HomeMy WebLinkAboutPeconic County Financial Feasibility StudyPECONIC COUNTY
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
■
August 1995
Prepared for:
East -End Economic and Environmental Institute, Inc.
The State of New York
Town of East Hampton
Town of Riverhead
Town of Shelter Island
Town of Southampton
and the
Town of Southold
East -End Economic and Environmental Institute, Inc.
Supervisor Tony Bullock
Town of East Hampton
Supervisor Huson Sherman
Town of Shelter Island
Deputy Supervisor Jim Stark
Town of Riverhead
Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele, Jr.
New York State, 2nd District
Supervisor Tom Wickham
Town of Southold
Acting Supervisor Richard Blowes
Town of Southampton
Mayor Paul Rickenbach
Village of East Hampton
Tom Twomey
Twomey, Latham, Shea & Kelley
Chair
Larry Cantwell
Village of East Hampton
Carol Gristina
Gristina Vineyards
Edward Merz
Suffolk County National Bank
Joseph Gergela.
Long Island Farm Bureau
Kevin McDonald
Group for the South Fork
William Sanok
Cornell Cooperative Extension
Thomas Tobin
Bridgehampton National Bank
Feasibility Consultant
Public Financial Management, Inc.
Legal Consultants
Beveridge & Diamond, P.C.
Hawkins, Delafield & Wood
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PECONIC COUNTY
Financial Feasibility Study
Page
Foreword..................................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgments....................................................................................................... v
Chanter
1
Introduction...........................................................................................
1
2
Summary and Conclusion.....................................................................
9
3
Revenue...................................................................................................
23
4
Internal Support Departments
4.1 Board of Supervisors and Administrative Departments ..............
35
5
Citizen Service Departments
5.1 Economic Assistance...................................................................
47
5.2 Public Safety Coordinator's Office ..............................................
57
5.3 Sheriffs Department.......,.............................................................
65
5.4 Probation Department...................................................................
73
5.5 Fire, Rescue & Emergency Services ............................................
81
5.6 Health Department.......................................................................
87
5.7 Judicial Departments...................................................................
97
5.8 Parks and Cultural Affairs...........................................................
105
5.9 Planning and Regional Services ..................................................
111
5.10 Public Works...............................................................................
117
6
County Community College.................................................................
127
7
Separating From Suffolk County
7.1 General Issues Regarding; Secession ............................................
133
7.2 Asset and Liability Allocation.....................................................
147
7.3 Implementing a Peconic County Divestiture ...............................
155
8
Future Investment in Peconic County
8.1 Capital Improvement Plan and Start -Up Costs ............................
167
8.2 Insurance Costs............................................................................
175
8.3 Debt Summary .............................................................................
177
APPENDIX I. The Case for a Weighted Board of Supervisors for Peconic County
APPENDIX II. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail
APPENDIX III. Summary of Suffolk County Balance Sheet
PECONI:C COUNTY
Financial Feasibility Study
Summary of Report Tables
INTRODUCTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Table 1-1 Calculation of the East End's Tax Contribution........................................................................... 5
SUMMARY & CONCLUSION
Table 2-1 Peconic County Projected Staffing Requirements........................................................................ 11
Table 2-2 Calculation of East End Subsidy (FY 1993)................................................................................. 13
Table 2-3 Peconic County First Year Operating Budget.............................................................................. 14
Table 2-4 Peconic County Departmental Expenses...................................................................................... 15
Table 2-5 1996-2000 Peconic County Budget Summary and Forecasts ......................... I............................. 16
Table 2-6 Historical and Forecasted Property Tax........................................................................................ 18
Table 2-7 Total Expenditures for Peconic County and Comparable Counties ............................................. 20
REVENUE
Table 3-1 East End Allocation of Taxable Sales.......................................................................................... 26
Table 3-2 Peconic County Sales Tax Derived for 1993................................................................................ 27
Table 3-3 Historical and Projected Sales Tax Revenues............................................................................... 28
Table 3-4 Computation of Constitutional Taxing Power............................................................................... 29
Table 3-5 Taxable Full Valuation of Peconic County................................................................................... 30
Table 3-6 Historical and Forecasted Property Tax........................................................................................ 31
Table 3-7 Peconic County Revenue Estimates by Source............................................................................. 33
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENTS
Table 4.1-1 Comparison of Net Expenditures (FY 1993)............................................................................. 39
Table4.1-2 Staffing Analysis....................................................................................................................... 40
Table 4.1-3 Calculation of Space Requirements........................................................................................... 42
Table 4.1-4 Summary of Salary and Non -Salary Expenditures..................................................................... 43
Table 4.1-5 Comparison of Operating Budgets............................................................................................. 45
ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE
Table 5.1-1 Comparison of Net Expenditures (FY 1993)............................................................................. 49
Table 5.1-2 Family and Children's Services - Caseloads.............................................................................. 51
Table 5.1-3 Public Assistance and Medicaid Expected Caseload................................................................. 52
Table5.1-4 Staffing Analysis......................................................................................................................... 53
Table 5.1-5 Calculation of Space Requirements........................................................................................... 54
Table 5.1-6 Summary of Salary and Non -Salary Expenditures..................................................................... 55
Table 5.1-7 Comparison of Operating Budgets............................................................................................. 56
PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATOR'S OFFICE
Table 5.2-1 Comparison of Net Expenditures (FY 1993)............................................................................. 58
Table5.2-2 Staffing Analysis......................................................................................................................... 60
Table 5.2-3 Calculation of Space Requirements............................................................................................ 61
Table 5.2-4 Summary of Salary and Non -Salary Expenditures..................................................................... 62
Table 5.2-5 Comparison of Operating Budgets............................................................................................. 63
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Table 5.3-1 Comparison of Net Expenditures (FY 1993)............................................................................. 67
Table5.3-2 Staffing Analysis........................................................................................................................ 68
Table 5.3-3 Calculation of Space Requirements........................................................................................... 69
Table 5.3-4 Summary of Salary and Non -Salary Expenditures..................................................................... 70
Table 5.3-5 Comparison of Operating Budgets............................................................................................. 71
PROBATION DEPARTMENT
Table 5.4-1 Comparison of Net Expenditures (FY 1993)............................................................................. 75
Table5.4-2 Staffing Analysis........................................................................................................................ 76
Table 5.4-3 Calculation of Space Requirements........................................................................................... 77
Table 5.4-4 Summary of Salary and Non -Salary Expenditures..................................................................... 78
Table 5.4-5 Comparison of Operating Budgets............................................................................................. 79
FIRE, RESCUE & EMERGENCY SERVICES
Table 5.5-1 Comparison of Net Expenditures (FY 1993)............................................................................. 82
Table5.5-2 Staffing Analysis........................................................................................................................ 83
Table 5.5-3 Calculation of Space Requirements........................................................................................... 84
Table 5.5-4 Summary of Salary and Non -Salary Expenditures..................................................................... 85
Table 5.5-5 Comparison of Operating Budgets............................................................................................. 86
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Table 5.6-1 Comparison of Net Expenditures (FY 1993)............................................................................. 89
Table5.6-2 Staffing Analysis......................................................................................................................... 91
Table 5.6-3 Calculation of Space Requirements............................................................................................ 93
Table 5.6-4 Summary of Salary and Non -Salary Expenditures..................................................................... 94
Table 5.6-5 Comparison of Operating Budgets.............................................................................................. 95
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENTS
Table 5.7-1 Comparison of Net Expenditures (FY 1993)............................................................................. 98
Table5.7-2 Staffing Analysis........................................................................................................................100
Table 5.7-3 Calculation of Space Requirements...........................................................................................101
Table 5.7-4 Summary of Salary and Non -Salary Expenditures.....................................................................102
Table 5.7-5 Comparison of Operating Budgets.............................................................................................103
PARKS AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Table 5.8-1 Comparison of Net Expenditures (FY 1993).............................................................................106
Table5.8-2 Staffing Analysis........................................................................................................................107
Table 5.8-3 Calculation of Space Requirements...........................................................................................108
Table 5.8-4 Summary of Salary and Non -Salary Expenditures.....................................................................109
Table 5.8-5 Comparison of Operating Budgets.............................................................................................110
PLANNING AND REGIONAL SERVICES
Table 5.9-1 Comparison of Net Expenditures (FY 19,93).............................................................................112
Table5.9-2 Staffing Analysis........................................................................................................................114
Table 5.9-3 Calculation of Space Requirements...........................................................................................114
Table 5.9-4 Summary of Salary and Non -Salary Expenditures.....................................................................116
Table 5.9-5 Comparison of Operating Budgets.............................................................................................116
PUBLIC WORKS
Table 5.10-1 Comparison of Net Expenditures (FY 1993)...........................................................................118
Table 5.10-2 Payments From County to Town Departments........................................................................121
Table 5.10-3 Staffing Analysis......................................................................................................................122
Table 5.10-4 Calculation of Space Requirements..........................................................................................123
Table 5.10-5 Summary of Salary and Non -Salary Expenditures...................................................................124
Table 5.10-6 Comparison of Operating Budgets...........................................................................................125
COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE
Table 6-1 Comparison of Net Expenditures (FY 1993)................................................................................128
Table6-2 Staffing Analysis...........................................................................................................................130
Table 6-3 Comparison of Operating Budgets................................................................................................132
GENERAL ISSUES REGARDING SECESSION
Table 7.1-1 Peconic County Constitutional Debt Limit................................................................................135
Table 7.1-2 New Suffolk County Constitutional Debt Limit.........................................................................136
Table 7.1-3 Constitutional Taxing Limits.....................................................................................................137
IMPLEMENTING A PECONIC COUNTY DIVESTITURE
Table 7.4-1 Peconic County Working Capital Worksheet....................................................:.......................157
Table 7.4-2 Peconic County Office Space Requirements..............................................................................159
Table 7.4-3 Allocated Suffolk County General Obligation Debt Service .....................................................162
Table 7.4-4 Allocated Suffolk County Drinking Water Debt Service ...........................................................162
Table 7.4-5 Debt Service to Repay General Obligation Bonds.....................................................................163
Table 7.4-6 Debt Service to Repay Drinking Water Obligation...................................................................163
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND START-UP COSTS
Table 8.1-1 Summary of Start -Up Costs.......................................................................................................174
DEBT SUMMARY
Table 8.2-1 Future Debt Outstanding...........................................................................................................178
FOREWORD
The Towns of East Hampton, Riverhead, Shelter Island, Southampton and Southold (the
"East End") and the towns in western Suffolk County have developed into different entities.
Through the years, the two areas of Suffolk County have become philosophically divided in
terms of land use issues, sources of commerce., tourism, second -home ownership, population
growth, land and resource conservation, and other elements.
The East End is a rural community known for its open spaces, farms, beaches and
waterways, a substantial number of second or vacation homes, tourism, fishing and other
small businesses. Western Suffolk County is suburban in character. It is home to large scale
residential and commercial developments, regional shopping malls, industrial parks and
suburban conveniences. Nowhere is the difference between the two communities more
apparent than in County population data: the East End comprises only 8% of the population
of Suffolk County but over 38% of the land area; also, the five western towns have nearly 7
times the population density of the East End -- 2,153 people per square mile versus 308 per
square mile on the East End.
Fundamental socio-economic and quality of life issues are manifested in fundamental
differences in the scope and philosophy of county government between the citizens of the
East End and the western towns. Suffolk County itself has developed separate government
structures to attempt to deal with these separate; communities. Government services that are
typical for urban/suburban counties such as county police (Police District), county court
system (District Court), and county sewer service (Sewer Districts) have been formed to
provide services to an urban/suburban community that makes up the western part of the
County, while needed services are provided locally by the Towns in the East End, which is
typical for a more rural type community. Thus, there may be no way that one county
government can represent and be efficiently responsive to the needs of the people in the East
End and the western towns. This point was recently underscored by Donald Blydenburgh,
Presiding Officer of the Suffolk County Legislature, when he said "The interests of the East
End are substantially different from the West End".
The citizens of the East End are interested in creating a county government that will be
more responsive and more representative of their interests. To that end, the East End
Economic and Environmental Institute has commissioned this study which is being funded
by the State of New York and the five East End Towns to determine the financial feasibility
of establishing an independent Peconic County comprised of the five East End Towns.
While the primary focus of this study is financial feasibility, certain policy decisions and
political considerations associated with the creation of an independent Peconic County are
taken into account. In certain instances, such as the form of government of the new County,
these political decisions have a direct impact on the costs of the new County. In others, such
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page i
FOREWORD
as the discussion of the constitutional and legal requirements of tax and debt limits, the
results have less direct effect on the fiscal condition of the County, but provide a framework
for continued efforts to form Peconic County.
Three Components of the Analysis
This study of Peconic County is built on three key analyses:
First, a Peconic County operating budget was developed, using information from Suffolk
County and input from East End citizens and policy makers.
Second, the ongoing capital needs of the new Count were determined and addressed,
both in terms of needs for East End investment. and the costs associated with the debt
necessary to fund capital assets and improvements.
Third, methods of allocating existing Suffolk County assets and liabilities were
examined and one method, referred to as the "Divestiture Method," is recommended because
it provides an equitable, efficient, and easy to understand allocation method that would
ensure that both Peconic County and Suffolk County would be viable self-sustaining entities.
The allocation of assets and liabilities was integrated into both the capital budgeting process
and the analysis of the operating departments in order to ensure that Peconic County has the
resources to meet its service needs and support the financial operations of a county.
These three key analyses were then incorporated into an analytical model. This model is
an essential element in determining the financial feasibility of Peconic County as it permits
an overall examination of the impact of changes in the service level, capital improvements
and asset and liability allocation between Peconic and Suffolk County on the citizens of the
County.
Each operating departmental budget is driven by databases of staffing levels, salaries,
and non -personnel costs. The operating budget part of the model takes into account outside
revenue sources, derived benefits to the East End towns, and the variations in service mix.
Proposed changes in service mix for each department affect both departmental expenditures
and potential revenue sources. These changes, in turn, have an effect on the costs of services
to each citizen of the new County. The model provides a tool by which changes in service
mix can be measured in relation to property tax rates needed to support those services.
The Model
The analytical model also incorporates the debt service that will be generated by bond
issuance necessary to fund the proposed capital improvement program, a portion of the start-
up costs, as well as debt issued to repurchase certain Suffolk County obligations. Debt
service schedules are generated based on the inclusion of distinct capital projects and
allocated to each fiscal year of the County's budget. The cost of each subsequent years'
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page ii
FOREWORD
capital improvement program was then overlaid onto the model in order to determine the
revenues needed from Peconic County.
The asset and liability allocation also resulted in additional debt service and other
ongoing costs to Peconic County. As the operating department asset needs were determined
and the various liability allocation scenarios were explored, the costs associated with those
scenarios were integrated into the model as well as into the capital improvement program.
For example, if certain assets necessary for the operation of Peconic County were not
included in the East End share of the asset allocation, those assets would need to be
purchased, most probably with debt. That debt would then add to the costs of operating the
County. And under the recommended "Divestiture Method" of allocating assets/liabilities, a
portion of Suffolk County's existing long-term general obligation debt will also be
purchased by Peconic County. The model provides the resources to integrate different
scenarios into the ongoing costs of Peconic County and observe the impact on property tax
levels.
This Report
The scope of this report does not include an independent assessment of Suffolk County's
financial position following the proposed secession of Peconic County. It is assumed here
that Suffolk County must remain a viable and financially self -sustainable entity. In general,
the recommended decisions regarding the formation of Peconic County are likely to have a
neutral or positive effect on the citizens of Suffolk County following the establishment of
Peconic County.
It is the intention of this study to provide focus for the citizens of the East End towns to
continue their discussions regarding the formation of Peconic County. This report is based
on a number of policy decisions from citizens and elected officials. It must be remembered,
however, that this report provides a structure for Peconic County, not the structure for
Peconic County. Different assumptions and policy decisions will result in different costs
and different service mixes. The Peconic County presented in this report is certainly not the
only financially feasible Peconic County, and additional exploration of the structure of the
County is not only encouraged but necessary to ensure that Peconic County, when formed,
best meets the needs of its citizens while not harming those of Suffolk County.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study could not have achieved its level of comprehensiveness and insight without
the generous and valuable contributions of elected officials, professional staff from state,
governments, other quasi -governmental entities, and, most
county and municipal
importantly, from those more than 100 individual citizens who worked as members of the
Technical Advisory Committee and the nine Citizen Advisory Committees who often went
far beyond their daily commitments in order to facilitate our work.
At the risk of omitting some names, we acknowledge the following individuals who
made major inputs and thank all for their public spirit and support. We credit them for the
caliber of their contributions, and absolve them from any errors and controversy that may
arise.
New York State and Regional Agencies
New York State Police: Colonel Edward Vanderwall, Major Anthony J. DiResta, Captain
Walter Heesch
New York State Department of Municipal Research and Statistics: Joseph Hilton, Director
Long Island Regional Planning Board: Dr. Lee Koppelman, Executive Director, Dr. Pearl
Kamer, Economist, Roy Fedelman, Principal Planner
Suffolk County Offices
Suffolk County Community College: Dr. Elizabeth Blake, Provost, William Welsh, Director
of Business Affairs, Eastern Campus, Dr. Craig Harris
Suffolk County Comptroller's Office: The Honorable Joseph Caputo; Joseph Poerio, James
Poitras, Werner Kuprat, Joan Sikorski, Nancy Hynes, Lillian Cerbone, Joan Goldrick,
Nancy Jill, Jean Milano
Suffolk County District Attorney: Mark Cohen, T. Michael Conlon
Suffolk County Executive's Office: Division of Budget, Louis M. Soleo, Budget Director;
Edward Boughal, Deputy Budget Director; Loren Houghton, Allen Kovesdy, C. Reid
Vail, Carl A. Petersen, Margaret B. Bermel, Carmine Chiusano
Suffolk County Fire, Rescue and Emergency Services: Alfred Jardin, Commissioner,
Frederick L. Daniels, Jim Johnson
Suffolk County Health Services Department: Paul O'Brien, Deputy Commissioner, Oliver
Schepers, Read Smith
Suffolk County Legislature Budget Review Office: Frederick Pollert, Director, James Spero,
Deputy Director, Robert Lipp, Senior Economist, Joanne Doering
Suffolk County Legislature: Elizabeth Buniski, Alice Hoffman and Matt Solomon
Suffolk County Police: Peter Cosgrove, Commissioner
Suffolk County Probation Department: Vincent Iaria, Director
Suffolk County Department of Public Works: Stephen Hayduk, Commissioner, Charles
Bartha, Deputy Commissioner, Gerald Cronin, Robert Shinnick
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Real Property Tax Service Agency: Charles Crump
Suffolk County Sheriff. Chief Daniel Weber, Chief Carl G. Falkenbach, Lieutenant Eileen
Kelly, Lieutenant Charles Ewald
Suffolk County Social Services Department: John Wagner, Kenneth Weiss
Steering Committee
New York State, Fred W. Thiele, Jr., Assemblyman, 2nd District
Town of Southampton, Richard Blowes, Acting Supervisor
Town of Southold, Tom Wickham, Supervisor
Town of East Hampton, Tony Bullock, Supervisor
Town of Shelter Island, Huson Sherman, Supervisor
Town of Riverhead, Jim Stark, Deputy Supervisor
Village of East Hampton, Paul F. Rickenbach, Jr., Mayor; Larry Cantwell, Administrator
Long Island Farm Bureau, Joseph Gergela
Gristina Vineyards, Carol Gristina
Technical Advisory Committee
Richard Blowes, Clifford Case, John Cushman, James Daly, John Daly, Linda Dieterich,
Ken Drange, Bill Dudine, Jeanne Farnan, Brenda Filmanski, Samuel Friedman, Craig
Furrer, Harriet Gilliam, Liz Granitz, Stephen Grossman, George Guldo, Richard Haefeli,
Mike Haran, Joseph Janoski, John Jilnicki, Cathy Lester, Francis Mason, Randolph
Mayer, Kathy McGinnis, Charlie Murrin, James Needham, James Normile, Linda Riley,
Helen Rosenblum, Hal Ross, Vincent Scerbinski, Huson Sherman, and Tom Wickham
Citizens Advisory Committees
Economic Assistance: James Daly, Chairman; Richard Braunskill, Nancy Capozzola,
Donald Eremin, Anne Harms, Charles McGuinness, Lili Ann Motta, John Ofrias, and
Bessie Swann
Education: Ken Drange, Chairman; Tim Bishop, Richard Gambino, Mary Killoran, Harry
Marmion, John Ofrias, Helen Winship, and Joan Zaleski
General Government: Jean Hazelton, Chairperson; Lou Boschetti, Edward Enser, Dennis
Finnerty, Samuel Friedman, Bud Gannon, David Gilchrist, Ed Gorman, Elizabeth
Haderer, Sharon Kast, Charles McGuinness, Bonnie O'Brien, Desiree Passantino and
Bob Petrie
Health: Jo Ann Z. Engelhardt, Chairperson; Gary De Lalio; Joanna Ferraro -Levy; Dr. John
J. Ferry, Jr.; Linda Fleming, Eileen Goldman, Dr. John Kelly, Sean McCabe, Rose
McGarvey, Diane Mercieca, Kenneth Moffa, Henry Pfeifer, Dr. Alfred Scherzer, Diane
Smith and Ray Zitani
Home and Community Services: Ralph Bishop, Chairman; Lester Demler, Arthur
Fechtmann, Dennis Finnerty, Susan Griffin, Wayne L. Grothe, John Hensel, Linda Levy,
Winslow Peters, Desiree Passantino, Robert Phillips, Bessie Swann, Charles Townsend,
Amy Wippert and Mardooni Vahradian
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page A
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Public Safety: Kathleen Hooker, Chairperson; Lee Abbott, Matt Bonora, Cliff Coleman,
Terry Flanagan, Rinnie Hintze, Sean McCabe, Charlie Murrin, Frank Palmer, Ron
Strain, and Charles Tyler, Jr.
Recreation & Culture: Bob DeLuca, Recreation Chairperson; Susan B. Griffin, Culture
Chairperson; Joan Bishop, Tim Bishop, Richard Braunskill, Joan Colao, Tim Corwin,
Linda Dieterich, Fran & Bill Dudine, Richard Gambino, Barbara Gubbins, Katherine
Harrington, Linda Levy, Lili Ann Motta, Bob & Valerie Ott, Frank Palmer, Desiree
Passantino, David Peck, Arline Richter, Jim Riordan, John B. Rusch, Dr. Alfred L.
Scherzer, and Rosalie Tutino
Revenue: Brenda Filmanski, Chairperson; Elizabeth Granitz, Wesley Lowd, Francis Mason,
Noreen Michelson, Joseph Nye, Winslow Peters, and Hal Ross
Transportation: Hank DeCillia, Chairman; Clifford Clark, Lester Davis, Steve Hilles,
Robert Krucklin, Jerry Moore, Frank Palmer, Winslow Peters, Hal Ross, and Rosalie
Tutino
We also express our appreciation to the members of the New York State Legislature and the
Governor for their support and leadership in enabling this work to be undertaken.
Other Agencies and Individuals
Thomas Conoscenti, Thomas Conoscenti and Associates
Bethany St. Dennis, New York State Association of Counties
Thomas W. Matteo and Elizabeth Mortensen, Staten Island Charter Commission
Dr. Mark Mazur, Council of Economic Advisors, Office of the President
Professor Richard Netzer, New York University
David Van Nordick, State University of New York
Written Source Material
County of Suffolk Budgets, 1993-1995
County of Suffolk, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, December 31, 1993
County of Suffolk Risk Management Budget Forecasts 1994 through 1995, San Francisco,
CA: Antistics, 1994
Demographics USA County Edition 1994: Market Statistics.
Financing Government on Long Island and Working Papers; Volumes 1 and 2: New York
State Temporary Commission for Tax Relief on Long Island, December 1992.
Peconic County Study: Office of County Legislator Fred W. Thiele, Jr.
Population Survey 1994, Current Population Estimates for Nassau And Suffolk Counties,
Hicksville, NY: Long Island Lighting Company, July 1994.
Report of Certain Matters with Respect to Indebtedness in the Context of an Independent
City of Staten Island, New York, NY: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe.
Special Report on Municipal Affairs: H. Carl McCally, Office of the State Comptroller,
1992.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Staten Island: A Study to Asses the Probable Service Needs for a Separate City and
Methods of Service Delivery: Towers Perrin, October 1993.
State of New York Charter Commission in for Staten Island Briefing Paper, Civil Service
Issues, June 1992
Status Quo Fiscal Study: An Analysis of New York City Expenditures and Revenues on
Staten Island, New York University: Berne, Netzer & Stiefel, July 1992.
Valuation: Measuring and Managing the Value of Companies: Copeland, Koller & Murrin;
McKinsey & Company, Inc., Second Edition, 1994.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page viii
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
In this Introduction, a brief outline of the methodology of the study is provided. As part
of this methodology, the major categories of the study are summarized and many of the
assumptions that were made are provided. Detailed discussion of each of the sections of the
report are found in the individual chapters.
The study's approach to determining the financial impact of establishing a separate
Peconic County was divided into five major steps. The first step was to determine the
appropriate level of services that Peconic County will offer its citizens and then quantify the
cost of those services. The second step was to analyze Suffolk County's revenues, both in
aggregate and by department, with particular attention to the contribution by the East End
towns to the Suffolk County's General Fund. These first two steps combined to formulate
the base of the proposed county's operating budget.
Then, Suffolk County's assets and liabilities were divided in order to analyze the portions
of each that Peconic County would assume. The fourth step was to develop a capital
improvement plan for the proposed county, including projected costs that will need to be
funded in Peconic County's first three fiscal years. Finally, the amount of debt that Peconic
County will need to issue as a result of the asset/liability allocation and the capital
improvement plan was determined. All of these factors were included in a pro forma
operating budget for Peconic County's first fiscal year. These financial results were
projected over five years, presenting the budget's impact on taxpayers of the East End.
This study assumes that Peconic County will be created on January 1, 1996; to simplify
comparisons, all numbers in the departmental chapters are in 1993 dollars (1993 is the latest
year that Suffolk County's audited financial statements are available). In the forecasts which
are provided in Chapter 2: "Summary and Conclusion", each department's projected
expenditure has been adjusted upward by the Consumer Price Index (an assumed increase of
3% per year) to accurately reflect the impact of inflation on tax rates.
Operating Expenditures
The study began with a thorough analysis of the 1993 Suffolk County Comprehensive
Annual Financial Statements and the 1995 Recommended Budget for Suffolk County which
include 1993 appropriations, fund transfers and other financial information. Extensive
interviews were conducted with Suffolk County officials, with the majority of time spent
with department staff members to gather information about how each department is currently
structured, what services are provided, and what percentage of those services benefit the East
End residents. These interviews with Suffolk County department officials provided the
foundation for our analysis of the level of services being provided by Suffolk County to the
East End.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 1
INTRODUCTION
A Technical Advisory Committee and Citizen Advisory Committee (which included nine
subcommittees) were formed by the Steering Committee to offer valuable feedback and
assistance throughout the study. While information was being collected, the Citizens
Advisory Committees met, each established to focus on one of the following functions:
Economic Assistance, Education, General Government, Health, Home and Community
Services, Public Safety, Recreation & Culture, Revenue, and Transportation. Based upon
information they received regarding Suffolk County service delivery and costs, as well as the
general experiences of the committee members, each committee helped define the most
critical service issues, from the citizens' perspectives, and provided input on the appropriate
structure, mission and responsibilities of each Peconic County operating department.
The Technical Advisory Committee developed the rationale for the choice of the
weighted Board of Supervisors as the form of government, reviewed asset/liability allocation
options and provided advice on the implementation of joint - use service provisions with
separate governments, labor contracts and labor relations requirements. The study assumes
that Peconic County (in the absence of any provisions to the contrary in the State legislation
enacted to create the County) has the right to establish the initial terms and conditions of
employment for all its employees, including employees who may have been "transferred"
from Suffolk County. Based on this assumption, the Technical Advisory Committee
provided appropriate wage and benefit rates to use in projecting labor costs in the new
County. Specifically, the Technical Advisory Committee compared existing Suffolk County
salaries to the salaries of East End town employees with comparable job responsibilities
from which average salaries, excluding employee benefits, were estimated for four general
levels of employees: Administrative ($25,000), Line ($35,000), Supervisory ($50,000), and
Department Head ($70,000). However, a few departments have unique wage rates, such as
the Health Department, to adjust, for example, for the higher cost of medical personnel.
The cost of providing employee benefits is not included in each departmental chapter.
Instead, employee benefits for all departments are combined in the aggregate Peconic
County operating budget, with the benefit cost estimated to be 33% of total Peconic County
salary expenditures excluding Community College benefits, which are assumed to remain
the same and are included in the departmental section of the joint Community College. The
conservative estimate of the 33% was based on a detailed study of employee benefits based
upon records of the Village of East Hampton and proposed Peconic's personnel needs.
Insurance costs are also estimated on a County wide basis and as such are not included in
each department's expenses. For additional information regarding Peconic County
insurance, see Chapter 8.2: Insurance Costs.
Based on data collected and input received from the Citizen and Technical Advisory
Committees, the desired methods of service delivery for Peconic County were determined
for each expenditure line item. Decisions about whether services would be provided directly
by the County or through contracts with outside governments or agencies were based on the
availability of quality alternatives and, ultimately, which option was most cost-effective. In
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 2
INTRODUCTION
all of the cases where the East End Towns are providing services, the cost of these services
is reflected in the Peconic County budget to repay the Towns for each of these services. To
quantify the costs of providing services directly through Peconic County's operating
departments, staffing levels were estimated based on the projected service delivery
requirements of each function. East End wage rates were used to calculate salary
expenditures for each operating department. To project the total cost of each line item
expenditure, an assumption was made that non -salary expenditures per employee in Suffolk
County would remain the same in Peconic County. As a final review, staffing levels and
operating expenses were compared to other comparably sized counties within the State to
confirm the reasonableness of the assumptions.
Included in each department chapter is a detailed explanation of the derivation of the
proposed Peconic County budget for that function.
Revenues
Peconic County will have six primary sources of revenue:
. Property taxes
Federal Aid
. Sales Taxes
. Departmental Income
. State Aid
. Interest Income
State and Federal Aid and Departmental Income revenue has been derived based on the
expected service mix of Peconic County. Sales tax revenue is based upon the East End's
contribution to Suffolk County's sales tax receipts projected forward at a conservative rate
of 3.5% per year. Property taxes are derived, in any year, as the balancing item or the
residual after deducting from the total of all other sources of revenue from the total
expenditures required for that year. A detailed description of each revenue source and its
derivation is included herein. Please see Chapter 3: Revenue for a discussion of the major
county revenues and also the "First Fiscal Year Budget" sections of Chapter 5: Citizen
Service Departments for additional information regarding estimated Peconic County
Departmental Income, and State and Federal Aid.
Assets and Liabilities
In order to determine the most appropriate allocation method of Suffolk's County's assets
and liabilities, an examination of many possible allocation methods was performed,
including those methods based on:
• historical precedents;
• accounting standards; and
• corporate financial models.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 3
INTRODUCTION
A recommended approach to allocating assets and liabilities was chosen based upon the
criteria listed below:
• probability of producing an equitable and an agreed upon division;
• probability of producing an efficient (or justifiable) division;
• probability of method being easily understood by the citizenry; and
• probability of the method being implemented.
On the basis of these criteria a recommended approach was established which is referred
to in this report as the "Divestiture Method". The Divestiture Method is a method that
permits both sides to realize and utilize their resources for the benefit of the citizens of both
Communities. Among the most important elements of this method are:
1. Both Peconic and Suffolk County must have the resources (i.e. tax base, long-term
assets, etc.) to be fully self -sustainable entities in the short and long-term, and
2. An East End tax contribution to Suffolk County has been calculated. The tax
contribution is the amount of property tax and sales tax receipts that Suffolk County
receives from the East End and is used to estimate the East End's tax support of
Suffolk County Government. This contribution, which is calculated below at
14.39%, is used to determine its allocation to Peconic of most categories of Suffolk
County's assets and liabilities.
Please see Chapter 7: Separating from Suffolk County for a full description of methods
of allocation considered, the Divestiture Method, and implementation of the separation from
Suffolk County on the basis of the Divestiture Method.
Tax Contribution
Table 1-1 on the following page provides the calculation of tax contribution of the
five East End towns to Suffolk County in 1993.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 4
INTRODUCTION
Table 1-1
Calculation of the East End's Tax Contribution
Suffolk County 1993 Property Tax Receipts
Total Property Tax Received (1)
$431,022,707
Less: Property Tax Received for Police District
(203,671,812)
Less: Property Tax Received for District Court
(4,852,320)
Less: Property Tax Received for Sewer Districts
(42,503,403)
Net Property Tax Received by County General Fund (A)
$179,995,172
Suffolk County 1993 Non Property Tax Receipts
Off -Track Pari-Mutuel Tax $4,177,350
Sales Tax Receipts 540,376,619
Total Non -Property Tax Receipts (B) $544,553,969
Suffolk County Total General Tax Receipts (C) = (A) + (B) (2) 724,549,141
East End 1993 Property Tax Contribution (3) [23.39% of County Net Property Tax] 39,265,509
East End 1993 Non Property Tax Contribution (4) [11.93% of (C)] 64,967,200
East End Total General Tax Receipts (D) $104,232,709
East End Contribution (D) / (C) 14.39%
(1) Total Property Tax Received by Suffolk County includes (a) real property taxes, (b) the gain
from foreclosure sales, (c) payments in lieu of taxes, and (d) interest and penalties associated
with late payments of taxes.
(2) Includes Taxes Appropriated for General Fund, Deficit Bond Fund, Water Protection Reserve
Fund.
(3) Equals (A) less payments in lieu of taxes (PILOT) in the amount of $12,100,297 multiplied by
the ratio of the County Tax - General and Cont munity College tax warrants of the East End towns
to the total County Tax - General and Community College tax warrants of Suffolk County for the
1993 tax year. I.e., 23.39% of $167,894,875. In determining the tax contribution, property tax
items (b) and (d) described in Footnote 1 were pro rated based on the East End towns / Western
towns ratio tax payments for 1993. PILOT were not allocated to the East End towns because in
1993 all PILOT were generated in the Western towns.
(4) Includes sales taxes and pari-mutuel taxes. East End sales taxes are estimated by multiplying the
percentage of 1992 sales taxes generated in the East End towns as estimated by the U.S. Census
Bureau by the actual 1993 Suffolk County sales tax receipts ($540,376,619). See Chapter 3:
Revenues. "Sales Tax." East End pari-mutuel tax revenue is estimated by multiplying the East
End sales tax percentage by actual 1993 Suffolk County pari-mutuel tax receipts ($4,177,350).
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 5
INTRODUCTION
This 14.39% was also applied to the tax -supported expenditures of each department in
order to determine the East End support provided to each department. This figure is derived
by subtracting all departmental income, state aid and federal aid from total expenditures to
determine the dollar amount of services provided that were supported by taxes. By
comparing this figure with the value of the services received, any estimated subsidies from
East to West or West to East for each Suffolk County department were identified.
The new County's demand for office space was estimated by multiplying the proposed
number of County staff by government standard space requirements. The following are the
standard space assumptions applied in the calculation of Peconic County's demand for office
space: Administrative, Line and Supervisory staff require an average of 144, 216 and 280
gross square feet, respectively; every 15 staff require 205 gross square feet of filing and
photocopying space; space requirements for conference rooms range from 192 to 576 gross
square feet depending on desired capacity; and breakrooms require 384 gross square feet.
Capital Program
The proposed capital program for Peconic County is based on Suffolk County's adopted
1995-1997 capital program and includes those projects which pertain to the East End.
Projects in the adopted plan which benefit only the East End are assumed to be funded
entirely by Peconic County; in other words, 100% of the costs projected by Suffolk County
for these projects are included in Peconic County's Capital Program. Costs of projects which
would benefit both Suffolk County and Peconic County are allocated according to the
geographic distribution of the benefits from each capital investment. These allocations are
based on information from the Budget Review Office of the Suffolk County Legislature,
particularly its Review of the 1995-1997 Capital Program and 1995 Capital Budget, as well
as information received by Suffolk County departments. Additional projects have been
added based upon input from the Citizen and Steering Committees and non -project specific
estimates for future capital improvements of $12 million per year were used for 1999 and
2000. Please refer to Chapter 8: Capital Improvement Plan and Start -Up Costs for a
detailed description of the capital program projects by Peconic operating department and
their associated costs.
Start -Up Costs
In its first few years of operation, Peconic County will incur costs associated with
temporary operating adjustments, training, consulting services, supplies, equipment and
other purchases which are not included in the Capital Program or in the individual
departments' budget projections; rather, they are included in the Operating Budget summary
as an aggregate figure for the entire county. Start-up costs are assumed to be 4%, 2% and
0.5%, respectively, of total departmental operating expenditures for the County's first three
fiscal years, respectively.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 6
INTRODUCTION
It is assumed that half of these start-up costs will be capital costs and, therefore, can be
capitalized and funded with tax-exempt bond proceeds. The balance of these costs will need
to be paid out of current revenues. Examples of these costs are:
• Legal fees • Employee testing and training
• Consulting fees • Printing of County stationery
• Equipment and vehicle purchases • Re -configuring office space
• Asset and liability audit • Signage
Please see Table 8.1-1 for additional information regarding Peconic start-up costs.
Debt
Peconic County's projected debt service costs are based on three types of obligations: 1.)
new money bonds to be issued to finance new capital improvements projects and a portion
of the start-up costs; 2.) refunding bonds to repay Suffolk County for a portion of its existing
general obligation debt allocable to Peconic County; and 3.) refunding bonds to repay
Suffolk County for a portion of its existing Suffolk County drinking water protection bonds
allocable to Peconic County. All proposed bonds for Peconic County have been structured
with current interest rates and a level debt repayment schedule. The annual debt service
costs of these financings are included in the Operating Budget summary.
It is assumed that the County will issue new money bonds each year to finance its annual
capital program. The total annual costs of capital projects described above in "Capital
Program" for each of the County's first three fiscal years is calculated and assumed to be the
project requirements for each new money bond sizing. In 1999, the County's fourth fiscal
year, it is assumed that an additional $24 million of capital projects (for 1999 and 2000)
would be financed through a long-term bond issue.
As noted above, Peconic County is expected to repay its obligations associated with
previously issued Suffolk County debt. Peconic's share of all existing Suffolk County
general purpose debt and drinking water protection bonds is assumed to be 14.39%, the same
share of tax revenues that it contributed to Suffolk County in 1993.
Please see Table 8.2-1 for a summary of total Peconic County debt outstanding. Detailed
schedules of Peconic County bond calculations can be found in Appendix II.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 7
SUMMARY
CONCLUSION
SUMMARY & CONCLUSION
What is "feasible"?
The question of whether Peconic County is "feasible" can only be a part of what this
study sets out to determine. Virtually any governmental entity is financially feasible if the
citizens are willing to bear any amount of taxation. Instead of answering just one question,
"Is Peconic County feasible?", this study is instead designed to answer four more specific
questions:
1. What services do the citizens of the East End want?
2. What is a proper allocation to Peconic County of Suffolk's resources and
obligations following the proposed secession?
3. What is the proper level of capital investment for Peconic County?
4. What will the services, obligations and capital improvement cost the
citizens of Peconic County?
The first question was answered by initially identifying the services that the East End
currently receives from Suffolk County. Once that service mix was defined, citizens and
elected officials were consulted in order to make the policy decisions regarding what
changes in that service mix were appropriate for Peconic County. Once the desired services
were identified, the costs of providing those services was estimated and then available
revenue sources to pay for these services were :identified.
