1 / 79

Public Forum #3 | May 11, 2011

Public Forum #3 | May 11, 2011. Joint Consolidation / Shared Services Study Commission of Princeton Borough and Princeton Township. Agenda. Call to order Roll call Introduction – Anton Lahnston Agenda Commission Members Objectives Review of options report (CGR)

nevan
Télécharger la présentation

Public Forum #3 | May 11, 2011

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Public Forum #3 | May 11, 2011 Joint Consolidation / Shared Services Study Commission ofPrinceton Borough and Princeton Township

  2. 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. Public Forum #3 | May 11, 2011 Joint Consolidation / Shared Services Study Commission ofPrinceton Borough and Princeton Township

  5. 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

  7. Options Review | The Process

  8. Form ofGovernment

  9. 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

  10. Options | Form of Government

  11. RecommendationBernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee • Borough form of governmentMayor + 6-member governing bodyKey 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

  12. Review ofGeneralServices

  13. Departmental Options Review | The Approach

  14. 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)

  15. 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)

  16. 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)

  17. Recommendation – AdministratorBernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee • 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. 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)

  19. Recommendation – ClerkBernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee • 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. Options | Finance / Tax Collection • Option 1: Retain full staff #, downgrade duplicate CFO and assistant CFO titles(savings of $39,717) • Option 2: Same as option 1, but retain only one repurposed staff titles(savings of $119,717) • Option 3: Retain only one CFO and assistant CFO + full current support staff(savings of $217,496)

  21. Recommendation – Finance/Tax CollectionBernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee • Option 1: Retain full staff #, downgrade duplicate CFO and assistant CFO titles(savings of $39,717) • Option 2: Same as option 1, but retain only one repurposed staff titles(savings of $119,717) • Option 3: Retain only one CFO and assistant CFO + full current support staff(savings of $217,496)

  22. 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)

  23. Recommendation – EngineeringBernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee • 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

  24. 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)

  25. Recommendation – CourtBernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee • 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. 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)

  27. Recommendation – ConstructionBernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee • 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. 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)

  29. Recommendation – Affordable HousingBernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee • Single full-time coordinator, supplemented by contracted services for marketing and qualifications(savings N/A)

  30. Options | Emergency Management • Option 1: Designate single Director of Emergency Management(savings N/A)

  31. Recommendation – Emergency ManagementBernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee • Option 1: Designate single Director of Emergency Management(savings N/A)

  32. 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)

  33. Recommendation – Fire InspectionBernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee • No formal staffing recommendation; Program should continue to be designed such that fees cover costs (savings N/A)

  34. 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)

  35. Recommendation – Tax AssessmentBernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee • Option 1: Retain full staff #(savings N/A) • Option 2: Reduce by one p/t assistant assessor title(savings of $17,642)

  36. Options | Zoning and Historic Preservation • Option 1: Retain full staff #(savings N/A) • 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)

  37. Recommendation – Zoning/HPOBernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee • Transition to one zoning/HPO official and deputy, enabling duplicate positions to return to primary responsibilities in other departments(savings N/A)

  38. Options | Information Technology • Option 1: Retain one f/t Director of IT(savings N/A) • Option 2: Outsource all IT functions(savings N/A)

  39. Recommendation – Information TechnologyBernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee • Option 1: Retain one f/t Director of IT(savings N/A) • Option 2: Outsource all IT functions(savings N/A)

  40. Review ofPolice Services

  41. 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)

  42. 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

  43. 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

  44. 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

  45. 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

More Related