|
See Text
A08501 Summary:BILL NO A08501
SAME AS Same as S 5661
SPONSOR Silver (MS)
COSPNSR Kolb, Farrell, Hoyt, Sweeney, Cahill, Galef, Hayes, Barclay, Koon
MLTSPNSR Amedore, Aubry, Benjamin, Boyle, Christensen, Clark, Colton, Conte,
Cook, Destito, Duprey, Eddington, Finch, Fitzpatrick, Hyer-Spencer,
Jordan, Lavine, Lupardo, Magnarelli, Miller J, Molinaro, Morelle,
Ramos, Sayward, Schroeder, Scozzafava, Skartados, Spano, Stirpe,
Tedisco, Thiele, Titone, Tobacco
Add Art 17-A Titles 1 - 4 SS750 - 793, Gen Mun L; amd S33-a, Munic Home Rule L;
rpld S57 sub 2, S81 sub 1 (e), amd SS57, 174, 176, 189-e, 195, 202-c & 208-b,
rpld S208-b sub 2, Town L; amd SS2-254 & 9-912, rpld S9-912 sub 2 (c), sub 3,
Vil L; rpld Art 5-B SS172, 172-b, 172-d, 185, 189-c, 206, 206-a & 209-r, Town
L; rpld SS18-1806 - 18-1818, Vil L; amd SS2.00 & 24.00, Loc Fin L; amd S209-q,
Town L
Enacts the NY government reorganization and citizen empowerment act: relates to
the requirements for consolidation or dissolution of certain local government
entities.
A08501 Actions:BILL NO A08501
05/21/2009 referred to local governments
05/26/2009 reported referred to ways and means
05/27/2009 reported referred to rules
06/01/2009 reported
06/01/2009 rules report cal.35
06/01/2009 ordered to third reading rules cal.35
06/01/2009 passed assembly
06/01/2009 delivered to senate
06/01/2009 REFERRED TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT
06/03/2009 SUBSTITUTED FOR S5661
06/03/2009 3RD READING CAL.472
06/03/2009 MOTION TO AMEND LOST
06/03/2009 MOTION TO AMEND LOST
06/03/2009 PASSED SENATE
06/03/2009 RETURNED TO ASSEMBLY
06/12/2009 delivered to governor
06/24/2009 signed chap.74
A08501 Votes:BILL: A08501 DATE: 06/01/2009 MOTION: YEA/NAY: 118/026
Abbate Y Cahill Y Errigo NO Hyer-Sp Y Mayerso Y Quinn Y Stirpe Y
Alessi NO Calhoun NO Espaill Y Jacobs Y McDonou NO Rabbitt NO Sweeney Y
Alfano NO Camara ER Farrell Y Jaffee NO McEneny NO Raia NO Tedisco Y
Amedore Y Canestr Y Fields Y Jeffrie Y McKevit NO Ramos Y Thiele Y
Arroyo Y Carrozz Y Finch Y John Y Meng Y Reilich Y Titone Y
Aubry Y Castro Y Fitzpat Y Jordan Y Miller Y Reilly Y Titus Y
Bacalle NO Christe Y Gabrysz Y Kavanag Y Millman Y Rive J Y Tobacco Y
Ball Y Clark Y Galef Y Kellner NO Molinar Y Rive N ER Towns Y
Barclay Y Colton Y Gantt Y Kolb Y Morelle Y Rive PM Y Townsen NO
Barra NO Conte Y Gianari Y Koon Y Nolan Y Robinso Y Walker NO
Barron Y Cook Y Giglio Y Lancman Y Oaks Y Rosenth Y Weinste Y
Benedet Y Corwin Y Glick Y Latimer NO O'Donne Y Russell Y Weisenb NO
Benjami Y Crouch NO Gordon Y Lavine Y O'Mara Y Saladin NO Weprin Y
Bing Y Cusick Y Gottfri Y Lentol Y Ortiz Y Sayward Y Wright Y
Boyland ER Cymbrow Y Gunther NO Lifton Y Parment Y Scarbor Y Zebrows Y
Boyle Y DelMont Y Hawley Y Lope PD Y Paulin Y Schimel NO Mr Spkr Y
Bradley NO DenDekk Y Hayes Y Lope VJ Y Peoples Y Schimmi NO
Brennan Y Destito Y Heastie Y Lupardo Y Peralta Y Schroed Y
Brodsky Y Dinowit Y Hevesi Y Magee NO Perry Y Scozzaf Y
Brook-K Y Duprey Y Hikind Y Magnare Y Pheffer Y Seminer Y
Burling NO Eddingt Y Hooper Y Maisel Y Powell ER Skartad Y
Butler NO Englebr Y Hoyt Y Markey Y Pretlow Y Spano Y
A08501 Memo:BILL NUMBER:A8501
TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the general municipal law, the municipal
home rule law, the town law, the village law and the local finance law,
in relation to the requirements for consolidating or dissolving certain
local government entities, and to repeal certain provisions of the town