The second question was answered by first examining Suffolk County's assets and
liabilities and then analyzing potential allocation methods. Once a proper allocation method
was devised, the dollar value of resources and obligations were assigned based upon the
assets and liabilities to be received.
The third question was answered by first examining the capital improvements Suffolk
was planning to implement that would benefit the East End. Once these capital
improvements were identified, citizens and policy makers were consulted to estimate the
proper level and timing of these improvements, plus additional improvements primarily
pertaining to the acquisition of open space and farm land.
The question of what services, obligations and capital improvements cost the citizens of
Peconic County is answered by determining the taxes needed to support the new County.
Conclusion
The governmental services and capital investment needs of the East End citizens have
been incorporated into a proposed Peconic County operating budget. The appropriate
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 9
SUMMARY & CONCLUSION
resources and obligations of Suffolk County have been allocated to Peconic County and the
cost of the services, obligations and investment have been estimated.
The result is that Peconic County can be a financially viable entity.
Given the assumptions provided herein, Peconic County can be a self -sustainable entity:
• Peconic County is projected to have the resources to be well under the State
Constitutional limits on taxing authorization and debt issuance.
• Peconic County is projected to have the resources to access the tax-exempt credit
markets and borrow money at a competitive interest rate.
- In order to access the capital markets, Peconic County is expected to have the
economic base, the financial flexibility, debt factors and administrative
management to convince lenders of Peconic's ability to pay them back.
• The Divestiture Method of allocation will provide an equitable and efficient
allocation of assets and liabilities between Suffolk County and Peconic.
• The Divestiture Method can be implemented without litigation or fundamental
disagreements; and furthermore, it can be easily explained to and understood by the
citizens of Suffolk and Peconic Counties.
• Peconic County's property tax is estimated to be significantly less than the current
East End property tax paid to Suffolk County.
What will be different in Peconic County?
Based upon the preferences of contributing citizens and policy makers in the East End,
the Peconic County government will be proportionately smaller in size than Suffolk County.
Utilizing a weighted Board of Supervisors instead of a County Legislature, Peconic County's
decision makers will be closer to the Town and Village governments, and the Towns will
also take responsibility for a variety of services (such as road maintenance) that are currently
provided by Suffolk County.
In general, Peconic County departments will proportionately have fewer levels of
employees and a leaner structure than Suffolk County. Department heads will have broad
oversight authority and several public safety functions currently provided by disparate units
of Suffolk County will be combined under the aegis of one coordinator. The table on the
following page (Table 2-1) outlines projected Peconic County staffing requirements.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 10
SUMMARY & CONCLUSION
Table 2-1
Peconic County Staffing Requirements
Department Staff
Board of Supervisors and
Administrative Departments
72
Economic Assistance
202
Public Safety Coordinator
15
Sheriff
28
Probation
39
Fire Rescue and Emergency
Services
4
Health
231
Judicial
37
Parks
63
Planning
10
Public Works
28
Community College (1)
111
Total County Staff 840
(1) Joint Community College employees; not technically Peconic
County employees.
Peconic County will also increase investment in areas important to the citizens of the
East End. Peconic County is projected to spend significantly more in the East End than
Suffolk County currently plans on projects such as Pine Barrens and environmentally
sensitive land, farmland acquisition, and additional North Fork health services.
The Peconic County government will have a more limited role in actively providing
services than Suffolk County. Many services, such as prisons and certain ancillary detective
services, will be contracted out to either Suffolk or Nassau County or to the State of New
York. This will ensure that Peconic County citizens will pay only for the services that they
receive and reduce the total costs of government by eliminating overstaffing and the
administrative overhead costs of the County.
Importantly, Peconic property taxes are expected to be significantly lower than Suffolk
County property taxes. Based on the results of this study, East End residents can expect to
pay approximately half the property taxes they currently pay following the formation of
Peconic County.
What accounts for Peconic County savings?
While there will be initial costs associated with the creation of Peconic County, and
long-term costs, such as the loss in economies of scale that Suffolk County realizes in
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 11
SUMMARY & CONCLUSION
providing similar services to a larger group of people, those costs will be more than made up
for by long-term savings inherent in the operations of the proposed Peconic County.
These long-term savings will take a number of forms:
• Reduced services provided by the County: As described above, Peconic County will
not only be smaller, but in many areas it will do less than Suffolk County. For
example, unlike Suffolk County, Peconic County will not operate a nursing home.
Several non -mandated economic assistance programs have been altered and
combined under one administrative arm, reducing overhead costs.
• Reduced costs of salaries and benefits: Peconic County's labor rates will be
comparable to those of the East End towns and villages. These rates, less affected by
prevailing wages in New York City, will be lower than those paid by Suffolk County.
Costs of employee benefits, many of which are tied to wage rates, will also be lower.
• Contracting out of services: Peconic County will save substantial dollars by
contracting out with private providers and/or other governments for certain services,
such as transportation functions, road maintenance, and public safety, and personnel
training.
• Reduced insurance and indemniLy costs: By reducing the activities of the County and
eliminating certain services completely, Peconic County will have proportionally
lower insurance costs than Suffolk County. Peconic County is able to reduce its
relative insurance costs because its citizens will no longer have to pay a share of
insurance cost for Police District, Sewer District, Fire District, some of which have
the highest insurance rates of any type of public employees.
• Elimination of any East to West subsidy: This analysis indicates that there is a
substantial subsidization of the costs of general government services in the western
towns by the citizens in the East End. Following the creation of Peconic County,
East End property taxes will be reduced by only paying for services provided to the
East End. The calculation of the 1993 subsidy by East End residents is provided in
Table 2-2, on the following page.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 12
SUMMARY & CONCLUSION
Table 2-2
Calculation of East End Subsidy (FY 1993)
Total East End Net Tax Contribution (1) $74,281,519
Suffolk County's Net Cost to Provide
East End Services (2) $53,880,807
East End Subsidy $20,400,712
(1) Property and sales taxes contributed by the East End used to pay a
portion of Suffolk County's operating expenses.
(2) Aggregate operating cost of East End services less any Departmental
Income and Federal and State Aid.
• Restructuring of Debt Payments: Although technically not savings, Peconic County
is proposing to restructure its negotiated Suffolk County debt payment obligations in
order to better spread the cost of the acquired assets to the benefiting Peconic
citizenry.
The table on the following page (Table 2-3) summarizes Peconic County's operating
budget for the proposed first year of operation - fiscal year ending December 31, 1996.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 13
SUMMARY & CONCLUSION
Table 2-3
Projected First Year Operating Budget
Fiscal Year 1996 (in millions, 1993 dollars)
Revenues
Property Taxes
$14.33
Sales Taxes
64.47
State Aid
21.02
Federal Aid
17.42
Departmental Income
12.42
Interest Income
0.78
Total Revenues $130.44
Expenditures
Operating Expenses
Administration
Board of Supervisors and Administrative Departments
$4.14
Other Operating Departments
Community College
8.32
Economic Assistance
37.07
Fire, Rescue & Emergency Services
0.26
Health
26.30
Judicial Departments
2.61
Parks, Recreation and Culture
3.10
Planning and Regional Services
1.67
Probation
1.87
Public Safety Commissioner's Office
2.13
Public Works
8.58
Sheriff
6.83
Employee Benefits
8.38
Insurance Expenses
1.87
Other Operating Departments
$113.12
Other Expenses
Start -Up Costs (operating portion only)
$2.26
Contingent Expenses
1.00
Deposits to County Reserves
1.50
Subtotal: Other Expenses
$4.76
Debt Service
Payment to Suffolk County for Existing Public Improvement Bonds $5.61
Payment to Suffolk County for Existing Drinking Water Bonds 2.75
Future Capital Improvement Projects 1.46
Start Up Costs (capital portion only) 0.83
Share of Cohalan Court Complex Lease Payments 1.91
Subtotal: Debt Service $12.56
Total Expenditures $130.44
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 14
SUMMARY & CONCLUSION
Table 2-3 shows that in 1996, Peconic County's first year of operation, it will need to
pay (in 1993 dollars) $113.12 million in operating expenses, $12.56 in debt service, $4.76
million in other expenses, for a total of $130.44 million.
In order to pay for these costs, Peconic County is estimated to need revenues of the same
$130.44 million: property taxes ($14.33 million), sales taxes ($64.47 million), state and
federal aid ($38.44 million), departmental income ($12.42) and interest income ($0.78
million). Each of these items of revenue, except property taxes, were estimated separately.
Property taxes are computed after subtracting all of the other revenue items from the $130.44
million of total expenditures. For more detail on these sources of revenue, see Chapter 3:
Revenue.
A summary of operating expenses, department by department, is shown on Table 2-4.
Table 2-4
1996 Peconic County Departmental Expenses
(1993 dollars)
Salarips
Board of Supervisors and Administrative Departments
$2,550,000
Community College
5,670,603
Economic Assistance
6,845,000
Fire, Rescue & Emergency Services
165,000
Health
8,354,000
Judicial Departments
1,350,000
Parks, Recreation and Culture
1,890,000
Planning and Regional Services
355,000
Probation
1,350,000
Public Safety Commissioner's Office
525,000
Public Works
1,030,000
Sheriff
965,000
Total
Total Operating
Non -Salaries Expenses (1)
$1.593,850 $4,143,850
2,644,486
8,315,089
30,223, 041
37,068, 041
92,458
257,458
17,947,490
26,301,490
1,256,848
2,606,848
1,213,867
3,103,867
1,312,425
1,667,425
515,009
1,865,009
1,609,204
2,134,204
7,552,757
8,582,757
5,865,087
6,830,087
$31,049,603 $71,826,521 $102,876,124
(1) Excludes employee benefits except for the Community College.
Please see Chapter 4: Internal Support Departments, Chapter 5: Citizen Service
Departments, and Chapter 6: County Community College for detailed description of
Peconic County operating costs.
Table 2-5 shows the Peconic County operating budget for the first five (5) years of the
County's existence (1996-2000) plus figures for 1993, the base year for the estimates in this
report.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 15
Table 2-5
1996-2000 Peconic County Budget Summary and Forecasts
1�1
fC'
n
0
z
n
r
hal
0
z
FY 1996
FY 1996
FY 1997
FY 1998
FY 1999
FY 2000
In 1993 dollars
Revenues
Property Taxes
$78,798.273
$12.604,639
$11,842,517
$11.198,912
$12,168,599
$11,631,541
Sales Taxes (1)
0
72,176,671
74,702,855
77,317.455
80,023,566
82,824,390
State Aid
21,022.349
22.971,688
23.660,839
24,370.664
25,101,784
25,854,837
Federal Aid
17,416,471
19.031,448
19,602,392
20,190,463
20.796,177
21.420,063
Departmental Income
12.417,330
13,568,752
13.975,614
14,395,089
14.826.941
15,271.750
Interest Income
783,745
783,745
909,706
1,076,946
1,286.703
1,540,253
Total Revenues
$130A38.168
$141,136,943
$144,694,122: $148 549 528
$154.203.770
$158.542,835
Expenditures
Operating Expenses
Board of Supervisors and Administrative Departments
$4.143,850
$4,528,097
$4,663,940
$4,803,858
$4,947,974
$5.096.413
Community College
8,315.089
9.086.122
9.358,706
9,639,467
9,928,651
10,226,511
Economic Assistance
37,068,041
40.505,249
41.720,406
42,972,018
44.261,179
45,589.014
Fire, Rescue 8 Emergency Services
257,458
281,331
289,771
298,464
307.418
316,641
Health
26,301.490
28,740,349
29,602,559
30,490,636
31,405.355
32,347,516
Judicial Departments
2,606,848
2.848,573
2.934,030
3,022.051
3.112.713
3,206,094
Parks, Recreation and Culture
3,103,867
3,391,979
3,493,429
3,598,232
3,706,179
3,817,364
Planning and Regional Services
1,667,425
1,822.040
1,876,702
1,933,003
1,990.993
2,050,722
Probation
1,865.009
2.037,946
2.099,084
2,162.057
2,226,919
2,293,726
Public Safety Commissioner's Office
2,134,204
2,332,103
2,402.066
2,474.128
2,548.352
2,624,802
Public Works
8,582,757
9,378,610
9,659,968
9,949,767
10,248,260
10,555,708
Sheriff
6,830,087
7.463,420
7.687.323
7,917.942
6.155.481
8.400,145
Employee Benefits
8,375,070
9.151.665
9,426,215
9,709,002
10,000,272
10,300,280
Insurance Expenses
1,865,757
2 038 763
2.099,926
2.162.924
2 227 811
2.294,646
Subtotal: Operating Expenses
$113,116,951
$123,605,947
$127,314,125
$131,133,549
$135,067,555
$139.119,582
Other Expenses
Start -Up Costs (operating portion only)
$2.262,339
$2,472.119
$1,273,141
$327,834
Contingent Expenses
1,000,000
1,000,000
1.000,000
1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
Deposits to County Reserves
1.500,000
1,500,000
1 500 000
1,500,000
1 500000
1,500,000
Subtotal: Other Expenses
$4,762.339
$4.972.119
$3,773,141
$2,827.834
$2,500,000
$2,500,000
Debt Service (2)
Payment to Suffolk County for Existing Public Improvement Bonds
$5,611.600
$5,611.600
$5,610,700
$5,609,400
$5,611,500
$5,611,400
Payment to Suffolk County for Existing Drinking Water Bonds
2.748,188
2.748,188
2,746,460
2,745.965
2,747,715
2,750,980
Future Capital Improvement Projects
1,462.950
1.462,950
2.509,850
3.494,800
5.537.300
5,537,300
Start Up Costs (capital portion only)
825,550
825,550
829,100
826,900
827,600
825,900
Share of Cohalan Court Complex Lease Payments
1,910590
1 910 590
1 910 746
1,911,081
1 912 100
2,197.673
Subtotal: Debt Service
$12,558,878 1
$12,558,878 1
$13,606,856
$14,588,146
$16,636,215 1
$16,923,253
Total Expenditures
$130 38168 1
$141,136,943 1
$144,694,122
$146 549 528 1
$154,203,770 1
$158,542,835
Beginning Fund Balance (3)
2.597.953
4,097,953
5,597,953
7.097,953
8,597,953
Ending Fund Balance
4,097,953
5,597.953
7,097,953
8,597.953
10,097.953
to: All revenues except sales taxes and interest income and all expenditures are assumed
to increase at an annual rate of 3.0%<. Sales tax receipts are assumed
to increase at an annual rate of 3.5%. Interest income is based on the County's cash
balances and an estimated interest rate of 5.0%.
(1) The base year for sales taxes is 1994 during which $67,377,965 of sales tax revenue was generated
in the East End
towns. 1996 figures
assume two years of 3.5% increases
(2) All debt service obligations would be fixed as bonds are issued: inflation adjustments
have therefore
not been applied to debt service payments
(3) Initial Fund Balance is allocated from Suffolk County. Ending Fund Balance includes Deposits to County Reserves
1�1
fC'
n
0
z
n
r
hal
0
z
SUMMARY & CONCLUSION
Conclusion on Property Taxes
Table 2-6 shows that the citizens of the East End towns paid Suffolk $26.4 million in
property taxes in 1993, or $13.8 million more than what they would have paid Peconic
County in its first year of operation, assumed to be 1996. (This is true even if Peconic
County had received no revenues from foreclosures, interest on late taxes, or payments in
lieu of taxes.) In other words, assuming that Peconic County's entire property tax
requirements were met by the tax levy rather than by the tax levy plus other tax items, the
Peconic County tax bill would still have been about $12.5 million less -- a reduction of 53%.
Note that these savings are after providing for start-up costs, contingencies, debt service to
repay Suffolk County for Peconic's share of Suffolk's long-term debt, debt service to pay for
substantial new capital improvements and land acquisitions, and an increase in County
reserves, and are based on conservative estimates of revenue from sales taxes.
The comparison year of 1993 was somewhat unusual because it included a $5.3 million
payment on the Suffolk County Deficit Bond Fund. If the comparison were made with the
East End's average property tax contribution in the four (4) year period between 1992-1995,
then the savings would be even greater --approximately $17.3 million or 58% ($29.9 million
as compared with a proposed first year property tax levy for Peconic County of $12.6
million).
Another way of looking at the estimated tax reduction caused by the creation of Peconic
County is to look at the actual dollar impact on the taxpayer. The Suffolk County
Executive's 1995 Recommended Budget states that the property tax cost to the average
taxpayer of the East End was $310.04 in 1994. Consequently, if the savings achieved by the
creation of Peconic County would, as noted above, be approximately 50%, the reduction in
the property tax is estimated to be approximately $155 per year per East End taxpayer.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 17
SUMMARY & CONCLUSION
Table 2-6
Historical and Forecasted Property Tax
East End Payments/
Year Peconic Requirements
1992 $31,529,396.00 (1)
1993 26,424,008.45 (1)(2)
1994 31,712,879.00 (1)
1995 30,105,909.00 (1)
1996 12,604,639.03 (3)(4)
1997 11,842,516.88 (3)
1998 11,198, 911.59 (3)
1999 12,168,598.67 (3)
2000 11,631,541.46 (3)
(1) Based on East End towns actual County Tax -General and
Suffolk County Community College warrant items. These figures
do not include revenue received for foreclosures, interest on late
payments, or payments in lieu of taxes.
(2) Does not include pro -rata payment to Suffolk County Deficit
Bond Fund ($5,261,633) that has been excluded from tax levy
for comparison purposes.
(3) Based on forecasted Peconic County budgets.
(4) Represents projected first year of Peconic County operations
and includes start-up costs.
It is significant to note that the estimated level of property taxes after the first year of
operation remains relatively constant through 2000. (See Table 2-5) This is because the
annual increases in debt service for new capital projects are offset by start-up costs which
decline rapidly after 1996, and annual contingency expenses, deposits to county reserves,
debt service on the Suffolk County debt repayment and the Cohalan Court Complex lease
payment which remain flat. There is also an estimated 3.5% annual increase in the sales tax
revenue, but an estimated increase (in line with the assumed increase in "cost -of -living") of
3% per year in operating expenses and in other sources of revenue.
Peconic and Comparable Counties
Table 2-7 on page 20 shows that Peconic's total expenditures, at $125.7 million, are well
in excess of the $93.6 million average for five (5) comparable sized New York counties.
Although higher, after taking into account some situational differences, the summary
indicates that Peconic's cost of providing county service is reasonable. Among the most
important factors accounting for this difference are:
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 18
SUMMARY & CONCLUSION
1. Peconic's debt burden is about $9 million greater than the five (5) -county average
due to Suffolk County's substantial capital acquisition program funded primarily by
bonded indebtedness and Peconic's estimated requirement to repay Suffolk for
Peconic's share of the debt.
2. Wage rates in Peconic County are higher than the comparable counties.
3. While expenditures per capita ($1,179) are 40% greater than the 5 county average
($845), Peconic's expenditures per dwelling unit are $1,640 or 18% less than the
average ($1,988). This is because 37% of the dwelling units in Peconic are second
homes, compared to 9% in the 5 comparable counties.
4. In terms of Peconic's number of employee positions per 1,000 population, Peconic
has 7.88 or 22% less than the average (10.08), but using the standard of per 1,000
dwelling units, the number of positions in Peconic County is 10.96 or 55% less than
the comparable county average of 24.15.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 19
SUMMARY & CONCLUSION
Table 2-7
Peconic County and Comparable Counties
Operating Information (1993)
106,593
141,895
121,771
110,943
95,101
83,941
110,730
Expenses
76,618 (5)
62,682
48,548
50,519
38,947
31,898
5 -County
Median Household Income (4)
Peconic (1)
Chautauqua
Oswego
Jefferson
Ontario
Putnam
Average
General Support (2)
$16.99
$10.62
$16.37
$16.48
$10.62
$9.78
$12.77
Education
8.32
7.13
6.40
11.77
2.48
4.13
6.38
Public Safety
11.09
9.78
7.81
7.34
10.12
8.46
8.70
Health (3)
26.30
6.97
12.95
10.55
8.62
5.89
9.00
Transportation/Public Works
8.58
11.34
13.63
10.46
5.34
1.10
8.37
Economic Assistance and Opportunity (3)
37.07
67.18
42.79
47.15
29.68
16.33
40.63
Culture and Recreation
3.10
0.72
2.46
0.37
0.56
0.85
0.99
Home and Community Services
1.67
0.88
5.36
6.43
2.43
1.12
3.24
Debt Service
12.56
2.50
4.51
1.85
4.20
4.41
3.49
Total Comparable Expenditures
$125.68
$117.11
$112.29
$112.40
$74.04
$52.06
$93.58
County positions
840
1,606
1,295
935
1,387
458
1,136
Demographic and Other Information (1990)
Population (year-round) (4)
106,593
141,895
121,771
110,943
95,101
83,941
110,730
Number of Dwelling Units (4)
76,618 (5)
62,682
48,548
50,519
38,947
31,898
46,519
Median Household Income (4)
$36,094
$24,183
$29,083
$25.929
$33,133
$53,634
$33,192
Area in Square Miles
347
1,062
953
1,272
644
232
833
County expenditures per capita
$1,179
$825
$922
$1,013
$779
$620
$845
County expenditures per dwelling unit
$1,640
$1,868
$2,313
$2,225
$1,901
$1,632
$1,988
County positions per 1,000 population
7.88
11.32
10.63
8.43
14.58
5.46
10.08
County positions per 1,000 dwelling units
10.96
25.62
26.67
18.51
35.61
14.36
24.15
(1) For comparison purposes, Peconic County expenses do not include start-up or contigent erpenses or transfers to reserves.
(2) Peconic County General Support includes all employee benefits except for Community College, insurance costs and Judicial Departments operating expenses.
(3) Certain expenditure items may be characterized under either Hearth or Economic Assistance in these canities and are not classified consistently. Therefore,
It may be appropriate to consider the sum of these these cost categories when comparing Health and/or Economic Assistance expenditures across counties.
(4) Source: 1990 U.S. Census Bureau data
(5) A substantial potion of the housing stock in Peconic County consists of second hones. Thirty-seven percent of dwelling units in Peconic County are second
hones, compared to nine percent as the average of the comparable counties. The population in second hones is not included in the papulation figures.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 20
SUMMARY & CONCLUSION
Suffolk County
Although the scope of this study does not directly address the financial impact of the
creation of Peconic County on Suffolk County, a secession provides an opportunity for
Suffolk County to restructure, redefine, and reorganize the services it provides to its citizens.
A secession would permit Suffolk County to focus its efforts on the 90% of its existing
population that has similar service demands (the West End). Furthermore, using the
methodology outlined in this report, Suffolk County residents would not be losing net
resources that are currently available. Assets such as parks and open space land would
continue to be available to Suffolk County residents and the change in government would
not affect the use of these resources by West Enders.
In the end, the creation of Peconic County allows Peconic and Suffolk Counties to
concentrate on the type of government that will be more representative and responsive to the
needs of these two very different areas. The current Suffolk County service delivery
structure, which essentially regionalizes the governance of two constituencies with disparate
economies, service demands, and capital needs is more, not less, costly because of the
inefficiencies of trying to please two populations that have different demands. The end
result following the formation of Peconic County should be more efficient, less costly
service to the Suffolk County taxpayer.
Peconic County
This report reflects a vision of what an independent Peconic County can be. It is by no
means the only vision of a sustainable and financially feasible County. It provides a
framework for continued progress toward the formation of Peconic County and raises issues
that need to be revisited in order for an orderly secession to be achieved.
It is believed that the underlying assumptions provide a reasonable basis for these
estimates. However, any forecast is subject to uncertainties. Inevitably, some assumptions
will not be realized, and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur. Therefore,
there are likely to be differences between the forecast and actual results and those differences
may be material.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 21
REVENUE
REVENUE
Revenue
Peconic County will have six primary sources of revenue:
• Property taxes • Federal Aid
• Sales Tax • Departmental Income
• State Aid • Interest Income
The charts below outline Peconic County's proposed revenue mix and compare the
distribution of revenues to Suffolk County's.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 23
REVENUE
Suffolk County Revenues by Source (1993)
Interest Income Property Taxes
Federal Aid 1.47% 8.81
11.25% $17.45 $104.50 Real Property Tax Items
$133.38 3.18%
$37.75
State Aid
17.57%--
$208.34
Dept Income - --_ -- -- -- - — Sales Taxes
0
$139.84 Pari-Mutuel Taxes 45.57%
0.35% $540.38
$4.18
The Peconic County revenues listed above are based on the level of service, debt service
costs, investment in new capital projects and other estimated costs of Peconic County that
are provided in this report. These revenues are also based upon certain assumptions. See
Chapter 1: Introduction.
Sales Taxes
Sales tax revenues will form an essential part of the Peconic County revenue base. Sales
taxes are intended to be used to keep property taxes as low as possible and represent the
primary method for getting support for services from the many visitors to the East End.
While they receive services such as public safety, highway maintenance and other services,
visitors do not pay for these services through a resident property tax.
Collection
Pursuant to State law, the State has responsibility to collect all sales taxes. Sales taxes
are to be levied on all taxable retail sales within the County. The State collects both the
State and County portions, retains the State portion and returns on a monthly basis the
County portion to the County less a small administrative fee.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 24
REVENUE
Tax Rate
The current sales tax rate in Suffolk County is 8.50%. Of this figure, 4.00% is retained
by the state for State purposes, 0.25% is remitted to the Metropolitan Transit Authority
(MTA) for MTA purposes, and 4.25% is for Suffolk County purposes.
The Suffolk County rate is broken out into several components:
• 3% is allocated in to Suffolk County's General Fund;
• 0.25% of the revenues are deposited into Suffolk's Drinking Water
Protection Reserve Fund.
• 1 % additional tax is split:
. 0.125% for public safety purposes (including a portion that goes
to Town governments);
an amount sufficient to bring the sewer stabilization fund to
$12,500,000 annually;
. remainder goes to the Suffolk County general fund.
Peconic County is projected to have more of its sales tax flow into the general purpose
portion of its government (General Fund). Specifically, a substantial portion of Suffolk's
additional 1% sales tax has gone to the County Police and Sewer District's which will not be
funded in Peconic County.
The sales tax rate in Peconic County is projected to be 8.50%, with 4% continuing to go
to the State, 0.25% going to the MTA, and 4.25% being the effective rate for Peconic
County purposes, equal to that of Suffolk County; sales tax revenues are expected to be the
largest single revenue source for the County (as they are for Suffolk).
Forecast
In order to estimate Peconic County's future sales tax revenues, a U.S. Census Bureau
1992 Economic Census database was utilized. The database provides total dollars of
taxable sales by communities of 2,500 people and above. According to the U.S. Census, in
1992 Suffolk County generated $10.795 billion in total taxable sales, with $9.507 billion
generated in the Western towns and $1.287 billion, or 11.93%, in the East End towns. Based
on these sales estimates and Suffolk County's net tax rate of 4.25%, total County sales tax
revenues would have been $458,791,240. Of this figure, $404 million would have been
generated by the Western Towns and $55 million generated by the East End towns. Thus,
East End sales tax revenues are estimated to have been $54,735,405, or 11.93% of total
Suffolk County sales tax revenues in 1992.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 25
REVENUE
Table 3-1
U.S. Census Taxable Retail Sales Sutlolk Uounty (1992)
East End Allocation of Taxable Sales
East End Towns (1):
East Hampton town
$224,585,000
Riverhead town
351,523,000
Southampton town
562,210,000
Southold town
147,904,000
Subtotal
$1,286,222,000
West End (1):
Amityville
$123,853,000
Babylon
1,362,143,000
Bellport
25,508,000
Brightwaters
2,416,000
Brookhaven
1,953,152,000
Huntington
1,531,356,000
Islandia
65,693,000
Islip
2,037,425,000
Lake Grove
200,413,000
Lindenhurst
147,548,000
Northport
94,860,000
Patchogue
368,075,000
Port Jefferson
141,855,000
Smithtown
1,440,572,000
Subtotal
$9,494,869,000
Total Sales Taxes Identified by Location
$10,781,091,000
Balance of County (Includes Shelter Island) (1):
$13,997,000
Grand Total
$10,795,088,000
East End %
11.93%
Western %
88.07%
1993 Estimated Taxable Sales
$12,714,743,976
1993 Estimated East End Taxable Sales
Based Upon U.S. Census %
$1,516,913,588
(1) Sales taxes originating from unidentified locations are noted as *Balance
of County.' Such revenues are generated in West End
and East End
towns, including all Shelter Island sales taxes.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 26
REVENUE
Using this ratio of 11.93% and based on actual Suffolk County sales tax receipts of
$540,376,619 in 1993, we estimate that an independent Peconic County would have
generated $64,468,827 in sales tax revenues in 1993, our base year for financial projections
of Peconic County. (See table 3-2 below).
Table 3-2
Peconic County Sales Tax Derived for 1993 (Base Year)
1993 Suffolk County '
Total Sales Taxes Collected $540,376,619
Western Towns Portion @ 88.07% $475,907,792
East End (Peconic) Portion @ 11.93% $64,468,827
To test the U.S. Census data based estimate, actual Suffolk County sales tax receipts
were compared to the estimate. Based upon audited annual financial statements, Suffolk
County received $474,542,546 in sales tax receipts from the state for the year ended
December 31, 1992. This analysis indicated that the Census database captured 96.68% of
the actual sales tax revenue in 1992. This suggests sufficient accuracy to allow the East End
11.93% to be used to determine its share of Suffolk's historical sales tax receipts.
Peconic County's sales tax revenues are conservatively estimated to increase at a rate of
3.5% per year in formulating future budget projections. Actual sales tax receipts for Suffolk
County have increased at rates between 3% to 4.5% in recent years, although Suffolk
County's sales taxes have increased at a rate of 11.3% for the first quarter of 1995. Peconic
County's sales taxes are currently growing at a higher percentage rate than Suffolk County's.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 27
REVENUE
Year
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Table 3-3
Historical and Projected Sales Tax Revenues
Suffolk
County (1)
481,887,211
540,376,619
564,760,958
582,243,164 (3)
East End
Towns
57,490,836 (2)
64,468,827 (2)
67,377,965 (2)
72,176,671
(4)
74,702,855
(4)
77,317,455
(4)
80,023,566
(4)
82,824,390
(4)
Annual
Increase
17.80% (3.0%)-
14.06% (4.4%)-
4.36%
3.10%(3)
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
(1) Source: Suffolk County Legislature, Budget Review Office. Actual
receipts 1992-1994.
(2) Based on 11.93% ratio of sales derived from U.S. Census Bureau data.
(3) Adopted Budget amount for 1995.
(4) Projected sales tax revenues based on 3.5% annual growth rate from
1994 estimated receipts.
Normalized increase after accounting for increase in the sales tax rate
from 3.25% to 3.750/6 in September 1991 and 3.75% to 4.25% in September
1992.
Real Property Taxes
For the purpose of this analysis, comparisons were made only with the Suffolk County
General Fund. A substantial portion of Suffolk County property taxes generated from the
Western Towns goes to the Police District Fund, the Sewer District Funds, and the District
Court Fund. Since the East End Towns receive no benefit from these Funds and do not pay
special levies associated with them, they are not included in the revenues that flow as part of
the revenue mix.
Tax Limit
In accordance with Section 10 of Article VIII of the State Constitution, the amount
which may be levied in a county by taxes on real property in any fiscal year for county
purposes, in addition to providing for interest on the principal of all indebtedness, may not
exceed an amount equal to 1.5 of the five year average full valuation of taxable real property
of the county, less certain described deductions. The dollar amount which could legally have
been raised in 1995 by Peconic County (if it existed), was $331,717,806. This limit is not a
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 28
REVENUE
substantial concern because, as Table 3-4 shows, the estimated property tax for Peconic
County would be only $12.60 million, or only 3.80% of the tax limit.
Table 3-4
Computation of Constitutional Taxing Power
(Peconic County)
East End Towns
Year Taxable Full Valuation
1990
$19,784,254,016
1991
22,218,473,156
1992
23,905,389,225
1993
23,963,885,207
1994
20,700,600,306
Total Five -Year Valuation
Average Five -Year Valuation
Tax Limit (1.5%)
Estimated Tax Levy (1996)
Percentage of Taxing Mazgin
Exhausted
Collection
$110,572,601,910
$22,114,520,382
$331,717,806
$12,604,639
3.80%
Under the Suffolk County Tax Act, taxes levied for school district, town, and Suffolk
County purposes are collected by the appropriate town receiver of taxes in two installments.
In January, each town distributes to the school districts within such town, as the first
installment, one-half (1/2) of the total taxes levied for school district purposes, and retains
the remainder for town tax purposes. In June, each town pays to the school districts within
such town the balance of the amount of school district taxes levied for school district
purposes. After making payment to the school districts, each town retains the amount
necessary to satisfy its tax levy and returns to the Suffolk County any remaining moneys as a
payment, in part, for taxes levied for County purposes. At the same time, each receiver
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 29
REVENUE
returns to the Suffolk County the tax roll indicating the amount of uncollected taxes for
school districts, town and County purposes. It is the Suffolk County's responsibility to
collect such unpaid taxes.
A Peconic County charter or New York State Legislation could change the County's real
property tax collection structure, however, for purposes of this report, no change from the
Suffolk County structure is assumed.
The assessed values of real property within the East End towns as of FY 1994 have been
utilized as the basis for the derivation of the property tax burden. Table 3-5 shows the full
taxable value for Peconic County based on 1994 assessments and equalization rates.
Table 3-5
Taxable Full Valuation of Peconic County
Equalization Taxable Full
Towns Assessed Value Rates Valuation
East Hampton
$144,071,335
2.72%
$5,296,740,257
Riverhead
597,952,323
31.66%
1,888,668,108
Shelter Island
27,949,768
3.89%
718,503,033
Southampton
399,073,837
4.17%
9,570,115,995
Southold
89,698,727
2.78%
3,226,572,914
Peconic County
$1,258,745,990
$20,700,600,308
Source: Suffolk County
Clerk, Actual Rates for 1994
Forecast
As noted earlier, the property tax revenue forecast is derived by determining the net
amount of revenue needed to meet Peconic's estimated expenses --that is, by adding up all of
the estimated expenditures and subtracting from that total sum the total of all other estimated
revenues; as such, it is the remainder or the balancing item.
Property tax rates will be different for Peconic County than for Suffolk County. The
proportional difference represents the different proportion that sales taxes will comprise of
the total revenue stream as well as the change in the level and type of services provided by
the two counties. As discussed above, and as illustrated in Table 3-6, the historical property
tax actually paid by the East End towns (i.e. not including the East End's share of
foreclosures, interest and penalties on late taxes, and payments in lieu of taxes) is compared
with the total property tax requirement for Peconic County. This illustrates that even if
Peconic County received no benefit from foreclosures, interest and penalties or payments in
lieu of taxes, the East End property taxes would still drop in relation to actual payments in
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 30
REVENUE
1993 and remain relatively constant from the first year of assumed operation in 1996 through
2000.
Table 3-6
Historical and Forecasted Property Tax
East End Payments/
Year Peconic Requirements
1992 $31,529,396.00 (1)
1993 26,424,008.45 (1)(2)
1994 31,712,879.00 (1)
1995 30,105, 909.00 (1)
1996 12,604,639.03 (3)(4)
1997 11,842,516.88 (3)
1998 11,198,911.59 (3)
1999 12,168,598.67 (3)
2000 11,631,541.46 (3)
(1) Based on East End towns actual County Tax -General and
Suffolk County Community College warrant items. These figures
do not include revenue received for foreclosures, interest on late
payments, or payments in lieu of taxes.
(2) Does not include pro -rata payment to Suffolk County Deficit
Bond Fund ($5,261,633) that has been excluded from tax levy
for comparison purposes.
(3) Based on forecasted Peconic County budgets.
(4) Represents projected first year of Peconic County operations
and includes start-up costs.
Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT)
Peconic County is not assumed to collect payments in lieu of taxes. Suffolk County
currently collects payments in lieu of taxes from the Long Island Lighting Company, various
Sewer Authorities, and other entities. In 1993, Suffolk County collected $12,100,297 in
PILOT payouts.
Off -Tract Pari-Mutuel Tax
Peconic County is not assumed to collect Pari-Mutuel taxes. Suffolk County currently
collects these taxes, and in 1993 collected $4,177,350.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 31
REVENUE
State and Federal Aid
Virtually every department in the proposed Peconic County government will receive
some level of aid from the State and federal government. This assistance takes different
forms, ranging from reimbursements to formula grants to matching funds. The breakdown
of assistance to each respective department will be unique to that department, and each
department section includes a detailed discussion of the derivation of the various levels of
aid.
Table 2-3 shows the estimated total amount of State and federal aid for 1993, the
assumed base year of operation of Peconic County. These figures are $21.0 million and
$17.4 million, respectively. The 1996-2000 estimated figures for State and federal aid are
based on an annual increase of 3%, which is in turn based on an estimated 3% increase in the
cost of living for each of these years, as estimated by the Long Island Regional Planning
Board.
If state and/or federal aid should be cut substantially, it is likely that related Peconic
County expenditures would be reduced or that New York county governments would be
granted additional locally generated revenue sources. However, even if revenue increases
were not sufficient to cover these cuts, the effect on Peconic County would be generally the
same as that of Suffolk County or other comparable New York counties.
Departmental Income
Virtually all departments within the proposed Peconic County government will generate
some income through user fees, co -payments, fines or other payments. Just as the service
mix and expenditure estimates for each department are unique to that department, so are the
estimates of departmental income. The revenue estimates for each department are consistent
with the allocation of expenditures, service mix, and existing revenue sources, as well as
decisions to initiate new fees or alter fee structures. These estimates are outlined more fully
in each Departmental section, see Chapter 6: Citizen Service Departments.
Forecast
Departmental income from all departments for the base year 1993 is $12.42 million.
Departmental income is forecasted to grow at the same 3% per year.
Interest Income
Peconic County will invest funds not required for immediate expenditure in accordance
with an investment policy in conformity with the laws of the State. Investment income will
be generated by prudent investment of idle County funds.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 32
REVENUE
Interest income for the base year 1993 will be $0.78 million, based on both Suffolk
County's historical returns and estimates of Peconic County's funds available for investment.
The 1996-2000 estimated figures for interest: income are based on the investment of the
County's Fund Balance and any idle funds at an annual rate of %, and may be understated.
Table 3-7 provides estimated Peconic County revenues for the base year 1993 as well as
projections for the first five years of operations.
Property Taxes (1)
Sales Taxes (2)
State Aid (3)
Federal Aid (3)
Departmental Income (3)
Interest Income (4)
Total
Table 3-7
Peconic County Revenue Estimates by Source
First Five Years of Operation
Base Year
1993
First Year
Budget
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
$14,329,446
$12,604,639
$11,842,517
$11,198,912
$12,168,599
$11,631,541
64,468,827
72,176,671
74,702,855
77,317,455
80,023,566
82,824,390
21,022,349
22,971,688
23,660,839
24,370,664
25,101,784
25,854,837
17,416,471
19,031,448
19,602,392
20,190,463
20,796,177
21,420,063
12,417,330
13,568,752
13,975,814
14,395,089
14,826,941
15,271,750
783,745
783,745
909,706
1,076,946
1,286,703
1,540,253
$130,438,168
$141,136,943
h $144,694,122
1 $148,549,528
1 $154,203,770
i $158,542,835
(1) Estimated to be the net amount of revenue to fund proposed Peconic County expenses.
(2) Forecasted to increase at an annual rate of 3.5% based upon the East End's share of Suffolk County's actual 1994 receipts
(3) Forecasted to increase at an annual rate of 3% from 1993.
