Suburbs

This group comprises primarily non-rural towns, and displays characteristics most often thought of as “suburban.” However, it also includes 71 villages and three cities. It is characterized by relatively low population density in comparison to the “urban center” groupings. Localities in this group have relatively newer housing, with a lower percentage built prior to 1950 (29 percent) and fewer residents in poverty (5.5 percent) when compared to most other clusters. These are characteristic of more newly developed and affluent areas. These suburban localities also have the lowest average property tax rate when compared to the other groups.

The proximity of suburbs to urban centers differs for upstate and downstate. Downstate suburban towns tend to be outer-ring suburbs of the New York City metropolitan area, while upstate suburban towns tend to be located within fairly close proximity to the upstate large cities. Suburban towns tend to be geographically larger than the more compact towns found in the urban center clusters. The 71 villages included in this cluster share characteristics in common with suburban towns. For example, these villages tend to have lower tax rates when compared to the villages in the other clusters. These villages also have higher property values and family income levels more typical of suburban locations. Similarly, the three cities in this cluster, Sherrill in the Mohawk Valley, Beacon in the mid-Hudson Valley and Saratoga Springs in the Capital District, tend to be more suburban when examining indicators such as population density, housing, land area and local wealth.

Rural

This is the largest cluster (in number of local governments) and is composed almost entirely of towns, although six villages are included. The group is primarily characterized by very low population density (less than 100 residents per square mile), but its members also tend to cover a large geographic area (averaging 51 square miles) and have small populations (averaging roughly 3,700 residents). In terms of finances, these rural localities levy taxes at fairly low rates and support small operating budgets, of which transportation-related activities represent a large portion. Residents in these communities tend to have lower incomes and house values when compared to other clusters (with the exception of the upstate smaller urban centers). Residents in these rural communities face higher than average rates of poverty compared to smaller downstate urban centers and suburban locations, and there are far fewer foreign-born residents than in any other cluster.

DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT / Municipal Structures

TEXT 6: Governance

Governance is an entire topic within itself, as the methods and manner of governance available to each local government is dependent on various branches of State law. Cities have the most flexibility; like counties, they have the ability to adopt and amend charters. Generally, the governance models available to cities include: mayor-council, council-manager, mayor-council-administrator, commission, or commission-manager. Towns have much less flexibility and are governed by boards and a supervisor. Villages have boards of trustees and mayor, manager or administrator. This is a gross over-simplification of the structures available, on which there are many variations (and there are also distinctions under State law among cities and towns, depending on their size and other considerations). The question is– why should each local government’s options for legislative and executive management be controlled by models that were designed for a different century?

In towns, many basic municipal services such as sewer, water, and sanitation and fire protection are provided through “special districts,” which may be either a subcomponent of the town, or a separately governed municipal entity. These structures were created to provide services that towns could not directly provide. However, in today’s environment, where these services are provided throughout many towns, the use of special districts as a governance or tax allocation method is increasingly questioned. Special district expenses are far from incidental — representing 70 percent of town property taxes in Nassau County, for example. Special districts providing fire protection and sanitation have recently come under intense scrutiny, and press accounts and audits have found excessive expenditures and other problems. The State Comptroller’s Office is focusing more attention on special districts given these problems.

DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT / Municipal Structures

TEXT 7: County Services

Counties do not provide all of their services evenly across municipal boundaries. County roads, for example, are maintained by counties except within city limits, where cities generally provide maintenance. It is also not uncommon for county sheriffs to patrol and provide police service in rural towns, but not in cities, villages or other inner-ring suburbs, where local police forces exist. When the cities and villages represented islands of service provision, and concentrations of population and wealth, this approach made great sense. The question raised by the preceding analysis, as well as by growing fiscal problems in cities and villages, is—does it today? Today city property owners did not receive the same level of service from their counties relative to property owners in towns; examples included provision of law enforcement, highway and public park services. A majority of the survey respondents said their county did not provide sheriff services (55 percent) or highway services (65 percent) within the city, and the county did not own and operate a park or recreational facility within 78 percent of surveyed cities.