1. 1

2. CGR Public Forum #3 | May 11, 2011 Joint Consolidation / Shared Services Study Commission of Princeton Borough and Princeton Township

3. Agenda  Call to order  Roll call  Introduction – Anton Lahnston  Agenda  Commission Members  Objectives  Review of options report (CGR)  Presentation of recommendations (Commission)  Comments, questions from the public  Adjournment 3

4. Objectives of Tonight’s Forum  Update the study process  Review the options report  Review the recommendations developed by the Commission and its Subcommittees  Engage in dialogue 4

5. CGR Public Forum #3 | May 11, 2011 Joint Consolidation / Shared Services Study Commission of Princeton Borough and Princeton Township

6. The Study Process | A Review  Phase 1: Baseline review  Phase 2: Options review  What is the range of reasonable options?  How to the options differ?  What are the impacts of different options?  What is most feasible? 6

7. 7

8. Key Dates  May 17 – Commission decision on final recommendations  May 25 – Commission decision on whether to recommend consolidation  June 22 – Final report to Governing Bodies  Aug 18 – Decision on referendum  Nov 8 – Vote 8

9. Options Review | The Process 9

10. 10 Form of Government

11. Options | Form of Government  Under State law, the Borough and Township can select from among eight (8) forms if they consolidate  Borough  Township  Mayor-Council  Council-Manager  Mayor-Council-Administrator  Municipal Manager  Commission  Special Charter 11

12. Options | Form of Government 12

13. Recommendation Bernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee  Borough form of government Mayor + 6-member governing body Key factors  Directly elected mayor  Certain forms were discarded b/c mayor is not directly elected  Access to professional staff by all elected officials  OMCL forms were discarded b/c officials cannot interact w/ staff  Process issues with “special charter” form  Discussion of ward-based system 13

14. 14 Review of General Services

15. Departmental Options Review | The Approach 15

16. Options | Governing Body  Adoption of Borough form would result in reduction of five (5) elected positions, leaving a mayor and six- member governing body  Option 1: Level salaries upward (savings of $43k)  Option 2: Level salaries downward (savings of $64k)  Option 3: Fix salaries to Borough levels (savings of $61k) 16

17. Recommendation – Governing Body Bernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee  Adoption of Borough form would result in reduction of five (5) elected positions, leaving a mayor and six- member governing body  Option 1: Level salaries upward (savings of $43k)  Option 2: Level salaries downward (savings of $64k)  Option 3: Fix salaries to Borough levels (savings of $61k) 17

18. Options | Administrator  Option 1: Reduce 1 administrator, add 1 support staff (savings of $125,756)  Option 2: Reduce 1 administrator, no new staff (savings of $205,756) 18

19. Recommendation – Administrator Bernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee 19  Option 1: Reduce 1 administrator, add 1 support staff (savings of $125,756)  Option 2: Reduce 1 administrator, no new staff (savings of $205,756)

20. Options | Clerk  Option 1: Retain full staff #, downgrade duplicate clerk and deputy clerk titles (savings of $38,892)  Option 2: Same as option 1, but retain only one repurposed staff titles (savings of $98,892)  Option 3: Retain only one clerk and deputy clerk + full current support staff (savings of $198,892) 20

21. Recommendation – Clerk Bernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee 21  Option 1: Retain full staff #, downgrade duplicate clerk and deputy clerk titles (savings of $38,892)  Option 2: Same as option 1, but retain only one repurposed staff titles (savings of $98,892)  Option 3: Retain only one clerk and deputy clerk + full current support staff (savings of $198,892)

22. Options | Finance / Tax Collection  Option 1: Retain full staff #, downgrade duplicate CFO and assistant CFO titles (savings of $39,717)  Option 2: Same as option 1, but retain only one repurposed staff titles (savings of $119,717)  Option 3: Retain only one CFO and assistant CFO + full current support staff (savings of $217,496) 22

23. Recommendation – Finance/Tax Collection Bernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee 23  Option 1: Retain full staff #, downgrade duplicate CFO and assistant CFO titles (savings of $39,717)  Option 2: Same as option 1, but retain only one repurposed staff titles (savings of $119,717)  Option 3: Retain only one CFO and assistant CFO + full current support staff (savings of $217,496)