(4) Forecasted to increase based upon Peconic County's cash balances assuming an annual interest rate of 5%.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 33
INTERNAL
SUPPORT
DEPARTMENTS
Peconic County
Financial Feasibility Study
0 0 0 0 0
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENTS
Law
(County Attorney)
Finance and
Taxation
Peconic County
Citizens
Board of Supervisors
County Administrator
Civil Service
Budget and
Management
Finance I County Clerk
Purchasing
Elections
Audit and
Control
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENTS
Mission
The Board of Supervisors, County Administrator and other Administrative Departments
(Law, Finance, Civil Service, County Clerk and Board of Elections) are categorized together
as the administrative, or internal support departments of Peconic County. These
departments, boards and divisions will be responsible for both setting policy as well as
providing management, direction and internal support to the operational units of County
government to enhance their delivery of public services to the citizens of the County.
Description of Form of Government
Based largely on research performed by the Technical Advisory Committee, the form of
government for Peconic County is anticipated to be a weighted Board of Supervisors. The
Board will be comprised of seven Supervisors, including the five East End Town
Supervisors and two Supervisors elected at -large. One of the at -large representatives will be
elected to serve as the Chairperson of the Board of Supervisors, a full-time job; the other
will be a part-time Vice Chairperson. The Chairperson's and Vice Chairperson's focus will
be on county -wide issues. The Town Supervisors will work part time on County business,
but will leverage their knowledge and experience as East End leaders to address the daily
and long-range issues facing Peconic County.
There are substantive advantages to such a Board rather than a legislature based on
districts of equal population, as currently exists in Suffolk County. Among the most
important of these practical considerations are the small rural nature of Peconic County, the
need for Shelter Island to have a voice and vote, the 330 -year history of using Town
Supervisors as Suffolk County Supervisors and the subsequent establishment of the East End
Supervisors and Mayors Association to continue handling East End issues.
Please refer to Appendix I, "The Case for a Weighted Board of Supervisors For Peconic
County," for a complete discussion of the recommended structure of the proposed Board of
Supervisors.
It should be noted that this is not the only form of government possible for Peconic
County. In fact, some members of the Citizen Advisory Committee have recommended
other forms be considered in this study. One of these recommendations is a form of
government based on a small four person County Legislature and a County Executive.
However, it terms of the objective of the study -- to determine if Peconic County is
financially feasible -- the ultimate structure of the County government is not material as long
as there is no material cost different associated with implementing and operating a certain
government structure. Given the consistency of the vision of the East End citizen's with
respect to their desired role of County government, no government structure that has
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 35
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENTS
seriously been considered by the East End citizens and policy makers materially change the
results of this study.
In any event, the future form for government for Peconic County will likely be based
upon the establishment of a Peconic County Charter. The Charter, once established, will
specify government structure, including job descriptions and legal and reporting
requirements. In terms of this report, a weighted Board of Supervisors was used in order to
provide an estimate of the revenue and expenses Peconic County would like have to meet.
Authority and Responsibility
Board of Supervisors
The Board of Supervisors of Peconic County will be responsible for enacting all local
legislation, exercising legislative authority to meet the requirements of the electorate and
setting overall County policy. The Board of Supervisors will essentially serve the function
currently provided in Suffolk County by the County Legislature and a portion of the duties of
the County Executive, in a smaller and simpler government structure. The Chairperson of
the Board of Supervisors would be elected at large by the entire County. The Chairperson
would serve as the County's Chief Executive Officer and would preside over meetings of the
Board. The Vice Chairperson would be elected at large by the four largest towns, excluding
Shelter Island, and would assist the Chairperson in all facets of the operations of the Board
of Supervisors.
County Administrator
The County Administrator, to be appointed by the Board of Supervisors, will be
responsible for managing the day-to-day operations of Peconic County. As chief
administrative officer of the County, the Administrator will act as the County's
administrative head and will recommend department and office heads, with each
appointment subject to the approval of the Board of Supervisors. The Administrator will
inform department heads of their responsibilities and update them on policy developments,
or any other instruction which is necessary. The Administrator will also serve as budget
officer of the County, responsible for the preparation of an annual operating and capital
budget. The Administrator may also submit legislation to the Board of Supervisors for
review and approval.
Department of Law (County Attorney)
The Department of Law, headed by the County Attorney, will be responsible for all the
legal business of the County and its agencies. The Department will be responsible for
litigating all civil actions and proceedings brought by or against the County, the Board of
Supervisors or any officer whose compensation is paid for from County funds for an official
act. Areas of law which the Department will handle include contracts, environmental
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 36
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENTS
litigation, family litigation, discrimination, municipal services, real estate and general
litigation.
Department of Finance
The Department of Finance will be responsible for the management and accounting of
the financial operations of Peconic County. The various functions the Department will serve
include:
• Finance and Taxation - collection of all taxes, fees and other revenue payable to
Peconic County; maintaining all tax assessment records and auditing all tax
accounts; disposing of all tax delinquent properties through tax sales;
management and oversight of all County bond issues; management and
investment of County funds;
• Budget and Management - monitoring operating cash flows of County,
departments and preparing unaudited financial statements; assisting the County
Administrator in the preparation of the annual operating and capital budgets;
• Audit and Control - review and audits of all accounts kept by the various
administrative units of County government; compiling and issuing the County's
audited financial statements for each fiscal year; and
• Purchasing - verifying and processing the County's payroll, purchase orders,
contracts and other financial obligations; obtaining quality, cost-effective
goods, services and construction in a timely manner.
The Director of Finance will be recommended by the County Administrator, subject to
the approval of the Board of Supervisors. In Suffolk County, the Treasurer and Comptroller
which performs essentially the same functions as Peconic's Director of Finance, are elected,
rather than appointed positions.
County Clerk
The County Clerk, an elected official, will maintain an official depository for public
records including deeds, mortgages, court judgments, certificates of incorporation and other
papers. Most of the work to be performed by the County Clerk will be associated with real
property transactions, criminal and civil court activity, filing of new business and liens,
judgments and foreclosures, publishing legal notices, taking stenographic minutes of the
proceedings of the electoral body, etc. The County Clerk will also serve as the official
micrographics center for the County. It should be noted that the County Clerk will assume
the required administrative and record-keeping responsibilities currently performed by the
Clerk of the County Legislature in Suffolk County.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 37
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENTS
Civil Service
The Civil Service Department will manage the human resources function of Peconic
County government, by working in partnership with the various proposed county
departments to attract, develop and retain a well qualified work force. The Department will
be responsible for employee recruitment, examination, classification, compensation, payroll
and training, as well as participating in labor-management relations and benefits
administration.
Board of Elections
The Board of Elections will be responsible for the administration and supervision of all
primary and general elections in Suffolk County. Its duties will include appointing and
instructing election inspectors, registering and enrolling voters, producing legal notices
related to legislation and elections, processing and reviewing petitions and objections,
creating or altering election districts and maintaining and certifying the County's voting
machines.
Mandated Services
No services to be provided by the Board of Supervisors and Administrative Departments
are mandated by any other government.
Differences in Type and Level of Services Between Suffolk and Peconic Counties
The Board of Supervisors and Administrative Departments will provide essentially the
same services in Peconic County that the Suffolk County Legislature, Executive Department
and other general government departments provide in Suffolk County. Neither the type nor
level of services will change substantially; however, the size and the structure of each
department will change dramatically, reflecting Peconic County's much smaller constituency
and citizens' philosophy of their government's role.
The following table (Table 4.1-1) highlights the financial impact that the formation of
Peconic County would have on operations of the Board of Supervisors and Administrative
Departments. The figures in this chart represent the costs of services supported by County
taxes and are derived by subtracting any departmental fees, state or federal assistance from
the total costs of services. The first column represents Suffolk County's 1993 net expense
for these offices; the second column represents the East End's tax contribution to the total
amount Suffolk County has spent for general government services; the third column
represents Suffolk County's net cost of services provided to the East End in 1993 by these
departments; and the fourth column represents a projection of the net expense of Peconic
County's Board of Supervisors and Administrative Departments. For a more detailed
explanation of the following figures see Table 4.1-5.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 38
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENTS
Table 4.1-1
Comparison of Net Expenditures (FY 1993 dollars)
Suffolk County East End Suffolk's Cost of Services Proposed Peconic
1993 Actual Tax Contribution Provided to East End County Budget
$17,542,864 $2,524,418 $1,422,459 $1,982,774
As the above numbers indicate, in 1993 the East End citizens contributed $2.52 million
to the Legislature, Executive Department, Department of Law, Department of Finance and
other general governmental departments of Suffolk County. Comparable offices in Peconic
County will require approximately $1.98 million and will offer East End citizens control
over the level and quality of services provided.
Organization and Staffing
There are currently 852 Suffolk County employees within departments or divisions
which would be replaced by Peconic County's Administrative Departments. In Peconic
County, 73 employees would be necessary to serve these functions.
The staffing requirements of each of the general government areas as they currently exist
in Suffolk County and as they are anticipated in Peconic County Administrative
Departments are shown in Table 4.1-2 on the following page.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 39
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENTS
Table 4.1-2
Staffing Analysis
Board of Supervisors and Administrative Departments
Department / Division
Suffolk
1993 Actual
Proposed
Peconic
Staffing
Average
Cost per
Position
Total Cost
Legislature/Board of Supervisors (BOS)'
72
8
Administrative Staff
23
3
$25,000
$75,000
Line Staff
30
3
35,000
105,000
Supervisory Staff
19
0
50,000
0
Director
2
70,000
140,000
Legislature/BOS: Office of the Clerk
20
0
Administrative Staff
14
0
25,000
0
Line Staff
5
0
35,000
0
Supervisory Staff
1
0
50,000
0
Legislature/BOS: Budget Review Office
17
0
Administrative Staff
3
0
25,000
0
Line Staff
13
0
35,000
0
Supervisory Staff
1
0
50,000
0
Executive: County Executive/Administrator
49
4
Administrative Staff
29
1
25,000
25,000
Line Staff
17
2
35,000
70,000
Supervisory Staff
2
0
50,000
0
County Administrator
1
1
70,000
70,000
Law: County Attorney
86
12
Administrative Staff
30
4
25,000
100,000
Line Staff
50
6
35,000
210,000
Supervisory Staff
6
1
50,000
50,000
County Attorney
1
1
70,000
70,000
Law: Real Estate Division
47
0
Administrative Staff
23
0
25,000
0
Line Staff
23
0
35,000
0
Supervisory Staff
1
0
50,000
0
Law: Environmental Enforcement
3
0
Administrative Staff
1
0
25,000
0
Line Staff
1
0
35,000
0
Supervisory Staff
1
0
50,000
0
Public Administrator
6
0
Administrative Staff
3
0
25,000
0
Line Staff
2
0
35,000
0
Supervisory Staff
1
0
50,000
0
Executive: Telecommunications
12
3
Administrative Staff
8
1
25,000
25,000
Line Staff
4
2
35,000
70,000
Supervisory Staff
0
0
50,000
0
Executive: Other"
10
0
Administrative Staff
5
0
25,000
0
Line Staff
5
0
35,000
0
Supervisory Staff
0
0
50,000
0
'Includes interims
"Includes Stop DWI, Community Traffic Safety Program and Labor Relations
(continued on following page)
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 40
W
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENTS
Staffing Analysis (cont.)
Board of Supervisors and Administrative Departments
Department / Division
Suffolk
1993 Actual
Proposed
Peconic
Staffing
Average
Cost per
Position
Total Cost
Finance: Finance and Taxation
60
7
Administrative Staff
44
3
$25,000
$75,000
Line Staff
13
3
35,000
105,000
Supervisory Staff
2
0
50,000
0
Director of Finance
1
1
70,000
70,000
Finance: Real Property Tax Service Agency
42
0
Administrative Staff
25
0
25,000
0
Line Staff
16
0
35,000
0
Supervisory Staff
1
0
50,000
0
Finance: Budget and Management
28
5
Administrative Staff
8
2
25,000
50,000
Line Staff
18
2
35,000
70,000
Supervisory Staff
2
1
50,000
50,000
Finance: Purchasing
17
3
Administrative Staff
7
1
25,000
25,000
Line Staff
10
2
35,000
70,000
Supervisory Staff
0
0
50,000
0
Finance: Audit and Control
84
5
Administrative Staff
44
2
25,000
50,000
Line Staff
36
2
35,000
70,000
Supervisory Staff
4
1
50,000
50,000
County Clerk
72
5
Administrative Staff
62
2
25,000
50,000
Line Staff
9
2
35,000
70,000
Supervisory Staff
0
0
50,000
0
County Clerk
1
1
70,000
70,000
County Clerk: Micrographics and Archives
16
3
Administrative Staff
15
2
25,000
50,000
Line Staff
1
1
35,000
35,000
Supervisory Staff
0
0
50,000
0
County Clerk: Courts Related Expenses
29
3
Administrative Staff
27
2
25,000
50,000
Line Staff
2
1
35,000
35,000
Supervisory Staff
0
0
50,000
0
Civil Service/Human Resources
62
5
Administrative Staff
38
2
25,000
50,000
Line Staff
23
2
35,000
70,000
Supervisory Staff
1
1
50,000
50,000
General Services
5
0
Administrative Staff
2
0
25,000
0
Line Staff
2
0
35,000
0
Supervisory Staff
1
0
50,000
0
Board of Elections
114
9
Administrative Staff
82
2
25,000
50,000
Line Staff
30
5
35,000
175,000
Supervisory Staff
2
2
50,000
100,000
Total Staff
851
72
$2,550,000
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 41
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENTS
Space Needs
Using governmental standards to estimate demand for office space, the Board of
Supervisors anG _administrative Departments will need an approximate total of 19,000 gross
square feet of office space as shown below.
Table 4.1-3
Conference Rooms 120 sq. ft. (2) N/A 1,080 sq. ft. 1.60 X 1,728 sq. ft.
Break Rooms 240 sq. ft. (3) N/A 1,080 sq. ft. 1.60 X 1,728 sq. ft.
72 11,849 sq. ft. 18,959 sq. ft.
(1) Represents space needed for every 15 employees
(2) Represents space needed for an eight person conference room
(3) Represents space needed for every 16 employees
Operating Budget
The Board of Supervisors and Administrative Departments will have a total staff of 72,
initial expenditures of $4.14 million, revenues of $2.16 million and a resulting departmental
net expense of $1.98 million.
Expenditures
The expenditures for each of the divisions described below consist primarily of salaries
but also include non -salary expenditures such as outside legal counsel, supplies, equipment,
information systems, fleet vehicles and self-insurance. With specific respect to the Board of
Supervisors, it is not anticipated that the Town Supervisors serving as at -large members of
the Board would be paid salaries by the County. The non -salary expenses of the Board of
Supervisors, however, would be paid by the County. The major non -salary expenditures
include telecommunications equipment, computer systems for the tax assessment database,
micrographics equipment and voting machines. The 1996 proposed Peconic County figure
for each expense is determined by estimating salaries for staff members and then multiplying
non -salary expenditures by the ratio of Peconic County to Suffolk County staff.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 42
Calculation of Space Requirements
Board of Supervisors and
Administrative Departments
Net Space Needed
Total Employees
Net Space
Net / Gross
Gross
Space
Type of Staff/Shared Space
per Employee
by Type
Needed
Factor
Needed
Administrative Staff
90 sq. ft.
27
2,430 sq. ft.
1.60 X
3,888
sq. ft.
Line Personnel
135 sq. ft.
33
4,455 sq. ft.
1.60 X
7,128
sq. ft.
Supervisory Staff
175 sq. ft.
6
1,050 sq. ft.
1.60 X
1,680
sq. ft.
Director
190 sq. ft.
6
1,140 sq. ft.
1.60 X
1,824
sq. ft.
Common Space
128 sq. ft. (1)
N/A
614 sq. ft.
1.60 X
983
sq. ft.
Conference Rooms 120 sq. ft. (2) N/A 1,080 sq. ft. 1.60 X 1,728 sq. ft.
Break Rooms 240 sq. ft. (3) N/A 1,080 sq. ft. 1.60 X 1,728 sq. ft.
72 11,849 sq. ft. 18,959 sq. ft.
(1) Represents space needed for every 15 employees
(2) Represents space needed for an eight person conference room
(3) Represents space needed for every 16 employees
Operating Budget
The Board of Supervisors and Administrative Departments will have a total staff of 72,
initial expenditures of $4.14 million, revenues of $2.16 million and a resulting departmental
net expense of $1.98 million.
Expenditures
The expenditures for each of the divisions described below consist primarily of salaries
but also include non -salary expenditures such as outside legal counsel, supplies, equipment,
information systems, fleet vehicles and self-insurance. With specific respect to the Board of
Supervisors, it is not anticipated that the Town Supervisors serving as at -large members of
the Board would be paid salaries by the County. The non -salary expenses of the Board of
Supervisors, however, would be paid by the County. The major non -salary expenditures
include telecommunications equipment, computer systems for the tax assessment database,
micrographics equipment and voting machines. The 1996 proposed Peconic County figure
for each expense is determined by estimating salaries for staff members and then multiplying
non -salary expenditures by the ratio of Peconic County to Suffolk County staff.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 42
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENTS
Employee benefits for all departments are combined in the aggregate Peconic County
operating budget and shown as a separate expense item. The benefit cost is estimated as
33% of all Peconic County salary expenditures.
The table below indicates the anticipated composition of expenditures for the Board of
Supervisors and Administrative Departments, including a breakdown of salary and non -
salary costs.
Table 4.1-4
Summary of Salary and Non -Salary Expenditures
Board of Supervisors and Administrative Departments Total Department
Expenditure Description Salaries Non -Salary (1) Expenditures
Board of Supervisors $320,000 $39,750 $359,750
Administrator's Department
County Administrator 165,000 77,958 242,958
Telecommunications 95,000 729,824 824,824
Subtotal Administration 260,000 807,782 1,067,782
Law Department
Mandated: Unified Court System
0
3,791
3,791
Mandated: Bar Association Indigent Defendants
0
90,596
90,596
County Attorney
430,000
112,744
542,744
Subtotal Law
430,000
207,131
637,131
Department of Finance
Finance and Taxation
250,000
130,137
380,137
Budget and Management
170,000
41,064
211,064
Purchasing
95,000
22,547
117,547
Audit and Control
170,000
31,362
201,362
Subtotal Finance
685,000
225,110
910,110
County Clerk
County Clerk
190,000
84,919
274,919
Micrographics
85,000
23,318
108,318
Courts Related Expenses
85,000
4,839
89,839
Subtotal County Clerk
360,000
113,076
473,076
Civil Service
170,000
43,304
213,304
Board of Elections
325,000
157,697
482,697
Total Expenditures
$2,550,000 $1,593,850 $4,143,850
(1) See "First Fiscal Year Budget, Expenditures' for a description of non -salary expenditures.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 43
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENTS
Revenues
Revenues of the Peconic County Board of Supervisors and Administrative Departments
will include department income and state aid. Departmental income will include rental
income, interest from certain investments, license fees, County Clerk fees, property tax
agency fees, various fines, sales of property and other revenues. State aid will include
$37,000 of aid for general governmental costs. The balance of the expenditures for Peconic
County's Board of Supervisors and Administrative Departments will be supported through
the County's General Fund.
Table 4.1-5 presents: (1) operating results for Fiscal Year 1993 for the Suffolk County
Legislature, Executive Department and other administrative departments, (2) the share of
those expenditures benefiting the East End towns and (3) the proposed Peconic County's
Fiscal Year 1996 operating budget for the Board of Supervisors and Administrative
Departments.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 44
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENTS
Table 4.1-5
Comparison of Operating Budgets
Board of Supervisors and Administrative Departments
Suffolk's Cost of Services
Proposed Peconic
Expenditure Description
1993 Actual*
Provided to East End
County Budget
274,919
Micrographics
363,865
Legislature/Board of Supervisors
108,318
Courts Related Expenses
731,032
County Legislature
$3,909,962
5317,038
8,000
Board of Supervisors
0
Archives
$359,750
Budget Review Office
1,345.867
109,129
0
Subtotal Legislature/Board of Supervisors
5,255,829
426,168
359,750
Executive Department
213,304
Board of Elections
5,731,667
County Executive
2,318,165
187,968
0
County Administrator
$4,143,850
Revenue Description
242,958
Stop D.W.I.
289,649
23,486
0
Community Traffic Safety Program -
45,004
3,649
0
Labor Relations
457,797
37,120
0
Telecommunications
3,365,507
272,891
824,824
General Services
431,199
34,964
0
Subtotal Executive
6,907,321
560,078
1,067,782
Law Department
Mandated: Unified Court System
46,757
3,791
3,791
Mandated: Bar Association Indigent Defendants
1,117,301
90,596
90,596
County Attorney
4,183,279
339,200
542,744
Real Estate Division
2,036,152
165,101
0
Real Estate
37,991
3,080
0
Human Rights
2,147
174
0
Environmental Protection
157,290
12,754
0
Public Administrator
332,544
26,964
0
Subtotal Law
7,913,461
641,661
637,131
Department of Finance
Finance and Taxation
3,145,628
255,063
380,137
Expense on Property Acquisition for Taxes
55,645
4,512
0
Real Property Tax Service Agency
1,992,026
161,523
0
Taxes and Assessment on County Property
79,570
6,452
0
Budget and Management
1,665,069
135,012
211,064
Purchasing
760,602
61,673
117,547
Audit and Control
3,520,486
285,458
201,362
Subtotal Finance
11,219,026
909,692
910,110
County Clerk
County Clerk
3,198,127
259,319
274,919
Micrographics
363,865
29,504
108,318
Courts Related Expenses
731,032
59,276
89,839
Historical Documents Mobile Unit
8,000
649
0
Archives
270,410
21,926
0
Subtotal County Clerk
4,571,434
370,674
473,076
Civil Service
2,596,184
210,511
213,304
Board of Elections
5,731,667
464,751
482,697
Total Expenditures
$44,194,922
$3,583,535
$4,143,850
Revenue Description
Departmental Income
$26,191,203
$2,123,707
$2,123,707
State Aid
460,855
37,368
37,368
Federal Aid
0
0
0
Total Revenues
$26,652,058
$2,161,076
$2,161,076
Net Expense
$17,542,864
$1,422,459
$1,982,774
'Source: 1995 Recommended Budget, County of Suffdk. New York
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 45
CITIZEN
SERVICE
DEPARTMENTS
Peconic County
Financial Feasibility Study
DEPARTMENT OF
ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE
EC ONO1A-l\TCE%Z1100oxtf1
Mission
The Peconic County Department of Economic Assistance will provide support,
assistance and care, medical assistance and other social services, and improve the quality of
life of the Peconic County community, implementing State and federal mandates and other
programs that the citizens of the County deem necessary. The Department will focus on
those programs that promote independence through financial support coupled with access to
training and employment.
Authority and Responsibility
The Department will be responsible for administering numerous mandated federal and
State assistance programs, including Public Assistance, Aid to Families with Dependent
Children, Medicaid, Home Relief, and Home Energy Assistance Programs. The Department
will also administer programs for senior citizens.
Much of the Department's funding will be provided by the State and the federal
government. Nevertheless, the County will be required to provide a substantial local
contribution to meet mandated expenditures. State and federal support for medical
assistance is not included in the County budget as either expenditures or revenues. All
medical assistance expenditures reflected in the budget are County expenditures. Other
expenditures contain both the shares funded by the County and other governments.
Mandated Expenditures
There are fourteen mandated areas of expenditure. They are:
1. Relations with Other Social Service Districts
2. Adoption Subsidy
3. Juvenile Delinquent Care
4. Foster Care
5. Aid to Families with Dependent Children
6. Medical Exams Special Program
7. Medical Assistance (Medicaid)
8. Medical Assistance/MMIS (Medicaid)
9. Institutional Care
10. Emergency Aid to Adults
11. Home Relief
12. Home Energy Assistance Program
13. State Training School
14. Burials
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 47
ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE
Together, expenditures on these mandated programs will comprise 81.17% of the
Department's budget. The chart below illustrates the portions of the Department budget that
are mandated and discretionary:
Peconic County
Department of Economic Assistance
Mandated vs. Non -Mandated Expenditures
(million of dollars)
■ Mandated
■ Non -Mandated
Changes in Services Provided to East End Residents
Most of the programs funded by this department will be mandated and this will result in
little alterations from Suffolk County's service mix. The organization of the Department will
be more streamlined, however, and several programs, such as the federal/New York State
Heating Assistance Program and the Senior Citizens Heating Assistance Program, have been
merged to eliminate administrative redundancies and costs. In addition, several economic
assistance programs that were managed by the Suffolk County Executive's office will be
assigned to the appropriate division of this Department.
The following table (Table 5.1-1) highlights the financial impact that the formation of
Peconic County will have on the Department of Economic Assistance. The figures in this
table represent the costs of services supported by County taxes and are derived by
subtracting any departmental fees, state or federal assistance from the total costs of services.
The first column represents Suffolk County's 1993 net expense for Economic Assistance; the
second represents the East End's contribution through the General Fund toward that total
amount; the third represents the net expense as an estimated dollar value of services
provided to the East End in 1993 from the Department; and the fourth column represents the
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 48
ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE
net expense of the Peconic County Department of Economic Assistance in its base year 1993
pro forma budget. Please refer to the "First Fiscal Year Budget" section and table for a more
detailed explanation of the source of the following table:
Suffolk County
Actual
$154,487,368
Table 5.1-1
Comparison of Net Expenditures
(FY 1993 Dollars)
East End Tax Suffolk's Cost of Services
Contribution Provided to East End
$22,230,732 $14,988,139
Proposed Peconic
County Budget
$14,489,926
As the numbers indicate, in 1993 the East End Towns contributed $22.2 million to the
Suffolk County provision of Economic Assistance programs. In comparison, the pro forma
Peconic County 1993 operating budget would require a contribution of $14.4 million.
Economic Relationship with Other Governments
East End Towns
There will be no economic effect on the East End Towns from these services being taken
over and funded by Peconic County and administered by this Department.
State and Federal Government
The State and federal governments have a substantial relationship with this Department,
providing the bulk of its funding (as well as requiring, through mandates, the provision of
most Department services). The County will provide roughly 18% of the entire Medicaid
costs (although all of that 18% is reflected in the Peconic County budget; no State
reimbursement shows up in the budget). In addition, Peconic County is responsible for
funding roughly 50% of the Home Relief budget (public assistance for adults) with the other
50% provided by the State. ADC (public assistance for families with children) is supported
50% by federal funding, with the County and the State each providing 25%. These ratios are
based on formulas determined by the State and federal governments, and cannot be altered
by any independent action by the County.
These State and federal funds are provided through formula grants and are predicated on
caseloads.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 49
ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE
President Clinton and the congressional leadership are both considering a variety of ways
to fundamentally alter the manner in which public assistance is provided in this country.
The debate ranges from the most effective way to provide assistance to the basic question of
whether public assistance should be considered an entitlement. It is possible that New York
could join a number of states, most recently Massachusetts, that have passed their own
welfare reform laws. It is likely that judicial action will be necessary to determine the
constitutionality of these measures.
While these issues are still being addressed in a preliminary form by the Congress, it will
be essential for Peconic County to incorporate whatever fundamental changes are made to
the welfare system in New York and across the nation. Neither the proposals being
considered in Albany nor Washington, D.C. are reflected in this report.
Organization and Staffing
The Department will have four major divisions: Welfare Management and
Administration, Family and Children's Services, Public Assistance, and Jobs/Employment
and Other Benefits. Please see the proposed organization chart at the beginning of this
chapter.
Welfare Management and Administration
This division will be responsible for central overhead and administration of the
Department, although each division will have some level of administrative staff. Included in
its responsibilities will be budgeting and finance, compliance services, Department
personnel, and relations with other branches and governments. The Suffolk County
Department of Social Services has a staff of 284 people for these functions. The Peconic
County caseload for social services is approximately 10% of that of the Suffolk County
caseload. Using this 10% as a multiplier and making adjustments for potential losses in
economies of scale as well as service efficiencies, it is estimated that the Department will
have a staff of 32 people. A complete breakdown of staff by function follows the functional
division descriptions.
Family and Children's Services
This division will be responsible for the administration of all preventive and protective
service programs. Included in these services will be Foster Care/Residential Care, Child
Protective Services, Child Support Enforcement, certain investigative services, and Family
Preservation. The Suffolk County Department of Social Services allocates 550 people to
perform this function. Based on figures received from the Suffolk County Department of
Social Services, it was determined that the East End Towns are responsible for roughly 19%
of the Suffolk County caseload. As a result, it is estimated that the Department will require
77.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 50
ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE
Table 5.1-2
Comparison of Family and Children Services
Family and Children's Services - Caseloads
Public Assistance
This division is responsible for the oversight and administration of the Public Assistance
(including Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Home Relief), Home Care and
Housing, and the Medical Assistance (Medicaid) programs. There will also be a special unit
within the Client Benefits divisions dedicated to administering programs for senior citizens.
The Public Assistance Division will have four primary responsibilities:
• determining and monitoring the eligibility of those persons applying for
assistance;
• determining the monetary grant that should be paid to those eligible for
assistance;
• paying the benefits to the clients; and
• assisting clients develop ways to support themselves and leave public
assistance.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 51
Whole
East End
Western
County
Towns
Towns
Day Care Services Cases
906
241
665
Day Care Services Children
1488
286
1202
Day Care Services % of Cases
100.00%
26.60%
73.40%
Foster Care Services Cases
355
24
331
Foster Care Services Children
683
36
647
Foster Care Services % Cases
100.00%
6.76%
93.24%
Preventive Services Cases
260
23
237
Preventive Services Children
577
50
527
Preventive Services % Cases
100.00%
8.85%
91.15%
Total FCS Cases
1521
288
1233
% of Total Cases
100.00%
18.93%
81.07%
Public Assistance
This division is responsible for the oversight and administration of the Public Assistance
(including Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Home Relief), Home Care and
Housing, and the Medical Assistance (Medicaid) programs. There will also be a special unit
within the Client Benefits divisions dedicated to administering programs for senior citizens.
The Public Assistance Division will have four primary responsibilities:
• determining and monitoring the eligibility of those persons applying for
assistance;
• determining the monetary grant that should be paid to those eligible for
assistance;
• paying the benefits to the clients; and
• assisting clients develop ways to support themselves and leave public
assistance.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 51
ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE
Using the existing Suffolk County caseload Table 5.1-3 shows the expected Public
Assistance and Medicaid caseload of the Peconic County Economic Assistance Department
based on the demographics of the East End Towns as well as the existing Suffolk County
caseload:
Table 5.1-3
Comnarison of Public Assistance and Medicaid Caseload
Town
Babylon
Medicaid
Caseload
Percentage of
Total Medicaid
Caseload
ADC Cases
Percentage of
ADC Caseload
Home Relief
Cases
Percentage of
Home Relief
Caseload
Total Public
Assistance
Caseload
Percentage of
Total Public
Assistance
Caseload
7,111
18.76%
2,424
18.84%
751
16.41%
3,175
18.21%
Brookhaven
12,352
32.59%
4,749
36.92%
1,680
36.71%
6,429
36.86
East Hampton
463
1.22%
119
0.93%
56
1.22%
175
1.00%
Huntington
3,263
8.61%
808
6.28%
329
7.19°/
1,137
6.52%
Islip
9,025
23.81%
3.257
25.32%
1.232
i6.92%
4,489
25.74%
Riverhead
1,458
3.85%
673
5.23%
229
5.00%
902
5.17%
Shelter Island
24
0.06%
3
0.02%
0
0.00%
3
0.02%
Smithtown
2.798
7.38°/
315
2.45%
145
3.17°/,
460
2.64%
Southampton
890
2.35%
348
271%
106
232%
454
2.60%
Southold
513
1.35°/6
168
1.31%
48
1.05%
216
1.24%
Total
37,897
100.00%
12.864
100.00%
4,576
1 100.00°/
17.440
100.00%
Suffolk County -wide Public Assistance caseloads have fallen over the past several years.
State -mandated Medicaid expenditures, however, have grown very rapidly and show little
sign of slowing. The new County will need to pay careful attention to State policy on
Medicaid expenditures as well as the results of the federal debate on health care reform.
Jobs/Employment and Other Services
A fundamental function of the Department will be to provide opportunities and training
to enable people to gain employment, leave the public assistance rolls and support
themselves and their families. The Department will administer several programs designed to
facilitate this progression.
In addition, there are several miscellaneous services, such as burials for indigent citizens,
that the County will be mandated to perform. Those miscellaneous services will be
administered by this division.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 52
ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE
Table 5.1-4 details the Department staffing by division, staff classification, and cost:
Table 5.1-4
Space Needs
The Department will need offices for 202 staff people, including Department '
Administration, caseworkers, processing applicants and aid recipients, and office space for
field workers when they are not out in the field. Using industry standards, we estimate that
the Department will need 49,136 square feet of gross utilization space. These offices can be
located at the Riverhead County Complex.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 53
Staffing Analysis
Department / Division
Actual
Staffing
Position
Total Cost
Department of Economic Assistance
Director
1
1
$70,000
$70,000
Welfare Management and Administration
283
32
1,150,000
Administrative Staff
117
9
25,000
225,000
Line Staff
146
15
35,000
525,000
Supervisory Staff
20
8
50,000
400,000
Family and Children's Services
550
77
2,575,000
Administrative Staff
124
24
25,000
600,000
Line Staff
381
45
35,000
1,575,000
Supervisory Staff
45
8
50,000
400,000
Public Assistance
683
86
2,905,000
Administrative Staff
145
21
25,000
525,000
Line Staff
516
58
35,000
2,030,000
Supervisory Staff
22
7
50,000
350,000
Jobs/Employment and Other Benefits
46
6
215,000
Administrative Staff
7
1
25,000
25,000
Line Staff
38
4
35,000
140,000
Supervisory Staff
1
1
50,000
50,000
1,563
202
$6,845,000
Total
Space Needs
The Department will need offices for 202 staff people, including Department '
Administration, caseworkers, processing applicants and aid recipients, and office space for
field workers when they are not out in the field. Using industry standards, we estimate that
the Department will need 49,136 square feet of gross utilization space. These offices can be
located at the Riverhead County Complex.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 53
ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE
Table 5.1-5
Calculation of Space Requirements
(1) Represents space needed for every 15 employees
(2) Represents space needs for an eight person conference room; the Department is estimated to need three
(3) One break room has been assigned for every 16 employees
First Fiscal Year Budget
For Fiscal Year 1996 the Department will have a staff of 202 people and a budget of
$37,068,041 (in 1993 dollars).
Expenditures
A substantial portion of the expenditures for each line item of the table below represents
the payment of benefits to clients. Salary expenditures make up the major portion of the
rest, although each line item also includes non -salary expenses such as supplies, equipment,
information systems, and vehicles. The 1996 proposed Peconic County figure for each
expense is determined by estimating salaries for staff members and then multiplying non -
salary expenditures by the ratio of Peconic County to Suffolk County staff.
Employee benefits for all departments are combined in the aggregate Peconic County
operating budget. The benefit cost is estimated as 33% of all Peconic County salary
expenditures. Actual benefit costs will be determined through negotiations with Peconic
County employees.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 54
Total
Net Space Needed
Total Employees
Net Space
Net / Gross
Gross Space
per Employee
By Type
Needed
Factor
Needed
Director
190 sq. ft.
1
190 sq. ft.
1.60 X
304
Administrative Staff
90 sq. ft.
55
4,950 sq. ft.
1.60 X
7,920
Line Personnel
135 sq. ft.
122
16,470 sq. ft.
1.60 X
26,352
Supervisory Staff
175 sq. ft.
24
4,200 sq. ft.
1.60 X
6,720
Common Space
128 sq. ft.
N/A
1,715 sq. ft.
1.60 X
2,744
Conference Rooms
120 sq. ft. (1)
N/A
360 sq. ft.
1.60 X
576
Break Rooms
240 sq. ft. (2)
3,015 sq. ft.
1.60 X
4,824
201
30,710 sq. ft.
49,136
(1) Represents space needed for every 15 employees
(2) Represents space needs for an eight person conference room; the Department is estimated to need three
(3) One break room has been assigned for every 16 employees
First Fiscal Year Budget
For Fiscal Year 1996 the Department will have a staff of 202 people and a budget of
$37,068,041 (in 1993 dollars).
Expenditures
A substantial portion of the expenditures for each line item of the table below represents
the payment of benefits to clients. Salary expenditures make up the major portion of the
rest, although each line item also includes non -salary expenses such as supplies, equipment,
information systems, and vehicles. The 1996 proposed Peconic County figure for each
expense is determined by estimating salaries for staff members and then multiplying non -
salary expenditures by the ratio of Peconic County to Suffolk County staff.
Employee benefits for all departments are combined in the aggregate Peconic County
operating budget. The benefit cost is estimated as 33% of all Peconic County salary
expenditures. Actual benefit costs will be determined through negotiations with Peconic
County employees.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 54
ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE
Table 5.1-6
Summary of Salary and Non -Salary Expenditures
Department of Economic Assistance
Expenditure Description
Salaries
Non -Salary
Total Expenditures
Welfare Management and Administration
$1,150,000
$681,245
$1,831,245
Family and Children's Services
2,575,000
320,654
2,895,654
Public Assistance
2,905,000
26,350,758
29,255,758
Jobs/Employment and Other Benefits
215,000
2,870,384
3,085,384
Total Expenditures
$6,845,000
$30,2239041
$37,068,041
Revenues
Fifty-five percent (55%) of the Department's revenues will come from the State and
federal governments. An additional five percent (5%) will be generated from repayments by
the Department and other departmental fees. Projections for Peconic County revenues were
derived by taking the ratio of Suffolk County revenues to expenditures and assuming the
same ratio would apply for Peconic County. The remaining forty percent (40%) will be
supported by tax revenues.
The following table presents the Suffolk County Department of Social Services
operating budget for Fiscal Year 1993, the estimated value of services provided to the East
End Towns in that year, and the proposed Peconic County Department operating budget for
FY 1996 (in 1993 dollars).
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 55
ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE
Table 5.1-7
Comparison of Operating Budgets
Department of Economic Assistance
Value of Services
Proposed Peconic
Expenditure Description
1993 Actual*
Provided to East End
County Budget
Welfare Management and Administration
$14,641,444 d
$1,468,390 a
$1,831,245 c
Family and Children's Services
40,472,227 d
4,318,216 a
2,895,654 c
Public Assistance
310,928,694 d
29,630,873 b
29,255,758 c
Labor/Jobs/Other Services
29,166,288 d
2,925,087 a
3,085,384 c
Total Expenditures
395,208,653 38,342,567
Revenue Description
Department Income 21,256,523
State Aid 99,809,134
Federal Aid 119,655,628
Total Revenues 240,721,285
2,062,277
9,683,336
11,608,814
23,354,428
37,068,041
1,993,726
9,361,458
11,222,932
22,578,115
Net Expense to General Fund $154,487,368 $14,988,139 $14,489,926
*Source: 1995 Recommended Budget, County of Suffolk. New York
a) Based on caseload information provided by Suffolk County Department of Social Services
b) Based on caseload breakdown supplied by Suffolk County Department of Social Services
c) Certain discretionary services will not be provided by Peconic County
d) Includes services provided by the County Executive's office
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 56
Peconic County
Financial Feasibility Study
0 0 0 0 0
PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATOR'S OFFICE
PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATOR'S OFFICE
Mission
The Public Safety Coordinator's Office will provide the citizens of Peconic County with
a single point of contact for all public safety issues. It will establish effective and efficient
communication between the public safety agencies in Peconic County and the people they
serve, in order to make Peconic County a safe place in which to reside, work and travel.
