SINCLAIRVILLE — The village was once again visited by Dr. Kent Gardner of the Center for Governmental Research in Rochester this past week, at a special meeting in Park Church, where Gardner shared with those in attendance his findings on possible outcomes of Sinclairville’s proposed dissolution.

Gardner broke down his presentation into several slides, each featuring a specific facet that could be a possible outcome of a village dissolution.

“Let’s first take a look at revenue,” Gardner began. “I’ve really tried to keep all the services the same when I’ve done these calculations.”

REVENUE

“The revenues are assumed to go to the towns in proportion to population. … Two-thirds to Charlotte and the remainder to Gerry,” Gardner stated. “One exception to that is the gross utilities receipt tax. That is a tax that the towns can’t impose, the villages can impose (it), so off the top you lose $6,500 you can’t tax.”

From there, Gardner moved on to the county’s contribution to the dissolution, should the referendum pass. “You have two sources of new revenue, one is the county has committed that you can get up to $25,000 as just a one time thing,” he noted. “The county puts it in the pot to make possible the transitions.”

In addition, Gardner went on to say, “What continues is something called the Citizens Empowerment Tax Credit from the state, and its 15% of the combined property tax levy. Fifteen percent of the average between the municipal towns, Charlotte and Gerry, so it comes out to about $95,000 a year that the state pays to the towns.”

The $95,000 seemed to stir up some attendees in the room just by association as a large number, prompting Gardner to emphasize his involvement as solely in the realm of the numbers, not of any kind of action.

“These are just assumptions,” he said. “My job in advance of the vote is to say ‘what if,’ and I’m just trying to give you an idea. Nothing is certain. The towns make the decisions.”

CONSOLIDATION

“If we make the assumption that we’re eliminating the elected officials,” Gardener said, moving onto another section, “if we assume, if you move the work of the village clerk, some goes away, some doesn’t. … Suppose half moves to Charlotte and half stays.”

In addition to the elimination of elected officials, there’s one other position in the village that may directly be affected by the dissolution, according to Gardner. “I also made the decision that (with) the two DPW positions that one of those positions will be eliminated,” he noted. “That’s not a decision I’m empowered to make. I’m just putting it on the table as a possible alternative.”

Gardner went on to state, “There’s some added costs if you move the higher paid DPW position to Charlotte, then that person is covered by their teamsters contract. That would require them to level up to the teamsters grade, about a 27% increase. … We also made an assumption that there’s administrative costs to move the highway department. If Charlotte would be picking up water system, downtown maintenance, all the other pieces … the net savings, by my calculations, would be around $43,000.”

Finishing off his slides on consolidation, Gardner emphasized, “Not all the services go away. The water system is going to stay, you’re still going to pay something for collecting trash. … I tried to keep it so that we leave it the way it is. Assume there’s no change in water.”

SPECIAL DISTRICTS

“We assume that the contractual cost of street maintenance and sidewalk plowing goes to a special district,” Gardner commented. “People who live in the village would continue paying those costs, (but) through a special district. Some legal stuff changes. We have to create a different fire protection district. The territories wouldn’t change, so we leave fire off the table.”

From there, Gardner broke down how street lighting may work in the proposed dissolution, one of the more contested issues in the village.

“Street lighting, I assumed in my model, would be townwide,” he noted. “This is the decision of the supervisors and the town boards. They decide if they’re going to create street lighting townwide or through a special district.”

Off that, Gardner summed up the total proposed cost of the special district’s spending, and the subsequent tax savings for village residents. “The total special district spending would be about $85,000,” he stated. “So on balance, spending by current village residents falls from your property tax levy now at $155,000 to the $85,000 you would be spending on special districts. So its about a 46% reduction in total.”

COSTS

“We’ve got all the village costs in four different ‘buckets,'” Gardner said, pointing out an accompanying graph. “First we’ve got savings, what we’re not going to spend. … Then we’ve got the money that flows to Charlotte and Gerry, and then we’ve got money that still has to be spent because its going to provide services. Four buckets: savings, Charlotte, Gerry and special districts.”

Following the buckets, Gardner again emphasized that more specificity on the issues would come with time. “This isn’t set in stone, that’s what the plan would do,” he stated. “If you vote in favor of dissolution and the village sets up a plan, then we get very precise about this. Then we’re not asking, we work with the towns and the towns make commitments and we can make more calculations that are more precise.”

Off that notion, Gardner also commented that all involved municipalities are in this together at the end of the day. “Remember the towns also get revenue, the towns are going to get this money that comes from the state,” he said. “The towns are also going to get a pro-rated share of revenue and sales tax in particular that the village already gets today, Consolidated Local Street and Highway Improvement Program (CHIPS) money and all that stuff. That increase in income to Charlotte, after you take off the additional costs, we estimate is about 3% of the tax levy. Gerry is about 2%.”

QUESTIONS

After the totals were listed, Gardner then invited questions from the audience. Much like his prior visit to Sinclairville, Gardner was met with an initial hostility from a handful of residents, though this time around the atmosphere seemed to soften quicker.

The first question Gardner fielded inquired as to what Charlotte and Gerry can use the new revenue for after the dissolution. “What happens with the money the towns get (is) the law says that 70% of that has to go towards tax reduction,” Gardner answered. “That said, we have yet to see the state go and check.”

Another question from an audience member, who referred to Gardner as a “salesman selling them dissolution,” emphasized that the uncertainty of the whole situation was still an unsettling elephant in the room. “Assumption is a dangerous word to use to get people to vote for something,” the individual said. “I live on facts, I pay my bills on facts.”

In his reply, Gardner stated that he, again, “has no dog in this fight,” and that the way the dissolution law is written requires the dissolution to first pass before any concrete changes are made. “The one fact is that on August 13, people are going to go to the polls. That’s a fact,” Gardner commented. “I’m trying to give you an idea of what the possible outcomes are. … The only way I can do that is by laying out assumptions.”

When asked about absentee ballots for the referendum vote, Gardner replied, “You can get an application for an absentee ballot from the village clerk’s office.”

Another important question that came up was about village property values, would they fall or rise, and how would the dissolution affect them. “I don’t think they’ll be affected,” Gardner responded. “I’m an economist, I’m supposed to believe that taxes affect property value. In theory, if the taxes are less, maybe the property value goes up.”

On of the final inquiries from the audience was on the village’s physical assets, like DPW equipment and municipal buildings. “It’s likely that the town of Charlotte and Gerry will inherit the physical assets,” Gardner replied, adding, “That’s not to say there aren’t some things the village could do between the time of passing the plan and the dissolution.”

Gardner went on to say, “For example, you have quite a bit of debt in the water system. I believe there are assets the village could sell to defray the debt on the water system. That would allow the village residents to benefit from the sale of those assets.”

With the meeting winding down and many questions again becoming too personal to broadly answer for the time being, Gardner thanked the village for their time and reminded them of the voting date. The referendum vote is scheduled for August 13 from noon to 9 p.m.