Study: County sharing looks limited

YATES, SCHUYLER COUNTIES--A recent report looking at consolidation opportunities between Schuyler and Yates Counties shows mostly management-based opportunities available, with few large-scale opportunities for shared services outside of full consolidation. The $50,000 grant-funded study was conducted by the Center for Governmental Research (CGR), which began in May of 2014. There will be an opportunity Tuesday, March 24 in Schuyler and Wednesday, March 25 in Yates County for the public to hear more about the outcome of the study.
While Yates and Schuyler currently share a weights and measures director, a proposal to share a highway superintendent recently fell through. Yates County Administrator Sarah Purdy said the opportunities for sharing between the counties are more likely to be through office jobs.
"The next best option is probably going to be some sharing opportunities that are related more to office-based jobs than jobs involving large equipment, roads and bridges," Purdy said. "Yates County has a position review process for every position that becomes vacant, and easily can consider whether the positions lend themselves to sharing. In some instances, the sharing might be with Ontario County rather than with Schuyler, but the bottom line here is that just because it didn't turn out to be feasible in one instance doesn't mean we won't keep trying."
While Schuyler Legislative Chairman Dennis Fagan echoed a similar conclusion, he expressed disappointment in the inability for the counties to come to terms on sharing a highway superintendent.
"The sharing opportunities were about what I expected," Schuyler Legislative Chairman Dennis Fagan said. "Going into the study we realized that the majority of the opportunities were in the potential sharing/reduction of management. That is why the missed opportunity of sharing Yates' highway superintendent is so disappointing to Schuyler County. Based on this unfortunate experience, I am reluctant to focus on other possible implementation areas at this time since it takes two to tango."
The CGR report looked at the potential for sharing in each county department, finding the most significant spending commonalities include public safety as well as in social services. The report also looked at how each area would be impacted in the event of a complete county merger.
Overview
According to CGR's report, Yates and Schuyler Counties are similar in size (338 square miles in Yates versus 328 in Schuyler) and population (25,156 residents in Yates in 2013 versus 18,460 in Schuyler). The study lists economic similarities between the counties, including median household income levels ($47,869 in Schuyler, $48,245 in Yates), per capita earned income levels ($23,952 in Schuyler, $24,124 in Yates) and homeownership rates (81 percent in Schuyler, 78 percent in Yates). However, the study claims Yates County has more economic activity than that of its neighbor.
"Overall, Schuyler County's economic activity is lower than that of Yates, evidenced by measures like private nonfarm business establishments (367 in Schuyler, 548 in Yates), private nonfarm employment levels (3,613 in Schuyler, 5,029 in Yates) and total firms (1,491 in Schuyler, 1,797 in Yates)," according to the study. "Recent building activity has also been greater in Yates (76 permits issued in 2012) than Schuyler (46).
The counties also have similar budgetary expenditure amounts, with Schuyler's expenses reaching $40.8 million, while Yates has $41.8 million in budgetary expenditures.
"The basic menu of county services tends to be reasonably similar across governments, so most spend money in common areas," according to the report. "[...] In raw dollar terms, the categories showing the most significant spending commonalities include social services, employee benefits and sheriff."
Public Safety
While the study claims, "there is limited opportunity for sharing services in the law enforcement division in ways that would result in cost savings or improved operation," it finds there are more opportunities to share at the jail. The study refers to the jails in each county being "near to functional capacity," with Yates holding a maximum of 65 prisoners and Schuyler holding a maximum of 30. While the report claims Schuyler County's jail has little room for storage or meeting space, it claims the Yates County jail's design "requires more on-duty staff that otherwise would not be required in a modern facility."
"There are options in both the short- and long-term that might improve efficiency," according to the report. "[...] In the short-term, it is conceivable that Yates could contract with Schuyler to host its prisoners at their facility when space is available. [...] A more in-depth analysis would be needed to evaluate the costs and benefits, but it is possible that Schuyler could save substantial money if it outsourced its jail operation, especially if taken in conjunction with a change in emergency communications."
However, Yates County Sheriff Ron Spike said it would not be practical for Yates County to host prisoners at Schuyler County's jail, as it would be costly to Yates.
"[It would be] very impractical as their jail is too small and our average population is larger," Spike said. "We already house females for them occasionally, as they do not keep females there. They house a lot with Chemung County as well. We also have a revenue source with U.S. Marshal inmate housing."
Schuyler County Sheriff William Yessman also said a county cannot board inmates out to another county unless there is a lack of cell space. Yessman said the costs associated with boarding would not result in any significant savings to the county.
"There are costs associated with housing inmates, so there wouldn't be any real cost savings associated with this," Yessman said. "The county boarding out their inmates would need to pay the housing county. If no fee was charged then the housing county would bear the expenses such as housing, medical, food, etc."
The report also claims a more long-term option would be for the two counties to build a new jail at central location for both to use.