Authority and Responsibility
General
The Coordinator's Office will help coordinate the efforts of the Sheriff, Probation, and
Fire, Rescue and Emergency Services (FRES) Departments, and is responsible for
coordination of public safety services throughout Peconic County. The Office will support
local town and village police, fire and emergency service providers through providing access
to training and assistance from outside agencies for major crime investigations and
emergency support; the Office will also provide staff support to the Local Emergency
Planning Committee, a voluntary board required by New York State. In addition, the Office
will respond to concerns and questions presented by the public, providing a critical link
between the citizens of Peconic County and the agencies that work to protect them.
Mandated Services
None of the services provided by the Public Safety Coordinator's Office are mandated by
New York State or the federal government.
Changes in Service Delivery
Unlike Suffolk County, which provides county -wide training and specialized detective
services through its Police Department Headquarters' Division, Peconic County will not have
its own police force or training facilities. Primary support to town and village police for
major crime investigations will come from the Detective Investigators in the District
Attorney's office. Town and village police departments will also be supported by outside
agencies (like the New York State Police Bureau of Criminal Investigation and the National
Guard) when major crimes or emergencies occur. In addition, rather than duplicating
expensive facilities and initiatives in programs where there are significant benefits resulting
from economies of scale, the Coordinator's Office will establish and monitor these more cost
effective contract relationships with programs outside the county; one such opportunity for
increased efficiency can be found in a shared Police Training Academy. The Coordinator's
Office will also oversee joint ownership arrangements between Peconic and Suffolk counties
for critical facilities like the crime laboratory used in investigations.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 57
PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATOR'S OFFICE
The elimination of a county -wide police force in the proposed Peconic County represents
a significant change in the provision of public safety services to its citizens. The change in
organizational structure will result in county -wide responsibility for the provision of these
services being limited to supporting the local police departments that are the critical service
providers to the East End towns. Additional specialized services (such as advanced
detective support) will be available to local police departments from the Peconic County
District Attorney's Office as well as agencies outside the county; two such outside agencies,
the New York State Police and the National Guard, will provide services at no or minimal
additional costs to the citizens of Peconic County. Taking advantage of existing programs
and services is vital in serving the citizens of Peconic County in the most efficient and
effective way possible. Additional resources may evolve in the future; one possibility,
suggested by the Public Safety Citizen Advisory Group, is the development of an
investigative support team made up of professionals from East End town and village police
departments that will assist with major crime investigations as required.
The following table highlights the financial impact that the formation of Peconic County
would have on the cost of overseeing and coordinating public safety efforts in the new
county. The figures in this table represent the costs of services supported by County taxes,
derived by subtracting any departmental fees, State or federal assistance from the total costs
of services. The first column represents Suffolk County's 1993 net expense for the Police
Department's Headquarters' Division, which provides services to the entire county; the
second column represents the East End's tax contribution to general revenues of Suffolk
County toward that total amount; the third column represents the net expense as an estimated
dollar value of services provided to the East End in 1993 from the Police Department; and
the fourth column represents the net expense of the Peconic County Public Safety
Coordinator's Office in its base year 1993 pro forma budget. Please refer to the "First Fiscal
Year Budget" section of this chapter for a more detailed explanation of "Suffolk's Cost of
Services Provided to East End" and the "Proposed Peconic County Budget."
Table 5.2-1
Comparison of Net Expenditures (FY 1993 dollars)
Suffolk County East End Tax Suffolk's Cost of Services Proposed Peconic
1993 Actual Contribution Provided to East End County Budget
$39,544,027 $5,690,385 $3,345,578 $2,134,204
It is important to emphasize that these numbers compare the cost of the Suffolk County
Police Department Headquarters' Division to Peconic County's Public Safety Coordinator's
Office; the latter does not provide any direct services to the municipal town and village
police departments. The proposed Peconic County Budget figure does include a $1.2
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 58
PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATOR'S OFFICE
million allocation to the East End Town and Village Police Departments, which matches the
portion of the Suffolk County sales tax that was sent to the departments in 1,993 by Suffolk
County.
As the above numbers indicate, in 1993 the East End towns contributed $5.7 million
dollars to the Suffolk County Police Department. In comparison, in its first fiscal year, the
Peconic County Public Safety Coordinator's Office will need approximately $2.1 million
from the General Fund, which is included in the proposed Peconic Operating Budget.
Economic Relationships with Other Governments
East End Towns
East End Towns and Villages will continue to support their respective police
departments. The Village and Town police officers currently receive support for training
from Suffolk County and this support will be continued by Peconic County. Opportunities
for increased cooperation between the various town and village agencies may also become
apparent over time. East End Town and Village Police departments will receive funds from
Peconic County in an amount equal to the revenues previously received from Suffolk County
through the its sales tax.
Suffolk County
Peconic County will contract with Suffolk County (or another New York county if
warranted) for the provision of training services for town and village police, fire and
ambulance departments. Peconic County will also negotiate a joint ownership agreement
with Suffolk County for shared use of the Medical -Legal Investigations and Forensic
Sciences laboratory.
New York State
Town and village police departments will utilize available support from the New York
State Police Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) for assistance with major crime
investigations. The BCI division provides similar services to many other counties in New
York State and has highly skilled staff trained in the areas of specialized services in which
the East End police departments may require assistance.
Federal Government
Town and village police, fire and emergency service agencies will utilize the National
Guard's aviation and emergency relief services.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 59
PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATOR'S OFFICE
Organization and Staffing
The organizational chart at the beginning of this chapter illustrates the structure of the
Public Safety Coordinator's Office and its relationship with the Sheriff, Probation and FRES
Departments. In addition to coordinating activities and acting as a liaison between these
departments and the public, the Public Safety Office will have a Division of Police Support
responsible for overseeing the provision of county -wide services to town and village police
departments.
The proposed Peconic County is not expected to have a separate county police force.
This, combined with the plan to contract with Suffolk for training, will limit the number of
staff needed for the Public Safety Coordinator's Office. Currently, the Suffolk County Police
Department's Headquarters' Division has a staff of 775 people. Because of the largely
autonomous and high quality service provided by the East End town and village police, fire
and ambulance departments and increased use of available outside resources, Peconic
County's Public Safety Coordinator's Office will be limited to coordinating public safety
activities and providing support to local agencies. This is accomplished with a staff of 15.
Table 5.2-2
Staffing Analysis
Proposed Peconic Average Cost
County Staffing per Position
Total Cost
Administration
8
$285,000
Administrative Staff
3
$25,000
75,000
Line Staff
4
35,000
140,000
Supervisory Staff
0
50,000
0
Coordinator
1
70,000
70,000
Division of Police Support
7
240,000
Administrative Staff
2
$25,000
50,000
Line Staff
4
35,000
140,000
Supervisory Staff
1
50,000
50,000
Total
15
$525,000
Space Needs
The small size of the Peconic County Public Safety Coordinator's Office staff will
require a limited amount of office space. There are several options available for office space
for the Public Safety Coordinator's Office; space can be utilized in the County complex or
the Court complex, both located in Riverhead. Using government space standards to
estimate demand for office space, the Public Safety Coordinator's Office will need
approximately 3,957 gross square feet of office space.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 60
PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATOR'S OFFICE
Table 5.2-3
Calculation of Space Requirements
Conference Rooms (2) 120 sq. ft. 225 1.6 x 360
Break Rooms (3) 240 sq. ft. 225 1.6 x 360
Totals 15 2,473 3,957
(1) Represents space needed for every 15 employees
(2) Represents space needs for an eight person conference room
(3) One break room assigned per 16 staff
First Fiscal Year Budget (in 1993 dollars)
For Fiscal Year 1996, the Public Safety Coordinator's Office will have a staff of 15
people and a budget of approximately $2.1 million.
Expenditures
Public Safety Coordinator's Office expenditures will fall under the following three main
categories:
Public Safety Coordinator's Office - Includes the costs associated with responding to
public inquiries, and acting as liaison for and providing support to local public safety
agencies. This expense is primarily made up of personnel expenditures (approximately
75%), but also includes charges for equipment and supplies, travel, and fleet maintenance.
The 1996 proposed Peconic County figure for this expense is determined by estimating
salaries for staff members and then applying a multiplier to account for additional
expenditures.
Police Academy Training - Includes the costs associated with training for new police
recruits and ongoing training for law enforcement officers from town and village police
departments. This expense is entirely made up of tuition expenditures and will offset
Suffolk County's costs of providing these services to East End police. The value of services
provided to East End towns and the FY 1996 proposed Peconic County figure for this
expense is based on the East End's proportion of Suffolk County's population.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 61
Net Space Needed
Total Employees
Net Space
NeVGross
Total Gross
per Employee
by Type
Needed
Factor
Space Needed
Coordinator
190 sq. ft.
1
190
1.6 x
304
Administrative Staff
90 sq. ft.
5
450
1.6 x
720
Line Personnel
135 sq. ft.
8
1,080
1.6 x
1,728
Supervisory Staff
175 sq. ft.
1
175
1.6 x
280
Common Space (1)
128 sq. ft.
128
1.6 x
205
Conference Rooms (2) 120 sq. ft. 225 1.6 x 360
Break Rooms (3) 240 sq. ft. 225 1.6 x 360
Totals 15 2,473 3,957
(1) Represents space needed for every 15 employees
(2) Represents space needs for an eight person conference room
(3) One break room assigned per 16 staff
First Fiscal Year Budget (in 1993 dollars)
For Fiscal Year 1996, the Public Safety Coordinator's Office will have a staff of 15
people and a budget of approximately $2.1 million.
Expenditures
Public Safety Coordinator's Office expenditures will fall under the following three main
categories:
Public Safety Coordinator's Office - Includes the costs associated with responding to
public inquiries, and acting as liaison for and providing support to local public safety
agencies. This expense is primarily made up of personnel expenditures (approximately
75%), but also includes charges for equipment and supplies, travel, and fleet maintenance.
The 1996 proposed Peconic County figure for this expense is determined by estimating
salaries for staff members and then applying a multiplier to account for additional
expenditures.
Police Academy Training - Includes the costs associated with training for new police
recruits and ongoing training for law enforcement officers from town and village police
departments. This expense is entirely made up of tuition expenditures and will offset
Suffolk County's costs of providing these services to East End police. The value of services
provided to East End towns and the FY 1996 proposed Peconic County figure for this
expense is based on the East End's proportion of Suffolk County's population.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 61
PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATOR'S OFFICE
Division of Police Support - Includes the costs associated with establishing and
monitoring contracts and/or joint ownership relationships between Peconic County and
outside agencies that will support town and village police activities (e.g. District Attorney's
Office, Suffolk County's crime and investigation laboratory, NYS Police Bureau of Criminal
Investigations, National Guard, etc.). The majority of this expense is the direct transfer of
$1,179,315 to the East End town and village Police Departments. In addition, this expense
includes personnel expenditures and charges for equipment and supplies, travel, and fleet
maintenance. The 1996 proposed Peconic County figure for this expense is determined by
estimating salaries for staff members and then applying a multiplier to account for additional
expenditures.
The table below indicates the anticipated composition of expenditures for the Public Safety
Coordinator's Office, including a breakdown of salary and non -salary costs.
Table 5.2-4
Summary of Salary and Non -Salary Expenditures
Public Safety
Total Department
Expenditure Description
Salaries
Non -Salary (1)
Expenditures
Coordinator's Office
$285,000
$99,750
$384,750
Division of Police Support
240,000
1,263,315
1,503,315
Police Academy Training
0
246,139
246,139
Total Expenditures
$525,000
$1,609,204
$2,134,204
(1) See "First Fiscal year Budget, Ependitures' for a description of non -salary a)penditures
Employee benefits for all departments are combined in the aggregate Peconic County
operating budget. The benefit cost is estimated to be 33% of all Peconic County salary
expenditures. Actual benefit costs will be determined through negotiations with Peconic
County employees.
Revenues
The State and Federal Aid revenues received by Suffolk County's Police Headquarters'
Division are associated with direct provision of public safety services. Because it will not
provide services directly to the public, no revenues are expected to be received by the
Peconic County Public Safety Coordinator's Office. The Office's expenditures will be
supported through the County's General Fund.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report
Page 62 -
PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATOR'S OFFICE
The following table presents the Suffolk County Police Department's operating budget
for Fiscal Year 1993, the estimated cost of services provided to the East End towns in that
year, and the proposed Peconic County's operating budget for the Public Safety
Coordinator's Office for Fiscal Year 1996.
Table 5.2-5
Comparison of Operating Budgets
Public Safety
Suffolk County
Suffolk's Cost of Services
Expenditure Description
1993 Actual'
Provided to East End
Police
$42,357,589
$3,435,200 a
Other"
233,642
18,948 a
Police Academy Training: SCCC
1,145,400
246,139 b
Public Safety Coordinator
NA
NA
Division of Police Support
NA
NA
Total Expenditures
$43,736,631
$3,700,288
Revenue Description
Department Income $0 $0
State Aid 2,487,480 210,450 c
Federal Aid 1,705,124 144,260 c
Total Revenues $4,192,604 $354,711
Proposed Peconic
County Budget
$0 I
0
246,139
384,750
1,503,315 d
$2,134,204
$0
0
0
$0
Net Expense $39,544,027 $3,345,578 $2,134,204
'Source: 1995 Recommended Budget, County of Suffolk, New York
"Other programs include Police DARE, Emergency Medical, and LI Crack..
a)Calculated by multiplying Suffolk expenditure by the East End portion of the Suffolk County population
b) Calculated by multiplying Suffolk expenditures by the proportion of services provided to East End citizens
c) Calculated by multiplying Suffolk revenues by the ratio of 'SuffolKs Cost of Services Provided to East End" to Suffolws total expenditures
d) Includes the actual portion of Suffolk sales tax forwarded to East End town and village Police Departments in 1993
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 63
Peconic County
Financial Feasibility Study
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Mission
The Peconic County Sheriffs Department will deliver effective and responsive law
enforcement services to all citizens of Peconic County in a fair and equitable manner. The
Sheriffs Department will be dedicated to serving and protecting the public, in order to make
Peconic County a safe place in which to reside, work and travel.
Authority and Responsibility
General
The Peconic County Sheriffs Department will provide effective and efficient services to
its citizens with the fewest number of staff and lowest overhead expenses possible. The
Sheriff, an elected official, will act as the enforcement officer of all decrees, orders and
mandates of the civil courts within the County, and as such will be responsible for the
accounting of revenues and funds received in the performance of this function. The Sheriff
will have legal responsibility to serve as a law enforcement officer. The Sheriff will be
authorized to take action during natural disasters in order to protect life and property.
The Department's major responsibilities are the enforcement of all decrees, orders and
mandates of the civil courts within the County and transporting prisoners to and from
corrections facilities and courts. Peconic County will seek a contractual arrangement with
Suffolk County for the care of East End prisoners in Suffolk County corrections facilities.
Peconic County's obligations under such an agreement will be managed by the Sheriffs
Department.
Mandated Services
The Office of the Sheriff is created by the New York State Constitution, with Section 13
of Article XIII declaring the Sheriff to be a "local constitutional officer." Therefore,
although the Office of the Sheriff is organized under the authority of the State of New York,
a Sheriff is classified as a local officer and not as a state officer.
Custody and control of county jails is conferred upon the Sheriff by Section 500-C of the
N.Y.S. Correction Law, which provides that the Sheriff shall receive and safely keep, in the
county jail of his county, every person lawfully committed to his custody for safekeeping,
examination or trial or as a witness, or committed or sentenced to imprisonment therein, or
committed for contempt. N.Y.S. Correction Law, Article 20, Section 500-D requires that
prisoners be "provided with sufficient quantity of plain but wholesome food at the expense
of the county..."
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 65
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Under New York State law, the Sheriff is the principal civil enforcement officer of the
county. As such, the Sheriff enforces all decrees, orders and mandates of the civil courts -
within the county. Many of the statutory rules of the New York State courts, contained in
the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, are dependent upon the actions of the Sheriff
for their enforcement. Moreover, it is the duty of the sheriff to have a sufficient number of
deputies to execute the mandates of the courts within the time frames prescribed by law.
The courts have ruled that the Sheriff has the primary responsibility for transporting
prisoners lawfully committed to his custody by the various courts within the county.
Moreover, since the Sheriff is responsible for the custody and transportation of prisoners and
other detainees, this responsibility may not be transferred to a private firm.
Changes in Service Delivery
Due to the modest need to incarcerate individuals as compared to Suffolk County's
correctional facilities' capacity, Peconic County will not operate its own correctional_
facilities. East End prisoners currently comprise 11.1% (155 out of total population of 1396)
of the prisoners in Suffolk County's three corrections facilities: the County Correctional
Facility in Riverhead, the Minimum Security Facility (Honor Farm) and the Alternative DWI
Facility, both in Yaphank. Instead of operating its own corrections facilities, Peconic
County will negotiate a joint -service agreement with Suffolk County (or another New York
county if warranted) for the care of its prisoners, either paying on a per prisoner basis or
some other mutually agreed upon option. This will allow the department to focus its
energies on providing other services as efficiently as possible, to optimize use of existing
facilities, and to minimize staffing requirements.
The following table highlights the financial impact that the formation of Peconic County =
would have on the Sheriffs Department. The figures in this table represent the costs of
services supported by County taxes and are derived by subtracting any departmental fees,
state or federal assistance from the total costs of services. The first column represents
Suffolk County's 1993 net expense for the Sheriffs Department; the second column
represents the East End's tax contribution to the general revenues of Suffolk County toward
that total amount; the third column represents the net expense as an estimated dollar value of
services provided to the East End in 1993 from the Sheriffs Department; and the fourth
column represents the net expense of the Peconic County Sheriffs Department in its base
year 1993 pro forma budget. Please refer to the "First Fiscal Year Budget" section of this
chapter for a more detailed explanation of "Suffolk's Cost of Services Provided to East End"
and the "Proposed Peconic County Budget."
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 66
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Table 5.3-1
Comparison of Net Expenditures (FY 1993 dollars)
Suffolk County
1993 Actual
East End Tax Suffolk's Cost of Services Proposed Peconic
Contribution Provided to East End County Budget
$53,991,215 $7,769,336 $5,720,037 $6,687,877
As the above numbers indicate, in 1993 the East End towns contributed $7.7 million
dollars to the Suffolk County Sheriffs Department. In comparison, in its first fiscal year, the
Peconic County Sheriffs Department will need $6.6 million from the General Fund and will
offer East -end citizens control over the level and quality of services provided. Based on
conservative estimates of the per prisoner charges Peconic County would be required to pay,
the cost of contracting out for prisoner care is assumed to be slightly less expensive for the
East End towns than what the East End currently contributes to Suffolk County for
correctional services.
Economic Relationships with Other Governments
East End Towns
There will be no increased costs to the five East End towns resulting from the
establishment of a Peconic County Sheriffs Department.
Suffolk County
Peconic County will enter into joint -service agreements or service contracts with Suffolk
County (or another New York county if warranted) for the provision of corrections services
to the citizens of Peconic County, including prisoner maintenance and the operation of
corrections facilities.
Organization and Staffing
The Public Safety Coordinator's Office will help coordinate the activities of the Sheriffs
Department with the other public safety service providers in the county. Please refer to the
organizational chart presenting an overview of the Peconic County Public Safety function at
the beginning of this chapter. The Department will be headed by a Sheriff, an elected
official, and include staffing for the following functions: Executive; Finance and Personnel;
Medical Evaluation; Internal Affairs; Civil Bureau; Family Court Bureau; Orders of
Protection; Pistol Permits; Claims Investigations; and Criminal Investigations.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report
Page 67
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
An analysis of Suffolk County's 1993 summons, warrants and complaints indicates that
the East End is responsible for about 11% of the Suffolk County Sheriffs Department's work
load; this, combined with Peconic County's proposed decision to contract out prisoner
maintenance rather than operate its own facilities, results in the need for a much smaller
Sheriffs Department than is currently maintained in Suffolk County. The Suffolk County
Sheriffs Department currently has a staff of 887. The majority of this staff is involved with
the administration, operation and maintenance of the Suffolk County correctional facilities
(including Prisoner Maintenance, Alternative DWI Facility, District Court Detention
Facility, Honor Farm and County Correctional Facility). If Peconic County contracts with
Suffolk County (or another New York county if warranted), Peconic County will require
only 28 staff members to conduct its business.
Table 5.3-2
Line Item Expenditure
Staffing Analysis
Suffolk Proposed Peconic Average Cost
1993 Actual County Staffing per Position
Total Cost
Sheriff
172
22
$755,000
Administrative Staff
49
8
$25,000
200,000
Line Staff
105
11
35,000
385,000
Supervisory Staff
17
2
50,000
100,000
Sheriff
1
1
70,000
70,000
Prisoner Transportation
56
6
210,000
Administrative Staff
0
0
25,000
0
Line Staff
47
6
35,000
210,000
Supervisory Staff
9
0
50,000
0
Prisoner Maintenance
19
0
0
Alternative DWI Facility
17
0
0
District Court Detention Facility
32
0
0
Honor Farm
145
0
0
County Correctional Facility
446
0
0
Total
887
28
$965,000
Space Needs
The considerably reduced size of the Peconic County's Sheriffs Department staff will
decrease the amount of office space required. There are several options available for office
space for the Sheriffs Department; space can be utilized in the County complex, the current
Suffolk County Corrections Facility or the Court complex, all located in Riverhead. Using
government space standards to estimate demand for office space, the Peconic County
Sheriffs Department will need approximately 7,414 gross square feet of office space.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 68
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Table 5.3-3
First Fiscal Year Budget (in 1993 dollars)
For Fiscal Year 1996, the Department will have a staff of 28 people and initial
expenditures of $6.8 million, revenues of $0.1 million and a resulting departmental net
expense of $6.7 million
Expenditures
The expenditures for the "Sheriff' and "Prisoner Transportation" line items of the table
below consist primarily of salaries but also include non -salary expenditures such as supplies,
equipment, information systems, fleet vehicles and self-insurance. The 1996 proposed
Peconic County figure for each expense is determined by estimating salaries for staff
members and then multiplying non -salary expenditures by the ratio of Peconic County to
Suffolk County staff.
The "Prisoner Care Charge" line item is calculated by taking the average daily cost per
prisoner in Suffolk County ($100, which includes cost of providing food, shelter, and health
services) and multiplying it with the average number of East End prisoners (approximately
150); the resulting expenditure/prisoner number is then multiplied by 365 to get the annual
East End prison population cost. While this number is subject to negotiation, this is the
approximate dollar amount Peconic County would pay to contract out corrections services to
Suffolk County.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 69
Calculation of Space Requirements
Net Space Needed Total Employees
Net Space
Net/Gross
Total Gross
per Employee by Type
Needed
Factor
Space Needed
Administrative Staff
90 sq. ft. 8
720
1.6 x
1152
Line Personnel
135 sq. ft. 17
2295
1.6 x
3672
Supervisory Staff
175 sq. ft. 2
350
1.6 x
560
Sheriff
190 sq. ft. 1
190
1.6 x
304
Common Space (1)
128 sq. ft.
239
1.6 x
382
Conference Rooms (2)
120 sq. ft.
420
1.6 x
672
Break Rooms (3)
240 sq. ft.
420
1.6 x
672
Totals
28
4,634
7,414
(1) Represents space needed for every 15 employees
(2) Represents space needs for
an eight person conference room; the Department is estimated to need
one
(3) One break room assigned per 16 staff
First Fiscal Year Budget (in 1993 dollars)
For Fiscal Year 1996, the Department will have a staff of 28 people and initial
expenditures of $6.8 million, revenues of $0.1 million and a resulting departmental net
expense of $6.7 million
Expenditures
The expenditures for the "Sheriff' and "Prisoner Transportation" line items of the table
below consist primarily of salaries but also include non -salary expenditures such as supplies,
equipment, information systems, fleet vehicles and self-insurance. The 1996 proposed
Peconic County figure for each expense is determined by estimating salaries for staff
members and then multiplying non -salary expenditures by the ratio of Peconic County to
Suffolk County staff.
The "Prisoner Care Charge" line item is calculated by taking the average daily cost per
prisoner in Suffolk County ($100, which includes cost of providing food, shelter, and health
services) and multiplying it with the average number of East End prisoners (approximately
150); the resulting expenditure/prisoner number is then multiplied by 365 to get the annual
East End prison population cost. While this number is subject to negotiation, this is the
approximate dollar amount Peconic County would pay to contract out corrections services to
Suffolk County.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 69
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
The estimate used in this report will be a "pass-through" to Suffolk county; that is, the
amount that Peconic pays will equal Suffolk's cost to incarcerate East End prisoners.
According to the New York State Association of Counties, the average cost per prisoner for
counties in New York State is $90 per day, but the expense of contracting out prisoner
maintenance for Peconic County was calculated using the more conservative figure supplied
by the Suffolk County Sheriffs Department.
The table below indicates the anticipated composition of expenditures; for the Sheriffs
Department, including a breakdown of salary and non -salary costs.
Table 5.3-4
Summary of Salary and Non -Salary Expenditures
Sheriff Department Total Department
Expenditure Description Salaries Non -Salary (1) Expenditures
Sheriff $755,000 $369,254 $1,124,254
Prisoner Transportation 210,000 20,515 230,515
Prisoner Care Charges 0 5,475,318 5,475,318
Total Expenditures $965,000 $5,865,087 $6,830,087
(1) See 'First Fiscal year Budget. Expenditures' for a description of non -salary expenditures
Employee benefits for all departments are combined in the aggregate Peconic County
operating budget. The benefit cost is estimated to be 33% of all Peconic County salary
expenditures. Actual benefit costs will be determined through negotiations with Peconic
County employees.
Revenues
Revenues of the Peconic County Sheriffs Department will come from fees collected by
the Sheriffs Department associated predominantly with Civil Bureau services, such as
judgments, evictions, warrants, poundage for collections, etc.
The balance of the Sheriffs Department's expenditures will be supported through the
county's General Fund.
The following table presents the Suffolk County Sheriffs Department's operating budget
for Fiscal Year 1993, the estimated value of services provided to the East End towns in that
year, and the proposed Peconic County's operating budget for Fiscal Year 1996.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 70
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Table 5.3-5
Comparison of Operating Budgets
Sheriff Department
Suffolk County Suffolk's Cost of Services
Expenditure Description
1993 Actual*
Provided to East End
Sheriff
$10,940,216
$1,225,304 a
Prisoner Maintenance
2,703,423
300,165 a
Criminal Justice Reroute Program
152,226
16,902 a
Alternative DWI Facility
854,093
186,833 a
Medium Security
7,232,555
750,548 a
District Court Detention Facility
2,145,448
0 b
Honor Farm/Minimum Security
8,890,083
1,033,731 a
County Correctional Facility
18,187,335
1,887,365 a
Prisoner Transportation
4,155,564
461,399 a
Prisoner Care Charges
Total Expenditures
$55,260,943
$5,862,246
Proposed Peconic
County Budget
$1,124,254
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
230,515
5,475,318
$6,830,087
Revenue Description
Department Income
$1,269,728
$142,210 a
$142,210
State Aid
0
0
0
Federal Aid
0
0
0
Total Revenues
$1,269,728
$142,210
$142,210
Net Expense $53,991,215 $5,720,037 $6,687,877
*Source: 1995 Recommended Budget, County of Suffolk, New York
a) Calculated by multiplying Suffolk County expenditure by the proportion of total service provided to East End citizens
b) The District Court does not serve the East End towns
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 71
Peconic County
Financial Feasibility Study
0 0 0 0 0
PROBATION DEPARTMENT
Public Safety Office
Division of
Police Support
Sheriff
Administration
Fire, Rescue &
Emergency Services
Civil Family I Orders Pistol Claims Criminal
Bureau Bureau Protection Permits Investigation Investigation
PROBATION DEPARTMENT
Mission
The Probation Department will be charged with performing investigations and providing
supervisory services for the courts.
Authority and Responsibility
General
The Peconic County Probation Department will facilitate treatment for and case
management of adult criminals, juvenile delinquents and dysfunctional families, as well as
enforcing any corresponding court order. Its services will be directed to the courts and the
youths, adults and families involved in the judicial system.
The Probation Department will act essentially as an arm of the courts. Screening and
referral services will be provided to adults involved in domestic violence and children
classified as Persons in Need of Supervision (PINS) or Juvenile Delinquents. Court ordered
investigations will be prepared containing legal, social and economic information on those
offenders appearing in court as an aid in disposing the case. Offenders ordered to be under
probation supervision will be monitored to determine their level of compliance and identify
their needs in order to make referrals to appropriate service providers.
The Department's major responsibilities are highlighted below:
Probation - Includes department's administration, services required for both the Family
Court and Criminal Court and necessary clerical support of these activities; these
expenditure include the cost of contracting with Suffolk county's DWI Alternative Facility
for treatment programs as required.
Deinstitutionalization of PINS Program and PINS Diversion Plan - Includes the
provision of detention services for PINS, as well as comprehensive services to PINS and
their families in an effort to avoid out -of -home placement.
Intensive Supervision - Includes supervision of high-risk probationers.
Juvenile Delinquent Care - Includes comprehensive residential placement planning
service for juveniles adjudicated as juvenile delinquents or PINS.
State Training School - Includes the placement of juvenile delinquents and PINS in the
custody of New York State Division for Youth.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 73
PROBATION DEPARTMENT
Mandated Services
Section 256, paragraph 1 of New York State Executive Law mandates the establishment
of county probation departments, specifying that: "Each county shall maintain or provide for
a probation agency or agencies to perform probation services therein, including intake,
investigations, pre -sentence reports, supervision, conciliation, social treatment and other
such functions as are assigned to probation agencies pursuant to law." The position of
Director of Probation is also mandated by paragraph 4 of Section 256.
New York State Executive Law, Section 510A dictates that a County must provide
conveniently accessible and adequate secure and non -secure detention services for juveniles.
Article 410 of New York State Criminal procedure Law governs sentences of probation
by the criminal courts, stating: "The probation department servicing the court that imposed
the sentence of probation has the duty of supervising the defendant during the period of such
legal custody."
The Family Court Act mandates the existence of county probation agencies in Article 2,
Section 252.
Changes in Service Delivery
In comparison with the current Suffolk County Probation Department, the Peconic
County Probation Department will focus on providing exemplary service in those areas of
probation mandated by New York State. In contrast with Suffolk County, the Peconic
County Probation Department will not administer many specialized programs, such as:
Adolescent Arson, Day Reporting, Pervasive Drug Testing, Adolescent Sex Offender,
Adolescent Drug Treatment, Community Service Alternative Sentencing, Treatment
Alternatives to Street Crime, and the Expediting Program. Staff will be streamlined and
trained to serve in multiple capacities addressing these more unique problems on an "as
needed" basis. While Suffolk County will maintain ownership of existing corrections
facilities, Peconic County will continue to utilize the DWI Alternative Facility when
necessary and will pay Suffolk County a fee based on use.
The following table (Table 5.4-1) highlights the financial impact that the formation of
Peconic County would have on the Probation Department. The figures in this table represent
the costs of services supported by County taxes and are derived by subtracting any
departmental fees, state or federal assistance from the total costs of services. The first
column represents Suffolk County's 1993 net expense for the Probation Department; the
second column represents the East End's tax contribution to the general revenues of Suffolk .
County toward that total amount; the third column represents the estimated dollar value of
services provided to the East End in 1993 from the Probation Department; and the fourth
column represents the net expense of the Peconic County Probation Department in its base
year 1993 pro forma budget. Please refer to the "First Fiscal Year Budget" section of this
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 74
PROBATION DEPARTMENT
chapter for a more detailed explanation of "Suffolk's Cost of Services Provided to East End"
and the "Proposed Peconic County Budget."
Table 5.4-1
Comparison of Net Expenditures (FY 1993 dollars)
Suffolk County East End Tax Suffolk's Cost of Services Proposed Peconic
1993 Actual Contribution Provided to East End County Budget
$13,974,475 $2,010,927 $1,678,226 $1,099,831
As the above numbers indicate, in 1993 the East End towns contributed approximately
$2.0 million dollars to the Suffolk County Probation Department. In comparison, in its first
fiscal year, the Peconic County Probation Department will need $1.1 million from the
General Fund and will offer East End citizens control over the level and quality of services
provided.
Economic Relationships with Other Governments
The Peconic County Probation Department will provide services without regard to the
County's financial relationships with the East End municipalities, Suffolk County or the
State.
Organization and Staffing
The Public Safety Coordinator's Office will help coordinate the activities of the Sheriffs
Department with other public safety agencies in the county. Please refer to the
organizational chart presenting an overview of the Peconic County Public Safety function at
the beginning of this chapter. The Probation Department will be headed by a Director and
include staffing for the following functions: Administration, Criminal and Family Court
Intake, Investigations and Supervision, and PINS and Juvenile Delinquent programs.
An analysis of Suffolk County's case load mix indicates that the East End is responsible
for about 9.5% of Suffolk County Probation Department's case load. This, combined with
the plan to have Peconic County offer only mandated probationary services, results in a
much smaller Probation Department being required than is currently maintained in Suffolk
County. Suffolk County's Probation Department currently has a staff of 372. Reflecting
smaller case loads and the provision of more limited services, Peconic County's Probation
Department will require only 39 people to conduct its business.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 75
Administration
Administrative S
Line S
Supervisory S
Dir
Criminal Court RORAnvestigations/Supervisio
Administrative S
Line S
Supervisory S
Family Court IntakeAnvestigations/Supervision
Administrative S
Line S
Supervisory S
PINS Diversion Plan
PROBATION DEPARTMENT
Table 5.4-2
Staffing Analysis
actor
n
St
2
0
25,000
Suffolk
Proposed Peconic
Average Cost
1
_
1993 Actual
County Staffing
per Position
Total Cost
50,000
24
5
14
$190,000
taff
10
2
$25,000
50,000
taff
8
2
35,000
70,000
tall
5
0
50,000
0
50,000
1
1
70,000
70,000
193
18
0
625,000
tall
7
2
25,000
50,000
taff
165
15
35,000
525,000
tall
21
1
50,000
50,000
55
6
69
2159000
taff
5
1
25,000
25,000
taff
44
4
35,000
140,000
50,000
6
1
50,000
50,000
11
2
85,000
Administrative Statf
2
0
25,000
0
Line Staff
8
1
35,000
35,000
Supervisory Staff
1
1
50,000
50,000
Deinstitutionalization of PINS Program
14
1
0
25,000
Administrative Staff
5
1
25,000
25,000
Line Staff
6
0
35,000
0
Supervisory Staff
3
0
50,000
0
Intensive Supervision Program
15
2
85,000
Administrative Staff
0
0
25,000
0
Line Staff
12
1
35,000
35,000
Supervisory Staff
3
1
50,000
50,000
Typing and File Room/Stenography
69
5
125,000
Administrative Staff
69
5
25,000
125,000
Line Staff
0
0
35,000
0
Supervisory Staff
0
0
50,000
0
Stop DWI
8
0
0
Aid to Probation
4
0
0
Day Reporting Sanction
18
0
0
DWI Alternative Facility
3
0
0
DFY Placement Reduction Program
3
0
0
Expediting Program
7
0
0
Total
424
39
$1,350,000
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 76
PROBATION DEPARTMENT
Space Needs
The considerably reduced size of Peconic County's Probation Department staff will
decrease the amount of office space required. There are several options available for office
space for the Probation Department; space can be utilized in the County complex or the
Court complex, both located in Riverhead. Using government space standards to estimate
demand for office space, the Peconic County Probation Department will need approximately
10,380 gross square feet of office space.
Table 5.4-3
Calculation of Space Requirements
Common Space (1) 128 sq. ft. 333 1.6 x 532
Conference Rooms (2) 120 sq. ft. 585 1.6 x 936
Break Rooms (3) 240 sq. ft. 585 1.6 x 936
Totals 39 6,488 10,380
(1) Represents space needed for every 15 employees
(2) Represents space needs for an eight person conference room
(3) One break room assigned per every 16 employees
First Fiscal Year Budget (in 1993 dollars)
For Fiscal Year 1996, the. Department will have a staff of 39 people and initial
expenditures of $1.9 million, revenues of $0.8 million and a resulting departmental net
expense of $1.1 million.
Expenditures
The expenditures for each line item of the table on the following page consist primarily
of salaries but also include non -salary expenditures such as supplies, equipment, information
systems, fleet vehicles and self-insurance. The 1996 proposed Peconic County figure for
each expense is determined by estimating salaries for staff members and then multiplying
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 77
Net Space Needed Total Employees Net Space
Net/Gross
Total Gross
per Employee
by Type
Needed
Factor
Space Needed
Director
190 sq. ft.
1
190
1.6 x
304
Administrative Staff
90 sq. ft.
11
990
1.6 x
1584
Line Personnel
135 sq. ft.
23
3105
1.6 x
4968
Supervisory Staff
175 sq. ft.
4
700
1.6 x
1120
Common Space (1) 128 sq. ft. 333 1.6 x 532
Conference Rooms (2) 120 sq. ft. 585 1.6 x 936
Break Rooms (3) 240 sq. ft. 585 1.6 x 936
Totals 39 6,488 10,380
(1) Represents space needed for every 15 employees
(2) Represents space needs for an eight person conference room
(3) One break room assigned per every 16 employees
First Fiscal Year Budget (in 1993 dollars)
For Fiscal Year 1996, the. Department will have a staff of 39 people and initial
expenditures of $1.9 million, revenues of $0.8 million and a resulting departmental net
expense of $1.1 million.
Expenditures
The expenditures for each line item of the table on the following page consist primarily
of salaries but also include non -salary expenditures such as supplies, equipment, information
systems, fleet vehicles and self-insurance. The 1996 proposed Peconic County figure for
each expense is determined by estimating salaries for staff members and then multiplying
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 77
PROBATION DEPARTMENT -
non -salary expenditures by the ratio of Peconic County to Suffolk County staff. The only
exceptions to this method are found in the "Juvenile Delinquent Care" and "State Training
School" line items; the 1996 proposed Peconic County figures for these expenses are based
on the "Value of Services to East End" as an estimation for the cost of services provided by
outside agencies and is determined by multiplying the Suffolk County actual expenditure by
the percentage of East End Family Court cases.
Table 5.4-4 indicates the anticipated composition of expenditures for the Probation
Department, including a breakdown of salary and non -salary costs.
Table 5.4-4
Summary of Salary and Non -Salary Expenditures
Probation Total Department
Expenditure Description Salaries Non -Salary (1) Expenditures
Probation
$1,155,000
$113,271
$1,268,271
PINS - Diversion and Deinstitutionalization
110,000
83,717
$193,717
Intensive Supervision Program
85,000
3,790
$88,790
Juvenile Delinquent Care
0
108,955
$108,955
State Training School
0
205,276
$205,276
Total Expenditures
$1,350,000 $515,009 $1,865,009
(1) See 'First Fiscal year Budget, Expenditures' for a description of non -salary expenditures
Employee benefits for all departments are combined in the aggregate Peconic County
operating budget. The benefit cost is estimated to be 33% of all Peconic County salary
expenditures. Actual benefit costs will be determined through negotiations with Peconic
County employees.
Revenues
Revenues of the Peconic County Probation Department will come from New York State
Aid. The State reimburses the county for 39% of Probation and PINS personnel
expenditures. Additionally, the State provides reimbursement for the Intensive Supervision
program at 100%. Finally, the State also reimburses the County for the Juvenile Delinquent
Care and State Training expenditures by approximately 50%. The balance of the Probation
Department's expenditures will be supported through the County's General Fund.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 78
PROBATION DEPARTMENT
Table 5.4-5 presents the Suffolk County Probation Department's operating budget for
Fiscal Year 1993, the estimated cost of services provided to the East End towns in that year,
and the proposed Peconic County's operating budget for the Probation Department for Fiscal
Year 1996.
