MASSENA -- Village trustees are hoping to revisit a decades-long agreement with the town of Massena regarding how the Joint Recreation Department is funded, with one trustee saying the contribution …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
To continue reading, you will need to either log in to your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a digital subscriber with an active, online-only subscription then you already have an account here. Just reset your password if you've not yet logged in to your account on this new site.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
MASSENA -- Village trustees are hoping to revisit a decades-long agreement with the town of Massena regarding how the Joint Recreation Department is funded, with one trustee saying the contribution disparity continues to worsen.
During the June 17 village board meeting, Trustee Ken McGowan broached the subject as he suggested it may be time for the village to entirely take over the department.
McGowan pointed to recent negotiations with the Teamsters Union, which represents Joint Recreation employees, as a primary example as to why the village should consider taking control.
"I appreciate all the work you guys have done with every contract, this one included. A lot of this goes back to...it seems like the village does everything for Rec. I don't know if there's a point in time that we just take it over," he said.
Town officials did participate in the negotiations with the Teamsters representatives, Mayor Greg Paquin clarified.
McGowan noted the department had recently agreed to take control of the Community Center, something that was handled almost entirely by the Village Administrator's office, as another example of why the village may need to consider taking over Joint Recreation.
"I guess where I'm going is, I know I sent an email last week, and I hate that dirty word, but consolidation. I know in the past it was always the town taking over the village. I personally, I don't think it should be that way. We should be thinking because the village does just about everything for the town, right, and then we duplicate costs," McGowan said.
He suggested officials look into ways to cut costs, "even if it's just pennies," to ensure tax dollars go farther.
"I don't know if I'm stirring the pot here but we gotta start. I think we've gotta look at the big picture on how we can save money because...how many politicians do we have for 13,000 people, you know? I mean, you have like 10 politicians. Do we really need 10?" he questioned.
McGowan acknowledged there "was probably more to it" than he touched on but suggested instances like Joint Recreation and other duplicate services will continue to burden taxpayers in the future.
Paquin suggested that one issue was tax revenue from West Massena and what impact consolidation may have on those residents who are in the village of Massena but the town of Louisville.
While some services, such as water and sewer, have separate rates for those in the village versus those in the town and for those in districts compared to those outside of districts, McGowan said duplicate costs for services need to be cut.
"I think there's definitely things that we can do better, where we can consolidate costs,” he said.
McGowan pointed towards recent discussions with the town regarding placing 144 properties receiving village water inside a water district, a move that would lower the cost for those properties.
That issue has been touched on for several months by village officials who have requested the town take such action to ensure recourse for non-payment of water bills.
Currently, water bills cannot be re-levied in the event of non-payment due to those properties not being water districts, a situation that has cost the village thousands of dollars annually due to a lack of recourse.
Treasurer Kevin Felt offered more context regarding the initial agreement, commenting that when passed, the agreement was based on assessed value. That meant the cost was split 50/50.
But a growing disparity in property values between the town and village means that the split is closer to 60/40 now, Felt said.
"I don't think they ever expected it's going to be 80/20, 60/40, whatever the split is currently. That's the first thing that you might want to look at, is to say 'what was the intent of that original agreement?' Yes, it does leave it wide open because it says assessments. I'm not sure that would be intact because that was not part of the expectation, that it would get so skewed," Felt said.
"Forty years ago they didn't foresee losing GM and Reynolds either," Paquin said.
"I was just thinking outside the box on that, we all know we have to start saving somewhere, even if it's pennies," McGowan said.
"It may be pennies but every penny counts," Paquin said.
We’re glad you read this article reported by the staff of NorthCountryNow.com.
If you haven’t done so already, please consider subscribing to ensure you have full access to all the news and info about St. Lawrence County.
Your subscriptions make it possible for us to provide trustworthy local news, promote our many community events, and encourage community dialogue.