24. Options | Engineering  Option 1: Retain full staff #, downgrade duplicate engineer and assistant engineer titles (savings of $77,468)  Option 2: Reduce duplicate engineer, downgrade duplicate assistant engineer (savings of $177,468)  Option 3: Same as Option 2, but also reduce one clerical/ support staff position (savings of $236,585) 24

25. Recommendation – Engineering Bernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee 25  Option 1: Retain full staff #, downgrade duplicate engineer and assistant engineer titles (savings of $77,468)  Option 2: Reduce duplicate engineer, downgrade duplicate assistant engineer (savings of $177,468)  Option 3: Same as Option 2, but also reduce one clerical/ support staff position (savings of $236,585)  Plus integration w/ DPW and PSOC

26. Options | Court  Option 1: Retain full staff #, downgrade duplicate court administrator title (savings of $13,614)  Option 2: Downgrade duplicate administrator title, reduce one p/t deputy administrator position (savings of $39,416)  Option 3: Eliminate duplicate administrator title instead of p/t deputy administrator position (savings of $79,140) 26

27. Recommendation – Court Bernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee 27  Option 1: Retain full staff #, downgrade duplicate court administrator title (savings of $13,614)  Option 2: Downgrade duplicate administrator title, reduce one p/t deputy administrator position (savings of $39,416)  Option 3: Eliminate duplicate administrator title instead of p/t deputy administrator position (savings of $79,140)

28. Options | Construction  As a fee-based service, it’s important to note that savings in this function would be passed on to applicants through a revised fee schedule, rather than to property tax payers  Option 1: Retain full staff #, downgrade duplicate construction official and technical assistant titles (savings of $43,609)  Option 2: Same as Option 1, but reduce duplicate construction official title to p/t sub-code official (savings of $58,600)  Option 3: Same as Option 2, but also reduce duplicate technical assistant title to p/t support staff (savings of $73,600) 28

29. Recommendation – Construction Bernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee 29  As a fee-based service, it’s important to note that savings in this function would be passed on to applicants through a revised fee schedule, rather than to property tax payers  Option 1: Retain full staff #, downgrade duplicate construction official and technical assistant titles (savings of $43,609)  Option 2: Same as Option 1, but reduce duplicate construction official title to p/t sub-code official (savings of $58,600)  Option 3: Same as Option 2, but also reduce duplicate technical assistant title to p/t support staff (savings of $73,600)

30. Options | Affordable Housing  Option 1: Retain full staff #, downgrade part-time coordinator into support staff (savings of $3,440)  Option 2: Fully outsourced approach (savings N/A)  Option 3: Fully in-housed approach w/ additional staff (savings N/A) 30

31. Recommendation – Affordable Housing Bernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee 31  Single full-time coordinator, supplemented by contracted services for marketing and qualifications (savings N/A)

32. Options | Emergency Management  Option 1: Designate single Director of Emergency Management (savings N/A) 32

33. Recommendation – Emergency Management Bernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee 33  Option 1: Designate single Director of Emergency Management (savings N/A)

34. Options | Fire Inspection  As a fee-based service, it’s important to note that savings in this function would be passed on to applicants through a revised fee schedule, rather than to property tax payers  Option 1: Retain full staff #, convert duplicate fire official to fire inspector w/o change in compensation (savings N/A)  Option 2: Retain full staff #, downgrade one duplicate fire official to fire inspector w/ commensurate cost reduction (savings of $15,912)  Option 3: Same as Option 2, but reduce duplicate p/t support staff position (savings of $28,973) 34

35. Recommendation – Fire Inspection Bernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee 35  No formal staffing recommendation; Program should continue to be designed such that fees cover costs (savings N/A)

36. Options | Tax Assessment  Option 1: Retain full staff # (savings N/A)  Option 2: Reduce by one p/t assistant assessor title (savings of $17,642) 36

37. Recommendation – Tax Assessment Bernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee 37  Option 1: Retain full staff # (savings N/A)  Option 2: Reduce by one p/t assistant assessor title (savings of $17,642)

38. Options | Zoning and Historic Preservation  Option 1: Retain full staff # (savings N/A)  Option 2: Designate one f/t zoning and HPO officer and deputy zoning officer + support staff; Enables re- deployment of current staff to primary responsibilities in other departments (savings N/A) 38

39. Recommendation – Zoning/HPO Bernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee 39  Transition to one zoning/HPO official and deputy, enabling duplicate positions to return to primary responsibilities in other departments (savings N/A)