Table 5.4-5
Comparison of Operating Budgets
Probation
Suffolk County Suffolk's Cost of Services
Expenditure Description
1993 Actual'
Provided to East End
Probation
$13,384,801
$1,547,168 a
DWI Alternative Facility
105,887
9,864 b
Aid to Probation
193,051
18,368 b
Expediting Program
272,528
25,388 b
Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime
408,941
38,908 b
PINS - Diversion and Deinstitution.
1,656,593
185,735 b
Intensive Supervision
603,888
56,256 b
Community Service Alt. Sentencing
519,604
49,437 b
Juvenile Delinquent Care
971,785
108,955 b
State Training School
1,830,881
205,276 b
Other Programs"
71,284
7,992 b
Total Expenditures
$20,019,243
$2,253,346
Revenue Description
Proposed Peconic
County Budget
$1,268,271
0
0
0
0
193,717
88,790
0
108,955
205,276
0
$1,865,009
Department Income
$0
$0
$0
State Aid
6,044,768
575,120 b
765,178
Federal Aid
0
0
0
Total Revenues
$6,044,768
$575,120
$765,178
Net Expense $13,974,475 $1,678,226 $1,099,831
'Source: 1995 Recommended Budget, County of Suffolk, New York
"Other Programs includes Day Reporting, Ado]. Arson, Pervasive Drug Testing, Adol. Sex Offender, Adol. Drug Treatment
a) Calculated by multiplying Suffolk County expenditure by the proportion of total staff assigned to the East End
b) Calculated by multiplying Suffolk County expenditure by the proportion of total service provided to East End citizens
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 79
Peconic County
Financial Feasibility Study
0 0 0 0 0
DEPARTMENT OF FIRE, RESCUE &
EMERGENCY SERVICES
FIRE, RESCUE & EMERGENCY SERVICES
Mission
The Department of Fire, Rescue and Emergency Services (FRES) will provide support
services to the volunteer fire departments and emergency medical service agencies in the
East End villages and towns.
Authority and Responsibility
General
The Peconic County FRES will assist East End village and town volunteer fire
departments and emergency medical service agencies in participating in training programs,
planning activities, interpretation of laws and regulations, origin investigation, investigation
and reporting of emergencies, injuries and fire causes, and inspections. The Department will
also facilitate communication and cooperation between town and village volunteer fire
departments and emergency medical service agencies, assisting them in achieving the most
effective and efficient utilization of resources.
Mandated Services
None of the services provided by FRES are mandated by New York State or the federal
government.
Changes in Service Delivery
Currently, Suffolk County's FRES provides similar services but, in addition, is
responsible for providing dispatch services for the five West End towns' Emergency - 911
(E-911) service. On the East End, dispatch services for the new E-911 system will be
operated by the towns, with no dispatch service (primary or back-up) provided by Suffolk
County. The Peconic County FRES will collect the fees associated with E-911 and
distribute them back to appropriate town and/or village authorities.
Suffolk County FRES also provides training and training facilities for county volunteer
fire departments and emergency medical service agencies. Peconic County will contract
with Suffolk County (or another New York county, if warranted) to provide for fire and
emergency medical service volunteers' participation in Suffolk County training programs.
The following table highlights the financial impact that the formation of Peconic County
would have on the Department of FRES. The figures in this table represent the costs of
services supported by County taxes and are derived by subtracting any departmental fees,
state or federal assistance from the total costs of services. The first column represents
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 81
FIRE, RESCUE & EMERGENCY SERVICES
Suffolk County's 1993 net expense for FRES; the second column represents the East End's
tax contribution to general revenues of Suffolk County toward that total amount; the third
column presents the net expense as an estimated dollar value of services provided to the East
End in 1993 from FRES; and the fourth column represents the net expense of the Peconic
County Department of FRES in its base year 1993 pro forma budget. Please refer to the
Table 5.5-5 in this chapter for a more detailed explanation of these figures.
Table 5.5-1
Comparison of Net Expenditures (FY 1993 dollars)
Suffolk County East End Tax Suffolk's Cost of Services Proposed Peconic
1993 Actual Contribution Provided to East End County Budget
$3,553,362 $511,329 $249,654 $257,458
As the above numbers indicate, in 1993 the East End towns contributed $0.5 million
dollars to the Suffolk County Department of FRES. In comparison, in its first fiscal year, the
Peconic County FRES will need approximately $0.26 million from the General Fund and
will offer East End citizens control over the level and quality of services provided.
Economic Relationships with Other Governments
East End Towns
The towns and villages will continue to support the volunteer fire departments and
emergency medical service agencies as they have in the past. The village and town
volunteers currently receive support for training from Suffolk County and this support will
continue under Peconic County.
Suffolk County
Peconic County will contract with Suffolk County (or another New York county if
warranted) for the provision of training services for Peconic County volunteer fire fighters
and emergency medical service personnel.
Organization and Staffing
FRES will fall under the supervision of the Public Safety Commissioner. Please refer to
the organizational chart presenting an overview of the Peconic County Public Safety
function at the beginning of this chapter. FRES will be headed by a Director and will
include staffing for administration (responsible for facilitating training, planning assistance,
coordination of services and communication with volunteer agencies) and inspections.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 82
FIRE, RESCUE & EMERGENCY SERVICES
Peconic County will support approximately 20% of the volunteer fire departments and
emergency medical service agencies currently supported by Suffolk County. This, combined
with the fact that responsibility for emergency call dispatch services will be taken over by
the E-911 system currently provided by the East End towns, results in a significantly reduced
need for staffing in the Peconic County FRES Department. While Suffolk County currently
has a staff of 49 (including 34 communications dispatch employees), Peconic County's
FRES will only require 4 staff members to conduct its business.
Table 5.5-2
Space Needs
The considerably reduced size of the Peconic County's staff will decrease the amount of
office space required. There are several options available for office space for the FRES
Department; space can be utilized in the County complex, the Court complex (both located
in Riverhead) or rented from one of the existing fire stations. Using government space
standards to estimate demand for office space, the Peconic County FRES Department will
need approximately 1,127 gross square feet of office space.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 83
Staffing Analysis
Suffolk
Proposed Peconic
Average Cost
1993 Actual
County Staffing
per Position
Total Cost
Administration
8
3
$130,000
Administrative Staff
2
1
$25,000
25,000
Line Staff
2
1
35,000
35,000
Supervisory Staff
3
0
50,000
0
Director
1
1
70,000
70,000
Inspection
1
1
35,000
Administrative Staff
0
0
25,000
0
Line Staff
1
1
35,000
35,000
Supervisory Staff
0
0
50,000
0
Communications
34
0
0
Training
2
0
0
Grounds Unit
2
0
0
Interims
2
0
0
Total
49
4
$165,000
Space Needs
The considerably reduced size of the Peconic County's staff will decrease the amount of
office space required. There are several options available for office space for the FRES
Department; space can be utilized in the County complex, the Court complex (both located
in Riverhead) or rented from one of the existing fire stations. Using government space
standards to estimate demand for office space, the Peconic County FRES Department will
need approximately 1,127 gross square feet of office space.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 83
FIRE, RESCUE & EMERGENCY SERVICES
Table 5.5-3
Calculation of Space Requirements
Common Space (1) 128 sq. ft. 34 1.6 x 55
Conference Rooms (2) 120 sq. ft. 60 1.6 x 96
Break Rooms (3) 240 sq. ft. 60 1.6 x 96
Totals 4 704 1,127
(1) Represents space needed for every 15 employees
(2) Represents space needs for an eight person conference room
(3) One break room assigned per every 16 employees
First Fiscal Year Budget (in 1993 dollars)
For Fiscal Year 1996, the Department will have a staff of 4 people and a budget of $0.26 '
million in expenditures.
Expenditures
Peconic County FRES Department expenditures will fall under the following two main
categories:
Trainin - Includes the support of training activities for members of the East End town
and village volunteer fire departments and emergency medical services agencies. This
expense is almost entirely made up of contract expenditures. The 1996 proposed Peconic
County figure for this expense uses the "Value of Services to East End" as an estimation for
the cost of the contract with Suffolk County for training services and was determined by
multiplying the Suffolk County Actual expenditure by the percentage of services provided to
the East End.
Fire, Rescue & Emergency Service - Includes the cost of providing support to volunteer
agencies in the form of planning, inspections, interpretation of laws and regulations, training
access and coordination services. The majority (over 75%) of this expense is made up of
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 84
Net Space Needed Total Employees Net Space
Net/Gross
Total Gross
per Employee
by Type
Needed
Factor
Space Needed
Administrative Staff
90 sq. ft.
1
90
1.6 x
144
Line Personnel
135 sq. ft.
2
270
1.6 x
432
Supervisory Staff
175 sq. ft.
0
0
1.6 x
0
Director
190 sq. ft.
1
190
1.6 x
304
Common Space (1) 128 sq. ft. 34 1.6 x 55
Conference Rooms (2) 120 sq. ft. 60 1.6 x 96
Break Rooms (3) 240 sq. ft. 60 1.6 x 96
Totals 4 704 1,127
(1) Represents space needed for every 15 employees
(2) Represents space needs for an eight person conference room
(3) One break room assigned per every 16 employees
First Fiscal Year Budget (in 1993 dollars)
For Fiscal Year 1996, the Department will have a staff of 4 people and a budget of $0.26 '
million in expenditures.
Expenditures
Peconic County FRES Department expenditures will fall under the following two main
categories:
Trainin - Includes the support of training activities for members of the East End town
and village volunteer fire departments and emergency medical services agencies. This
expense is almost entirely made up of contract expenditures. The 1996 proposed Peconic
County figure for this expense uses the "Value of Services to East End" as an estimation for
the cost of the contract with Suffolk County for training services and was determined by
multiplying the Suffolk County Actual expenditure by the percentage of services provided to
the East End.
Fire, Rescue & Emergency Service - Includes the cost of providing support to volunteer
agencies in the form of planning, inspections, interpretation of laws and regulations, training
access and coordination services. The majority (over 75%) of this expense is made up of
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 84
FIRE, RESCUE & EMERGENCY SERVICES
personnel expenditures. The 1996 proposed Peconic County figure for this expense is
determined by estimating salaries for staff members and then estimating additional costs,
such as equipment, supplies, and travel.
The table below indicates the anticipated composition of expenditures for the FRES
department, including a breakdown of salary and non -salary costs.
Table 5.5-4
Summary of Salary and Non -Salary Expenditures
Fire, Rescue and Emergency Services Total Department
Expenditure Description Salaries Non -Salary (1) Expenditures
Training (Vocational Education and Extension) $0 $32,297 $32,297
Fire Rescue & Emergency Service 165,000 60,161 225,161
Total Expenditures $165,000 $92,458 $257,458
(1) See 'First Fiscal year Budget, Expenditures' for a description of non -salary expenditures
Employee benefits for all departments are combined in the aggregate Peconic County
operating budget. The benefit cost is estimated to be 33% of all Peconic County salary
expenditures. Actual benefit costs will be determined through negotiations with Peconic
County employees.
Revenues
The only revenues are expected to be received by the Peconic County Department of
FRES will be those associated with E-911, which will be distributed immediately back to the
appropriate two and/or village authorities. The Department's expenditures will be supported
through the County's General Fund.
The following table presents the Suffolk County FRES Department's operating budget
for Fiscal Year 1993, the estimated cost of services provided to the East End towns in that
year, and the proposed Peconic County's operating budget for the FRES Department for
Fiscal Year 1996.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 85
FIRE, RESCUE & EMERGENCY SERVICES
Table 5.5-5
Comparison of Operating Budgets
Fire & Rescue
Suffolk County Suffolk's Cost of Services
Proposed Peconic
Expenditure Description
1993 Actual*
Provided to East End
County Budget
Training (Vocational Education and Extension)
$849,922
$32,297 a
$32,297
Fire Rescue & Emergency Service
2,703,440
217,357 a
225,161
Total Expenses
$3,553,362
$249,654
$257,458
Revenue Description
Department Income $0 $0 $0
State Aid 0 0 0
Federal Aid 0 0 0
Total Revenues $0 $0 $0
Net Expense $3,553,362 $249,654 $257,458
*Source: 1995 Recommended Budget, County of Suffolk, New York
a) Calculated by multiplying Suffolk expenditures by the proportion of services provided to East End citizens
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report
Page 86
Peconic County
Financial Feasibility Study
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Board of Health Services
Health Administration
Public Patient Environmental Alcohol and CoLHealth
y Medical/Legal Emergency
Health Care Health Substance Investigations Medical
Abuse and Forensic Services
Sciences
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Mission
The mission of the Peconic County Health Department is to protect and promote the
general health and well-being of the residents of the county through accessible, quality
health care with an emphasis on preventive health services and health education.
Authority and Responsibility
General
The Peconic County Health Department will oversee the provision of health related
services to its citizens through a broad range of programs. The county will operate from
eleven health care facilities/offices throughout the East End, providing patient care, public
health nursing, mental health services and alcohol and substance abuse counseling to those
in need. In addition, the Health Department will work to protect and enhance the quality of
the environment of the East End, an effort critical to sustaining the quality of life of Peconic
County residents. The Peconic County Board of Health will have power to establish and
change sanitary code regulations. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that Peconic
County will enter into a joint ownership/service agreement with Suffolk County for the
shared use of the Medical -Legal Investigations and Forensic Sciences center, which could be
operated jointly by Peconic and Suffolk County Health Departments.
The major responsibilities of each division of the Health Department are highlighted below.
Health Services Administration is responsible for the overall administration of the
department (executive and administrative services, budget, operations, contract management,
personnel) and public health education.
Public Health oversees the reporting and control of infectious disease, the provision of
home health services, the provision of services to disabled children and enforcement of
public health law.
Patient Care operates two community-based health centers (located in Riverhead and
Greenport), the provides maternal and child health care services to needy residents and
coordinates comprehensive ambulatory health care centers and other patient treatment
programs. Oversight of the Education of Disabled Children programs, which are conducted
through contracts with outside private and/or not-for-profit agencies, is also included as a
responsibility of this division.
Environmental Health administers and enforces environmental rules and regulations,
monitoring and protecting the ecological integrity of marine environment, fresh waters, open
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 87
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
spaces and wetlands, conducting inspections of individual water supplies and sewage
disposal facilities and the review of environmental impact studies and dredging projects.
Alcohol and Substance Abuse oversees referral programs for alcohol and drug
abusers/addicts, education programs, and the operation and coordination of methadone
maintenance clinics and detoxification programs.
Community Mental Health provides mental health services (including treatment of the
mentally ill and mentally retarded) and the provision of mental health treatment for persons
held pursuant to an order of a criminal or family court.
Medical/Legal Investigations and Forensic Sciences is responsible for conducting
investigations of deaths, drug testing for probationers and patients of methadone clinics and
the operation of the laboratories servicing the Health, Police, District Attorney and Probation
Departments.
Emergency Medical Services includes the costs of administering the county's all -
volunteer emergency medical system, supporting its 10 ambulance companies, training and
certification programs for emergency medical technicians (including Advanced Life
Support), the provision of mobile radios and advanced equipment to emergency vehicles and
coordination of inter -agency provision of emergency care services for the entire county.
Mandated Services
The existence of a health department at the county level is not mandated by New York
State. However, there are five absolute mandates for programs with which every county in
New York State must comply regardless of whether or not it has a formal health department.
These mandated services are:
• Early Intervention Program for children with disabilities;
• Preschool Program for children with disabilities;
• A program to pay the cost of tuberculosis diagnosis and treatment if no third party
insurer exists;
• A program to pay for the cost of care, confinement and mental health services for all
people declared mentally unfit to stand trial; and
• The provision of health services to all incarcerated individuals.
In addition to the mandates listed above, should a county choose to operate a health
department, the following services must be provided. First, the county must track, survey
and treat communicable diseases. Second, the county must treat, monitor and trace contacts
of sexually transmitted diseases. Third, the county must conduct immunization programs
and surveillance activities. Fourth, the county is responsible for monitoring public water,
beaches and pools, restaurants, temporary residences and children camps. Finally, the
county is responsible for the diagnosis, treatment and surveillance of tuberculosis.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 88
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Changes in Service Delivery
While the Department will provide services similar to those currently provided by
Suffolk County, it will operate more efficiently, benefiting from the smaller geographical
area it serves and its increased ability to effectively target programs and services to the
specific needs of the East End population. As stated above, the Peconic County Health
Department will enter into a joint ownership/service agreement with Suffolk County for the
shared use of the Medical -Legal Investigations and Forensic Sciences center. Since Suffolk
County will maintain ownership and operation of existing corrections facilities, it is assumed
that Peconic County will pay Suffolk for the cost of maintaining its prisoners, including
health care, on a per prisoner or contract basis; Peconic County will not be responsible for
the direct provision of medical services at correctional facilities.
To improve citizen accessibility to Patient Care services, Peconic County will operate a
full-time clinic located in Greenport. Unlike Suffolk County, Peconic County will not
operate its own nursing home (counties in New York State are not required to operate a
nursing home) and, therefore, will not incur any expenses in this area. Due to the high level
of reimbursement for nursing home costs, no net cost to Suffolk County will result from this
change.
The following table highlights the financial impact that the formation of Peconic County
would have on the Health Department. The figures in this table represent the costs of
services supported by County taxes and are derived by subtracting any departmental fees,
state or federal assistance from the total costs of services. The first column represents
Suffolk County's 1993 net expense for the Health Department; the second column represents
the East End's tax contribution to the general revenues of Suffolk County toward that total
amount; the third column represents the net expense as an estimated dollar value of services
provided to the East End in 1993 from the Health Department; and the fourth column
represents the net expense of the Peconic County Health Department in its base year 1993
pro forma budget. Please refer to Table 5.6-5 in this chapter for a more detailed explanation
of these figures.
Table 5.6-1
Comparison of Net Expenditures (FY 1993 dollars)
Suffolk County East End Tax
1993 Actual Contribution
$106,984,653 $15,395,092
Suffolk's Cost of Services Proposed Peconic I
Provided to East End County Budget
$12,781,660 $12,186,164
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 89
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
As the above numbers indicate, in 1993 the East End towns contributed $15.4 million
dollars to the Suffolk County Health Department. In comparison, in its first fiscal year, the
Peconic County Health Department will need $12.1 million from the General Fund and will
offer East End citizens control over the level and quality of services provided.
Economic Relationships with Other Governments
East End Towns
There will be no increased costs to the five East End towns resulting from the
establishment of a Peconic County Health Department.
Suffolk County
Peconic County is expected to negotiate a joint service/ownership agreement with
Suffolk County for shared use of the Medical -Legal Investigations and Forensic Sciences
laboratory.
Organization and Staffing
The Health Department will be headed by a Commissioner who will oversee the
following seven divisions: Public Health, Patient Care, Environmental Health, Alcohol and
Substance Abuse, Community Mental Health, Medical/Legal Investigations and Forensic
Sciences, and Emergency Medical Services. Please refer to the organizational chart at the
beginning of this chapter. The Commissioner will also serve as chairman of the Board of
Health, with the rest of the Board being appointed by the Peconic County Board of
Supervisors.
An analysis of Suffolk County's service provision data indicates that the East End
receives approximately 12% of the total service provided; this results in the need for a
substantially smaller Health Department than is currently maintained in Suffolk County.
Suffolk County's Health Department currently has a staff of 1,204. If Peconic County
establishes a joint service/ownership arrangement with Suffolk County for its laboratory
facilities, Peconic County will require only 231 staff members to conduct its business,
including the additional staff required to operate the Greenport Health Center.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 90
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Table 5.6-2
Staffing Analysis
Total Staff 1204 231 8,354,000
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 91
Suffolk
Proposed Peconic Average Cost
1993 Actual
County Staffing
per Position
Total Cost
Health Services Administration
74
8
$335,000
Administrative Staff
53
3
$25,000
75,000
Line Staff
15
3
35,000
105,000
Supervisory Staff
5
1
70,000
70,000
Commissioner
1
1
85,000
85,000
Public Health
282
55
1,792,000
Administrative Staff
179
38
25,000
950,000
Line Staff
93
14
43,000
602,000
Supervisory Staff
10
3
80,000
240,000
Patient Care
296
79
2,832,000
Administrative Staff
200
54
25,000
1,350,000
Line Staff
64
14
43,000
602,000
Supervisory Staff
32
11
80,000
880,000
Environmental Health
120
36
1,330,000
Administrative Staff
26
7
25,000
175,000
Line Staff
84
25
35,000
875,000
Supervisory Staff
10
4
70,000
280,000
Alcohol and Substance Abuse
174
26
890,000
Administrative Staff
102
9
25,000
225,000
Line Staff
65
15
35,000
525,000
Supervisory Staff
7
2
70,000
140,000
Community Mental Health
118
12
573,000
Administrative Staff
35
3
25,000
75,000
Line Staff
65
6
43,000
258,000
Supervisory Staff
18
3
80,000
240,000
Medical/Legal Invest. and Forensic Sciences
130
13
507,000
Administrative Staff
81
7
25,000
175,000
Line Staff
41
4
43,000
172,000
Supervisory Staff
8
2
80,000
160,000
Emergency Medical Services
10
2
95,000
Administrative Staff
3
1
25,000
25,000
Line Staff
6
0
35,000
0
Supervisory Staff
1
1
70,000
70,000
Total Staff 1204 231 8,354,000
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 91
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Space Needs
The considerably reduced size of Peconic County's Health Department staff will decrease
the amount of office space required. Currently, over 25% of Suffolk County's health service
facilities are located on the East End, excluding those located at the County Correctional
Facility in Riverhead. It is assumed that Peconic County will utilize the twelve health
department facilities listed below which currently operate on the East End.
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES
NURSING OFFICES
• Easthampton Office
• Long Term Care Unit
• Riverhead Nursing Office
• Southampton Office
• Southold Office
HEALTH CENTERS
• Riverhead Health Center
• Greenport Health Center
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
• Eastern District Office
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
• Office of Ecology
• Wastewater Management
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
• Riverhead Mental Health Center
ALCOHOL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES
• East End Clinic
The County complex in Riverhead and existing facilities are options for providing space
for the operation of the Peconic County Health Department. Using government space
standards to estimate demand for office space, the Peconic County Health Department will
need approximately 57,170 gross square feet of office space. Because some of the
Department's staff are provide direct services "off-site", the estimated office space required
may be high.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 92
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Table 5.6-3
Calculation of Space Requirements
Common Space (1)
Net Space Needed
Total Employees
Net Space
Net/Gross
Total Gross
3,465 1.6 x
per Employee
by Type
Needed
Factor
Space Needed
Administrative Staff
90 sq. ft.
122
10,980
1.6 x
17,568
Line Personnel
135 sq. ft.
81
10,935
1.6 x
17,496
Supervisory Staff
175 sq. ft.
27
4,725
1.6 x
7,560
Commissioner
190 sq. ft.
1
190
1.6 x
304
Common Space (1)
128 sq. ft.
1,971 1.6 x
3,154
Conference Rooms (2)
120 sq. ft.
3,465 1.6 x
5,544
Break Rooms (3)
240 sq. ft.
3,465 1.6 x
5,544
Totals
231 35,731
57,170
(1) Represents space needed for every 15 employees
(2) Represents space needs for an eight person conference room
(3) One break room assigned per 16 staff
First Fiscal Year Budget (in 1993 dollars)
For Fiscal Year 1996, the Department will have a staff of 231 people, initial
expenditures of $26.3 million, revenues of $14.1 million and a resulting departmental net
expense of $12.1 million.
Expenditures
The expenditures for each line item of the table below consist primarily of salaries but
also include non -salary expenditures such as supplies, equipment, information systems, fleet
vehicles and self-insurance. The 1996 proposed Peconic County figure for each expense is
determined by estimating salaries for staff members and then multiplying non -salary
expenditures by the ratio of Peconic County to Suffolk County staff.
The only exception to this method was in the "Education of Disabled Children" line
item; the 1996 proposed Peconic County figure for this expense takes the "Value of Services
to East End," which was determined by multiplying the Suffolk County actual expenditure
by the percentage of services provided to the East End, and reduces it by 10% to arrive at an
estimation for the cost of the contracts with outside agencies. These projected savings are
derived from conservative adoption of the Education Committee's findings, which project
that substantial savings can be achieved through improved administration and oversight of
service contracts.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 93
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Table 5.6-4 shows the anticipated composition of expenditures for the Health
Department, including a breakdown of salary and non -salary costs.
Table 5.6-4
Summary of Salary and Non -Salary Expenditures
Health
Total Department
Expenditure Description
Salaries
Non -Salary (1)
Expenditures
Health Services Administration
$335,000
$32,670
$367,670
Education of Disabled Children
0
5,578,771
5,578,771
Public Health
1,792,000
994,321
2,786,321
Patient Care
2,832,000
7,025,433
9,857,433
Environmental Health
1,330,000
199,787
1,529,787
Alcohol and Substance Abuse
890,000
1,596,985
2,486,985
Community Mental Health
573,000
2,075,504
2,648,504
Medical/Legal Invest. and Forensic Sciences
507,000
160,283
667,283
Emergency Medical Services
95,000
283,736
378,736
Total Expenditures
$8,354,000
$17,947,490
$26,301,490
(1) See 'First Fiscal year Budget, Expenditures' for a description of non salarya.Venditures
Employee benefits for all departments are combined in the aggregate Peconic County
operating budget. The benefit cost is estimated to be 33% of all Peconic County salary
expenditures. Actual benefit costs will be determined through negotiations with Peconic
County employees.
Revenues
Revenues of the Peconic County Health Department will come from three sources.
Departmental income includes fees and charges for a variety of services provided; the most
substantial fees collected are for public health, home nursing, environmental health, mental
health and narcotics programs. State aid includes aid received for a variety of programs; the
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 94
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
most substantial aid is directed toward public health, community support services, narcotics
and mental health programs. Federal aid includes aid received for a variety of programs; the
most substantial aid is directed to public health and the WIC nutrition programs.
Projections for Peconic County Health Department revenues were derived by taking the
ratio of Suffolk County revenues to expenditures and applying that same ratio in Peconic
County. The balance of the Health Department's expenditures will be supported through the
County's General Fund.
Table 5.6-5 presents the Suffolk County Health Department's operating budget for Fiscal
Year 1993, the estimated cost of services provided to the East End towns in that year, and
the proposed Peconic County's operating budget for the Health Department for Fiscal Year
1996.
Table 5.6-5
Comparison of Operating Budgets
Health Department
Suffolk's Cost of Services
Expenditure Description
1993 Actual*
Provided to East End
Health Services Administration
$2,499,183
$152,450 a
Education of Disabled Children
114,789,537
6,198,635 a
Public Health
14,177,029
5,284,319 a
Patient Care"
36,837,963
4,886,347 a
Environmental Health
6,057,798
2,362,541 a
Alcohol and Substance Abuse
16,191,899
2,959,266 a
Community Mental Health
24,294,375
2,431,809 a
MedicaULegal Invest. and Forensic Sciences
7,427,732
825,221 a
Emergency Medical Services
1,752,434
455,633 a
Suffolk County Nursing Home
13,353,026
2,804,135 a
Total Expenditures
$237,380,976
$28,360,357
Revenue Description
Department Income
$36,8d1,380
$4,396,731 b
State Aid Education
$53,744,915
6,421,007 b
State Aid Heath Care
36,039,288
4,305,682 b
Federal Aid
3,810,740
455,276 b
Total Revenues
$130,396,323
$15,578,697
Proposed Peconic
Countv
$367,670
5,578,771
2,786,321
9,857,433
1,529,787
2,486,985
2,648,504
667,283
378,736
0
$26,301,490
$2,116,002
5,778,907
5,698,868
521,550
$14,115,326
Net Expense $106,984,653 $12,781,660 $12,186,164
'Source: 1995 Recommended Budget, County of Suffolk, New York
"Proposed Peconic County costs include the operation of as additional health clinic in Greenport.
a) Calculated by multiplying Suffolk County expenditure by the proportion of total service provided to East End citizens
b) Calculated by multiplying Suffolk revenues by the ratio of 'Suffolk's Cost of Services Provided to East End' to SuffoWs total expenditures
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 95
Peconic County
Financial Feasibility Study
0 0 0 0 0
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENTS
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
AND LEGAL AID SOCIETY
Peconic County
Citizens
District Attorney Legal Aid
Society
Town and Investigative Executive Legal
Village Police Services Unit Unit Services Unit
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENTS
Mission
The joint mission of the Office of the District Attorney and the Legal Aid Society is to
ensure appropriate and just enforcement of the laws of Peconic County through the criminal
court system. Together the two organizations will work towards a just resolution of each
alleged case of criminal wrongdoing committed in the County.
Authority and Responsibility
Office of the District Attorney
The District Attorney will be elected to a four-year term and will serve as the highest law
enforcement official in the Peconic County government. The Office of the District Attorney
will be responsible for conducting all prosecutions for crimes and offenses recognized by the
courts of Peconic County. The Office will perform all of the duties within the criminal court
prosecution process, including arraignments, motions, hearings, pleas, trials, sentencing and
appeals. The cases that are prosecuted will be developed in conjunction with investigations
conducted by several law enforcement agencies, primarily by the New York State Police and
the local police forces of the East End towns and villages. The Office's duties will also
include assisting local Town and Village police officers and County Sheriff officers in the
field in investigations, as more fully described below.
Legal Aid Society
The chief function of the Legal Aid Society will be to provide legal services to indigent
citizens charged in criminal and family court matters. It is anticipated that Peconic County
will contract with the Legal Aid Society of Suffolk County, a non-profit corporation, to
provide these legal services.
Mandated Services
The public defender services to be provided through the Legal Aid Society are mandated.
Pursuant to U.S. Supreme Court rulings and subsequent legislation, localities are mandated
to provide legal representation to criminal defendants. This obligation is delineated in
Article 188 of the New York State County Law, which provides for counties/localities to
develop a program for the representation of its defendants.
Changes in Service Delivery
The Office of the District Attorney and Legal Aid Society will provide essentially the
same services in Peconic County that they provide in Suffolk County. Neither the type nor
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 97
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENTS
level of services will change substantially; however, the size of each department will change
dramatically in accordance with the much smaller criminal caseload of Peconic County.
The following table highlights the financial impact that the formation of Peconic County
would have on operations of the Judicial Departments. The figures in this chart represent
the costs of services supported by County taxes and are derived by subtracting any
departmental fees, state or federal assistance from the total costs of services. The first
column represents Suffolk County's 1993 net expense for the Office of the District Attorney
and Legal Aid Society; the second column represents the East End's tax contribution toward
that total Suffolk amount; the third column represents Suffolk County's net cost of services
provided to the East End in 1993 from the Judicial Departments; and the fourth column
represents the net expense of Peconic County's Judicial Departments during the County's
first fiscal year. Please refer to Table 5.7-5 for a more detailed explanation of the following
figures.
Table 5.7-1
Comparison of Net Expenditures (FY 1993 dollars)
Suffolk County East End Suffolk's Cost of Services Proposed Peconic
1993 Actual Tax Contribution Provided to East End County Budget
$22,822,965 $3,284,225 $3,423,445 $2,606,848
As the above numbers indicate, in 1993 the East End towns contributed $3.28 million to
the Office of the Suffolk County District Attorney and Legal Aid Society of Suffolk County.
In comparison, these offices in Peconic County will require approximately $2.61 million (in
1993 dollars) of appropriations in the County's first fiscal year and will offer East End
citizens control over the level and quality of services provided.
Economic Relationship with Other Governments
East End Towns
No increased costs to the East End towns and villages will result from the establishment
of the Department.
Suffolk County
During periods in which the District Attorney's Office is burdened with an unusually
difficult caseload, Peconic County may attempt to contract the services of Suffolk County
District Attorney personnel, as described above (see "Organization and Staffing").
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 98
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENTS
Organization and Staffing
The East End Bureau of the Suffolk County DA's Office prosecutes misdemeanors
committed on the East End, which comprise between 15% and 20% of total Suffolk County
misdemeanors. There are a total of seventeen employees in the East End Bureau including
eight assistant district attorneys, four investigators and support staff. However, these
personnel do not exercise full felony jurisdiction; rather, felony prosecutions are transferred
to one of several bureaus of the District Attorney's office which include homicide, major
crimes, narcotics, white collar crimes, rackets and family crimes.
The Office of the Peconic County District Attorney will require an estimated fifteen
additional personnel to prosecute the felony cases which are currently transferred out of the
East End Bureau of the Suffolk County DA's Office. Precise information on felony cases
originating on the East End is not available; this projection is based on somewhat anecdotal
information from the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office. It is also anticipated that the
Peconic County District Attorney's Office will perform a more expansive role in
investigations, due to the absence of a Peconic County police department (please see "Public
Safety Coordinator's Office"), requiring approximately seven detective investigators to be
added to the Office. Thus, to supplement the staff currently operating through the East End
Bureau, a total of twelve additional staff is estimated to be necessary to allow the Office to
prosecute felony cases and assume more direct responsibility in investigations.
These anticipated staffing levels of the Peconic County District Attorney's Office are
intended to handle most day-to-day caseloads. It is possible that situations will arise, due to
particularly difficult cases or extraordinary caseloads, which require more investigative
and/or prosecutorial personnel than the District Attorney's Office has available. In these
situations, the County would likely need to hire additional personnel on a temporary basis,
such as private prosecutors. It is also possible that Peconic County would attempt to
contract for such prosecution -related services with Suffolk County, depending on the
availability of Suffolk County's staff resources, as well as its general willingness to enter into
such arrangements. Hiring additional temporary staff of any type will represent additional
costs to Peconic County, which have not been assumed in the financial projections herein.
Staffing divisions in the Office of the District Attorney will include the Executive Unit,
Investigative Services Unit and the Legal Services Unit. The Suffolk County District
Attorney's Office makes distinctions between several staffing centers which would not be
necessary within Peconic County due to its much smaller size. For example, the Peconic
County District Attorney's Office will not include distinct staffing assignments for Auxiliary
Services or Aid to Prosecution; rather, these functions will be carried out by one of the three
remaining divisions of the Office. The staffing requirements of each of division as they
currently exist in Suffolk County and as they are anticipated in Peconic County are shown in
the Table 5.7-2.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 99
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENTS
Table 5.7-2
Staffing Analysis
Judicial Departments
Department / Division
Suffolk
1993 Actual
Proposed
Peconic
Staffing
Average
Cost per
Position
Total Cost
DA: Executive, Administrative, Grand Jury
9
7
Administrative Staff
1
4
$25,000
$100,000
Line Staff
5
2
35,000
70,000
Supervisory Staff
2
0
50,000
0
District Attorney
1
1
110,000
110,000
DA: Investigative Unit
51
16
Administrative Staff
2
2
25,000
50,000
Line Staff
47
11
35,000
385,000
Supervisory Staff
2
3
50,000
150,000
DA: Legal Services Unit
124
14
Administrative Staff
2
2
25,000
50,000
Line Staff
103
11
35,000
385,000
Supervisory Staff
19
1
50,000
50,000
DA: Auxiliary Services Unit
118
0
Administrative Staff
116
0
Line Staff
2
0
Supervisory Staff
0
0
DA: Aid to Prosecution
19
0
Administrative Staff
7
0
Line Staff
11
0
Supervisory Staff
1
0
DA: Other*
24
0
Administrative Staff
7
0
Line Staff
17
0
Supervisory Staff
0
0
Total Staff
345
37
$1,350,000
'Includes MIS, Child Abuse prosecution, interims, witness protection, witness assistance, narcotics, DWI
Since the County will contract legal services for indigent defendants through the Legal
Aid Society, no County employees will be assigned to provide public defense services.
Space Needs
Several staff members of the District Attorney's Office could be housed in offices in
Southampton and Southold, which currently house the seventeen employees in the two
offices of the East End Bureau of Suffolk County's District Attorney's Office. However,
both of these spaces are currently occupied to capacity. Since Peconic County's District
Attorney's Office would require an estimated twenty more personnel to be added in these
offices, some additional space would be necessary. Using industry standards to estimate
demand for office space, the Office of the Peconic County District Attorney will need
approximately 10,000 gross square feet of office space including available East End Bureau
space.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 100
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENTS
Table 5.7-3
Calculation of Space Requirements
Judicial Departments
Net Space Needed Total Employees
Net Space
Net / Gross
Gross Space
Type of Staff/Shared Space
per Employee
by Type
Needed
Factor
Needed
Administrative Staff
90 sq. ft.
8
720 sq. ft.
1.60 X
1,152 sq. ft.
Line Personnel
135 sq. ft.
24
3,240 sq. ft.
1.60 X
5,184 sq. ft.
Supervisory Staff
175 sq. ft.
4
700 sq. ft.
1.60 X
1,120 sq. ft.
Director
190 sq. ft.
1
190 sq. ft.
1.60 X
304 sq. ft.
Common Space
128 sq. ft. (1) N/A
316 sq. ft. 1.60 X
505 sq. ft.
Conference Rooms
120 sq. ft. (2) N/A
555 sq. ft. 1.60 X
888 sq. ft.
Break Rooms
240 sq. ft. (3) N/A
555 sq. ft. 1.60 X
888 sq. ft.
37 6,276 sq. ft. 10,041 sq. ft.
(1) Represents space needed for every 15 employees
(2) Represents space needed for an eight person conference room
(3) Represents space needed for every 16 employees
First Fiscal Year Budget (in 1993 Dollars)
The Office of the District Attorney will have a total staff of 37 and a departmental
budget of $1.87 million. Peconic County will incur expenses of $0.74 million through its
contracts with the Legal Aid Society.
Expenditures
District Attorney - Includes salaries and benefits, which are expected to make up 80% of
all expenses. By New York State law, the salary of a county District Attorney is tied to the
salary paid to a supreme court justice in that county. The Suffolk County District Attorney's
salary is $113,000; an estimate of $110,000 has been assumed for Peconic County. Other
cost areas include information systems, fleet services, supplies and equipment expenditures.
The 1996 proposed Peconic County figure for the District Attorney line item is determined
by estimating salaries for staff members and then multiplying non -salary expenditures by the
ratio of Peconic County to Suffolk County staff. Other expenses include the net costs of
programs which are partially funded by grants from New York State, including a Victim
Assistance Program, Enhanced Narcotics Prosecution and Aid to Prosecution.
Legal Aid Society - Includes the cost of contracting public defender services through the
Society. The 1996 proposed Peconic County figure is based on an estimate of criminal cases
originating East End as a percentage of total Suffolk County cases.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 101
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENTS
Employee benefits for all departments are combined in the aggregate Peconic County
operating budget. The benefit cost is estimated as 33% of all Peconic ,County salary
expenditures. Actual benefit costs will be determined through negotiations with Peconic
County employees. Table 5.7-4 indicates the anticipated composition of expenditures for the
Judicial Departments, including a breakdown of salary and non -salary costs.
Table 5.7-4
Summary of Salary and Non -Salary Expenditures
Judicial Departments
Expenditure Description Salaries Non -Salary Total Expenditures
District Attorney
Victim Witness Assistance Program
$0
$30,000
District Attorney
1,350,000
331,962
Enhanced Narcotics Prosecution
0
30,000
Aid to Prosecution
0
125,000
Subtotal District Attorney
1,350,000
516,962
Legal Aid Society
Legal Aid Society
Family Violence Program
Aid to Defense
Subtotal Legal Aid Society
Total Expenditures
0 631,347
0 38,142
0 70,397
0 739,886
$30,000
1,681,962
30,000
125,000
1,866,962
631,347
38,142
70,397
739,886
$1,350,000 $1,256,848 $2,606,848
Table 5.7-5 presents operating results for Fiscal Year 1993 for the Suffolk County
District Attorney's Office's and the Legal Aid Society of Suffolk County, the share of those
expenditures benefiting the East End towns and the proposed Peconic County's operating
budget for these services for Fiscal Year 1996.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 102
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENTS
Table 5.7-5
Comparison of Operating Budgets
Judicial Departments
$0
Suffolk's Cost of Services
Proposed Peconic
Expenditure Description
1993 Actual'
Provided to East End
County Budget
District Attorney
254,277
38,142
38,142
Witness Protection Grant
$15,570
$2,336
$0
Victim Witness Assistance Program
122,751
18,413
30,000
L.I. Regional Crack/Cocaine
43,304
6,496
0
Stop - D.W.I.
