.
Feedback

Briarcliff Manor Explores Possible Annexation of Ossining Districts

The municipalities have opposing takes on the issue.

In 2009, Briarcliff Manor's population was just under 8,000. This number could increase by around 1,600, or 22.2 percent, if the village carries out an acquisition of two of Ossining's voting districts, 17 and 20.

While Briarcliff Manor Village Manager Philip Zegarelli said the idea is out in the open, "The Town of Ossining has never received anything formally in writing regarding these plans," asserted Town of Ossining Supervisor Catherine Borgia in an email.

According to Zegarelli, studies examining village's the services and their possible consolidation with the village with the Town and Village of Ossining began a few years ago.

"The Town of Ossining provides services required by NY State to all residents of the Town," said Borgia, explaining, "The Town of Ossining is composed of three parts: the Incorporated Village of Ossining, the Incorporated Village of Briarcliff Manor and the parts of the Town in neither village, commonly referred to as the Unincorporated area...These services are provided to the entire Town of Ossining, including the two villages."

"One of the first things I got involved in with the village was the many studies that were going on with the Town of Ossining, Village of Ossining and Village of Briarcliff Manor," said Zegarelli, who has held the village manager position for about two years.

Specifically, he said, the three municipalities discussed potential consolidation of the police and Department of Public Works services.

"It was very wide open [discussion]," stressed Zegarelli, explaining village leaders explored general questions such as: "Can we share services? Can we merge partially? Can we say, 'you do one thing, we do another?'"

The discussions changed course last year when the Town of Ossining announced they would "put the Town of Ossining police in with the county police" force, said Zegarelli.

"The Town chose to contract for police services with Westchester County because it was the most economical way to provide the excellent police services that residents demand," explained Borgia. "This decision is expected to save taxpayers between $600-900,000 each year."

According to Zegarelli, "When all that occurred, the Village of Briarcliff Manor Mayor, Board and myself were approached by people living in the Town of Ossining, saying, 'We would like you to consider annexing us.' So, the Mayor and the Board in Briarcliff said to me, 'This has got to make both operational and financial sense, not just for the people looking to join, but, does it make sense for Briarcliff to do this?'"

Last summer, Zegarelli said he began putting together a presentation for the Briarcliff's Board of Trustees analyzing the implications an annexation would have on the village, including the impact on personnel, services and equipment. The studies implemented specifically looked at the voting districts 20 and 17 in the Town of Ossining, which are the two districts directly bordering Briarcliff Manor (which is required by state laws for an annexation to occur).

Of the 1,600 or so residents falling in those districts, about half already hold Briarcliff Manor addresses and are serviced by village fire and ambulance services under contract, said Zegarelli.

"I think there are people who have an Ossining address in those two districts who would not have a problem with changing their postal addres to Briarcliff Manor," he added.

Though the matter was first delved into a few years back, Zegarelli said conversation on the topic has resurfaced recently, in the form of Ossining residents inquiring about the annexation process.

"It sort of bubbles up quite often now because there's a lot of talk about whether [moving the police force to the county] was a good deal or a bad deal. I really think the jury is still out," said Zegarelli.

According to Borgia, however, residents had previously appeared supportive of the proposal.

"During the public hearings that were held on the various police options, the residents overwhelmingly favored the proposal to contract for police services with the County. The agreement with the County is currently being implemented with great success," she said. "The Town has no indication that Unincorporated Town residents are not satisfied with the cost or level of Town services provided."

Zegarelli said he believes Ossining residents are attracted to the high level services the Village of Briarcliff Manor is known to provide.

"I think Briarcliff Manor has an excellent reputation as a community, has excellent services that people not only want or desire, but expect," he noted. "I think this is a service community, meaning not only do we provide services, but [residents] are all very civic-minded."

Borgia said the town-provided services including parks and recreation, justice courts, assessments and other administrative duties cost Briarcliff taxpayers "1.9 percent of their total tax bill, or $472.47 of an average $24,867."

Additionally, said Borgia, municipal services provided by the Town including road maintenance, garbage pickup and snow removal to the "unincorporated area" cost an average of $2,266.89 in 2010.

"In Briarcliff, the same municipal services cost the average homeowner $3746.73 in 2010, or almost $1,500 more per household," she said. "In addition, these Town residents saw a tax decrease of 7 percent in the 2011 budget, making the gap even wider."

Therefore, said Borgia, "I'm puzzled about why the residents and businesses would consider adding a layer of government, particularly one that is more expensive, in this time when most people in New York State are trying to reduce their tax burden by reducing layers of government."

"Perhaps residents are under the mistaken belief that they will no longer be in the Ossining School district if they make this switch," she added.

While Briarcliff services including police and DPW would become responsible for the Ossining districts if annexed, school district boundaries would not change.

"The school boundaries stay the same," said Zegarelli. "This is not even on the table for consideration."

Town of Mount Pleasant residents have also approached the village with a similar request, said Zegarelli.

"It's very tentative on the Town of Mount Pleasant side," he said. "We are addressing [Ossinng and Mount Pleasant] in different phases. Ossining is far more advanced than Mount Pleasant."