law and the village law relating thereto
PURPOSE: This bill - entitled "The New N.Y. Government Reorganization
and Citizen Empowerment Act" (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") -
empowers citizens, local officials and counties to reorganize outdated
and inefficient local governments. The Act establishes uniform and user-
friendly procedures for local government entities to consolidate or
dissolve. Through the use of these procedures, in appropriate cases,
local governments can enhance the delivery of services, achieve savings
and reduce local real property taxes and other taxes and fees.
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS: Section 1 of the Act sets forth the bill's short
title: "The New N.Y. Government Reorganization and Citizen Empowerment
Act".
Section 2 adds a new article 17-A of the General Municipal Law, consist-
ing of the following four titles:
* Title I (S 750) sets forth definitions;
* Title II (SS 751-772) sets forth rules and procedures for the consol-
idation of local government entities;
* Title III (SS 773-790) sets forth rules and procedures for the dissol-
ution of local government entities; and
* Title IV (SS 791-793) sets forth certain miscellaneous provisions.
Section 3 amends Municipal Home Rules Law S 33-a, by authorizing coun-
ties to abolish units of local government, subject to a county-wide
referendum with special majority requirements.
Sections 4 through 17 amend and repeal various provisions of existing
law.
Section 18 sets forth a savings clause pursuant to which the provisions
of the Act should not be construed to impair pending consolidation or
dissolution proceeding commenced under existing law prior to the Act's
effective date.
Section 19 provides the effective date of the Act.
JUSTIFICATION: New York State has more than 10,521 local governmental
entities, which include towns, villages and different types of
districts. These entities impose on the citizenry layer upon layer of
overlapping taxing structures. As a result, New York's current system of
local government is too expensive, confusing, inefficient and suscepti-
ble to waste, fraud and abuse.
Illustrative of the dysfunction in the current system of local govern-
ment is the more than 6,900 town special districts operating in New
York. State law now authorizes towns to establish special districts for
an ever increasing number of functions, including such arcane functions
as aquatic plant growth control (Town Law SS 190, 198(10-e)), disposal
of duck waste (Town Law S 198-a), and fallout shelters (Town Law SS 190,
198 (10-c)). To be sure, some special purpose government entities play a
crucial role in town governance, by providing services to geographic
areas that other governments might not serve, managing critical public
services, and bringing attention to specific discrete problems. Over the
years, however, special districts have proliferated at an alarming rate,
increasing the cost of local government.
Indeed, the astounding number of local governments in New York has
contributed to the rise of local real property taxes. Throughout the
State there are large pockets of overlapping taxing entities. Erie Coun-
ty alone has 1,044 such entities, including 3 cities, 25 towns, 15
villages, 32 fire districts and 939 special districts. Likewise, Nassau
and Suffolk Counties combined have over 340 special districts. In
Hamilton County, there exists one layer of government for every 132
people. Such examples can easily be multiplied.