204,833
30,725
0
District Attorney
16,054,014
2,408,102
1,681,962
Violent Drug Gang Invest/Prosecution
66,779
10,017
0
Enhanced Narcotics Prosecution
393,012
58,952
30,000
Aid to Prosecution
1,014,538
152,181
125,000
Subtotal District Attorney
17,914,801
2,687,220
1,866,962
Legal Aid Society
$0
$0
24,409
Legal Aid Society
4,208,980
631,347
631,347
Family Violence Program
254,277
38,142
38,142
Aid to Defense
469,316
70,397
70,397
Subtotal Legal Aid Society
4,932,573
739,886
739,886
Total Expenditures
$22,847,374
$3,427,106
$2,606,848
Revenue Description
Departmental Income
State Aid
Federal Aid
Total Revenues
Net Expense
'Source: 1995 Recommended Budget, County of Suffolk, New York
$0
$0
$0
24,409
3,661
0
0
0
0
$24,409
$3,661
$0
$22,822,965
$3,423,445
$2,606,848
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 103
Peconic County
Financial Feasibility Study
0 9 0 0 9
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS
AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Office of
Cultural Affairs
Recreational' Operations and
Facilities Maintenance
Commissioner of Parks
and Cultural Affairs
Division of
Parks
Administration
Office of
Historic Services
Park Security' Environmental
Enforcement
"n'�-��.��'� - .. ��.�•�'„ rr-
' tr. .�. . r ��' �•� i.w—''' .. ,......,�Vr.i;11 1111, �� 117 i Tti .�'. "ipl�
PARKS AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Mission
The Peconic County Department of Parks and Cultural Affairs will be responsible for
developing and maintaining all County parks for public use and for funding cultural
institutions and programs. The Department will provide these essential services recognizing
their vital link to the County's economic base and to the quality of life that is currently
enjoyed by residents and visitors to the region. The Department will carry out this mission
reflecting the County's rural character, passive recreational opportunities and the critical
importance of its cultural resources.
Authority and Responsibility
The Department will be responsible for over 17,000 acres of park lands, wetlands and
pine barrens. This acreage includes numerous park land facilities, 1 golf course, 1 marina, 5
campgrounds, bay and ocean front beaches, nature trails, horseback riding, boating facilities,
bird sanctuaries and nature preserves. The Department will be responsible for developing
and maintaining all of these park lands and open spaces for public use. The Department will
also have the authority to recommend, institute and implement conservation programs to
preserve the greenery, wildlife and natural resources of the County.
The Department's responsibilities related to parks will include organizing recreational
activities, providing environmental tours and educational programs, providing a safe
environment in the parks through the Park Ranger security force and meeting regularly with
constituent organizations to enhance recreational opportunities in the parks.
The Department will also include an Office of Cultural Affairs and an Office of Historic
Services. The Office of Cultural Affairs will maintain a liaison with the arts and cultural
community and administer a grant program to distribute funds annually to cultural
institutions within the County. Initially, the level of this funding is assumed to be $50,000.
The Office of Historic Services will administer the County's Historic Trust areas and historic
buildings and provide interpretive tours of these properties.
No services to be provided by the Department are mandated by any other government.
Changes in Service Delivery
The Department of Parks and Cultural Affairs will provide essentially the same services
in Peconic County that the Department of Parks provides in Suffolk County. Neither the
type nor level of services will change substantially; however, the size of the department will
be reduced to administer a sub -set of the existing Suffolk County park system.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 105
PARKS AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Table 5.8-1 highlights the financial impact that the formation of Peconic County would
have on operations of the Department of Parks and Cultural Affairs. The figures in this chart
represent the costs of services supported by County taxes and are derived by subtracting any
departmental fees, state or federal assistance from the total costs of services. Since many of
the facilities operated by the Department generate fee income, the Department's net expenses
will be relatively small and therefore will not draw heavily upon general tax revenues. The
first column represents Suffolk County's 1993 net expense for the Parks Department; the
second column represents the East End's tax contribution toward that total Suffolk amount;
the third represents Suffolk County's net cost of services provided to the East End in 1993 by
the Department; and the fourth column represents the net expense of Peconic County's
Department of Parks and Cultural Affairs during the County's first fiscal year. Please refer
to Table 5.8-5 for a more detailed explanation of the following figures.
Table 5.8-1
Comparison of Net Expenditures (FY 1993 dollars)
Suffolk County East End Suffolk's Cost of Services Proposed Peconic
1993 Actual Tax Contribution Provided to East End County Budget
$2,946,291 $423,971 $208,714 $1,551,483
As the above numbers indicate, in 1993 the East End towns contributed $0.42 million to
the Suffolk County Department of Parks. In comparison, these offices in Peconic County
will require approximately $1.55 million (in 1993 dollars) of appropriations in the County's
first fiscal year and will offer East End citizens control over the level and quality of services
provided.
Economic Relationship with Other Governments
East End Towns
No increased costs to the East End towns and villages will result from the establishment
of the Department or the ongoing provision of its services.
Suffolk County
It is anticipated that Peconic.County will establish a use agreement with Suffolk County,
to allow Suffolk County and Peconic County residents to share use of park land and cultural
facilities and programs.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 106
PARKS AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Organization and Staffing
The Department will be headed by the Commissioner of Parks and Cultural Affairs and
include staffing for Administration, Operations and Maintenance, Recreational Facilities,
Security (Park Rangers), Natural Resources and Education, the Office of Historic Services
and the Office of Cultural Affairs. The staffing requirements of each of these areas as they
currently exist for Suffolk County and as they are anticipated in Peconic County are shown
in Table 5.8-2.
Table 5.8-2
Staffing Analysis
Department of Parks and Cultural Affairs
Department / Division
Suffolk
1993 Actual
Proposed
Peconic
County Staffing
Cost per
Position
Total Cost
Administration
21
7
Administrative Staff
14
3
$25,000
$75,000
Line Staff
6
3
35,000
105,000
Supervisory Staff
1
0
50,000
0
Director
1
1
70,000
70,000
Operations and Maintenance
19
8
Administrative Staff
9
4
25,000
100,000
Line Staff
10
4
35,000
140,000
Supervisory Staff
0
0
50,000
0
Golf Courses
21
5
Administrative Staff
17
4
25,000
100,000
Line Staff
4
1
35,000
35,000
Supervisory Staff
0
0
50,000
0
Other Park Facilities
30
17
Administrative Staff
17
10
25,000
250,000
Line Staff
9
6
35,000
210,000
Supervisory Staff
4
1
50,000
50,000
Security (Park Rangers)
35
17
Administrative Staff
28
14
25,000
350,000
Line Staff
7
3
35,000
105,000
Supervisory Staff
0
0
50,000
0
Environmental Enforcement/Office of Natural Resources
12
3
Administrative Staff
11
1
25,000
25,000
Line Staff
1
2
35,000
70,000
Supervisory Staff
0
0
50,000
0
Office of Historic Services
3
2
Administrative Staff
1
0
25,000
0
Line Staff
2
2
35,000
70,000
Supervisory Staff
0
0
50,000
0
Office of Cultural Affairs
2
4
Administrative Staff
1
2
25,000
50,000
Line Staff
1
1
35,000
35,000
Supervisory Staff
0
1
50,000
50,000
Total Staff
143
63
$1,890,000
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 107
PARKS AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Space Needs
Using industry standards to estimate demand for office space, the Peconic County
Department of Parks, Recreation and Culture will need approximately 12,900 square feet of
space.
Table 5.8-3
Calculation of Space Requirements
Department of Parks
and Cultural Affairs
Net Space Needed Total Employees
Net Space
Net / Gross
Gross Space
Type of Staff/Shared Space
per Employee
by Type
Needed
Factor
Needed
Administrative Staff
90 sq. ft.
38
3,420 sq. ft.
1.60 X
5,472 sq. ft.
Line Personnel
135 sq. ft.
22
2,970 sq. ft.
1.60 X
4,752 sq. ft.
Supervisory Staff
175 sq. ft.
2
350 sq. ft.
1.60 X
560 sq. ft.
Director
190 sq. ft.
1
190 sq. ft.
1.60 X
304 sq. ft.
Common Space 128 sq. ft. (1) N/A 538 sq. ft. 1.60 X 860 sq. ft.
Conference Rooms 120 sq. ft. (2) N/A 945 sq. ft. 1.60 X 1,512 sq. ft.
Break Rooms 240 sq. ft. (3) N/A 945 sq. ft. 1.60 X 1,512 sq. ft.
63 9,358 sq. ft. 14,972 sq. ft.
(1) Represents space needed for every 15 employees
(2) Represents space needed for an eight person conference room
(3) Represents space needed for every 16 employees
First Fiscal Year Budget (in 1993 Dollars)
The Department will have a total staff of 63, initial expenditures of $3.10 million,
revenues of $1.55 million and a resulting departmental net expense of $1.55 million.
Expenditures
The Department's expenditures can be classified into the following three main
categories:
Parks - Includes the costs associated with operating and maintaining the County's park
facilities, wetlands and pine barrens, including conservation programs. This expense
category primarily includes salaries and benefits, along with expenses associated with fleet
operation, supplies, utilities and equipment. Expenses in this category dominate the
Department's total budget, making up 96% of total expenses. The 1996 proposed Peconic
County figure for this expense is determined by estimating salaries for staff members and
then multiplying non -salary expenditures by the ratio of Peconic County to Suffolk County
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 108
PARKS AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS
staff. It is possible that some cost savings could be achieved in the area of Park Security, if
the rangers' dispatch costs could be effectively consolidated with town police and
emergency services. For conservative purposes, no such potential savings have been
reflected in the projected 1996 budget.
Historic Services - Includes the costs of overseeing Historic Trust areas and historic
buildings, particularly the administration, restoration and maintenance of historic properties
and landmarks owned by the County. The 1996 proposed Peconic County figure for this
expense is based on an estimate by the Suffolk County Parks Department of the distribution
of historic properties between the East End and the remainder of Suffolk County.
Office of Cultural Affairs - Includes expenses associated with maintaining a liaison with
the cultural community and administering an annual grant program to distribute funds either
to cultural institutions located in the County or to organizations with programs benefiting
County residents. The total budget projected for Fiscal Year 1996 includes $50,000 of
grants plus $135,000 for salary and other costs of administering the program.
Employee benefits for all departments are combined in the aggregate Peconic County
operating budget. The benefit cost is estimated as 33% of all Peconic County salary
expenditures. Actual benefit costs will be determined through negotiations with Peconic
County employees.
Table 5.8-4
Summary of Salary and Non -Salary Expenditures
Department of Parks and Cultural Affairs
Expenditure Description
Salaries
Non -Salary
Parks
$1,685,000
$1,125,365
Office of Historic Services
70,000
12,834
Office of Cultural Affairs
135,000
75,668
Total Expenditures
$1,890,000
$1,213,867
Revenues
Total Expenditures
$2,810,365
82,834
210,668
$3,103,867
Departmental income including fees for camping, concessions, beach/pool use, marinas,
docks and golf courses will offset the majority of the Department's expenses. The $1.55
million revenue projected for Fiscal Year 1996 is based on actual 1993 revenues generated
by Suffolk County park facilities existing on the East End. No state or federal aid is
anticipated; therefore, the balance of the Department's net expenditures will be supported
through the County's General Fund.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 109
PARKS AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Table 5.8-5 presents the Suffolk County Parks Department's operating results for Fiscal
Year 1993, the share of those expenditures benefiting the five East End towns and the
proposed Fiscal Year 1996 operating budget for Peconic County's Department of Parks and
Cultural Affairs.
Table 5.8-5
Comparison of Operating Budgets
Department of Parks and Cultural Affairs
Expenditure Description
1993 Actual*
Parks
$8,275,227
Natural Resource Management
156
Office of Historic Services
117,166
Marine Museum
64,150
Cultural Affairs Council
58
Office of Cultural Affairs
300,000
Total Expenditures
$8,756,757
Suffolk's Cost of Services Proposed Peconic
Provided to East End County Budget
$1,678,778 a $2,810,365
0 0
30,000 b 82,834
0 c 0
0 0
52,320 d 210,668
$1,761,098 $3,103,867
Revenue Description
Departmental Income
$5,810,466
$1,552,384 a
$1,552,384
State Aid
0
0
0
Federal Aid
0
0
0
Total Revenues
$5,810,466
$1,552,384
$1,552,384
Net Expense
$2,946,291
$208,714
$1,551,483
'Source: 1995 Recommended Budget, County of Suffolk, New York
a) Based on salaries for East End facilities versus total
b) Estimate of expenses on historic properties on East End, provided by Suffolk County Parks department
c) Museum is located in West End
d) Grants to East End organizations plus population -based share of County -wide organizations plus cost of one line employee
e) 1993 revenues from East End facilities
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 110
Peconic County
Financial Feasibility Study.
0 0 0 0 0
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
AND REGIONAL SERVICES
Planning Director — -- — — Cooperative
Extension Association
Planning' Soil and
Water Conservation
PLANNING AND REGIONAL SERVICES
Mission
The mission of the Department of Planning and Regional Services will be to effectively
manage the uses of space and natural resources of Peconic County, recognizing the impact of
open spaces and environmental preservation on the quality of life of the County's citizens
and visitors.
Authority and Responsibility
Planning and Conservation
The Department will be responsible for the County's comprehensive plan, a long-term
plan for growth of the County. In addition to serving as a guide to County planning, the
comprehensive plan will be a resource for the towns and villages in Peconic County. The
Department will also prepare and maintain the official maps of the County, which will
indicate the locations of existing and proposed streets, highways, drainage systems and parks
in the County. These maps will be made available to citizens and local governments.
The Department will coordinate all long-range planning among County departments,
review zoning actions and assist localities by advising on development projects and
performing environmental studies, demographics studies and economic research. In these
activities, the Department will coordinate its efforts with the planning divisions of the towns
and villages to perform comprehensive and integrated planning for the areas within the
County.
The Department will establish and enforce environmental policy in Peconic County. The
Department will evaluate all resolutions and capital projects requiring environmental review.
It will also oversee and monitor the Pine Barrens and enforce the protection of clean
drinking water. The Department will develop, recommend and implement conservation
measures for the region's soil and water resources. It will implement necessary erosion and
flood control measures, provide technical assistance in land use and water management and
classify land used in agricultural production for owners applying for agricultural assessment
relief.
Cooperative Extension Association
The Cornell Cooperative Extension is a not-for-profit organization administered by the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) which provides educational programs for
school-age children and the general public in agriculture, home economics, 4-H youth
development and marine education. The agricultural industry is one of the region's major
employers and an important component of Long Island's economy.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 111
PLANNING AND REGIONAL SERVICES
In Peconic County, the Cooperative Extension Association would be jointly financed by
Peconic County, New York State and the United States Department of Agriculture. It is also
possible that the Extension could jointly administer services to both Peconic County and
Suffolk County, in which case Suffolk County would also finance a portion of its operating
costs. In either case, this decision should not have a significant financial impact.
Mandated Services
No services to be provided by the Department are mandated by any other government.
Changes in Service Delivery
The Department of Planning and Regional Services will provide essentially the same
services in Peconic County that the Department of Planning provides in Suffolk County.
Neither the type nor level of services will change substantially; however, the size of the
department will change in accordance with the smaller size of Peconic County.
The following table highlights the financial impact that the formation of Peconic County
would have on operations of the Department of Planning and Regional Services. The figures
in this chart represent the costs of services supported by County taxes and are derived by
subtracting any departmental fees, state or federal assistance from the total costs of services.
The first column represents Suffolk County's 1993 net expense for the Planning Department,
Cooperative Extension Association and Soil and Water Conservation District; the second
column represents the East End's tax contribution toward that total Suffolk amount; the third
column represents Suffolk County's net cost of services provided to the East End in 1993 by
these divisions; and the fourth column represents the net expense of Peconic County's
Department of Planning and Regional Services during the County's first fiscal year. Please
refer to Table 5.9-5 for a more detailed explanation of the following figures.
Table 5.9-1
Comparison of Net Expenditures (FY 1993 dollars)
Suffolk County East End Suffolk's Cost of Services Proposed Peconic
1993 Actual Tax Contribution Provided to East End County Budget
$3,597,895 $517,737 $1,376,650 $1,449,123
As the above numbers indicate, in 1993 the East End towns contributed $0.52 million to
the Suffolk County Department of Planning and Cooperative Extension Association. In
comparison, these offices in Peconic County will require approximately $1.45 million (in
1993 dollars) of appropriations in the County's first fiscal year and will offer East End
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 112
PLANNING AND REGIONAL SERVICES
citizens control over the level and quality of services provided. The bulk of these
expenditures are for the Cooperative Extension Association. The East End currently
receives approximately 60% of the services provided by the Cooperative Extension
Association of Suffolk County.
Economic Relationship with Other Governments
East End Towns
No increased costs to the East End towns and villages will result from the establishment
of the Department.
Suffolk County
The Cornell Cooperative Extension could jointly administer services to both Peconic
County and Suffolk County, in which case the two counties would each finance a portion of
its operating costs.
Organization and Staffing
The Department will be headed by the Director of Planning and Regional Services and
include a total staff of ten employees, including a staff division for soil and water
conservation.
Since the County will contract agricultural education and related services through the
Cornell Cooperative Extension, no County employees will be assigned to provide these
services.
The staffing requirements for the Department's activities as they currently exist in
Suffolk County and as they are anticipated in Peconic County are shown in the Table 5.9-2.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 113
PLANNING AND REGIONAL SERVICES
Table 5.9-2
Staffing Analysis
Department of Planning and Regional Services
Department / Division
Suffolk
1993 Actual
Proposed
Peconic
Staffing
Average
Cost per
Position
Total Cost
Planning
1,296
28
7
Net Space
Type of Staff/Shared Space
per Employee
Administrative Staff
10
2
$25,000
$50,000
270
Line Staff
17
4
35,000
140,000
sq. ft.
Supervisory Staff
1
0
50,000
0
Director
Director
1
1
70,000
70,000
Soil and Water Conservation
WA
4
3
Conference Rooms
120 sq. ft. (2)
N/A
Administrative Staff
2
1
25,000
25,000
150
Line Staff
2
2
35,000
70,000
Supervisory Staff
0
0
50,000
0
Total Staff
42
10
5355,000
Space Needs
Using industry standards to estimate demand for office space, the Peconic County
Department of Planning and Regional Services will need approximately 3,400 square feet of
office space.
Table 5.9-3
(1) Represents space needed for every 15 employees
(2) Represents space needed for an eight person conference room
(3) Represents space needed for every 16 employees
Net / Gross Gross Space
Factor
Calculation of Space Requirements
Department of Planning
432
sq. ft.
1.60 X
1,296
and Regional Services
Net Space Needed Total Employees
Net Space
Type of Staff/Shared Space
per Employee
by Type
Needed
Administrative Staff
90 sq. ft.
3
270
sq. ft.
Line Personnel
135 sq. ft.
6
810
sq. ft.
Supervisory Staff
175 sq. ft.
0
0
sq. ft.
Director
190 sq. ft.
1
190
sq. ft.
Common Space
128 sq. ft. (1)
WA
85
sq. ft.
Conference Rooms
120 sq. ft. (2)
N/A
150
sq. ft.
Break Rooms
240 sq. ft. (3)
N/A
150
sq. ft.
10
1,655
sq. ft.
(1) Represents space needed for every 15 employees
(2) Represents space needed for an eight person conference room
(3) Represents space needed for every 16 employees
Net / Gross Gross Space
Factor
Needed
1.60 X
432
sq. ft.
1.60 X
1,296
sq. ft.
1.60 X
0
sq. ft.
1.60 X
304
sq. ft.
1.60 X 137 sq. ft.
1.60 X 240 sq. ft.
1.60 X 240 sq. ft.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 114
PLANNING AND REGIONAL SERVICES
First Fiscal Year Budget (in 1993 Dollars)
The Department will have a total staff of ten, initial expenditures of $1.59 million,
revenues of $.22 million and a resulting departmental net expense of $1.38 million.
Expenditures
The Department's expenditures can be classified into the following three main
categories:
Planning - Includes the costs associated with preparing the comprehensive County plan,
official maps, designing and enforcing environmental policy and performing research
studies. Over 90% of expenses in this category will be comprised of personnel costs. The
1996 proposed Peconic County figure for this expense is determined by estimating salaries
for staff members and then multiplying non -salary expenditures by the ratio of Peconic
County to Suffolk County staff.
Cooperative Extension Association - Includes the County's contribution to finance the
operating expenses of the Cornell Cooperative Extension. As discussed above, the
Extension is a not-for-profit organization which would provide educational and other
services regarding agriculture and related fields. These expenses represent the cost to
Peconic County of contracting these services from the Extension. Roughly 60% of the
services currently provided by the Extension to Suffolk County benefit residents of the East
End towns and villages, reflecting the rural and agricultural nature of the East End versus the
remainder of Suffolk County.
Soil and Water Conservation - Includes costs of designing and implementing programs
to prevent soil erosion, control floods, manage water resources and undertake conservation
planning. Over 90% of these expenses represent costs of salaries and benefits. It is
estimated that approximately 60% of these services currently provided by Suffolk County
benefit the East End towns and villages.
Employee benefits for all departments are combined in the aggregate Peconic County
operating budget. The benefit cost is estimated as 33% of all Peconic County salary
expenditures. Actual benefit costs will be determined through negotiations with Peconic
County employees.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 115
PLANNING AND REGIONAL SERVICES
Table 5.9-4
Summary of Salary and Non -Salary Expenditures
Department of Planning and Regional Services
Suffolk's Cost of Services
Proposed Peconic
1993 Actual*
Expenditure Description
Salaries
Non -Salary
Total Expenditures
Planning
$260,000
$19,216
279,216
Cooperative Extension Association
0
1,285,000
1,285,000
Soil and Water Conservation
95,000
8,210
103,210
Total Expenditures
$355,000
$1,312,425
$1,667,425
Revenues
Revenues of the Peconic County Department of Planning and Regional Services will
come from departmental income including fees for maps and performing research reports
and state aid in the form of grants for environmental protection programs. The balance of
the expenditures for the Department will be supported through the County's general tax
revenues.
The following table presents: 1.) the Fiscal Year 1993 operating results for the Suffolk
County Planning Department and Cooperative Extension, 2.) the share of those expenditures
benefiting the five East -end towns and 3.) the proposed Peconic County's Fiscal Year 1996
operating budget for its Department of Planning and Regional Services.
Table 5.9-5
Comparison of Operating Budgets
Department of Planning and Regional Services
Expenditure Description
Planning
Environmental Quality Council
Water Quality Protection Reserve Fund
Cooperative Extension Association
Soil and Water Conservation
Total Expenditures
Revenue Description
Departmental Income
State Aid
Federal Aid
Total Revenues
Net Expense
'Source: 1995 Recommended Budget, County of Suffolk, New York
$3,597,895 $1,376,650 $1,449,123
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 116
Suffolk's Cost of Services
Proposed Peconic
1993 Actual*
Provided to East End
County Budget
$1,412,435
$114,527
$279,216
151,502
90,901
0
94,723
7,681
0
2,137,608
1,282,565
1,285,000
165,464
99,278
103,210
$3,961,732
$1,594,952
$1,667,425
$82,555
$49,533
$49,533
281,282
168,769
168,769
0
0
0
$363,837
$218,302
$218,302
$3,597,895 $1,376,650 $1,449,123
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 116
Peconic County
Financial Feasibility Study
0 0 0 0 0
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Aviation
Division
Public Works
Administration
Public
Transportation
Buildings and Facilities
Design and Maintenance
PUBLIC WORKS
Mission
The Peconic County Department of Public Works (the "Department") will provide
essential and efficient services to its citizens with the fewest number of staff and lowest
overhead expenses possible. The Department will be committed to keeping Peconic County
buildings, airport and bus service operational and in proper repair so as to make the County a
safe and efficient place to live, travel and work.
Authority and Responsibility
General
The Department will be responsible for the following duties: the operation, maintenance
and repair of County facilities and buildings, including the court facilities in Riverhead; the
organization of public transportation in the form of a County -wide bus system, whereby the
County will own the buses which will be leased to independent private operators; the day to
day operation of the Gabreski Airport (the "Airport"), including securing tenants and
collecting rental revenues from the 28 tenants at the Airport; implementing and managing
certain transportation based mandates; and insuring that surface transportation and capital
projects are undertaken in a timely manner.
It is anticipated that Peconic County will only own those buildings and facilities it
actually requires to provide services pursuant to the Divestiture Method outlined in
Chapter 7.
Mandated Expenditures
The State of New York mandates that counties on Long Island make a payment to aid the
Long Island Railroad. As this payment deals with transportation within the County (the
majority of the payment is used for station repair and maintenance), it has traditionally been
paid through the Department of Public Works. In 1993, the mandate for Suffolk County was
$17,693,150.
All County buildings must be maintained in conformance with state building codes,
Office of Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) safety standards and fire safety
regulations. In many instances, the services provided by the Department as support to other
departments are prerequisite to the receipt of federal or state reimbursement to those
departments.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 117
PUBLIC WORKS
Changes in Service Delivery
Maintenance and repair of County highways and bridges, snow removal on the highways
and bridges, and waterway and dredging responsibilities being provided by the Suffolk
County Department of Public Works are to be provided by each individual town in Peconic
County where the roads and bridges are located. Each town will be reimbursed by the
County for the services the town provides on County property. See the section entitled
"Economic Relationships with Other Entities" for discussion of this proposed agreement.
The services will continue to be provided to the residents of the East End but the entity
providing the service will change.
Table 5.10-1 highlights the financial impact that the formation of Peconic County would
have on the Department as outlined in this section of the report. The figures in this table
represent the costs of services supported by County taxes and are derived by subtracting any
departmental revenues, state aid or federal aid from the total costs of services. The first
column represents Suffolk County's 1993 net expense for the Department; the second
column represents the East End's tax contribution through the General Fund toward the
existing Suffolk County total amount; the third column represents the net expense as an
estimated dollar value of services provided to the East End in 1993 from the Department;
and the fourth column represents the net expense of the Peconic County Department of
Public Works in its first fiscal year.
Table 5.10-1
Comparison of Net Expenditures (FY 1993 dollars)
Suffolk County East End Suffolk's Cost of Services Proposed Peconic
1993 Actual Contribution Provided to East End County Budget
$73,729,790 $10,609,717 $6,274,870 $4,641,361
As the above numbers indicate, in 1993 the East End towns contributed tax dollars to the
operation of the Suffolk County Department of Public Works in an amount of approximately
$10.6 million dollars. It cost Suffolk County nearly $6.3 million to provide these services.
In comparison, in its first fiscal year, the Peconic County Department of Public Works can
provide the outlined services at a cost of $4.6 million to the tax payers of the East End and
will offer East End citizens control over the level and quality of services provided.
Gabreski Airport
The Aviation Division of the Department will be responsible for operating and
maintaining the Gabreski Airport in Westhampton. The Airport was formerly part of a
military base and sees limited commercial use. The Airport sits on nearly 1,500 acres of
land and consists of 3 runways, the Air Traffic Control Tower and 29 rental properties.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 118
PUBLIC WORKS
Eighty-eight aircraft are based at the Airport with additional transient aircraft, mainly air
taxis, based there in the summer months.
Specific responsibilities of the Aviation Division include the daily inspection and
maintenance of the Airport's runways, taxiways and aircraft parking areas, maintenance of
electrical systems and lighting, snow and ice control, grass cutting and maintenance of the
Airport's buildings, roads and parking lots. Additionally, the division will monitor lease
agreements and manage the property of its aviation and non -aviation tenants. These tenants
include mainly industrial tenants, including plumbing and heating supply warehouses. Any
non -aviation tenant must be approved by the FAA and any revenues generated by the Airport
must be used for operation of the Airport, per FAA regulations. In 1993, there were 10
aviation and 18 non -aviation tenants leasing 29 buildings and 19 acres of land at the Airport.
The Air National Guard is based at the Airport, rents five acres of land from Suffolk County
and pays a user fee.
The Air National Guard provides and fully funds Air Traffic Control Tower Service and
Radio Maintenance service at the Airport. Capital improvements have in the past been
funded by state and federal grants and proposals for further funding have been submitted to
both the state Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration.
Suffolk County's goals for the future of the Airport include the development of an industrial
park. Toward this end, a Waste Treatment Facility funded by the federal government and
jointly operated by the Air National Guard and Suffolk County is currently in the planning
and design stage.
Public Transportation
County wide bus service will be organized and implemented by the Department. Buses
and equipment will be obtained by the Department from the Omnibus service currently
operated in Suffolk County. At present, there are six routes that service the five East End
towns. Ten buses are used to service these routes. Buses have been purchased by Suffolk
County and are operated under a contract with an independent operating company. Under
this agreement, county, state and federal aid, along with farebox receipts are used to defray
the costs of operating the service. Suffolk County is responsible for up to 35% of the costs,
farebox receipts account for 25% of the costs and state and federal aid accounts for 35% and
5% of costs respectively.
Buses are replaced every 12 years as an industry standard of useful life for buses. Buses
were purchased by Suffolk County in 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1987. It is assumed that in the
allocation of assets between Suffolk and Peconic County, an equitable number of both older
and newer buses will assumed by Peconic County. Applying the aforementioned standard
for replacement of buses, the earliest any buses owned by Peconic County would need to be
replaced would be 1999.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 119
PUBLIC WORKS
Building and Facility Design and Maintenance
This division of the Department is responsible for the maintenance, repair, alterations
and cleaning of all County owned buildings including Court Facilities. Included in these
responsibilities is the monitoring and maintenance of all facilities plant and equipment
including lighting systems, air conditioners, oil burners, roof drains and all mechanical,
electrical and plumbing equipment. A grand total of over 1,400,000 square feet is
maintained by this division of the Department. There is a chance that these services could
be privatized to afford the County additional savings. This option will be explored in greater
depth when asset allocation is finalized.
Vehicles are of particular concern to this division as many of the vehicles currently used
in Suffolk County are nearing the end of their useful lives. Again, it is assumed that Peconic
County will be allocated an equitable number of older and newer vehicles. It may be
necessary for Peconic County to replace vehicles with over 90,000 miles of use. This could
add considerably to future capital costs for Peconic County. However, County -wide
contingency and start-up resources should be sufficient to satisfy requests for additional
equipment.
County Roads and Bridges
Peconic County will provide for maintenance of County roads and bridges by contracting
out various services to each of the five towns in the County. These services include repair
and maintenance of all roads, bridges, culverts and waterways within town boundaries and
removal of snow from these areas. These services are currently provided by the towns'
Departments of Public Works on non -county roads within town boundaries. The
responsibilities of the individual Departments of Public Works would be expanded to
include County property as well.
Contracting out these services is estimated to cost the County $5,000 per lane mile to be
serviced by the towns. This estimate is currently employed in compensating the town of
East Hampton for the maintenance it provides on County roads and bridges within its
boundaries. See the following section entitled "Economic Relationships with Other
Entities" for further discussion of this arrangement.
Capital construction projects to be undertaken by Peconic County will be handled
through the Department. These projects are summarized in the section entitled "Capital
Improvement Plan and Debt." Any construction to be undertaken by the County for roads,
bridges, buildings and facilities will be organized and implemented through the Peconic
County Department of Public Works.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 120
PUBLIC WORKS
Economic Relationships with Other Entities
East End Towns
Peconic County will contract out to each of the East End towns to provide highway and
bridge repair and maintenance for state owned roads. A fair estimate of the cost to the
County of contracting with each town to assume these responsibilities is $5,000 per lane
mile. This estimate is based upon a contract that the town of East Hampton currently has
with Suffolk County to provide these services and upon discussions with the individual
Town Highway Superintendents. The total cost to the County for these contracted services
will be $1,527,750. If this provision had been in place in 1993, the payment to each of the
five towns would have been as follows:
Table 5.10-2
This $5,000 per lane mile estimate includes services that the Suffolk County Department
of Public Works would provide, primarily the painting of lines on County roads within the
towns' boundaries. The cost of line painting equipment is prohibitively expensive for any
one of the five towns for its limited use in each town, so the County will provide the service.
Organization and Staffing
The Department of Public Works will be overseen by a Public Works Commissioner.
Supervisors will head each of the major divisions which will provide service within the
County: Buildings and Facilities, Aviation and Public Transportation.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 121
Payments From County to Town
Departments of Public Works
Total Payment
Town
Lane Miles Pavment/Lane Mile
To Town
East Hampton
31.77 $5,000
$158,850
Riverhead
42.97 $5,000
214,850
Shelter Island
12.00 $5,000
60,000
Southampton
169.05 $5,000
845,250
Southold
49.76 $5,000
248.800
$1.527.750
This $5,000 per lane mile estimate includes services that the Suffolk County Department
of Public Works would provide, primarily the painting of lines on County roads within the
towns' boundaries. The cost of line painting equipment is prohibitively expensive for any
one of the five towns for its limited use in each town, so the County will provide the service.
Organization and Staffing
The Department of Public Works will be overseen by a Public Works Commissioner.
Supervisors will head each of the major divisions which will provide service within the
County: Buildings and Facilities, Aviation and Public Transportation.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 121
PUBLIC WORKS
Staffing of the Department will be considerably smaller than that for Suffolk County due
to the decrease in services provided. Staff will be needed for administrative duties,
buildings and facilities maintenance, supervising the public transportation system and
operation of the Airport.
Table 5.10-3 details the Department staffing by division, staff classification and cost:
Table 5.10-3
Space Needs
Space necessary to run the Department of Public Works consists essentially of office
space. This office space is currently in existence in Suffolk County and would be allocated
to Peconic County. Gross space will total 7,070 square feet for the 28 staff members and
will be adequately served by these facilities.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 122
Staffing Analysis
Suffolk
Proposed
Average
Department of Public Works
1993
Peconic
Cost per
Department/Division
Actual
Staffing
Position
Total Cost
Commissioner's Office
2
2
Administrative Staff
1
1
$25,000
$25,000
Commissioner
1
1
70,000
70,000
Aviation
4
4
Administrative Staff
1
1
25,000
25,000
Line Staff
2
2
35,000
70,000
Supervisory Staff
1
1
50,000
50,000
Omnibus
1
1
Supervisory Staff
1
1
50,000
50,000
Building and Facilities Design and Maintenance
260
21
Administrative Staff
19
1
25,000
25,000
Line Staff
235
19
35,000
665,000
Supervisory Staff
6
1
50,000
50,000
Highways and Structures
54
0
Highway Maintenance
141
0
Transportation Costs
15
0
Dredging and Waterways
3
0
Total Staff
480
28
$1,030,000
Space Needs
Space necessary to run the Department of Public Works consists essentially of office
space. This office space is currently in existence in Suffolk County and would be allocated
to Peconic County. Gross space will total 7,070 square feet for the 28 staff members and
will be adequately served by these facilities.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 122
PUBLIC WORKS
Table 5.10-4
Calculation of Space Requirements
Department of Public Works
Net Space Needed
Total Employees
Net Space
Net/Gross
Gross Space
Type of Staff/ Shared Space
Per Employee
By Type
Needed
Factor
Needed
Administrative Staff
90 sq.ft.
3
270 sq. ft.
1.60 X
432 sq. ft.
Line Personnel
135 sq. ft.
21
2,835 sq. ft.
1.60 X
4,536 sq. ft.
Supervisory Staff
175 sq. ft.
3
525 sq. ft.
1.60 X
840 sq. ft.
Commissioner
190 sq. ft.
1
190 sq. ft.
1.60 X
304 sq. ft.
Common Space
128 sq. ft. (1)
WA
239 sq. ft.
1.60 X
382 sq. ft.
Conference Rooms 120 sq. ft. (2) WA 120 sq. ft. 1.60 X 192 sq. ft.
Break Rooms 240sq. ft. (3) N/A 240 sq. ft. 1.60 X 384 sq. ft.
28 4,179 sq. ft. 7,070 sq. ft.
(1) Represents space needed for every 15 employees
(2) Represents space needed for an eight person conference room; the Department is estimated to need three
(3) One break room has been assigned for every 16 staffers
First Fiscal Year Budget
For Fiscal Year 1996, the Department will have a staff of 28 people with initial
expenditures totaling $8.5 million, departmental revenues and aid of $3.9 million and
resulting departmental net expense to the General Fund of $4.6 million.
Expenditures
Approximately 12% of the proposed Fiscal Year 1996 Peconic County expenditures
represent salary payments. Also included in the expenditures are non -salary items such as
supplies, equipment, fleet vehicles and self insurance. The proposed Fiscal Year 1996
Peconic County figures were determined using the ratio of services provided to East End
towns v. the Suffolk County total. This ratio is not constant as each service provided by
Suffolk County benefits the East End towns in a different way. For example, in order to
reach an equitable allocation of building maintenance costs, the level of use by East End
residents was considered and the percentage of population living in the East End (8.11%)
was used as a multiplier. To determine figures for bus service in Peconic County, a figure
for value of services to the East End was arrived at by multiplying Suffolk County's total
cost by ridership percentage from the East End (8.13%).
Expenditures will not be seen in Fiscal Year 1996 for many of the duties formerly
performed by the Suffolk County Department of Public Works. These cost of these duties
will now be borne by the Towns comprising Peconic County. The County will be
responsible for reimbursing the towns for the services provided at a rate of $5,000 per lane
mile. See the section entitled "Economic Relationships with Other Entities" for a further
discussion of how this figure was determined.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 123
PUBLIC WORKS
Employee benefits for all departments are combined in the aggregate Peconic County
Operating Budget. The benefit cost is estimated as 33% of all Peconic County salary
expenditures. Actual benefit costs will be determined through negotiations with Peconic
County employees.
Table 5.10-5
Summary of Salary and Non -Salary Expenditures
Department of Public Works
Expenditure Description Salaries Non -Salary Total Expenditures
Commissioner's Office $95,000 $6,825 $101,825
Transportation
Mass Transit Operating Assistance 0 128,154 128,154
Buildings & Facilities 740,000 3,222,584 3,962,584
Aviation 145,000 306,596 451,596
Public Transportation
Omnibus 50,000 902,755 952,755
Payments
Aid to LIRR 0 1,458,092 1,458,092
Payments to Towns for Services Provided 0 1.527.750 1.527.750
Subtotal Payments 0 2,985,842 2,985,842
Total Expenditures
Revenues
$1,030,000 $7,552,757 $8,582,757
Nearly 26.5% of the Department's revenue will come from State and federal
governments. Projections for Peconic County revenues were derived by taking the ratio of
services benefiting the East End and multiplying that ratio by the various sources of
revenues. Department revenues such as motor vehicle, registration fees allocated from the
Registry of Motor Vehicles, take off landing and rental fees from the Airport and bus
farebox receipts will account for nearly 9.4% of revenues. The remaining 64.1% of revenues
will be in the form of tax revenues.
Table 5.10-6 presents the Suffolk County Department of Public Works operating budget
for Fiscal Year 1993, the share of those expenditures benefiting the five East End towns and
the proposed Peconic County operating budget for FY 1996 (in 1993 dollars).