40. Options | Information Technology  Option 1: Retain one f/t Director of IT (savings N/A)  Option 2: Outsource all IT functions (savings N/A) 40

41. Recommendation – Information Technology Bernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee 41  Option 1: Retain one f/t Director of IT (savings N/A)  Option 2: Outsource all IT functions (savings N/A)

42. 42 Review of Police Services

43. Options | Police  The Police Subcommittee reviewed options for merging the two PDs into one  This could be implemented in one of two ways  Through municipal consolidation (i.e. one municipality, one police department)  Through shared services (i.e. two municipalities, one police department) 43

44. Options | Police  Model 1 (“Headcount Neutral”)  Borough-proposed model  60 sworn personnel, 15 civilian personnel  Reinstates dedicated traffic unit, community services unit  Patrol through same four-platoon structure as currently  Projected workforce savings of $590,000  Reduction of one chief, certain civilian positions 44

45. 45

46. Options | Police  Model 2 (“Headcount Neutral”)  Township-proposed model  Preserves current rank, title, function  60 sworn personnel, 18 civilian personnel  Reinstates dedicated traffic unit, community services unit  Patrol through same four-platoon structure as currently  Projected workforce savings of $250,000  Reduction of one chief 46

47. 47

48. Options | Police  Model 3 (“54 sworn personnel”)  CGR-developed model  54 sworn personnel, 15 civilian personnel  One captain (vs. 2)  Two lieutenants (vs. 4)  Eight sergeants (vs. 12)  Reinstates dedicated traffic unit, community services unit  Patrol through same four-platoon structure as currently  Projected workforce savings of $1.6 m 48

49. 49

50. Options | Police  Model 4 (“51 sworn personnel”)  Start with Model 3, but assume a smaller degree of service enhancement in traffic and community services (but still more than status quo)  51 sworn personnel, 15 civilian personnel  Reinstates dedicated traffic unit, community services unit  Patrol through same four-platoon structure as currently  Projected workforce savings of $2.1 m 50

51. 51

52. Options | Police  Model 5 (“46 sworn personnel”)  Start with Model 4, but eliminate enhanced services in traffic and community services  46 sworn personnel, 15 civilian personnel  Patrol through same four-platoon structure as currently  Projected workforce savings of $2.7 m 52

53. Recommendations Bill Metro, Chair of Police Subcommittee  Consolidation Recommendation Department of 51 sworn personnel Implement over no more than three-year period  Year one = 60 (savings of $250k)  Maintain levels of supervision during change  Maintain morale at highest levels  Lots of work to do; focus on consolidation and public safety  Year two = 54 (savings of $1.6m)  Year three = 51 (savings of $2.1m)  Facilities Recommendation House combined department in Township Building Including emergency dispatch operation 53

54. Recommendations Bill Metro, Chair of Police Subcommittee 54  Shared Services Recommendation In the event municipal consolidation does not occur, the Subcommittee recommends combining both police departments into one to achieve the same goals as stated under consolidation:  Utilize the same transition approach and timetable  Achieve the same $2.1M workforce cost savings  Include consolidated dispatch, courts, violations bureau  Unclear at this time which governance approach is best  Governing bodies will be tasked to:  Provide a legal analysis of the Joint Meetings Statutes which could be used to create an “Authority”  Explore alternative governance structures if needed.

55. 55 Review of Public Works

56. Options | Public Works  The Public Works Subcommittee reviewed options for merging the two DPWs into one  Focus areas:  Organizational structure  Differentials in service types  Facilities  Capital assets  Functional similarities across departments 56

57. Options | Public Works  Model 1  Retain full staff #  Downgrade the duplicate DPW Superintendent title  Additional cost of $54,600 (due to salary harmonization)  Model 2  Reduce workforce by two positions: Superintendent, Foreman  Create unit dedicated to the Downtown district, overseen by an Assistant Superintendent  Savings of $105,000 57

58. Options | Public Works  Model 3  Cross-departmental model building on existing synergies  Retain dedicated Downtown unit  Shift recreation grounds maintenance under DPW (but keep recreation programming in Rec Department)  “Dotted-line” relationship between DPW and PSOC  Savings of $105,000 58

59. Options | Public Works  Model 4  Additional cross-departmental restructuring  Integrate Engineering, DPW, PSOC and Rec maintenance  Formalizes existing informal cooperation  Better allocation of clerical support across functions  Greater staff utilization flexibility  Ability to reduce certain outsourced costs (PSOC inspections)  Savings of $442,000 59

