Public Forum #3 | May 11, 2011

CGR

Public Forum #3 | May 11, 2011

Joint Consolidation / Shared Services Study Commission ofPrinceton Borough and Princeton Township

Agenda

Call to order Roll call Introduction – Anton Lahnston

Agenda Commission Members Objectives

Review of options report (CGR) Presentation of recommendations (Commission) Comments, questions from the public Adjournment

3

Objectives of Tonight’s Forum

Update the study process Review the options report Review the recommendations developed by the

Commission and its Subcommittees Engage in dialogue

4

CGR



The Study Process | A Review

Phase 1: Baseline review Phase 2: Options review

What is the range of reasonable options? How to the options differ? What are the impacts of different options? What is most feasible?

6

Key Dates

May 17 – Commission decision on final recommendations

May 25 – Commission decision on whether to recommend consolidation

June 22 – Final report to Governing Bodies

Aug 18 – Decision on referendum

Nov 8 – Vote

8

Options Review | The Process

9

Identify Rangeof Options

(CGR)

Discuss Feasibilityof Options

(Subcommittee)

Analyze Operational/

Financial Impacts(CGR/Subcmte)

Develop Recommendation(Subcommittee)

Endorse/AdoptRecommendation

(Commission)

10

Form ofGovernment

Options | Form of Government

Under State law, the Borough and Township can select from among eight (8) forms if they consolidate Borough Township Mayor-Council Council-Manager Mayor-Council-Administrator Municipal Manager Commission Special Charter

11

Options | Form of Government

12

RecommendationBernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee

Borough form of governmentMayor + 6-member governing body

Key factors Directly elected mayor

Certain forms were discarded b/c mayor is not directly elected Access to professional staff by all elected officials

OMCL forms were discarded b/c officials cannot interact w/ staff Process issues with “special charter” form Discussion of ward-based system

13

14

Review ofGeneralServices

Departmental Options Review | The Approach

15

Options | Governing Body

Adoption of Borough form would result in reduction of five (5) elected positions, leaving a mayor and six-member governing body

Option 1: Level salaries upward(savings of $43k)

Option 2: Level salaries downward(savings of $64k)

Option 3: Fix salaries to Borough levels(savings of $61k)

16

Recommendation – Governing BodyBernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee

Adoption of Borough form would result in reduction of five (5) elected positions, leaving a mayor and six-member governing body

Option 1: Level salaries upward(savings of $43k)

Option 2: Level salaries downward(savings of $64k)

Option 3: Fix salaries to Borough levels(savings of $61k)

17

Options | Administrator

Option 1: Reduce 1 administrator, add 1 support staff(savings of $125,756)

Option 2: Reduce 1 administrator, no new staff(savings of $205,756)

18

Recommendation – AdministratorBernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee

19

Option 1: Reduce 1 administrator, add 1 support staff(savings of $125,756)

Option 2: Reduce 1 administrator, no new staff(savings of $205,756)

Options | Clerk

Option 1: Retain full staff #, downgrade duplicate clerk and deputy clerk titles(savings of $38,892)

Option 2: Same as option 1, but retain only one repurposed staff titles(savings of $98,892)

Option 3: Retain only one clerk and deputy clerk + full current support staff(savings of $198,892)

20

Recommendation – ClerkBernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee

21

Option 1: Retain full staff #, downgrade duplicate clerk and deputy clerk titles(savings of $38,892)


Option 3: Retain only one clerk and deputy clerk + full current support staff(savings of $198,892)

Options | Finance / Tax Collection

Option 1: Retain full staff #, downgrade duplicate CFO and assistant CFO titles(savings of $39,717)


Option 3: Retain only one CFO and assistant CFO + full current support staff(savings of $217,496)

22

Recommendation – Finance/Tax CollectionBernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee

23

Option 1: Retain full staff #, downgrade duplicate CFO and assistant CFO titles(savings of $39,717)


Option 3: Retain only one CFO and assistant CFO + full current support staff(savings of $217,496)