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 124
0
PUBLIC WORKS
Table 5.10-6
Comparison of Operating Budgets
Buildings 6 Facilities-
Exclenditure Description
Court Facilities
$22,114,715
Suffolk's Cost of Services
Proposed Peconic
Department of Public Works
1993 Actual'
Provided to East End
County Budget
Transportation
1,716,735
139,201 c
139,201
Expenditure Description
14,514,708
1,176,925 c
1,176,925
Highways and Structures
3,487,536
746,333 a
0 1
Highway Maintenance
8,280,657
1,772,061 a
0 1
Snow Removal
1,712,802
366.540 a
0 t
Bridges
481,738
210,038 b
0 f
Waterways Administration
3,041
247 c
0 +
Dredging
2.821
229 c
0 t
Sub -regional Transportation Planning
48.468
3,930 c
0 t
Transportation Costs
763,194
61,884 c
0 1
Mass Transit Operatino Assistance
1,580,493
128,154 c
128,154
Total Transportation Expenditures
$16,360,750
53,289,414
$128,154
Revenue Description
Department Revenues
$5,114,976
$414,748 c
$414,748
State Aid
10,496,605
2,196,939 a
2,196,939
Federal Aid
2,363,458
494,672 a
494,672
Total Transportation Revenues
$17,975,039
$3,106,359
$3,106,359
Net Expense -Transportation
($1,614,289)
$183,055
($2,978,205)
Buildings 6 Facilities-
Exclenditure Description
Court Facilities
$22,114,715
$1,793,172 c
$1,793,172
Rent: Offices and Buildings
7,207,841
584,448 c
584,448
Building Design and Construction
1,716,735
139,201 c
139,201
Building Operation and Maintenance
14,514,708
1,176,925 c
1,176,925
Custodial Services
3,315.511
268.838 c
268.838
Total Buildings b Facilities Expenditures
$48,869,510
$3,962,584
$3,962,584
Total Buildings & Facilities Revenues -State Aid
S2,703,369
$219,203 c
$219,203
Net Expense -Buildings and Facilities
$46,166,141
$3,743,382
$3,743,382
Aviation
Total Aviation Expenditures $451,596 $451,596 $451,596
Total Aviation Revenues -Department Revenues $378,655 $378,655 $378,655
Net Expense -Aviation $72,941 $72,941 $72,941
Public Transportation
Total Public Transportation Expendttures-Omnibus $11,718,998 $952,755 d $952,755
Total Public Transportation Revenues -Department Revenues $2,917,333 $237,179 d $237,179
Net Expense -Public Transportation $8,801,665 $715,575 $715,575
Payments
Aid tollRR 17,693,150 1,458,092 a 1,458,092
Payments to Towns for Services Provided 0 0 1,527,750 t
Total Payments $17,693,150 $1,458,092 $2,985,842
Total General Administration Expenditures
Total Expenditures
Department Revenues
State Aid
Federal Aid
Total Revenues
Total Net Expense
-Souroe: 1995 Retanmended audget, Countyof Suffdk, Newyork
-Possible privatization of saviaes to be studied
s-Sufldk Carey a>manW Nn multiplied by %of Ira miles in East End (20.93%)
b- Suffolk Carat' e>mendatre rmdbpli d by %of bridges In Fast End (43.60x)
$2,610,182
$101,825
$101,825
$97,704,186
$10,216,266
$8,582,757
8,410,964
1,030,582
1,030,582
13,199,974
2,416,142
2,416,142
2.363,458
494,672
494,672
$23,974,396
$3,941,396
$3,941,396
$73,729,790
$6,274,870
$4,641,361
c-Sulfdk County EMen6ture multiplied by % of papulation residing In East End (8.11%)
d-sundk catnty eVsndtU a mWnplied by % of nders from East End (8.13%)
e-Sulfdk Caney expen6W,e multiplied by % of payments made by East End (924%)
f -Services ,Daunted for in payment to tovms
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 125
COUNTY
COMMUNITY
COLLEGE
Peconic County
Financial Feasibility Study
0 0 6 0 0
PECONIC-SUFFOLK
COMMUNITY COLLEGE
Peconic - Suffolk
Community College Board
of Trustees
President
Faculty' Support
Staff
v
1�
Administration
COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE
Mission
Peconic-Suffolk Community College (the "College") will provide higher education
services to the residents of the East End towns in an efficient and cost effective manner.
Authority and Responsibility
Peconic County proposes a school jointly run by Peconic and Suffolk Counties. Most
services benefiting the residents of Peconic County will be based at the Peconic Campus of
the College, the current Eastern Campus of Suffolk Community College ("SCC"). Certain
other services such as purchasing, payroll administration, student billing, accounting and the
Student Data System administration are already operational at the Ammerman Campus of
SCC located in Seedless. These services will continue to be provided at the Ammerman
Campus and the Peconic Campus of the College will benefit from these services under an
agreement to be negotiated between Peconic and Suffolk Counties. See the subsection
entitled, "Mandated Services" for further discussion of the creation of Peconic-Suffolk
Community College.
There are also various programs of instruction that are not offered at the Eastern Campus
and students from the East End currently attend those courses at the campus at which they
are offered. This practice is assumed to continue under the agreement to be reached by
Peconic and Suffolk Counties in forming the joint community college.
Mandated Services
Under Title 7, Article 126, Section 6303 of the New York State Education Law, the
College must provide two-year programs of post high school nature combining general
education with technical education relating to the, occupational needs of the community, area
or region in which the college is located.
Under the same law, Sections 6302 and 6306 specify that a Peconic County Board of
Supervisors would have the authority to join with Suffolk County's legislature to act as the
local sponsors of the College in jointly establishing it pursuant to the approval of the State
University of New York (SUNY) Board of Trustees. Upon approval by the SUNY Board of
Trustees, a 10 member Board of Trustees for the College would be established with 5
members appointed by the Boards of Supervisors of Peconic County and the Legislature of
Suffolk County, 4 members appointed by the Governor of the State of New York, and one
student member elected by the student body of the College. The apportionment between
East End and West End appointments to the College's Board of Trustees shall be determined
by the SUNY trustees.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 127
COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE
Pursuant to the State Code of Procedures Title 8 Chapter V, Subchapter D, Part 601.5,
provision of services by the College will be defined in an agreement between Suffolk and
Peconic Counties. Also contained in the agreement will be provisions for the apportionment
of costs between counties. The County's share of operating costs will likely be based upon a
chargeback per FTE student basis to be negotiated by SCC and the College.
Under Title 7, Article 126, Section 6304 of the New York State Education Law, state aid
must constitute one-third of a community college's operating budget, 40% of the operating
costs of a college providing a full opportunity program. The College will fit this criteria as a
full opportunity program allows for education of all those who live within the College's
service area and wish to be admitted to the college. It is proposed that Suffolk and Peconic
Counties will provide funds equal to one-third operating costs and tuition will not exceed the
final one-third of the operating budget.
Changes in Service Delivery
The following chart highlights the financial impact that the formation of Peconic-Suffolk
Community College outlined in this section of the report would have on the County. The
figures in this table represent the costs of services supported by County taxes and are derived
by subtracting any departmental revenues, state aid or federal aid from the total costs of
services. The first column represents Suffolk County's 1993 net expense for operating all
three campuses of SCC; the second column represents the tax contribution East End
residents make toward the existing total SCC amount; the third column represents the net
expense as an estimated dollar value of services provided to the East End in 1993 from
Suffolk Community College; and the fourth column represents the net expense Peconic
County Community College in its first fiscal year. Please refer to Table 6-3 for a more
detailed explanation of the source of the following numbers.
Table 6-1
Comparison of Net Expenditures (FY 1993 dollars)
Suffolk County East End Suffolk's Cost of Services Proposed Peconic
1993 Actual Contribution Provided to East End County Budget
$22,106,132 $3,313,650 $2,411,376 $2,411,376
As the above numbers indicate, in 1993 $3.3 million of the tax dollars collected on the
East End was dedicated to the operation of Suffolk Community College, while services
received by the East End were valued at $2.4 million. In its first fiscal year, Peconic-Suffolk
Community College will need a total of $2.4 million to operate its campus.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 128
COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE
Economic Relationships with Other Entities
Suffolk County
A service agreement will need to be negotiated with Suffolk County for the services and
courses of instruction that the Eastern Campus does not provide. Chief among these is a
Student Data System which tracks all student data, including registration information,
student grading and student record management, and is currently in place at the Ammerman
Campus. The College would continue to use this system through the agreement negotiated
with Suffolk County.
Additional services such as input of information for a centralized course scheduling
catalog, purchasing duties, payroll administration, accounting services, student billing,
mainframe computing and institutional research support would also continue to be provided
at the Ammerman Campus of the current SCC. Due mainly to economies of scale associated
with development and start up costs, it is most cost effective to the County utilize the
services already in place at the Ammerman Campus.
The current cost of contracting for these services has been estimated at $372,000.
Mainframe computing charges comprise the largest segment of the total at $115,000 per
year. The Student Data System, accounting services and student billing are the next three
most costly services to be provided at $88,000, $62,000 and $33,000 per year respectively.
These calculations are based upon information provided by the Provost of the Eastern
Campus of SCC and are indicative of what the College could expect to pay for these services
under a service agreement to be reached with Suffolk County.
East End Towns
Buildings and grounds maintenance will be provided to the College by one of the East
End towns (most likely either Southampton or Riverhead) for an agreed upon charge. This
will result in a greater expenditure for DPW services on the Town level but the increased
expenditure will be directly offset by the amount charged to the College for these services.
In the organization of Peconic County, duties such as snow removal and road repair and
maintenance, traditionally performed by the Suffolk County Department of Public Works,
will be performed by the Departments Public Works of each individual town. An agreement
could be reached with the Town of Riverhead to provide these services in a manner more
cost efficient than hiring full time employees for buildings and grounds functions at the
College. Building and grounds maintenance for the Eastern Campus is currently performed
by the Suffolk County Department of Public Works, under an agreement between Suffolk
County and SCC. Under the agreement, Department employees remove snow from parking
lots and maintain the buildings and grounds of the Eastern Campus.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 129
COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE
Organization and Staffing
Like all community colleges in the state of New York, the College will be supervised by
the SUNY, sponsored jointly by Peconic and Suffolk Counties and governed by a Board of
Trustees. The day to day operation of the College will be carried out by a Provost and the
administrative staff currently in place the Eastern Campus of SCC.
It is assumed that initially, the same number of staff that currently runs the Eastern
Campus of SCC will be retained to run the Peconic Campus of the College. Services not
provided at the Peconic Campus will be provided at either of the other two campuses of the
College. These services include purchasing duties, payroll administration and the Student
Data System currently in place at the Ammerman Campus. Also, faculty and courses of
instruction not provided at the Peconic Campus will be available at either of the other two
campuses of the College and vice versa. As the College will be operated on a joint basis, no
change in the existing rate structure regarding students from either Peconic or Suffolk
County is contemplated. A service agreement will need to be negotiated between Peconic
and Suffolk Counties to address the issues of which programs and faculty will be offered at
which campus.
Table 6-2
Peconic County Community College Eastern Campus Proposed 1996
Staff Analysis 1993 Actual _ Staffing
111 111
Supervisory Staff 11 11
Faculty 51 51
Support Staff 49 49
Total Staff 111 111
The option of a stand alone community college for Peconic County will continue to be
studied. If, after a period of three years of joint operation, the economic and operational case
for a stand alone college is strong enough to warrant a stand alone college, negotiations
between the counties will be undertaken at that time. Initially, the most financially feasible
option of providing higher education to the residents of Peconic County is through joint
operation with Suffolk County.
Space Needs
No additional space is initially necessary for the creation of the College. The Peconic
Campus of Peconic-Suffolk Community College provides adequate space for the operation
of the College. It is assumed that services not housed specifically at the Peconic Campus
will be accessible for Peconic residents at other campuses of the College and that adequate
space already exists for those services.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 130
COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE
First Fiscal Year Budget
For Fiscal Year 1996, the College will have a staff of 111 with initial expenditures
totaling just over $8.3 million, revenues of $5.9 million and a contribution from Peconic
County totaling $2.4 million.
Expenditures
The first column of Table 6-3 shows total expenditures for all 3 campuses of SCC for
Fiscal Year 1993. The next column shows the value of services provided to the Eastern
Campus based upon the actual 1993 figures provided by the Provost of the Eastern Campus.
The Peconic County Fiscal Year 1996 projections are for the Peconic Campus of the
College and are based upon these actual figures.
The estimate for cost of contracted services is based upon assumptions provided by the
Eastern Campus of SCC and represent current, conservative estimations of the cost of the
services to be contracted with Suffolk County as detailed in a prior section entitled,
"Economic Relationships with Other Entities."
Revenues
Revenues come from three sources: tuition and other department income, State aid and
County assistance. It is assumed that, in accordance with State Education Law, Title 7,
Article 126, Section 6304 that the state will account for the largest share of the three sources.
The formula for amount of State aid is $1,650 per Full Time Equivalent student. Tuition
revenues are based on the assumption that enrollment will remain steady under the new
arrangement. The remainder of operating costs will be borne by Peconic County.
The Table 6-3 presents the Suffolk County Community College Eastern Campus
operating budget for Fiscal Year 1993 and the proposed Peconic-Suffolk Community
College operating budget for Fiscal Year 1996.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 131
COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE
Table 6-3
Comparison of Operating Budgets
Peconic-Suffolk Community College
Suffolk's Cost of Services
Proposed Peconic
Expenditure Description
_ 1993 Actual`
Provided to East End
County Budget
Personnel
$ 44,877,688
$5,670,603 b
$5,670,603 b
Employee Benefits
13,867,885
1,237,722 b
1,237,722 b
Equipment
11,569,282
47,082 b
47,082 b
Supplies
4,831,853
520,978 b
520,978 b
Utilities Service & Travel
1,081,332
466,704 b
466,704 b
Contracted Services
0
372,000 b
372,000 b
Total Expenditures
$ 76,228,040
$8,315,089
$8,315,089
Revenue Description
Tuition and Other Departmental Revenues $31,253,496 $3,409,186 $3,409,186
State Aid 22,868,412 a 2,494,527 2,494,527
Federal Aid 0 0 0
Total Revenues $54,121,908 $5,903,713 $5,903,713
Net Expense $22,106,132 $2,411,376 $2,411,376
*Source: 1995 Recommended Budget, Suffolk County Community College, Eastern Campus
a -State Aid allocated by FTE multiplied by $1,650
b -Figures provided by Suffolk County Community College, Eastern Campus
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 132
SEPARATING
FROM
SUFFOLK COUNTY
GENERAL ISSUES REGARDING SECESSION
Overview
The creation of Peconic County will require decisions about how resources taxing
power, land, buildings, equipment, financial assets and obligations i.e., services, debt,
litigation judgments, pension, and insurance should be allocated between Suffolk County
and Peconic County.
In providing services to its citizens, Suffolk County has obtained assets that will need to
be reassigned when legal separation occurs and Peconic County is created. Suffolk County's
existing resources and obligations will need to be fairly divided in a timely manner that
enables both Suffolk County and Peconic County to function as independent County
governments.
Peconic County will need to obtain various resources -- property tax base, sales tax base,
buildings, land, vehicles, office equipment, and financial assets -- that will enable the
County to conduct its business. Certain assets, such as property tax base and sales tax base,
are inherent in the creation of the new County; other assets, such as financial assets and
office equipment, will need to be allocated based upon a mutually agreed-upon
methodology. At the same time, there are obligations that Peconic County will need to
assume as a cost of conducting County business.
It is essential that both western Suffolk County and Peconic be self -sustainable,
independent operating entities in order for a successful secession of Peconic County and
allocation of Suffolk County's assets and liabilities between western Suffolk and Peconic.
Following the creation of Peconic, both Peconic and western Suffolk County will need to
have the resources to:
• meet New York State Constitutional requirements to exist as a county,
• operate over time as a financially self -sustainable entity, and
• obtain and maintain access to the capital markets.
State Constitutional Requirements
Debt Limitations
Counties in New York State have the power to contract indebtedness for County purpose
provided the principal amount can not exceed seven percent (7%) of the average full
valuation of taxable real estate of the County, and subject to certain enumerated exclusions
and deductions, such as water and certain sewer facilities and cash or appropriations for
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 133
GENERAL ISSUES REGARDING SECESSION
current debt service. The constitutional and statutory method for determining full valuation
is determined by taking the assessed valuation of the taxable real estate for the last
completed assessment rolls of the County and dividing the same by the equalization rates, or
the ratios which such assessed valuations bear to the full valuation, as determined by the
State Board of Equalization and Assessment. The State Legislature prescribes the manner
by which such ratios shall be determined. Average full valuation is determined by taking the
sum of the full valuations of the last five completed assessment rolls and dividing that sum
by five.
Table 7.1-1 shows that Peconic County's proposed debt outstanding ($100 million) is
substantially less (6.5%) than the estimated constitutional debt limit of $1.5 billion. This
constitutional requirement will not be a concern in terms of financial feasibility. This
estimate has been calculated by taking the sum of the full valuations of the East End Towns
only, for the last five assessment rolls and dividing this sum by five.
A less conservative approach would have been to take the average full valuation the East
End Towns for just the year of the creation of Peconic County, as the County did not exist in
prior years; however, the above approach gives a better illustration of Peconic's ongoing
legal debt capacity.
Following the creation of Peconic County, the debt limit for western Suffolk County is
calculated by taking the sum of the average full valuations of the West End Towns only for
the last five assessment rolls and dividing this sum by five. Table 7.1-2 shows that Suffolk
County's revised debt outstanding (following Peconic's payment to Suffolk. County) is
approximately $450 million, substantially less than the $4.9 billion constitutional limit.
Thus, the revised limit for Suffolk County will not be a factor in terms of Suffolk's ability to
issue bonds.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 134
GENERAL ISSUES REGARDING SECESSION
Table 7.1-1
Peconic County Constitutional Debt Limit
Full Valuation
Year Roll Completed of Real Estate(l)
1990
$19,784,254,016
1991
22,218,473,156
1992
23,905,389,225
1993
23,963,885,207
1994
20,700,600,306
Total Five -Year Valuation
Average Five -Year Valuation
Debt Limit - 7% of Average
Five -Year Full Valuation
Debt to be Issued by Peconic County
Debt Limit Utilized
$110,572,601,910
$22,114,520,382
$1,548,016,427
$99,835,000 (2)
6.45%
MEast End Towns only.
(2)Includes debt proposed to be issued in 1996 to repay Suffolk County for existing debt, and debt issued for start-up costs and new
capital improvements. For additional detail regarding Peconic County's proposed debt, please see Table 8-2.1 "Future Debt Outstanding"
and Appendix II.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 135
GENERAL ISSUES REGARDING SECESSION
Table 7.1-2
New Suffolk County Constitutional Debt Limit
Year Roll Completed
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Total Five -Year Valuation
Average Five -Year Valuation
Debt Limit - 7% of Average
Five -Year Full Valuation
Allocated Indebtedness to (New)
Suffolk County
Debt Limit Utilized
Full Valuation
of Real Estate(l)
$59,139,188,353
67,853,094,297
81,631,433,077
76,677,827,184
65,440,420,926
$350,741,963,837
$70,148,392,767
$4,910,387,494
$452,055,713 (2)
9.21%
0)West End Towns only.
(2)lncludes all Suffolk County's general purpose debt outstanding as of December 31, 1993 less the amount of debt repayment by Peconic
County. This amount does not include bonds issued for Suffolk County sewer districts, the Police District, or the lease on the Cohalan
Court Complex, which is consistent with the representation in Suffolk County's official statements.
Tax Limitations
The New York State Constitution limits the amount that may be raised by Counties
through levies on real estate in any fiscal year for purposes other, than debt service on county
indebtedness to one and one-half percent (1.5%) of the average full valuation of real estate
of the county.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 136
GENERAL ISSUES REGARDING SECESSION
Table 7.1-3
Constitutional Taxing Limits
Peconic County Suffolk County
Total Five -Year Valuation $110,572,601,910 $350,741,963,837
Average Five -Year Valuation $22,114,520,382 $70,148,392,767
Taxing Limit - 1.5% of Average
Five -Year Full Valuation $331,717,806 $1,052,225,892
Total Estimated Tax Levy $12,604,639 $350,000,000 (1>
Taxing Margin Utilized 3.80% 33.26%
(])Represents estimated Suffolk County General Fund Levy following secession of Peconic County (1996).
Financial Self -Sustainable Entity
Suffolk County and Peconic County will both need to be financially self-sustaining.
Although the East End currently provides a net subsidy to Suffolk County, its relative impact
on Suffolk County's budget is slight. That is, since the East End represents only a fraction
(14.39% in 1993) of Suffolk County's general governmental budget, Suffolk County should
be able to maintain operational and financial stability upon the creation of Peconic County.
However, notwithstanding the creation of the new separate legal governmental entity of
Peconic County, both western Suffolk County and Peconic will be financially dependent on
the regional effect of decisions made by both counties and will, in certain instances, be
dependent on each other for the ongoing operations of certain municipal services.
For example, Peconic and Suffolk County will be jointly liable for all County general
obligation debt payments including sewer district bonds and serial bonds. Peconic and
western Suffolk County may also enter into contracts for correctional facility services, public
safety training, Cooperative Extension, and other services. Should one county not be able to
meet its obligations, the other will feel the effects in these joint service provision areas.
The necessity to create two financially self -sustainable entities is particularly critical to
the asset/liability allocation negotiation that will accompany the creation of a new county.
Given that the two governments will be created with separate rights and responsibilities, and
that there will be a high level of financial integration between the counties following the
proposed secession of the East End creates a situation where neither party should strive to
"win" the negotiation. Instead, the negotiation needs to ensure that both Counties can
operate as distinct and sustainable entities. Please see Chapter 7.2: Asset and Liability_
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 137
GENERAL ISSUES REGARDING SECESSION
Allocation for a discussion of the asset and liability allocation issues associated with the
proposed secession of Peconic County
Although this report is focused on the financial viability of Peconic County, the creation
of Peconic County has effects on Suffolk County that can not be ignored. These effects have
been noted throughout this chapter because they directly relate to the feasibility of Peconic.
See Chapter 7.2: Asset Liability Allocation for a discussion of the criteria used to
evaluate proposed allocation methods for the assets and liabilities of Suffolk County.
Access to the Capital Markets and other Credit Considerations
According to both the Constitution and State statutes, Peconic will pledge its full faith
and credit to repay the financial obligation to secure its debt with its ability to levy an
unlimited ad valorem property tax.
The capacity and willingness of Peconic to repay their general obligation debt is assessed
by examining four basic analytical areas:
1.
Economic Factors
2.
Financial Factors
3.
Debt Burden
4.
Administration
1. Economic Factors
The economic base is a critical element in determining Peconic's cost and access to the
credit markets and incorporates both local and national economic factors.
Generally, those communities with higher income levels and diverse economic bases
have superior debt repayment capabilities. They are better protected against sudden
economic shocks or unexpected volatility than other communities.
Demographics. The local population base is considered in terms of age, education,
labor skills and competitiveness, and wealth and income levels.
Tax base. The size, structure, and diversity of the tax base is of primary importance.
The tax base's composition (in this case sales and property taxes) will be reviewed to
identify proportionate contributions from residential, commercial, and industrial tax
revenue sources.
Composition of output and employment. Diversity and growth of the economy and
employment base are prime considerations in evaluating the strength of the economy.
Economic factors that are examined include:
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 138
GENERAL ISSUES REGARDING SECESSION
• Composition by employment sector --manufacturing, trade, construction,
services, government, and agriculture;
• Concentration in major employers or reliance on, particular industries;
• Employer commitment to the community-- importance of local facilities
and employees to the overall strategy of local employers, business
development plans, age of plant, and industry prospects;
• Employment trends and quality of the local labor force; and
• Regional economic patterns to assess relative gains in employment and
income growth.
Economic Factors Analysis for Peconic and Suffolk Counties
Peconic will have a healthy economic base that provides the foundations for it to be self -
sustainable and achieve access to the credit markets. Peconic County's economic base, as
discussed below, will be based upon second home ownership, tourism, agriculture, fishing
and service industries, and will be rural in nature. Demographics, tax base and composition
of output and employment will be strong.
Peconic County has some unusual strengths and compares well to other counties in New
York State or elsewhere in the United States. The attractiveness of its open spaces, ocean
and bays, farms, beaches, forests, wood shingled houses and 350 -year history coupled with
location only 70-120 miles from the New York City Metropolitan area, with its large
concentration of high-income families, provide the foundation.
Many thousand tourists visit the area during the late spring to early fall period. More
important, 37% of the houses in Peconic County are second homes whose population (and
guests) are not counted in the usual Census count of the population (106,593 in 1990). This
means that Peconic County has a second home bonus of 59% (28,361 second homes divided
by 48,430 year-round homes). The Long Island Regional Planning Board estimates that
these second homes have many more people per household (including guests) than the year-
round houses. Thus, in terms of peak seasonal population, the second homes create a
population bonus of 86% (123,222 second home population divided by 143,990 year-round
population).
In addition, the rate of growth of second homes has been increasing in recent years.
While 37% of the dwelling units in the East End were second homes in 1990, less than 34%
were seasonal in 1980.
Because second home owners pay full property taxes but do not use full governmental
services -- that is, they are not in the public schools -- the economic bonus is a very real one.
In a computer analysis of the 1995 tax bills sent to all owners of residences in Southampton,
it was determined that those tax bills sent to owners with addresses located outside of the
Town of Southampton (a good proxy for second home owners) comprised 45% of the total
tax bills (13,628 out of 30,016), and they paid 54% of property taxes. Southampton is a
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 139
GENERAL ISSUES REGARDING SECESSION
good indicator for all of Peconic County because its percentage of second homes in the 1990
Census was very close to the average for all East End Towns - 38.6% for Southampton
compared to 36.0% for Peconic County.
As noted recently in the report of the East End Economic and Environmental Institute
entitled Blueprint for the Future, "On the East End, over $10 billion has been invested
directly in the second home real estate market ... the beauty of this $10 billion -plus industry is
that, unlike other regions of New York State, which depend on one or two corporate giants
for their economic base, this money has been invested by thousands of
individuals/shareholders living throughout the area.
Thus it can be viewed as a much more stable investment, not subject to the whims of one
or two corporate giants, whose decision to leave an area could wreak long-lasting economic
havoc." The many guests of second home owners and the many unrelated tourists who
frequent the East End also provide a large extra bonus in the form of sales tax revenues.
Finally it should be underscored that the East End seasonal population has been growing
at a relatively fast rate. Between 1980 and 1990, total dwelling units in the East End
increased from 63,543 to 76,618 -- a gain of 13,075 or 20.6%. This is far in excess of the
growth rates of 9.9% for the five towns in western Suffolk, 12.0% for the five counties
roughly comparable in size to Peconic (see Table 2-7 on page 20) and 5.2% for all of New
York State.
The unusually fast rate of growth of the economic base in the East End is understandable
when it is recognized that i) the potentialrg_owth is large because there are still large
undeveloped land areas remaining in the East End - indicated, in part, by the very low
density of population (308 people per square mile compared, for example, to the 2,153 for
the five towns in western Suffolk), and ii) as discussed immediately above, the extraordinary
attractiveness of the East End coupled with its proximity to such a large concentration of
high-income population in the New York City metropolitan area. These factors have led to
ever-increasing numbers of second homeowners and tourists.
There is no reason to assume that the relatively high growth rate of the 1980's for the
East End will not continue for at least the next 10 or 20 years. Thus, the assessed valuation
of all property in Peconic County is also likely to rise at a relatively fast rate. This will
provide a substantial offset to possible needed increases in Peconic County government
spending to maintain or enhance both human and environmental resources, and/or it will
allow substantial tax reductions.
In terms of Suffolk County, the creation of Peconic will not have a material effect on its
economic base. As discussed above, Peconic accounts for 14.39% of the combined tax
revenue in Suffolk County. Western Suffolk County would remain diverse in terms of
employment sector, light industrial production, labor force demography, and tax base. This
reduction in tax base from the secession of the East End would not be a substantial negative
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 140
GENERAL ISSUES REGARDING SECESSION
credit factor for two primary reasons. First, the East End represents a relatively small
portion of the total Suffolk County revenues (estimated to be approximately 15%); and
second, Suffolk County would have the opportunity to significantly reduce its operating
expenses by no longer providing services to East End residents and potentially consolidating
services to a more centrally located population. In addition, Suffolk County, particularly in
the Town of Brookhaven will continue to have the opportunity to accommodate population
and economic activity growth.
2. Financial Factors
Financial analysis involves several areas:
• Revenue and expenditure structure and patterns,
• Annual operating and budgetary performance,
• Financial leverage and equity position,
• Budget and financial planning, and
• Contingency financial obligations, such as pension liability funding.
An analysis of these factors described below will present a clear indication of the financial
strengths and weaknesses of Peconic (and western Suffolk). This analysis will also provide
the framework for credit analysts to judge the capacity of a county to manage economic,
political, and financial uncertainties.
Current account analysis. Current account analysis usually consists of an
examination of operating trends focusing on the structure of revenue and expenditure
items, primarily within the general fund and debt service funds. These are "track
record" measurements, for which no data exist for Peconic County. It will be
essential, however, for Peconic to sell to the credit markets the historical current
account ratios that Peconic would have experienced given its annual resources and
obligations.
Revenue analysis. Diverse revenue sources are preferable as they can help strengthen
financial performance. Although a balanced composition of revenues gives a debt
issuer flexibility to meet all its financial obligations, it does not protect against
general economic decline. For example, if a government's tax collections are
dependent on several major revenue sources, the effects of an economic downturn
can be broad enough to affect revenue performance significantly.
The composition of the revenue stream and the stability of major revenues will be
analyzed, including:
• property, sales, and income taxes;
• user charges;
• intergovernmental aid; and
• interest income.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 141
GENERAL ISSUES REGARDING SECESSION
Expenditure analysis. Similarly, historical expenditure composition and stability are
usually analyzed in the context of revenue patterns. Large expenditure items are
identified and examined to determine if continued expenditure growth could
endanger existing services or require additional taxing efforts. To the extent that
certain spending items are extraordinary or non-recurring, their effect on long-term
financial performance is discounted. Peconic start-up costs are an example of non-
recurring expenditures.
Balance sheet analysis. The balance sheet examination focuses on liquidity, fund
balance position, and the composition of assets and liabilities. Credit rating agencies
will consider appropriate fund balance levels and several variables important:
• the volatility and patterns of the tax revenue stream,
• the predictability of government spending,
• the availability of unencumbered reserves or contingency funds, and
• the ability of public officials to sustain a strong financial position.
The fund balance position is a measure of an issuer's financial flexibility to meet
essential services during periods of limited liquidity.
Pensions and other long-term liabilities. The management of pension fund and other
long-term financial obligations is having an increasingly meaningful impact on
financial performance and position. While meeting unfunded accrued liabilities
should be a high-priority objective, the task is often clouded by the variations in
calculating future asset and liability values.
Analysis of Financial Factors of Peconic and Suffolk Counties
The balance sheet elements of a credit analysis will be particularly important when the
East End and Suffolk County negotiate the allocation of assets and liabilities. This report
only assumes asset/liability allocation scenarios which obtain/maintain the financial integrity
of the counties. See Chanter 7.2: Asset and Liability Allocation .for a discussion of criteria
for determining allocation methods. As discussed below, it will be essential for both
counties to retain liquidity and reasonable fund balances to operate efficiently. Both Peconic
and Suffolk Counties have more than adequate flexibility under New York State
Constitutional taxing and debt limits. Suffolk County has recently rebuilt its fund balance,
leaving Suffolk County with resources to deal with unforeseen events.
Suffolk County is now current on all pension contributions to the New York State public
employee pension funds. The Suffolk County balance sheet is expected to remain without
material change following the creation of Peconic from the current base year of this analysis.
Peconic County will have a sufficient financially strong position to operate as an
independent county government. Using the Divestiture Method which is described in
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 142
GENERAL ISSUES REGARDING SECESSION
Chapter 7.3: Implementing a Peconic County Divestiture, Peconic has the resources
(including ability to obtain sufficient revenues) to meet estimated expenditures. It will also
have the balance sheet strength (mix of assets and liabilities), liquidity and current accounts
to be a financially strong entity.
3. Debt Factors
The analysis of debt focuses on the nature of the pledged security, the debt repayment
structure, the current debt servicing burden, and the future capital needs of any municipality.
Accelerated debt issuance can overburden a municipality, force the reduction of necessary
services, and consequently lead to lower ratings. Alternatively, a low debt profile may not
be a positive credit factor, since it may indicate under investment in capital facilities.
Investment in public infrastructure is believed to enhance the growth prospects of the
private sector. Neglecting critical capital needs may impede economic growth and endanger
future tax revenue generation. In addition, deferment of capital needs may result in
increased operations and maintenance costs that reduce any benefit from reduced debt
service.
Analysis of Debt Factors
In general, credit analysts judge a municipality's repayment of debt as positive when
25% of the debt is scheduled to be paid off in five years and 50% is retired in 10 years. The
Peconic County debt retirement schedule is appropriate and will provide more than adequate
protection to bondholders. The debt schedule as anticipated calls for 30.4% retired in five
years and 47.9% retired in ten years. In general, a debt burden is viewed as high when debt
service payments comprise 15%-20% of the combined operating and debt service fund
expenditures. This benchmark will vary with the structure of government and the level of
services an issuer provides. The current Peconic County debt burden projections are
approximately 9.6% of combined operating and debt service expenditures.
The current market's view of Suffolk County's debt should not change, if the Divestiture
Method of asset/liability allocation is implemented. The Divestiture Method is designed to
hold Suffolk County in the same debt position as it currently enjoys, in terms of the revenues
available and debt service payable.
4. Administrative factors
The powers of a municipality to plan for changes in the political, economic, and financial
environment, and the capacity to respond in a timely fashion is essential. The entity's degree
of autonomy is affected by home rule powers, as well as both legal and political
relationships between state and local levels of government.
The range and growth potential of services provided by the issuer will also be examined
in relation to its capacity to provide such services. The ability of officials to make timely and
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 143
GENERAL ISSUES REGARDING SECESSION
sound financial decisions in response to economic and fiscal demands can depend on the
tenure of governmental officials and frequency of elections. The 'background. and experience
of key members of the administration are important considerations if they affect policy
continuity and ability to reformulate plans.
Financial mann ement: Financial management is a major factor to be considered in
the evaluation of state and local government creditworthiness. Past performance
against original plans, depth of managerial experience, and risk preferences of key
leaders all have an impact on the bottom line.
Major aspects of financial management include:
• Economic analysis and revenue forecasting,
• Tax policies,
• Governmental accounting practices,
• Financial strategies, and
• Debt management.
Increasing attention is being paid to risk management policies. Risk management
analysis includes investigating the adequacy of insurance coverage for accidents,
health, and potential lawsuits for public officials liability.
Annual budget: Credit rating agencies and investors view the budget as an
expression of administrative capability and intent. A sound budget plan should
anticipate risk elements that lie outside of administrative control, such as the
uncertainty of economic performance and potential effects on major revenue sources.
The administration is expected to present a realistic budget and exhibit willingness to
address necessary intra -year revenue and expenditure changes to meet fiscal targets.
Continuous budget surveillance should be maintained to identify problem areas and
enable timely budget adjustments.
Capital improvement urogram: A well documented capital improvement program
(CIP) will be a necessary element of continued access to the capital markets.
Necessary components of this plan include:
• The outlook for capital needs,
• The flexibility to modify the program in difficult economic periods, and
• The ability to finance investment through operating surpluses.
Labor settlements and litigation: The labor environment --relationships between
employer and employees should be part of the financial management discussion.
Full disclosure of the nature and implications of labor disputes, if any, are also
analyzed.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 144
GENERAL ISSUES REGARDING SECESSION
Analysis of Administrative Factors
Many of these administrative factors are "track record" issues, and while it is intended
that the Peconic County government, with a Board of Supervisors, will be efficient and
economical, it will be important for the County to quickly demonstrate a history of prudent
management willing to actively address challenges. Hiring quality management and
demonstrating its ability to solve potential start-up problems will go along way to giving
comfort to the municipal capital markets. Peconic should plan to establish audited financial
statements for its first year of operation. In addition, it will need to produce a well reasoned
budget prior to Peconic's creation for the purpose of efficiently borrowing money in the
credit markets.
As a fledgling municipality, Peconic County will need to pay careful attention to the
costs of labor and the contracts the County negotiates with any unions (if the County
government does unionize).
The creation of Peconic County should have no effect on Suffolk County in terms of
Administrative Factors.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 145
ASSET AND LIABILITY ALLOCATION
Challenges
Although the secession of Peconic from Suffolk County will occur at a single point in
time, the value of the assets and liabilities shared between the newly formed counties will
constantly be changing. Unspent bond proceeds are transformed into fixed assets; the value
of Suffolk County -owned vehicles depreciates over time; lawsuits against Suffolk are settled
and dismissed; debt service is paid; sales tax receipts are paid by the State, etc.
Most of the information regarding assets and liabilities contained in this report is based
on County records. Once Suffolk County and Peconic County agree on a defined date for
separation, an independent auditor should assure agreement and an equitable transfer of title
to assets and responsibility for obligations, based on agreed upon methodologies for
valuation and allocation.
Basis for Evaluating Methodologies
Various methods of allocating assets and liabilities have been considered. However,
methods which assumed a confrontational relationship and likely legal action through the
courts were eliminated. Provided below are general examples of possible methodologies for
allocating the assets and the liabilities.
The general methodologies that were evaluated includes:
• Historical Methods
• Accounting Valuation Methods
• Divestiture Method
Each of these methodologies were evaluated on the following basis:
• probability of producing an equitable and an agreed upon division,
• probability of producing an efficient (or justifiable) division, and
• probability of a method being implemented.
The ability to create an equitable division of assets and liabilities is critical to the success
of any allocation and valuation method. Likewise, it will be critical to communicate an
efficient, comprehensible method to the citizens of both Counties. Lastly, the ability to
implement any method is necessary for Peconic to be feasible.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 147
ASSET AND LIABILITY ALLOCATION
Historical Methods
Queens & Nassau Counties, Westchester County & Bronx Counties
The legal precedents in New York relating to creation of new counties, as well as
incorporation of portions of towns, villages and counties into newly created municipal
corporations have been with respect to the creation of Nassau County from Queens and the
creation of the Bronx from Westchester County, the legislation does not provide a detailed
framework for apportionment of assets or liabilities. The favored legislative approach was
to provide for a six month period for negotiations and agreement by the respective governing
boards of the affected municipalities as to an equitable apportionment and this is what was
done by Nassau and Queens counties. If such an agreement was not reached, the state
supreme court, was empowered to determine a resolution of the issues. In addition, each
statute provides that its provisions shall not impair the obligations of any contract, and that
the property and inhabitants of the territory annexed or consolidated into a new municipality
shall continue to be liable to the creditors of their former governing jurisdiction.
Implementation Issues
Complexity of Today's Government: While this historical method may have been
equitable when all County revenues were derived from property taxes and all County
functions were managed through one fund, (i.e., the legislation for the creation of Nassau
was passed in 1898 and the creation of West Chester occurred in 1895.) the various revenue
streams and multitude of funds in Suffolk County make any allocation based solely on
property tax value inequitable. This property tax burden has been mitigated by the growth of
sales tax revenues, which have become an ever increasing portion of the County's budget.
Most sales taxes are generated in the Western Towns, and sales taxes provide the majority of
locally generated County operating and debt service revenues.
In addition, not all County assets are purchased from the same property tax streams.
Certain assets have been purchased with dedicated property tax revenues from special levies
(i.e., the Police District and the Sewer Districts). Simply using assessed value would not
adjust for the contributions made by differing County tax levels.
