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.