Options | Engineering

Option 1: Retain full staff #, downgrade duplicate engineer and assistant engineer titles(savings of $77,468)

Option 2: Reduce duplicate engineer, downgrade duplicate assistant engineer(savings of $177,468)

Option 3: Same as Option 2, but also reduce one clerical/ support staff position(savings of $236,585)

24

Recommendation – EngineeringBernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee

25

Option 1: Retain full staff #, downgrade duplicate engineer and assistant engineer titles(savings of $77,468)

Option 2: Reduce duplicate engineer, downgrade duplicate assistant engineer(savings of $177,468)

Option 3: Same as Option 2, but also reduce one clerical/ support staff position(savings of $236,585)

Plus integration w/ DPW and PSOC

Options | Court

Option 1: Retain full staff #, downgrade duplicate court administrator title(savings of $13,614)

Option 2: Downgrade duplicate administrator title, reduce one p/t deputy administrator position(savings of $39,416)

Option 3: Eliminate duplicate administrator title instead of p/t deputy administrator position(savings of $79,140)

26

Recommendation – CourtBernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee

27

Option 1: Retain full staff #, downgrade duplicate court administrator title(savings of $13,614)

Option 2: Downgrade duplicate administrator title, reduce one p/t deputy administrator position(savings of $39,416)

Option 3: Eliminate duplicate administrator title instead of p/t deputy administrator position(savings of $79,140)

Options | Construction As a fee-based service, it’s important to note that savings

in this function would be passed on to applicants through a revised fee schedule, rather than to property tax payers

Option 1: Retain full staff #, downgrade duplicate construction official and technical assistant titles(savings of $43,609)

Option 2: Same as Option 1, but reduce duplicate construction official title to p/t sub-code official(savings of $58,600)

Option 3: Same as Option 2, but also reduce duplicate technical assistant title to p/t support staff(savings of $73,600)

28

Recommendation – ConstructionBernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee

29

As a fee-based service, it’s important to note that savings in this function would be passed on to applicants through a revised fee schedule, rather than to property tax payers

Option 1: Retain full staff #, downgrade duplicate construction official and technical assistant titles(savings of $43,609)

Option 2: Same as Option 1, but reduce duplicate construction official title to p/t sub-code official(savings of $58,600)

Option 3: Same as Option 2, but also reduce duplicate technical assistant title to p/t support staff(savings of $73,600)

Options | Affordable Housing

Option 1: Retain full staff #, downgrade part-time coordinator into support staff(savings of $3,440)

Option 2: Fully outsourced approach(savings N/A)

Option 3: Fully in-housed approach w/ additional staff(savings N/A)

30

Recommendation – Affordable HousingBernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee

31

Single full-time coordinator, supplemented by contracted services for marketing and qualifications(savings N/A)

Options | Emergency Management

Option 1: Designate single Director of Emergency Management(savings N/A)

32

Recommendation – Emergency ManagementBernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee

33

Option 1: Designate single Director of Emergency Management(savings N/A)

Options | Fire Inspection As a fee-based service, it’s important to note that savings

in this function would be passed on to applicants through a revised fee schedule, rather than to property tax payers

Option 1: Retain full staff #, convert duplicate fire official to fire inspector w/o change in compensation(savings N/A)

Option 2: Retain full staff #, downgrade one duplicate fire official to fire inspector w/ commensurate cost reduction(savings of $15,912)

Option 3: Same as Option 2, but reduce duplicate p/t support staff position(savings of $28,973)

34

Recommendation – Fire InspectionBernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee

35

No formal staffing recommendation; Program should continue to be designed such that fees cover costs (savings N/A)

Options | Tax Assessment

Option 1: Retain full staff #(savings N/A)

Option 2: Reduce by one p/t assistant assessor title(savings of $17,642)

36

Recommendation – Tax AssessmentBernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee

37


Option 2: Reduce by one p/t assistant assessor title(savings of $17,642)

Options | Zoning and Historic Preservation


Option 2: Designate one f/t zoning and HPO officer and deputy zoning officer + support staff; Enables re-deployment of current staff to primary responsibilities in other departments(savings N/A)