For over 75 years, academics, commissions, government officials, good
government groups and informed citizens have recognized the inherent
dysfunction in New York's local government system. In 1935, for example,
the New York State Commission for the Revision of the Tax Laws, commonly
referred to as the Mastick Commission, noted that there were "too many
units of [local] government," resulting in the "duplication of func-
tions, overlapping areas, overlapping authority and overlapping debt."
Sixth Report of the New York State Commission for the Revision of the
Tax Laws, at 15-16 (1935). The Mastick Commission criticized the State's
local government system as violative of the "'first principles'" of
political science "taught in our high schools, colleges and universi-
ties", and "so contrary to elementary principles of human organization
that it is difficult if not impossible for the administration of public
affairs to be carried on with efficiency." Id.
Sixty years later, a study prepared by the 1995 Temporary State Commis-
sion on Constitutional Revision revealed that the problem had only grown
in dimension:
New York's forms of general purpose government - counties, cities,
towns, and villages - were devised in the eighteenth century and devel-
oped in the nineteenth. But they have not been modified in the twentieth
century, despite enormous changes in population size and diversity,
economic activity, transportation systems, settlement patterns and
communications technology. Instead, the state has added frequently but
streamlined rarely. Localities kept their forms, but their functions
converged. Where necessary, single-function, special districts and
authorities were created to augment existing entities, increasing layer-
ing and complexity. The result is not a system, but a maze of overlap-
ping and often competing jurisdictions.
Effective Government Now for the New Century: The Final Report of the
Temporary State Commission on Constitutional Revision, at 15 (1995).
Study after study has demonstrated that the reorganization of local
government entities - through consolidation and dissolution - holds the
potential for minimizing bureaucracy and thus maximizing efficiency and
savings.{1} Nevertheless, despite a virtual consensus that the State's
local government system needs to be fixed, consolidations and dissol-
utions of local government entities rarely occur.
Multiple impediments stand in the way of local government reorganiza-
tion, but existing law is one which looms large. The applicable statutes
are randomly scattered throughout the Town Law, Village Law, General
Municipal Law and Municipal Home Rule Law, creating an incomprehensible
maze for lawyers and laypersons alike. For different types of local
government entities there are different consolidation and dissolution
rules and procedures, many of which are inconsistent and nonsensical.
Some rules are anachronistic, harkening back to a bygone era. For exam-
ple, a citizen must own taxable property within a water district in
order to sign a petition or vote in a special town election on a propo-
sition to consolidate the district with another one. See, e.g., Town Law
S 206(7). Such pecuniary and propertied qualifications should have no
place in contemporary society. A person's wealth is irrelevant to their
ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process.
Additionally, citizen petition requirements related to consolidations
and dissolutions, to the limited extent they exist under current law,
are complex, confusing and difficult to meet. In some cases, citizens
cannot even require their elected representatives to consider as an
option the consolidation or dissolution of a local government entity.
Such voter powerlessness places New York out of step with numerous other
states that grant their citizens the right to readily initiate local
government reorganizations.
The Act dramatically reforms existing law. It repeals, amends and super-
sedes outdated statutes and establishes in a single article of the
General Municipal Law uniform and all-inclusive procedures under which
local government entities{2} may be consolidated or dissolved. Notably,
the Act does not mandate the reorganization of local government entities
in which a majority of the citizens are opposed to it. The bill will,
however, facilitate consolidations and dissolutions throughout the
State, by giving citizens, local officials and counties a readable road-
map to follow.
Under the Act, the consolidation or dissolution of local government
entities may be initiated in one of two ways:
* by the entities' governing body, or
* initiative petition of electors residing in the entities.
The governing body initiated process is triggered by the development and
approval of a proposed written plan for consolidation or dissolution,
followed by the plan's publication and public hearings aimed at maximiz-
ing citizen participation. Consolidation of local government entities
other than towns or villages may go into effect after the governing body
or bodies give final approval to the plan. However, consolidation or
dissolution of towns and/or villages cannot go into effect without the
approval of a majority of voters residing in each of the affected enti-
ties at a referendum. Likewise, the dissolution of a village must be
approved by a majority vote.