60. 60

61. Recommendations Valerie Haynes, Chair of Public Works Subcommittee  Consolidation Recommendation Cross-departmental model w/ Engineering, DPW, PSOC and Recreation maintenance  Retains two divisions (Downtown and Roads/Parks)  Operational efficiencies – greater flexibility through cross- training of personnel, ease of staff deployment  Savings of $442k  Reduction of 2 positions (Superintendent, Foreman) - $105k  Reduction in contract costs for PSOC inspections - $160k  Reorganization in Engineering - $177k 61

62. Options | Public Works (Facilities)  Current facilities  Valley Road  John Street  Harrison Street  River Road (PSOC)  Smoyer Park  Current issues  Age, adequacy of facilities  Pending capital investments  Limited office space  Lack of storage for capital equipment 62

63. Options | Public Works (Facilities)  Which configuration of facilities is most appropriate to housing Public Works services in a consolidated Princeton?  Model 1: Partial development at River Road  Model 2: More extensive development at River Road  Model 3: Retaining a “Downtown satellite” facility  Model 4: Integrated, phased approach  Retain Harrison as light-use Downtown facility  Repurpose/phase out John Street  Utilize River Road for additional cold storage, office space 63

64. Recommendations Valerie Haynes, Chair of Public Works Subcommittee  Facilities Recommendation Model 4 using a staged approach  Rely on current facilities initially  Retain Harrison as a light-use facility focused primarily on Downtown  Begin transitioning out of John Street and Valley Road  Relocate some operations, storage at River Road 64

65. Recommendations Valerie Haynes, Chair of Public Works Subcommittee  Shared Services The Subcommittee does not make a recommendation for shared services  Absent municipal consolidation, the Engineering Depts could not be included in a shared Public Works model, reducing savings to $105k  There is no obvious location for administration of a shared Public Works Dept – administration by either municipality would disrupt existing arrangements for Recreation and PSOC  Still, existing cooperative arrangements between the two DPWs should continue and the governing bodies are encouraged to look for additional cooperative arrangements to benefit both municipalities 65

66. 66 Review of Other Recommendations

67. Recommendations Bernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee  Facilities  Retain both Township Building and Borough Hall, and enable future governing body to make a decision regarding repurposing and/or resale  Township Building becomes primary center of municipal government  Codes and Ordinances  Exercise authority in Local Options law to retain code differences in former Borough and Township post- consolidation, provided governing body reviews and approves at least every five years 67

68. Recommendations Bernie Miller, Chair of Municipal Consolidation Subcommittee  Planning and Zoning  The Subcommittee continues to review the possibility of utilizing advisory planning districts in the event of a consolidation 68

69. 69 Debt Allocation

70. Options | Debt  Both the Borough and Township have existing debt obligations. How would those be handled in the event of consolidation?  Two basic options:  Share the debt  Segregate/apportion the debt in “debt districts” 70

71. Options | Debt 71

72. Recommendation Chad Goerner, Chair of Finance Subcommittee  Combining of pre-consolidation debt 72

73. CGR Public Forum #3 | May 11, 2011 Joint Consolidation / Shared Services Study Commission of Princeton Borough and Princeton Township

74. Financial Impact Police$2.100 m DPW/Engineering/PSOC$0.442 m Finance/Tax Collection$0.217 m Administrator$0.206 m Clerk$0.199 m Court$0.079 m Governing Body$0.061 m Tax Assessment$0.017 m ________ $3.321 m 74

75. Financial Impact  What does this mean for me? 75

76. CGR Public Forum #3 | May 11, 2011 Joint Consolidation / Shared Services Study Commission of Princeton Borough and Princeton Township

77. Public Input  Your questions and comments are critical to this process!  Meetings of the full Commission and its Subcommittees are open to the public  Schedule available on the Commission’s website (www.cgr.org/princeton)www.cgr.org/princeton  Feedback can also be submitted via the website, both electronically and hard copy 77

78. Ground Rules  Identify yourself by name and municipality  Limit any comments and questions to 2 minutes  Be additive – don’t repeat what others have said  We want to hear from everyone who has a comment or question 78

79. CGR Public Forum #3 | May 11, 2011 Joint Consolidation / Shared Services Study Commission of Princeton Borough and Princeton Township