38

Recommendation – Zoning/HPOBernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee

39

Transition to one zoning/HPO official and deputy, enabling duplicate positions to return to primary responsibilities in other departments(savings N/A)

Options | Information Technology

Option 1: Retain one f/t Director of IT(savings N/A)

Option 2: Outsource all IT functions(savings N/A)

40

Recommendation – Information TechnologyBernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee

41

Option 1: Retain one f/t Director of IT(savings N/A)

Option 2: Outsource all IT functions(savings N/A)

42

Review ofPolice Services

Options | Police

The Police Subcommittee reviewed options for merging the two PDs into one

This could be implemented in one of two ways Through municipal consolidation (i.e. one municipality, one

police department) Through shared services (i.e. two municipalities, one police

department)

43

Options | Police

Model 1 (“Headcount Neutral”) Borough-proposed model 60 sworn personnel, 15 civilian personnel Reinstates dedicated traffic unit, community services unit Patrol through same four-platoon structure as currently Projected workforce savings of $590,000

Reduction of one chief, certain civilian positions

44

Options | Police

Model 2 (“Headcount Neutral”) Township-proposed model Preserves current rank, title, function 60 sworn personnel, 18 civilian personnel Reinstates dedicated traffic unit, community services unit Patrol through same four-platoon structure as currently Projected workforce savings of $250,000

Reduction of one chief

46

Options | Police

Model 3 (“54 sworn personnel”) CGR-developed model 54 sworn personnel, 15 civilian personnel

One captain (vs. 2) Two lieutenants (vs. 4) Eight sergeants (vs. 12)

Reinstates dedicated traffic unit, community services unit Patrol through same four-platoon structure as currently Projected workforce savings of $1.6 m

48

Options | Police

Model 4 (“51 sworn personnel”) Start with Model 3, but assume a smaller degree of service

enhancement in traffic and community services (but still more than status quo)

51 sworn personnel, 15 civilian personnel Reinstates dedicated traffic unit, community services unit Patrol through same four-platoon structure as currently Projected workforce savings of $2.1 m

50

Options | Police

Model 5 (“46 sworn personnel”) Start with Model 4, but eliminate enhanced services in traffic

and community services 46 sworn personnel, 15 civilian personnel Patrol through same four-platoon structure as currently Projected workforce savings of $2.7 m

52

RecommendationsBill Metro, Chair of Police Subcommittee

Consolidation RecommendationDepartment of 51 sworn personnelImplement over no more than three-year period Year one = 60 (savings of $250k)

Maintain levels of supervision during change Maintain morale at highest levels Lots of work to do; focus on consolidation and public safety

Year two = 54 (savings of $1.6m) Year three = 51 (savings of $2.1m)

Facilities RecommendationHouse combined department in Township BuildingIncluding emergency dispatch operation

53

RecommendationsBill Metro, Chair of Police Subcommittee

54

Shared Services Recommendation In the event municipal consolidation does not occur, the Subcommittee recommends combining both police departments into one to achieve the same goals as stated under consolidation: Utilize the same transition approach and timetable Achieve the same $2.1M workforce cost savings Include consolidated dispatch, courts, violations bureau Unclear at this time which governance approach is best

Governing bodies will be tasked to: Provide a legal analysis of the Joint Meetings Statutes which could be

used to create an “Authority” Explore alternative governance structures if needed.

55

Review ofPublic Works

Options | Public Works

The Public Works Subcommittee reviewed options for merging the two DPWs into one

Focus areas: Organizational structure Differentials in service types Facilities Capital assets Functional similarities across departments

56


Model 1 Retain full staff # Downgrade the duplicate DPW Superintendent title Additional cost of $54,600 (due to salary harmonization)

Model 2 Reduce workforce by two positions: Superintendent, Foreman Create unit dedicated to the Downtown district, overseen by

an Assistant Superintendent Savings of $105,000

57


Model 3 Cross-departmental model building on existing synergies Retain dedicated Downtown unit Shift recreation grounds maintenance under DPW (but keep

recreation programming in Rec Department) “Dotted-line” relationship between DPW and PSOC Savings of $105,000