Moving forward, Zegarelli said it's up to Town of Ossining residents to formally petition for the annexation, which he believes they preparing for. In the meantime, he's working on updating his presentation to eventually reveal for public comment.

"Let's put it this way. We're moving ahead on preparing a public presentation," said Zegarelli. "All indicators are to move ahead with a presentation and let people see what the results are."

According to Borgia, however, the Town of Ossining does not plan to let the districts go without a fight.

"The Village of Briarcliff has said in public and in the press that their ultimate plan is to take these two districts and then break off from the Town of Ossining," she said. "However that process will be long and costly. Given our fiduciary duty to our taxpayers, the Town of Ossining is not likely to let our only commercial district be taken from the municipality without a long and protracted legal battle."

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Pleasantville-Briarcliff Manor Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Sonny (Louis) Linder May 18, 2013 at 05:07 pm
CORRECTION TO LAST POST: The last sentence should read: "Let's continue to share, butRead More face-to-face." Thx - Sonny
Sonny (Louis) Linder May 18, 2013 at 06:06 am
Thanks, Jon - you raise important considerations and in a calm, dispassionate way, which IRead More appreciate. As for alternative funding mechanisms, in hindsight I believe they should have been examined and addressed this earlier this year had the decision-making been opened up to the public in a completely bidirectional manner much earlier in this year's budget cycle. A real take-away from this situation, in my opinion, is that we in the community were not given the opportunity to sit down together with sharpened pencils in a public forum and allowed to vet and actually challenge the Administration's assumptions in order to arrive at budget alternatives with the Administration and Board. The comparison you make with Washington is indeed apt in that it reflects the way decisions have slid back to being made in a vacuum and handed down to the voters instead of in a democratic fashion based on budget-to-actuals instead of budget-to-budget figures combined with the practice of over-reserving for expense items while under-estimating revenues. Although the Board did indeed reach out to me and 2 others asking for suggestions, when we re-iterated our request for an open meeting format to include other financially savvy community members, these requests were consistently ignored. Which is why we are in the current position we are in having to decide on Tues on a tax levy cap-busting budget requiring 60% super-majority. Which the public will decide, of course, and we will live with the consequences: either it passes, or the Board and Administration will be forced to rein in the excesses. And much as I love open debate, I restate that online posting leaves does leave a lot to be desired. Let's continue to share, but not face-to-face. Respectfully - Sonny
Jon Satran May 18, 2013 at 12:16 am
Sonny, I like the idea of brainstorming together, thinking outside of the box, but there are someRead More major obstacles that I think you need to consider: 1) A Bond referendum requires a 45 days’ notice period. It cannot be presented for a vote before this year's budget process is concluded. 2) To release reserves based on the hope that a future bond vote would be successful is reckless. What happens if reserves are released and then the bond referendum fails? You would not risk your home finances with this type of risk, would you really risk your school’s financial health? 3) Our tax certiorari reserve was just recently reviewed in consultation with our attorneys and we are appropriately reserved for today’s commercial real estate market. 4) Most importantly, this proposal would create a larger and tougher tax increase next year. In other words, adding $1,000,000 of revenue this year through a loan would require replacing that revenue with an additional $1,000,000 again next year and the year after. Borrow and spend economics does not work as we have seen from the national level. Deficit spending, which has been suggested may or may not work in Washington, but it certainly does not in Briarcliff Manor. When the school’s reserves are exhausted, we will face impactful program cuts or much larger tax levy increases. Respectfully - Jon Satran
JanFisher May 17, 2013 at 10:55 pm
It is so wonderful that, recognizing the importance of STEM and following the recommendation of ourRead More educators, Sal Maglietta and Jon Satran agreed to bring on the district's first director of instructional technology.
McKey Rivers May 10, 2013 at 07:36 pm
Thank you Dr. Sternberg for your thoughtful letter. You hit on an important facet of this electionRead More few if any others have stated: electing Mr. Wasserman and/or Mr. Linder will provide the added benefit of diversity of thought as the Board continues to address difficult, ongoing educational and financial issues. There is a woeful absence of synergy produced by articulation of different views among the current Board members. The absence of a “check and balance” on the current Board is reflected in the inexplicable decision to cancel the May 13 BOE meeting (scheduled since last summer), which is the last meeting prior to the May 21 budget vote and board election. Is there no business for the Board to conduct at this critical juncture or could it be that the Board does not want Briarcliff residents to hear members of the community question the Board about the proposed budget right before the election? Electing either Mr. Linder and/or Mr. Wasserman will immediately benefit the public as the highest vote getter will be seated on May 22 and thus participate in formulating a second budget for public vote that, notwithstanding current BOE scare tactics, can be tax levy compliant and not involve additional program elimination or reduction. There is no doubt that electing Mr. Wasserman and/or Mr. Linder to the Briarcliff School Board will substantially benefit the entire Briarcliff community and provide a much needed check on Board decision making.
Herman Sexton May 10, 2013 at 03:48 pm
Electing Paul Wasserman alone would add a diversity of thought. The guy hears at least a dozenRead More voices in his head. Have you ever spoken to him? Did you pay attention when he was running for Congress for a few weeks? Ugh.