40 plus who signed in to comment but I was expecting a give and take between the commentors and the committee/panel, particularly since there was a two minute time limit on each person’s comment.

The comments ranged from those in favor of dissolution to those against it.  Some of the repeated comments were regarding the time frame of the decision.  The committee had over 18 months to formulate its report.  As one speaker put it, the community is getting this for a little over three months, and a month of that is prime vacation time.

Another major concern, discussed in many public comments, was police protection.  Many people did not feel that the 18 dedicated officers and three detectives for investigative purposes is just not enough.  Currently, the village has 39 full-time uniformed officers and four full-time civilian employees in the police services.

One commenter stated the  plan/report had a clause similar to “unless a major incident” happened.  While reading the report, I do not recall seeing this.  I do not anticipate that this is any different that currently.  When a “major incident” happens elsewhere in the area, many different police departments respond, not just the one in that municipality.

Another commenter questioned whether the number of dedicated officers was sufficient.  He wanted to know the difference between sheriff road patrol and enhanced service.  He also wanted to know what guarantee there is that the state legistlature will create a special policing district.  This does have to be done to allow all of the plan’s recommendations to take effect.

After many comments against the police protection portion of the plan, Bill Klish, chairman of the committee, defended Sheriff Harder’s part in the study.  The Binghamton Police Department also looked over statistics from Johnson City and concluded that the job could be done with one less person that the sheriff did.

There was some concern over whether the report from the committee is binding or not.  Ms Westfall (unsure if that is the proper spelling), the attorney working with the committee, assured those in attendance that State Village Law 19, 19-14 says the Town of Union shall follow the report.  Ms Westfall says that shall means must and is binding.  This goes in direct conflict to the some area of the report – which I cannot find at this moment – that says the report is simply a recommendation to the Town of Union.

Many people also questioned the guarantee of a tax reduction.  The reasonings ranged from the fact that the Town of Union may or may not have to follow the report.  The other issue is that the report focuses on the short term, the difference between now and a one year period forward.  There is no way to focus further in the future.

Two speakers were there basically supported other agendas.  The first was a big proponent of single payer health care and the changes that either Fishkill or Peekskill had had once it had a single payer health insurance system in place.  This gentleman urged waiting at least a year or two while the Obama administration put health care reform into place.  The other was from Citizens for a Better Broome and encouraged people to help support a better Broome County as a whole.

As I said at the beginning of this, there were many comments.  There was little, if any, give and take between the committee and the commenters/public.  I had expected more of a question and answer session than I got.

I have never heard of this particular tactic before – dissolving a village.  It must be more common than I think, though, as there are state laws that govern what must be done to do so.

There was a petition started in the area for residents of the Village of Johnson City.  The petition was to seek information about the effects on dissolution of the village.  That was approximately 18 months ago.  This past Monday evening, the committee charged with developing a plan regarding the dissolution held a public meeting.  I was as disappointed in this meeting almost as much as a school district meeting that was not what I thought it would be prior to the last capital building project.

I am not sure if everyone who attended felt as let down as I did but I am positive a few did.  I would have gladly spent more time at the meeting – it ran almost two hours – if there had been more give and take between the committee and the public.

I was equally surprised at the bashing of the Town of Union – the entity that will absorb the village if the voters say yes to dissolutionment – that went on.  I live in the Town of Union.  I do not live in a village or city.  I am not in any of the “special” areas of the town, such as Endwell or Fairmont Park.  I find the services that the town provides to me are top notch.  There is recreation and parks and garbage pick up and yard waste pick up.  When a part of one of the trees in my front yard broke off and lay across the road, the town was out posthaste to help remove it.  I do not see the Town of Union that was portrayed in the meeting.

So for those of you who wish you had gone, here is a quick synopsis.  My guess is there were about 200 people at the meeting.  While the auditorium capacity is listed as 900, there are not 900 seats there.  Unions were passing out information and fans as attendees entered.  Opening remarks went ovver the time limit on comments and the fact that you needed to sign up to make comments.

The agenda was simple:  an introduction, a brief overview with key points of the plan – which is a 85 page plus document, and public comment – which was limited to two minutes each person.

Highlights of the overview were a description, due to the fact that Broome County will be using a new voting/polling system this November, of where the resolution will be placed on the ballot.  There is concern, from what I heard, that people will miss this as it will be on the back of the ballot.  Previously, in the lever machines that are being discontinued, resolutions such as this would be across the top.

Other key points are that the plan and committee follow state village law 19.  No fire stations within what is now the Village of Johnson City will close.  The Broome County Sheriff’s Department will open a substation in Johnson City.

There was a powerpoint presentation that discussed job loss because of getting rid of the village government.  The village currently employs – in the 2009-2010 budget – 126.5 positions.  After dissolution, there would be 96.5 positions still in the area, just not on the village payroll.  This is a loss of 32 positions.

The plan that the committee has come up with has a savings to the now Johnson City taxpayer of $4.626 million.  The majority of these savings come in the areas of fire and police departments.  The net tax savings per household is 29.8%, according to the plan.

I am still not seeing a clear picture of how this will impact the Town of Union.  According to the plan and the presentation, the Town of Union will receive what use to be the village’s share of collected sales tax.  The Town will charge fees to cover the cost of a separate fire district and a separate policing district for the sheriff’s office.  There is some thought that the Town will be eligible – though this is not a guarantee of receiving – to receive $1 million per year in Aid and Incentive to Municipalities.  The committee and the plan are forecasting a decrease in Town of Union taxes.

Since the public comment part of the meeting was by far the longest part, I am going to do a separate entry on the comments.