58


Model 4 Additional cross-departmental restructuring Integrate Engineering, DPW, PSOC and Rec maintenance Formalizes existing informal cooperation Better allocation of clerical support across functions Greater staff utilization flexibility Ability to reduce certain outsourced costs (PSOC inspections) Savings of $442,000

59

RecommendationsValerie Haynes, Chair of Public Works Subcommittee

Consolidation RecommendationCross-departmental model w/ Engineering, DPW, PSOC and Recreation maintenance Retains two divisions (Downtown and Roads/Parks) Operational efficiencies – greater flexibility through cross-

training of personnel, ease of staff deployment Savings of $442k

Reduction of 2 positions (Superintendent, Foreman) - $105k Reduction in contract costs for PSOC inspections - $160k Reorganization in Engineering - $177k

61

Options | Public Works (Facilities)

Current facilities Valley Road John Street Harrison Street River Road (PSOC) Smoyer Park

Current issues Age, adequacy of facilities Pending capital investments Limited office space Lack of storage for capital equipment

62

Options | Public Works (Facilities)

Which configuration of facilities is most appropriate to housing Public Works services in a consolidated Princeton?

Model 1: Partial development at River Road Model 2: More extensive development at River Road Model 3: Retaining a “Downtown satellite” facility Model 4: Integrated, phased approach

Retain Harrison as light-use Downtown facility Repurpose/phase out John Street Utilize River Road for additional cold storage, office space

63


Facilities RecommendationModel 4 using a staged approach Rely on current facilities initially Retain Harrison as a light-use facility focused primarily on

Downtown Begin transitioning out of John Street and Valley Road Relocate some operations, storage at River Road

64


Shared ServicesThe Subcommittee does not make a recommendation for shared services Absent municipal consolidation, the Engineering Depts could

not be included in a shared Public Works model, reducing savings to $105k

There is no obvious location for administration of a shared Public Works Dept – administration by either municipality would disrupt existing arrangements for Recreation and PSOC

Still, existing cooperative arrangements between the two DPWs should continue and the governing bodies are encouraged to look for additional cooperative arrangements to benefit both municipalities

65

66

Review of Other Recommendations

RecommendationsBernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee

Facilities Retain both Township Building and Borough Hall, and enable

future governing body to make a decision regarding repurposing and/or resale

Township Building becomes primary center of municipal government

Codes and Ordinances Exercise authority in Local Options law to retain code

differences in former Borough and Township post-consolidation, provided governing body reviews and approves at least every five years

67

RecommendationsBernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee

Planning and Zoning The Subcommittee continues to review the possibility of

utilizing advisory planning districts in the event of a consolidation

68

69

DebtAllocation

Options | Debt

Both the Borough and Township have existing debt obligations. How would those be handled in the event of consolidation?

Two basic options: Share the debt Segregate/apportion the debt in “debt districts”

70

Options | Debt

71

RecommendationChad Goerner, Chair of Finance Subcommittee

Combining of pre-consolidation debt

72

CGR



Financial Impact

Police $2.100 mDPW/Engineering/PSOC $0.442 mFinance/Tax Collection $0.217 mAdministrator $0.206 mClerk $0.199 mCourt $0.079 mGoverning Body $0.061 mTax Assessment $0.017 m

________

$3.321 m

74

Financial Impact

What does this mean for me?

75

CGR



Public Input

Your questions and comments are critical to this process! Meetings of the full Commission and its Subcommittees

are open to the public Schedule available on the Commission’s website (

www.cgr.org/princeton) Feedback can also be submitted via the website, both

electronically and hard copy

77

Ground Rules

Identify yourself by name and municipality Limit any comments and questions to 2 minutes Be additive – don’t repeat what others have said We want to hear from everyone who has a comment or

question

78

CGR



Public Forum #3 | May 11, 2011

Documents

Transcript of Public Forum #3 | May 11, 2011