The Other Side of Dissolution - January 2009 Edition

A monthly newsletter written by Johnson City residents opposed to dissolving the Village of Johnson City.   Our goal is to help Johnson City residents make a better-informed choice, when the Dissolution Plan goes to vote.

Dissolution Study Committee Meetings: Article #9

Planning for “New Town-Day 1”
Written by Julie Deemie

The Johnson City Dissolution Committee met for a public meeting on January 26, 2009.  This was the first meeting of the New Year, a very decisive and important year for Village of Johnson City resident voters.The committee members have been busy in their individual sub-committees trying to pull together information and data.  Their end products will be tied together into a dissolution plan for our village and lead up to a referendum vote in November of this year.  Dissolution Committee Chairman William Klish is hopeful that the plan will be completed by June. Public hearings and comment will occur once the dissolution plan is completed, before the vote takes place in November.

At this month’s meeting, Chairman Klish provided highlights of data collected pertaining to both Town of Union and Johnson City Street and Sewer Departments, as well as paving procedures for both.  I did not feel that Bill brought forth as structured of an implementation plan, as Fred had with the refuse department last month. Perhaps there is more work which needs to be done.  He did note that he felt the Public works plan would be completed in two weeks, including financials.  It seems that the committee may have had a change of heart and will now include some financial data along with the “New Town” plan, for our review.  However, I still have some reservations, which I will address later.

Mr. Klish brought up a very interesting bit of information.  Even though the Town of Union has personnel who handle all aspects of paving roads, except milling, they would not be capable of doing re-builds of our roads post dissolution.  The reason is lack of sufficient manpower being that they already have a full schedule, which has been projected out many years.  If you will remember, the village also does not have the manpower and contracts much of this work out.  You should note that the village receives CHIPS funding from the state for road repairs and repaving, which could very well be lost after dissolution into the town.  Also, we are currently granted CDBG for road repairs.  Would these funds be continued post dissolution?  The Town of Union does not use CDBG funds for their road repairs.

 It was noted that the Town does not have housing capability for our street equipment, which would remain housed at its current location post dissolution “Day 1”.  No mention about a future plan to accommodate all equipment at a central location; however one would lend itself to believe this would be the only practical way to manage the merger of departments, long term.  It has already been mentioned that the refuse trucks would need to be housed in a central location for efficiency purposes, in the near future, post dissolution.

Chairman Klish did not mention “New Town” Street and Sewer Department manpower.  It is my understanding that with staff levels already stretched in the Village Street and Sewer Departments, that in using the Town of Union model we would need to hire more manpower. 
JC DOPS Bob Bennett previously mentioned that a minimum of 4 new employees would be required to follow the Town of Union ratio of 4 miles of road per man.  Klish also did not mention whether the post dissolution Town of Union DPW structure would accommodate the positions of the current JC DPW administration staff.

            It was noted by Klish that in Union’s DPW, not all employees are required to have a CDL license. In Johnson City’s DPW all staff that have exceeded their 6-month probationary period are required to have a CDL.

Rather than reiterate what I have previously written about other differences between Village of Johnson City Public Works Street and Sewer procedures and the Town of Union: I refer you to my “Water Issue” written in August of 2008. 

Klish provided some personal perspective to both the committee members and the media present.  One such statement during his media interview was that the impact of combining our public works with Union’s- “Isn’t as dramatic as people might indicate.” Another comment from Klish during the meeting, after a committee member asked him if he really believed there would be a “Day 1” change in public works operation was-“not going to see anything drastic.”  This member also prodded Klish as to whether there would be much opportunity for savings with a Union-JC Public Works merger.  Klish’s response was-“not much savings for “New Town”.

These are my reservations about the initial Public Works Plan.  If the dissolution plan will merely be a plan for “Day 1”, how valid can this plan possibly be?  If for the first year the departments operate out of their current facilities only to turn around year two or three and need to construct a new centrally located facility for efficiency purposes, this should be told to the voters up front.  To expand, rehabilitate or construct a new facility to house all combined refuse trucks or another for all combined wing plows, trucks and plowing equipment would be a very large expense to taxpayers.  If our current facilities are only a temporary plan, with a greater plan at hand I feel the taxpayers and voters deserve to know this now.  If all of the details of combining the departments are not shared I feel this is gross misrepresentation of fact.  Attempts to minimize the “big picture” are just plain wrong.  I wonder if we will be told the projected water and sewer rates which are available and in the hands of the dissolution committee.  It is my understanding that water rates for JC residents will increase post dissolution.  Residents should also remember that a recent Union/JC parks study indicated that our parks cost would increase with the Town of Union in control. 
                                   
This month’s quote: “The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry”.
-Robert Burns

It is important to remember that there are no “guarantees” with dissolution plans.  Resident voters and taxpayers have no recourse once the vote is complete.  According to the way the law is written - no village officials or committee members may be held liable if the plan should fail….. in any way.

Public Dissolution Committee meetings are now being held only once monthly. This is a public forum and I would encourage all interested taxpayers, regardless of your residency location, to attend.  Because President’s Day is the third Monday in February, the next meeting has been rescheduled for February 23rd at 7pm in the Village of Johnson City Justice Bldg, 2nd floor.