"The benefit of a new facility would be a more efficient modern design that could be operated with fewer correction officers," according to the study. "It could also be planned with the capacity to allow it to accept prisoners from other jurisdictions to continue the revenue stream. There would be a substantial cost to build the jail, however the counties would likely see long-term savings in reduced personnel and energy costs from a new facility."
Spike said while there is currently no regional shared jail in the state, it is an option that should be considered in the future when a new jail is needed.
"A regional shared jail is possible under the law with intermunicipal agreements," Spike said. "However, no one is doing it in New York State at this time. Should the time come in the future for either or both counties needing a new jail, then it is an option that should be explored. It would be doing what is in the best interest for our tax payers. Shared services need exploring should this be a real issue. Any such matter would have to be researched thoroughly for costs incurred and costs to be saved, transport costs, liability issues, and who do the employees actually work for, employee unions, collective bargaining agreements, as well as other insurances and workmans compensation issues as well as policies and governance of any project and governance of operations."
However, Yessman said there are too many unanswered questions for a shared jail facility to be practical, adding such a facility could cost more than $50 million.
"For a shared jail to become a reality there would be many hurdles such as legislation to permit the shared jail such as union contracts," Yessman said. "If officers from both counties were assigned to work in a shared jail, how would salary and benefits be calculated so that everyone was covered equally? How would the cost of the new facility be charged to each county? Which county would get the shared jail? If there would be a reduction in staffing, which staff would be let go? If there would be an increase in staffing, how would that be done? Which county would employ the staff? Because of the questions and concerns, I don't think it would be practical to share a jail. The benefits of a shared jail would hopefully be a cost savings at some point, but the cost of a jail that is large enough to fill the needs of both counties, could cost the taxpayers $50 million to $60 million. This is a conservative estimate. I think this would outweigh any other savings."
According to the study, the Yates County Sheriff's Department has a total operating cost of $5,922,367, which is $3 million more than Schuyler's $2,900,102. Yates County has a total of 87 full-time employees, while Schuyler only employs 41 full-time positions. The study says Schuyler County uses its corrections officers to staff its 911 center, while Yates County employs a separate staff.
The study also says Schuyler County usually has two deputies and a sergeant on patrol, while Yates County usually has three deputies and a sergeant. Yates also exceeds Schuyler with three dispatchers on duty during the day and two overnight, while Schuyler has two dispatchers working at all times. CGR's report claims "The existing technology in the two counties, with some modifications, could enable a single organization to provide both Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) and dispatching functions to the two counties." However, it said Schuyler's dispatchers also have a dual role as door controllers in the county jail, a role that would need to be filled unless the consolidation operation was based in Schuyler.
Social Services
CGR's report claims several similarities between Schuyler and Yates Counties when it comes to their Departments of Social Services. According to the study, both departments staff 46 full-time employees, while Yates has an additional part-time position. The total budgeted cost for Schuyler County is slightly higher, coming in at $11,335,479 as opposed to $10,294,510 in Yates. However, Schuyler's cost also includes the Youth Bureau, while Yates does not.
"There is a slight organizational difference regarding the counties' staffing of Youth Bureau responsibilities," according to the report. "In Schuyler, the Youth Bureau was combined into the Department of Social Services organization over the past two years, though youth services (and one dedicated full-time staff person) technically remain a distinct cost center. In Yates, the Youth Bureau has a separate budget, however, the Youth Bureau Director reports to, and is supervised by the Commissioner of Social Services."
One of the opportunities highlighted by the CGR study includes the possibility of sharing a single commissioner position.
"Under a shared arrangement, it may be feasible to eliminate a commissioner position in one county providing savings of $62,424 plus benefits, using the lowest-cost commissioner), but would likely require retention of a deputy commissioner (or a comparable high-level administrative role) in the other county," according to the study.
The study claims the same could be done with a single veterans services director, while also examining the possibility of entering an agreement that could result in the elimination of a records management officer.
CGR also claims the two counties could possibly collaborate in purchasing common goods such as road salt, gasoline and other commodities to increase volume discounts.
County Merger
A steering committee was formed to analyze the document while also discussing which actions would be most economically viable for each county. While Yates County Legislative Chairman Tim Dennis has previously said there is not enough there to warrant a complete merger, it has not yet been taken off the table. According to the consolidation study, merging the two counties would lead to a tax rate increase for Yates County residents, while causing a tax rate decrease for Schuyler County residents.
"CGR's analysis found that full consolidation of the two counties could generate savings of approximately $1.4 million," according to the document. "Translated into property tax savings, that would yield a 1 percent rate increase for Yates taxpayers and a 15 percent rate reduction for Schuyler taxpayers. In the event of full consolidation, however, the ultimate savings would remain subject to whether each of the identified efficiency opportunities were implemented as designed, as well as resolution of certain questions regarding revenues."