COMMITTEE
OF THE WHOLE
November 10, 2008
** APPROVED
Members Present: Chairman C. Crandall, G. Benson,
D. Burdick, W. Dibble, D. Fanton, W. Hall, T. Hopkins, K. Kruger, M. McCormick,
T. O’Grady, D. Pullen, B. Reynolds, D. Russo, R. Truax, N. Ungermann
Others Present: S. Collins, A. Finnemore, J. Margeson, B.
Riehle, T. Ross; Guests: B. Campbell, T.
Halter; Media: K. Doyle,
Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 2:30 p.m. by Chairman
Curtis W. Crandall.
Executive Session:
A motion was made by Legislator Dibble, seconded by
Legislator McCormick and carried to enter into executive session to discuss the
employment history of particular individuals.
Following discussion, a motion was made by Legislator Reynolds, seconded
by Legislator Kruger and carried to end the executive session and return to the
regular portion of the meeting.
Non-Unit Personnel Salary Increases for 2009:
A
motion was made by Legislator Reynolds, seconded by Legislator Dibble and
carried to recommend salary increases of three percent for Non-Unit
personnel. (Voting No: Kruger, McCormick, O’Grady, Pullen, Russo,
Truax, Ungermann.)
Referred to Personnel Committee.
Centralized Real Property Tax Collection Database
Study:
County Treasurer Terri Ross introduced Brian Campbell
from Systems East and Thomas Halter from the NYS Office of Real Property
Services. Mr. Campbell conducted a study
of the County’s present tax collection structure and the feasibility of
establishing a centralized tax collection system and database, which would
allow the County and tax collectors from all taxing jurisdictions access to
up-to-date information. Mr. Campbell reported
results of the study (copy attached to original minutes).
The state provided grants for counties to focus on
potential improvements to real property tax collections. The grant contains two components of $25,000
each. The first phase funded the study
of the County’s tax collection structure and recommendations for establishing a
County-wide tax database. From here, a
copy will be filed with the state, and a decision will have to be made if the County
wants to move forward to apply for the additional $25,000 grant, which would
help defray the cost of implementing the recommendations in the study.
Surveys were distributed to all town, village, and school
collectors within the County.
Fifty-three of the 59 collection entities responded, providing a good
cross section. There was an approximate 50/50
split between those collectors using a computerized system for collections and
those who still record tax payments manually.
Those who were computerized utilize numerous third-party software
vendors. Some municipalities are small
with limited funds, and some are in areas with no high-speed internet access.
Advantages of a centralized database:
·
Tax collectors
could access up-to-date information for taxpayers, such as delinquent taxes in
another jurisdiction (County/town/village/school), that they currently have no
way of looking up. (They couldn’t collect
for other jurisdictions, but at least they could access the information.)
·
Automation and/or
upgrade for all tax collectors, as well as the Treasurer’s Office; establishing
a single database for use by all collectors for collection of taxes. Counties would access the system via
internet.
·
Database would be
available to the general public as an information source, and eventually would
allow online tax payments by credit card.
·
Elimination of
the disruption in data flow between the three to four month period when
collection is in the tax collectors’ hands and when it is turned over to the
Treasurer’s Office. This is a time and
data sensitive process, and the centralized database would streamline it for
the Treasurer and for the other tax collecting entities. Currently it takes about a week to settle,
and for the districts without computerized systems (about one-third), unpaid
bills have to be input manually.
·
Reduction of
manual data entry by the Treasurer’s Office.
·
Reduction in
storage and printing costs. Currently
two copies of the tax bills and receipts are kept; with the centralized system,
we would only need one. A hard copy of
the tax roll with the paid dates is required to be kept; this will only
eliminate the bill portion of retention.
Accomplishing these goals would require funding sources
in addition to the $25,000 grant, and collectors would have to have internet
access, preferably high-speed. A
comprehensive database could then be implemented in stages.
There are two options for location of the central
database: here, or since it is
internet-based it could be based off-site.
The system is very secure, as everything is encrypted. Ms. Ross noted that the Real Property Tax
Service Agency, the
When asked if the County would bill the towns, Mr.
Campbell responded that with technology and the centralized database, towns
could connect via internet for collections with no real cost to them, and it
would be secure. Ms. Ross commented that
some towns can’t afford software, so it may be cheaper for them if the County
houses the system and charges them back, and then they can access it by
internet. There are some problems to
overcome, such as internet availability in some areas, so this would be done in
phases. Chairman Crandall noted that
there were eleven municipalities without high-speed internet. The survey indicated that it wasn’t available
in some areas, and for some of the towns without it, the service is available
and they were considering it.
The question was asked if this centralized tax collection
project was just a step toward County-wide tax assessment. Mr. Halter responded that the State’s
intention is to consolidate in order to save money, and to investigate what is
best for municipalities. Mr. Campbell
commented that establishment of a centralized database was the intent, not to
consolidate collection in any form.
Additional costs for implementation were discussed. Ms. Ross noted that they would need to look
at numbers and see what the towns can afford.
We can do cost-sharing. For a
previous grant she applied for but didn’t receive, there was a multitude of
towns interested because of the split cost.
So there is interest out there, especially for the smaller towns. Mr. Campbell commented that the survey
included questions on municipalities’ tax collection budgets, and for those
with software, it requested estimates for software costs and maintenance fees. It’s not as though they don’t already have
expenses in this area, but we may be able to save them money through a centralized
system.
Taxpayers would pay their bills at the same locations as
in the past; however, with the centralized database, collectors could access all
the information the County has, which would be backed up on a daily basis, to
look up other outstanding amounts owed.
Currently, taxpayers have to go to several different places to see what is
owed.
When questioned if this new system would mean reductions
in personnel, Mr. Campbell replied that it did not. The objective is information in “real time.” When taxpayers go to pay, the Treasurer’s Office
knows right away. It reduces redundancy,
and streamlines the process. The
customer will benefit. There will be a
universal, County-wide method to collect tax.
Many Town Clerks have sporadic office hours, and it was
asked if eventually there could be a central office established for collection
of all taxes. Ms. Ross noted that the law
currently allows for the County to be named as deputy collector for any tax. That’s not where this is headed, but it is an
option and would allow 7-hours-per-day/5-days-per-week for collection. Towns, villages, and schools would probably
have to pass resolutions.
A question was asked about partial payments, and Ms. Ross
noted that would be possible, and the current system allows it at the County
level, but it would require resolutions and agreements signed with the taxpayers. Implementation of partial payment has been
looked at in the past. It should start
with the towns.
Next Steps:
Mr. Campbell noted that this report has to be filed with
the state by January. If the County
desires to move forward with Phase 2, the application is due by March 31. A grant amounting to $25,000 is available for
this phase. Any additional funds needed
for implementation would have to be paid by the County and the towns. The costs will be available within a couple
of weeks, but will be in the range of an additional $2,000 to $3,000 over the
grant amount.
Feedback from towns was not negative, once collectors
realized they weren’t going to lose their jobs.
Collectors were involved in the process through the surveys and
meetings. It was communicated to them
that this technology will help them do their jobs and give better information
to the public.
A
motion was made by Legislator Truax, seconded by Legislator Reynolds and
carried to recommend that the County proceed with the grant application for
Phase 2 (Implementation) of the Centralized Tax Collection System. (Voting No: Burdick.) Referred to Ways and Means Committee.
Adjournment: The
meeting was adjourned at 3:10 p.m. following a motion made by Legislator Truax,
seconded by Legislator Dibble and carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Adele Finnemore, Journal Clerk