The citizen-initiated process is triggered by the filing of a petition
containing the signatures of at least 10% of the electors or 5,000 elec-
tors, whichever is less, in each local government entity to be consol-
idated or dissolved. (For small entities with 500 or fewer electors the
petition shall contain the signatures of at least 20% of the electors.)
The Act strikes from existing law all pecuniary or propertied qualifica-
tions for signing the petition. The filing of the petition requires a
referendum to be held in each of the entities. If a majority of the
electorate in each entity votes in favor of consolidation or dissol-
ution, then the entities' governing body or bodies must meet and develop
a proposed written plan to implement the voters' decision, followed by
the plan's publication and public hearings. Consolidation or dissolution
takes effect when the governing body or bodies approve a final version
of the plan. However, citizens may, within 45-days after the plan's
final approval, petition for a permissive referendum on the question
whether the plan should take effect. To compel such a referendum, the
petition must contain the signatures of at least 25% of the electors or
15,000 electors, whichever is less, in each local government entity to
be consolidated or dissolved.
The Act anticipates the possibility that the governing body or bodies of
local government entities are either unable or unwilling to comply with
the requirements imposed on them during the course of a citizen-initiat-
ed consolidation or dissolution. In such circumstances, the Act author-
izes the commencement of a court proceeding which may, if necessary,
result in an order compelling consolidation or dissolution, thereby
ensuring the people's will is carried out.
Also, the Act lays out various rules and procedures regarding transition
issues raised by the dissolution or consolidation of local government
entities. Among the issues addressed are the election and appointment of
officials; the effect of transition on employees, existing laws, and
actions and procedures; debts, liabilities and obligations; the regis-
tration of electors; the disposition of records, books and papers; and
the winding down of the affairs of a dissolved entity.
Finally, the Act facilitates the ability of counties to exercise the
authority vested in them by the State Constitution to reorganize local
governments. N.Y. Const. Art. 9, S 1h(1) confers upon counties the
authority to transfer or abolish units of local government, subject to
multiple referenda requirements. In 1970, however, the Legislature did
not fully implement the counties' constitutional authority when it
enacted Municipal Home Rule Law S 33-a(1). That statute presently limits
counties to abolishing only "offices, departments and agencies" of local
governments, as opposed to the governments themselves. Further, existing
law conditions abolition on the county transferring all of the functions
and duties of the offices, departments and agencies to other units of
government. The Act remedies this curtailment of counties' authority, by
amending Municipal Home Rule Law S 33-a(1) to authorize counties to
abolish entire units of local government - including cities, towns,
villages and special districts - when the level and quality of ongoing
services are transferred. With these changes to existing law, a county
may, in appropriate cases, effect dissolutions, mergers and consol-
idations of whole units of government, subject to the approval by the
voters of the county in a referendum.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: By facilitating the dissolution and consolidation
of layers of bureaucracy that duplicate services and drive up costs, the
Act will provide savings and reduce real property taxes and other taxes
and fees. Additionally, when local governments, citizens and/or counties
begin to utilize the consolidation and dissolution procedures estab-
lished by the Act, there will be overall long term savings to the State.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This bill will take effect two hundred and seventy days
after it is enacted.
{1} See generally, New York State Commission on Local Government Effi-
ciency & Competitiveness, 21st Century Local Government (April 2008);
Nassau County Office of the Comptroller, Cost-Savings Ideas for Special
Districts in Nassau County (Dec. 13, 2006); Report of the Governor's
Blue Ribbon Commission on Consolidation of Local Government (Oct. 1993);
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, Report on the Local
Government Restructuring Project (1992).
{2} The phrase "local government entity", as used in the new article
17-A of the General Municipal Law established by the Act, is defined as
"a town, village, district, special improvement district or other
improvement district, including, but not limited to, special districts
created pursuant to articles 11, 12, 12-A or 13 of the town law, library
districts, and other districts created by law; provided, however, that a
local government entity shall not include school districts, city
districts or special purpose districts created by counties under county
law."
|