Valuation Unresolved: This method has two distinct aspects to it, one fairly elementary
and the other quite complex. The elementary aspect is identifying and equalizing the
assessed value of the County property within each of the ten Towns and aggregating the
value of the West End towns and the East End towns respectively. The assessed values are
readily available from Town Assessors and the equalization rates are provided by the State.
As a result, this allocation method provides a clear basis for the public to understand the
basis for making an allocation. However, the complex aspect, will be agreeing on the
valuation of existing assets and liabilities. The Historical method does not provide any
guidance that permits a fair and equitable valuation of the assets and the liabilities.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 148
ASSET AND LIABILITY ALLOCATION
Lodestar Case
In addition to older historical legal precedents, there have been recent decisions
regarding the rights and remedies one government has to another in the case of a newly
formed municipality.
Lodestar v. County of Mono ("Lodestar") is a 1986 State of California court case that
could provide the basis on which to build a case that Peconic County would have no
responsibility for assuming any of Suffolk's existing liabilities. Lodestar indicates that
"...the rule is that the old corporation owns all the public property
within her new limits, and is responsible for all debts contracted by
her before the Act of separation was passed. Old debts she must pay,
without any claim of contribution [from the new entity]".
Implementation Issues
Equity: Should Peconic secede from Suffolk and not assume any responsibility for
liabilities incurred when the County was whole, it would be leaving the citizens of the
Western towns to bear the burden of what had been County -wide benefits. This could also
have a profound effect on Suffolk County's credit rating and the value of existing Suffolk
County debt, negatively impacting the values of the portfolios of investors holding Suffolk
County bonds.
Liability Retained: It is generally agreed that the five East End towns will have to retain
a contingent liability for all outstanding general obligation debt of the County. In addition,
there are portions of Lodestar that are specific to California law, and it remains unclear how
New York State Courts would treat a similar claim. Finally, political reality may prevent the
State Legislature from agreeing to create Peconic County if the East End towns do not bear
at least some burden of Suffolk County obligations that were incurred while they were part
of the County.
Accounting Valuation Method
The general premise of the Accounting Valuation Method of allocating assets and
liabilities is to find an objective way to measure both the costs and benefits that the East End
has contributed and received from Suffolk County, and would contribute and receive in the
future if Suffolk County were divided.
Since the founding of Suffolk County, citizens of the East End and Western towns have
been paying for and receiving services, as well as paying for and utilizing County assets.
Using the Accounting Valuation Method, an equitable allocation of assets and liabilities will
take into account not just the value of the East End's share of a proposed division of
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 149
ASSET AND LIABILITY ALLOCATION
Suffolk's assets and liabilities, but also the value of any operating subsidy that has
historically been made by one region to the other.
The fundamental goal of this method is to calculate what the East End has received from
Suffolk and what it contributed to determine an amount that should be paid in the future. In
general, for equity to occur, the sum of the value of what is being received will equal the
value of what has been paid. This is illustrated below:
The sum of value received equals
EAST END SERVICES [EES]
+ PECONIC ASSETS [PA] _
+ PECONIC LIABILITIES [PL]
the sum of value paid
OPERATING CONTRIBUTION [OC]+
CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION [CC]
In order to determine value received and paid, a measurement of the following would
need to be completed:
• the East End's historical accumulated contribution to Suffolk County's operating
budget, [OC]
• the historical accumulated benefit the East End has received in services from Suffolk
County, [ESS]
• the East End's historical accumulated contribution to Suffolk County's debt service
and capital budget, [CC]
• the value of the assets that have been acquired or built in the East End, [PA] and
• the liability that the East End has to Suffolk County [PL].
Once these measurements have been made, the cost of secession could be determined by
manipulating the assets to be received or the liabilities to be assumed in order for the total
value of what is received to equal what has and will be paid.
Implementation Issues
Calculate Historical Amounts: It would be impossible to both accurately measure and
value what has been received and paid. In order to measure what has been received, there
has to be an investigation into the historical value the East End has received for Suffolk
County services. Road maintenance, welfare payments, prison incarceration and additional
county services would need to be measured on a yearly basis. Additionally, the parties
would have to agree upon how far back the investigation would go. Any start date would be
arbitrary.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 150
ASSET AND LIABILITY ALLOCATION
It is extremely difficult to quantify current services provided by Suffolk County to the
East End. Too many County services are accounted for on an aggregate basis and records
are not kept as to where each individual "unit" of service is delivered. It is impossible to
trace the value of past services provided by Suffolk County to the East End.
Agreed Upon Asset Valuation Method: Each asset would need to be individually valued
in order to determine the total value of the assets that Suffolk would keep and Peconic would
receive. It is highly unlikely that the two County governments could agree on a method of
valuation due to the fact that government is a non -revenue generating business. Unlike
valuation methods in business commerce, where an asset's value is based upon either the
revenue generated from the asset or what someone will pay for the asset itself, the value of
government assets are more subjective. Good examples are parklands, jails, airports, etc.
Asset Allocation: Assuming the two parties can come to an agreement on the valuation
method of specific assets, the assets themselves would have to be divided. Given
disagreements, the two parties will have the incentive to value assets in their own way
depending on each asset's relative attractiveness. The location of the various assets could
also cause disagreements between the parties when deciding on the appropriate valuation
method and/or asset allocation. Certain assets, such as parks, will naturally be allocated by
location. The incentive, in this case, would be to value the park at the lowest possible
amount.
Agreed Upon Liability Valuation Method: Each of Suffolk County's liabilities would
need to be individually valued in order to determine the total cost to Peconic of assuming
these liabilities. It may be impossible to have Suffolk and Peconic agree on a value for
individual liability items. For example, litigation from County negligence would have to be
allocated based upon some standard. It is unlikely a standard could be agreed upon,
especially since given this allocation method, assets are valued independently.
Modified Accounting Benefit Method
An alternative method of allocating the assets and the liabilities is to measure the benefit
associated with the assets that Peconic would receive and pay Suffolk County an amount
equal to the liability associated with those assets. This approach has some appeal due to its
potential simplicity and seeming ability to achieve an equitable split. The approach is to first
identify each asset that has been financed debt. Peconic would be liable and would pay the
debt service associated with the obtained asset; however, this approach, seems to have
promise it is not a practical allocation method. The method breaks down when you add
assets to be allocated that are not financed with debt. As mentioned above, how would
Peconic value the airport which was purchased for one dollar from the federal government
decades ago?
Each asset would need to be individually valued in order to determine the total value of
the assets that Suffolk County would keep and Peconic would receive. It is highly unlikely
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 151
ASSET AND LIABILITY ALLOCATION
that the two County governments could agree on a method of valuation due to the fact that
government is a non -revenue generating business. Due to these valuation problems, an
equitable allocation of assets and liabilities is not possible under a modified Accounting
Benefit method.
Divestiture Method
The recommended method of allocating Suffolk County's assets and liabilities to
Peconic County is based on a Divestiture Method. It is the recommended approach because
the results of this method will produce a result which best meets the criteria on which
allocation methods have been evaluated -- that is, the Divestiture Method offers Peconic and
Suffolk County an equitable and agreed-upon division of resources and obligations. Further,
the method is efficient and can be easily communicated to, and understood by the citizens of
Suffolk County (east and west). It should have a high probability of being implemented.
The fundamental elements of this method are:
• Both Peconic and Suffolk County must retain the resources (i.e. taxpayer base, long -
1 -15
term assets, etc.) to be fully self -sustainable entities (in the short and long term).
• With regard to fixed assets (land, building, and equipment), Peconic County will take
only those assets that are absolutely necessary to operate. Suffolk would retain
ownership of all other assets except where there is an agreement for joint ownership
or operation such as the Community College. As an example, Peconic will retain the
small, old courthouse on Griffing Avenue in Riverhead, while Suffolk will keep the
large new courthouse in Riverhead.
• This means that Suffolk County will retain all the buildings (and land thereon) and
equipment that are not necessary for Peconic's operation even if these assets are
physically located in Peconic County. Suffolk County can sell or lease these assets
to provide for the cost of their replacement, if necessary, in Western Suffolk County.
• All parcels of land in Peconic, except those connected to Suffolk -owned buildings,
will be owned by Peconic. However, the residents of western Suffolk would still
continue to use parks and open space in Peconic under the same terms as East End
residents - that is, the same access and fees.
• With regard to long-term liabilities, Peconic County would assume responsibility for
a portion of Suffolk County's debt by issuing bonds and paying the proceeds to
Suffolk on the first day that Peconic County is created. Peconic should pay for the
same proportion of Suffolk's debt that it now pays for in the form of both property
and sales taxes - that is, 14.39%. See Table 1-1 Calculation of East End Tax
Contribution. This amount would be equal to an up -front payment of approximately
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 152
ASSET AND LIABILITY ALLOCATION
$76 million. In other words, Suffolk would get the same amount of payment as if
Peconic were never formed. It would be kept whole.
• With regard to Suffolk County's short-term assets and liabilities including cash
balances, surplus monies, receivables and payables, the same 14.39% would be
allocated to Peconic County. Again, Peconic County would pay and receive the net
amount equal to the current tax contribution of the East End Citizens to the Suffolk
County government. It is assumed this net amount is positive and that Peconic will
end up with sufficient liquid assets so that it will not be compelled to borrow in
anticipation of tax receipts. However, if it is required, Peconic County will have the
economic factors, financial factors and debt factor necessary to undertake such a
borrowing.
Recommendation: The Divestiture Method
The Divestiture Method of allocating the assets between Peconic and Suffolk County is
the recommended approach because the results projected to be obtained using this method
will produce an equitable and agreed-upon division of resources and obligations. Further,
the method is efficient and can be communicated easily to the citizens of Suffolk County
(east and west) and have a high probability of being implemented.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 153
IMPLEMENTING A PECONIC COUNTY DIVESTITURE
Divestiture Method
General
As discussed in 7. 1, "Asset and Liability Allocation," of the various allocation methods
evaluated, the Divestiture Method is the recommended approach to allocate Suffolk's assets
and liabilities between Peconic and Suffolk routines. Most importantly, this method has the
greatest likelihood of producing an equitable and an agreed-upon division of resources and
obligations. Furthermore, this method can be easily communicated to and understood by the
current citizens of Suffolk County (east and west). Thus, it has a high probability of being
implemented.
The fundamental premise of the divestiture method is the negotiation of a split between
Suffolk and Peconic Counties that will result in the most efficient uses of governmental
resources possible. Similar to corporate divestitures, being big for its own sake is rejected.
Instead, assets and liabilities are allocated between Peconic and Suffolk based on each
receiving (i) the resources needed for both Peconic and Suffolk to efficiently operate, (ii) the
resources that will service Suffolk's existing obligations in an equitable manner without
violating the financial integrity of either entity.
What follows below is a description of how the major categories of resources (assets)
and obligations (liabilities) of Suffolk County would be allocated under a Divestiture
Method of allocation. Please note that assets and liabilities which are described below are
based on the Suffolk County's Comprehensive Financial Statements, Year Ended December
31, 1993. Please refer to Appendix III Summary of Suffolk County's Balance Sheet. These
figures represent the latest audited numbers available and provide an agreed upon "snap
shot" of Suffolk County's financial position.
When a date for secession is agreed upon, independent auditor(s) should be retained to
perform a thorough inventory of all existing assets and liabilities as of that date. Auditors
for both Counties should participate in and validate this process, assuring agreement and an
equitable transfer of title to assets and responsibility for obligations, based on acceptable
methodologies for valuation and allocation. Future resources and obligations allocated to
Peconic could differ from the amounts estimated below due to changes in the financial
position of Suffolk County from the projection date to the secession date. Such changes may
be material.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 155
IMPLEMENTING A PECONIC COUNTY DIVESTITURE
Short -Term Assets and Liabilities
Working Capital
For allocation purposes, operating working capital is defined as the sum of the operating
cash, and amounts receivable less accounts payable and other current liabilities. Year-end
working capital is generally volatile, especially for municipal governments, because of tax
collections, short-term borrowing and operating expenditure trends.
In order to allocate working capital of Suffolk County between Peconic and Suffolk
(post-Peconic) the elements of working capital have been aggregated at a single point in time
to calculate Suffolk's working capital balance. Only those amounts in Suffolk County's
general fund have been used. Once Suffolk County's working capital balance has been
calculated, an amount to be allocated to Peconic is determined based upon the percentage of
taxes the East End has contributed to Suffolk County's general government requirements
(14.39%). See Table 1-1, "East End Tax Contribution."
Peconic County will use this working capital amount to provide itself with the liquid
reserves needed to operate the new County's business. This is an important element for
Peconic County as Peconic's expenses include both start-up costs and regular operating
expenses that must be paid as they come due regardless of the receipt of County taxes and
other income. Working capital is designed to be used when necessary to fund the County at
intervals when expenses are greater than revenues.
The future amount of Suffolk County (and therefore Peconic County) working capital
will likely increase due to Suffolk County's improved financial performance since December
31, 1993. However, for consistency and projection purposes, Peconic's allocation of
Suffolk's working capital has been estimated as of December 31, 1993. The calculation of
Peconic County's working capital allocation is shown on the following page.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 156
IMPLEMENTING A PECONIC COUNTY DIVESTITURE
Table 7.4-1
Peconic County Working Capital Worksheet
(Based on 1993 Financial Statements)
Current Assets and Accumulated Cash
Cash and Cash Equivalents
$26,345,506
Property Tax Receivable
121,100,854
Due from Other Governments
192,129,829
Due from Other Funds
30,652,851
Equity and Fund Balance
13,235,557
Total
$383,464,597
Current Liabilities
Accounts Payable $105,349,969
Notes Payable 94,800,000
Due to Other Funds 36,922,147
Deferred Tax Revenue 116,156,974
Other Deferred Revenue 12,176,447
Total $365,405,537
Excess/(Deficit) Current Assets
over Current Liabilities $18,059,060
Peconic County Share of Working Capital $2,597,953
(14.39%)
Long -Term Assets
Land: All land in the East End will become the property and responsibility of Peconic
County and all land in the Western Towns will remain the property and responsibility of
Suffolk County, with a few important exceptions. The first exception is that all joint -owned
facilities, such as those proposed in this report -- the Medical -Legal Investigations and
Forensic Science Laboratory and the Community College -- will be owned by a new
ownership entity or jointly by the two counties. The second exception to allocating land by
locations is that Suffolk County would retain title to all land pertaining to buildings located
in the East End, which are to be retained by Suffolk County This would include the Suffolk
County Correctional Facilities and other buildings, not necessary for the operation of
Peconic County. See Buildings, on the following page.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 157
IMPLEMENTING A PECONIC COUNTY DIVESTITURE
In terms of the land that will be allocated by location -- this would include parks, open
space, environmentally sensitive land, etc. -- citizens of both counties would retain equal
access to these assets. Specifically, this means that all park access, park fees, access to open
space, would remain the same for all current citizens of Suffolk County. Equal access to
County land would be guaranteed as part of the separation of Peconic and Suffolk.
The allocation of land as described above is consistent with the Divestiture Method of
asset/liability allocation. Specifically, in situations where there would be no benefit to the
citizenry of either County from the holder of title, land can be allocated most efficiently by
location. In situations where there would be benefit to the titleholder, such as land
pertaining to buildings, title would be allocated based on the usual method of combining the
land and buildings thereon. Peconic would receive all title to land pertaining to buildings it
needs to operate efficiently and Suffolk County would receive all title to the rest which
would permit it to sell or lease fixed assets as it would see fit. See Buildings, below.
Buildings: Both Suffolk County and Peconic County will need to ensure that. each
county has the facilities necessary to provide municipal services. Some part of Suffolk
County's general office space is located in the East End Towns, in excess of Peconic
County's needs. As such, it is unlikely that Peconic County government will utilize all of the
space available on the East End and equally likely that Suffolk County may continue to need
more space than is available in the Western Towns.
The facilities that Suffolk County currently owns are varied in type and location. The
County owns fixed assets such as garages, office buildings, barracks, museums, dog security
buildings, kennels, out houses, maintenance sheds, pump houses, stables, docks, pig feeders,
helicopter buildings and more.
The allocation of space is proposed to take into account Peconic and Suffolk County's
needs. Much of the minor building allocation would take place through a negotiated
agreement regarding continued use of these and other buildings :in the East End by Peconic
County. Again, Peconic County will take title io only those buildings it needs to service the
East End citizenry, all others will be retained by Suffolk County.
Peconic County will have specific space needs with respect to offices, health clinics,
public works and parks facilities. It is estimated that Peconic County will need
approximately 150,000 to 200,000 square feet of gross office space to incorporate the: space
needs of the new government and allow the flexibility for expansion.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 158
IMPLEMENTING A PECONIC COUNTY DIVESTITURE
Table 7.4-2
Peconic County Office Space Requirements
Department Office Space
Board of Supervisors and
Administrative Departments
18,959
Economic Assistance
49,136
Public Safety Coordinator
3,957
Sheriff
7,414
Probation
10,380
FRES
1,127
Health
14,292
Judicial
10,041
Parks
14,972
Planning
2,649
Public Works
7,070
Total County Office Space 139,998
There is sufficient space in the Riverhead County complex to accommodate these
requirements, as well as sufficient space for the operations and meetings of the Board of
Supervisors. It is expected that Peconic County will also require the Record Storage facility
in Riverhead.
For purposes of this report, it is proposed that Peconic County will own and occupy the
Court House on Griffing Avenue in Riverhead. Similarly, as the criminal courts complex in
Southampton may not be needed by Peconic, they will be retained by Suffolk County.
Peconic County will also assume ownership of the health clinics in the East End as well as
all facilities associated with parks. The public works facilities in Riverhead, BOMARC and
the rest of the East End will be owned by Peconic County and used by the Towns in the
maintenance of County roads.
Gabreski Airport and all the land and facilities associated with it will become part of
Peconic County.
All other buildings in the East End will be owned by Suffolk County. Initially, Suffolk
County will need these facilities to meet its own space needs. As those needs are met either
through reduced staffing (i.e. Suffolk County's service levels will be lower with the creation
of Peconic County) or acquisition/leasing of space in the Western Towns, Suffolk County
can sell or rent these facilities for its own benefit. This method of allocation insures that
both Counties receive the facilities that they need to operate as self-sustaining entities and
permits Suffolk County to realize value from properties in the East End that it will need to
replace with facilities in the Western Towns.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 159
IMPLEMENTING A PECONIC COUNTY DIVESTITURE
Equipment: All County -owned equipment will be allocated by location with a number of
noted exceptions. Some equipment will be allocated to joint -use facilities, such as the
Community College, and offices and facilities located in the East End which are not required
by Peconic County will therefore remain with Suffolk County.
As noted, Suffolk County has publicly had difficulties in tracking the exact amount of
County equipment. The County has begun an audit of County equipment, but as of the date
of this study, Suffolk is unable track its equipment holdings by department, by location, or
by value. This report assumes generally that there is sufficient equipment available to meet
Peconic County's initial operating needs and that this equipment will be transferred to
Peconic without affecting the operation of Suffolk County. Certain extra equipment will be
required that is associated with Peconic County's establishment. Please see Chapter 8.1:
"Capital Improvement Plan and Start-up Costs".
Ongoing Capital Projects
Ongoing capital projects and funds set aside for ongoing capital projects would be
allocated also based upon the Divestiture Method. Although there are no funds that are
planned to be received by Peconic from Suffolk's capital improvement fund, there will likely
be transfers of projects that have been financed but where monies have not been spent as of
the date of secession.
Long Term Liabilities
Long -Term Debt
As mentioned earlier, the Technical Advisory Committee and this study's legal advisors
have determined that Peconic County will need to maintain a contingent liability regarding
all outstanding Suffolk County General Obligation Debt. The property values of the East
End are part of the underlying security for these obligations, and without that security the
value of these bonds to anyone holding them could fall precipitously.
In terms of Peconic's allocated portion (14.39%) of the Suffolk County's general
obligation debt and drinking water protection debt, a $76 million payment to Suffolk County
is proposed based upon Western Suffolk County's retirement of the allocation portion of the
debt service due. Peconic County would finance this payment upon the issuance of bonds
which may represent a sale of property by Suffolk County to Peconic. In general, upon the
cash sale by a municipality of an asset financed with debt which is outstanding at the time of
such sale, state law requires that the proceeds of sale be placed in a mandatory reserve fund
for the purpose of retiring the outstanding debt attributable to such asset. Similar mandatory
reserve fund requirements apply to state and federal grant funds that have been received with
respect to a capital improvement but not expended. Any balance remaining in a mandatory
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 160
IMPLEMENTING A PECONIC COUNTY DIVESTITURE
reserve fund upon payment of all outstanding debt service may be expended for any lawful
municipal purpose.
The above discussion regarding mandatory reserve funds applies to the cash sale of a
capital improvement. If the allocation of assets between the two counties is structured in
such a way that various assets are being transferred to and from each county with the net
values of each asset being offset against the net values of other assets, or in any other
transaction structure which does not result in a matching of cash proceeds with specific
assets for which Suffolk County debt is outstanding, then the mandatory reserve fund
provisions described above would be inapplicable. Special legislation related to the creation
of Peconic County could be enacted providing an exception to such provisions, thus
providing Suffolk with a measure of flexibility in the application of such cash proceeds.
In the unlikely event that the two counties agree that Peconic will assume payment
obligations on certain Suffolk debt attributable to assets transferred to Peconic, several
options for structuring Peconic's payments are possible. Under current law, Peconic debt
could only be issued for county purposes such as the acquisition of certain assets, each of
which would have a specific statutory period of probable usefulness ("PPU") limiting the
maximum term of the debt component attributable to each asset. Alternatively, debt could
be issued with substantially level or declining debt service, structured with a weighted
average PPU derived from the combined PPU of the acquired assets.
As noted above, special legislation related to the creation of Peconic County could be
enacted providing a specific PPU for "acquisition of Suffolk County assets by Peconic
County" or some other defined object or purpose. This approach would simplify the debt
structuring process, eliminating the need to match debt components with specific assets, as
well as allow flexibility in the context of the overall budget and accounting concerns for
each county.
Suffolk County has issued general obligation debt based on a pledge of the full faith and
credit of the taxing authority and real property values of all ten Towns. Peconic County is
projected to issue bonds to repay Suffolk County for a portion of its existing general
obligation debt allocable to Peconic County; and to repay Suffolk County for a portion of its
existing Suffolk County drinking water protection bonds allocable to Peconic County.
Based on the proposed Divestiture Method of allocating assets and liabilities, Peconic's
share of payment for all existing Suffolk County general purpose debt and drinking water
protection bonds is assumed to be $76 million or 14.39%, the same share of tax revenues
that it contributed to Suffolk County in 1993 (see Table 1-1). These dollars, paid on the first
day Peconic County is created, would allow Suffolk County to create an escrow fund to earn
interest on the $76 million deposit. This interest plus the initial deposit would allow Suffolk
County to pay off the $104 million which represents Peconic's 14.39% share over the years
needed by Suffolk County to repay or defease these obligations. Consequently, Suffolk
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 161
IMPLEMENTING A PECONIC COUNTY DIVESTITURE
County is placed in the same economic position it would have been in had there been no
secession.
Provided below are Charts 7.4-3 and 7.4-4 depicting the portion of Suffolk County debt
service which Peconic County would be obligated to repay. Charts 7.4-5 and 7.4-6 show the
debt service on the Peconic County bonds that will be used to pay off Peconic County's debt
service obligation to Suffolk County.
12,000,000
m
10,000,000
to 8,000,000
0 6,000,000
4,000,000
c
a 2,000,000
Chart 7.4-3
Allocated Suffolk County General Obligation Debt Service
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 1
Chart 7.4-4
Allocated Suffolk County Drinking Water Debt Service
4,000,000
m
3,500,000 ----------------------------------------------
d
3,000,000 ----------------------------------------------
2,500,000 - - - - - - - - - -
0
2,000,000 - - - -- - - - --
1,500,000 - - - - - - - - - -
=
1,000,000 -- ---- --- -- - ---- - - -
a
500,000 - -- -- - - --
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
All proposed bonds for Peconic County have been structured with current interest rates
and a level debt repayment schedule. Please see Table 8.2-1 for a summary of total Peconic
County debt outstanding. Detailed schedules of Peconic County bond calculations can be
found in Appendix H.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 162
IMPLEMENTING A PECONIC COUNTY DIVESTITURE
7.4-5
New Peconic County Debt Service to Repay General Obligation
Bonds
8,000,000
7,000,000-- - - - - - - - - - -
------------------------------------
iu6,000,000 ----------------------------------------------
5,000,000 - - - - - - - ----- - - - - - -
p 4,000,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3,000,000 - - - - - - - - ----------
3
2,000,000 - - - - -- -- - - -- --
1,000,000 - - ----- -- - - --
4191
0
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
Chart 7.4-6
New Peconic County Debt Service to Repay Drinking Water
Obligation
d 4,000,000
3,500,000 ----------------------------------------------
in3,000,000 ----------------------------------------------
2,500,000 - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -
C 2,000,000 -- - -- -- - --
1,500,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
= 1,000,000
-- - -- -- - - -- - - - --
Q 500,000 - - -- - - - -- ----
is 0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Other Long -Term Liabilities:
Capital Lease. As noted earlier, Suffolk County entered into an agreement with the New
York State Dormitory Authority regarding the leasing of the Cohalan Court Complex in
Central Islip. The Cohalan Court Complex will not provide any services to Peconic County,
however, the liability is the capital lease, and as such, is a payment obligation of Suffolk
County. Suffolk County may not be able to terminate the lease without financial difficulties,
including harming Suffolk County's ability to borrow funds through the capital markets.
Due to the nature of this lease, a payment of Peconic County is provided to Suffolk County
based on the tax contribution of the East End (14.39% in 1993).
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 163
IMPLEMENTING A PECONIC COUNTY DIVESTITURE
Retirement Benefits: As described earlier, retirement benefits liability is a holdover
from the State's conversion to a different billing system and then reconverting. By the time
secession takes place, Suffolk County should be current on all actuarially -determined
pension contributions and Peconic County will have no ongoing responsibility to Suffolk
County employees.
Contingent Long -Terni Liabilities
Even though there are no immediate out-of-pocket costs associated with Suffolk
County's Contingent Long -Term Liabilities, these liabilities will need to be allocated
between Suffolk County and Peconic in a manner that is consistent with the Divestiture
Method as described above.
Accumulated Vacation and Sick Leave: Suffolk County is assumed to be responsible for
all the accumulated vacation and sick leave of its employees. It cannot be predicted what
cost, if any, Suffolk County will incur from the secession of Peconic. The Suffolk County
labor contracts provide that this liability is the responsibility of the legal entity that
negotiated the contracts.
Other Liabilities: This category includes Medicaid Claims, Estimated Liability for
Claims, and Mass Transit Aid (although the. Long Island Rail Road payment is still the
subject of litigation and any obligation by Peconic County should be adjusted accordingly).
Consistent with the Divestitive Method, the responsibility associated with these liabilities
should be allocated in terms of the previous expenditures made by Suffolk County. In this
regard, none of the liabilities associated with the expenditures in. Suffolk County's Sewer
District Funds, the Police District Fund, and the District Court Fund would be allocated to
Peconic County because no East End taxes were used to support these services.
If any other liabilities that are associated with Suffolk County's General Fund become
current and payable, Peconic County would propose to fund its share, if any, through
additional moneys, Suffolk County insurance payments and any that have been budgeted for
"Increase in County Reserves," ($1,500,000 per year) less any allocated reserves established
by Suffolk County for these items which would be transferred to Peconic at the time of
secession
Litigation: Suffolk County, its officers and employees are defendants in a number of
lawsuits. While the ultimate outcome of various proceedings and claims is not currently
predictable, adverse determinations in some of them might cause Suffolk County to have to
a pay claim.
Suffolk County's 1993 Financial Statement's estimated liability for claims is shown as
$240,984,978. Research into the basis for this item indicates that the financial statement
number is calculated to be the aggregate of all claims filed against the County and not an
estimation of the future pay out by Suffolk County. Furthermore, research indicates that a
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 164
IMPLEMENTING A PECONIC COUNTY DIVESTITURE
substantial portion of the liability is for items outside of Suffolk County's general
government function (i.e. County Police items, County sewer district items, etc.)
Furthermore, Suffolk County is and maybe insured for all claims against the County.
If any of Litigation Liabilities become current and payable, Peconic County would
propose to fund its share, if any, through additional moneys, Suffolk County insurance
payments and any that have been budgeted for "Increase in County Reserves," ($1,500,000
per year) less any allocated reserves established by Suffolk County for these items which
would be transferred to Peconic at the time of secession.
LILCO Litigation: LILCO has pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of Suffolk, claims seeking a declaration that the entire assessment of the Shoreham
property for the tax years ending in 1977 through 1992, with the exception of the tax year
ending in 1979, was improper and illegal and should be stricken, and that the property
should be valued at $0; and that a refund should be made to LILCO by the County for all
taxes paid for Shoreham and that LILCO is entitled to a refund of taxes in excess of $825
million, excluding interest. The earlier seven tax years have been consolidated for trial in
State court.
On October 26, 1992, Judge Stark rendered a decision on the valuation portion of the
Shoreham tax litigation for tax years 1976/77 through 1983/84 with the exception of tax year
1979/80, which is not subject to dispute. For all the tax years under review, the Judge found
that there should be a reduction in the market value of Shoreham. The Judge's decision gives
rise to a tax refund liability because LILCO has stipulated to the equalization rates
established by the New York State Board of Equalization and Assessment (the 'State
Equalization Rates'). There is an indicated refund of approximately $72.0 million, including
interest, through October, 1994. The County's direct tax refund liability, including interest
through October, 1994, is approximately $26.28 million.
The valuation decision has been reduced to a judgment and signed by the Judge. LILCO
has filed a Notice of Appeal and all defendants have filed Cross Notices of Appeal.
Assuming that LILCO meets its burden of proof in establishing tax refund liability, the
taxing jurisdiction's appraisal indicates a refund for tax years 1990/91 and 1991/92 of
approximately $27.6 million plus interest, of which approximately $10 million plus interest
represents Suffolk County's direct share.
There is currently a proposal that LIPA (Long Island Power Authority) would purchase
the assets of LILCO from the proceeds of municipal bonds. This proposal terminates tax
liability for Suffolk County.
If any of these LILCO Litigation liabilities become current and payable Peconic County
would propose to fund the amount due through additional moneys ($1,500,000 per year) that
have been budgeted for "Increase in County Reserves," less (1) any allocated reserves
established by Suffolk County for these items which would be transferred to Peconic at the
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 165
IMPLEMENTING A PECONIC COUNTY DIVESTITURE
time of secession, (2) the proceeds of insurance awards for insurance that was purchased by
Suffolk County prior to the secession of Peconic and, (3) the proceeds of insurance awards
for insurance that was purchased by Peconic County following the secession.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 166
FUTURE INVESTMENT
IN
PECONIC COUNTY
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND START UP COSTS
The Three -Year Capital Program
The Three -Year Capital Program represents Peconic County's financing plan for the
construction and renovation of County -owned buildings and public facilities and equipment
purchases for the benefit of certain operating departments and for a number of land
acquisitions. The expenditures included in the capital program do not incorporate additional
start-up costs that Peconic County will incur when it begins operation as an independent
entity (see the end of this section).
The Capital Program was developed using the schedule of projects that each Suffolk
County operating department established for the Suffolk County capital budget. Projects
were then identified as East End projects, Western projects, or projects which appropriately
fall under a "joint use" designation. (Examples of joint use projects include "Roof Repair:
Various County Buildings" and "Drainage: County Roads".) For joint use projects, we then
used an appropriate multiplying factor (i.e. road miles in the East End) to determine which
portion of the joint use projects were allocable to the East End.
Once a reasonable estimate of Suffolk County East End projects was developed, each
project was carefully examined to determine its congruence with the mission of the
applicable Peconic County department. For example, the Suffolk County Sports Hall of
Fame was eliminated from consideration as a Peconic County project. This further
screening provided an estimate of what Peconic County' capital needs will be in its first three
years in order to meet its operating needs and priorities. Once annual needs were identified,
debt issuance and debt service projections were developed for each fiscal year, incorporating
these expenditures into the operating budget model.
Since most of the projects associated with this program are derived from Suffolk
County's plans, it is possible that some of these projects may be undertaken by Suffolk
County prior to the creation of Peconic County. It is likely, therefore, that the actual projects
that need to be completed by Peconic County will differ from the projects listed in this
section. However, the costs associated with these projects and the priorities that they
indicate for Peconic County provide a good guide for future capital needs and investment in
Peconic County.
The figures presented in the following section represent the net cost to Peconic County
of these capital improvements. They do not include anticipated federal and State matching
funds. Where it is expected that matching funds will be available, a notation is made as to
what portion of those projects will be funded by non -County sources. The costs of the
projects listed below are reflected in the debt service figure in Table 2-5. The individual
operating department budgets in Chapters 4 and 5 do not contain capital costs.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 167
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND START-UP COSTS
Please refer to the summary of proposed capital expenditures and respective costs
located at the end of this section.
Board of Supervisors and Administrative Departments
The Board of Supervisors and Administrative Departments are expected to undertake
three main capital investments during the first three years: (1) enhancing office computer
information systems, (2) replacing or renovating building operations equipment and (3)
purchasing and implementing a new geographic information system (GIS).
The County Administrator will coordinate upgrades of computer systems for the
Departments of Law, Public Works, Health, Finance and Probation. During Peconic
County's first three years, approximately $850,000 of investments will be made in hardware
(e.g. personal computers, printers and file servers) and software (e.g. word processing,
spreadsheets and databases).
The second project provides for the replacement of mechanical equipment in County
buildings which have reached or exceeded their useful life, plus the installation of water pre-
treatment equipment for boilers. The proposed list of projects includes re -tubing the boiler
at BOMARC in Westhampton, replacing absorption machines at the Riverhead Power Plant
and replacing boilers and/or chillers at the Riverhead Courthouse Annex and the DPW
warehouse. These projects are estimated to cost $450,000 over three years.
Finally, Peconic County would partially finance a geographic information system, a
capital project being undertaken by Suffolk County. The system will contain digitized tax
maps and information on all of the parcels and spaces in both Suffolk County and Peconic
County. Peconic County's total contribution to this project would be approximately $75,000,
bringing the total cost of general government capital projects to, approximately $1,375,000
over three years.
Department of Economic Assistance
The Department currently has minimal capital improvement needs. Over the next
several years the Department will need to purchase a van for handicapped services.
Sheriffs Department
The Peconic County Sheriffs Department's will require capital expenditures for the
purchase of mobile security vans and mini -buses to be used in the transportation of prisoners
for local travel. The total cost of this capital expenditure is expected to be $132,500.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 168
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND START-UP COSTS
Health Department
The Health Department will require capital expenditures for replacing laboratory,
radiology, medical and office equipment and furnishings for county health centers; other
improvements to the health centers include modifications to improve air change rates and
provide additional "negative pressure" rooms to protect employees and staff from airborne
infectious diseases, mainly tuberculosis; these improvements will bring Peconic County
health centers into compliance with both Center for Disease Control and OSHA standards.
The Department will also purchase replacement vehicles for its fleet and a new
mammography van. The total cost of these expenditures is expected to be $1,683,344 over
Peconic County's first three fiscal years.
Department of Parks and Cultural Affairs
The Department is expected to undertake several capital projects over Peconic County's
first three years, including improvements to various recreational facilities and park buildings.
The various projects are as follows:
• installation of fencing and lockable gates at Robert Cushman Murphy Park and
Indian Island Country Club;
• improvements to various campground facilities at Sears Bellows Park, Cedar
Point Park, Shinnecock East Park and Indian Island Park;
• purchase of a variety of vehicles and heavy equipment items to use in
maintaining facilities;
• installation of a parking field and marina lighting at Indian Island Park;
• improvements to park access roads at Cedar Point Park, Meschutt Beach,
Indian Island and Shinnecock West;
• installation of a new floating dock ,with electric and water service at the
Shinnecock marina;
• installation of an automatic irrigation system at the Indian Island Golf Course;
• roof replacement at the Montauk Third House and Meschutt Beach concession
stand; and
• design and construction of a new maintenance facility at Indian Island Golf
Course.
These projects are expected to cost a total of approximately $4.1 million over three
years.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 169
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND START-UP COSTS
Department of Planning and Regional Services
The Department will invest in seven capital projects in Peconic; County's first three years,
with Pine Barrens preservation, purchase of environmentally sensitive lands, and dredging of
County waterways representing ongoing expenditures:
• a study of the County's needs for an additional scavenger waste facility to
process sludge (60% State supported);
• purchase of heavy duty vehicles and drilling equipment to perform groundwater
monitoring, investigate hazardous waste spills and gather data for geological
studies;
• funding for Peconic County's share of the Peconic Bay Estuary Program, which
is part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Estuary
Program;
• Pine Barrens preservation;
• purchase of farmland in the East End;
• purchase of environmentally sensitive lands ; and
• dredging of County waterways.
These projects are estimated to cost approximately $11.5 million over three years.
Department of Public Works
The 1996-1998 Capital program for Peconic County involves the financing and planning
of improvement or construction projects on many of the County's roads, buildings and
facilities. In many cases, these projects are budgeted in the Capital Budget of the
Department of Public Works.
For the fiscal years 1996-1998, the Department of Public Works proposed capital budget
is $10.2 million in net costs for improvements to or rehabilitation and construction of
various roads, buildings, facilities and structures. Many of these projects receive matching
funds or grants from the State and/or federal government. Capital projects associated with
the Department can be organized into the following categories: (1) general government
related projects, and (2) transportation related projects. General government projects deal
mainly with buildings and facilities in Peconic County. Transportation related projects
include highway maintenance and repair, public transportation :improvements and aviation
related projects.
(1) General government related projects are those projects which may benefit several County
departments through their completion. As noted above, the; projects deal mainly with
repair, maintenance and construction of various County facilities. These projects
include:
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 170
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND START-UP COSTS
• Roof replacement of various County buildings;
• Improvements to the County Center in Riverhead;
• Projects to increase energy conservation in buildings County -wide;
• Rehabilitation of various parking lots, curbs and drives;
• Reconstruction projects at the Power Plant in BOMARC;
• Replacement of fuel and hazardous waste storage tanks;
• Removal of hazardous building materials;
• Installation of Emergency Systems for various County Buildings;
• Projects to improve the County Water Supply System; and
Renovation of various County buildings
General government related projects account for approximately $5.0 million in 1996,
nearly $4.4 million in 1997 and $0.9 million in 1998. The most costly of these projects
is the improvement of the County Center in Riverhead. Plans calls for $2.0 million to be
expended in FY 1996 and nearly $4.5 million is allocated for expenditures in subsequent
years.
(2) The Transportation portion of the Department's Capital Budget can be divided into
several subsections: Highways, Public Transportation, Erosion and Flood Control,
Aviation and Bridges.
Certain transportation expenditures will be funded from a variety of sources. The figures
shown in the capital budget represent the net amount that will have to be bonded by
Peconic County. For example, the State and federal government will support 90% of the
costs of the purchase of street signs and transit vehicles, while federal and state aid will
be available to meet 95% of the costs of improvements to Gabreski Airport.
Capital budget monies will be used to accomplish the following:
Highways
• Strengthen and improve various County roads
• Purchase Public Works maintenance equipment
• Construct highway maintenance facilities, including salt storage shed
• Replace various traffic signals throughout the County
• Upgrade the safety of several locations throughout the County
• Purchase Vector Control Equipment
Public Transportation
• Purchase signs, street furniture and transit vehicles (90% federal and State supported)
Erosion and Flood Control
Reconstruct various culverts and inlets throughout the County
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 171
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND START-UP COSTS
Aviation
• Extend North Taxiway at Gabreski Airport (95% federal and State supported)
• Improve lighting on South Taxiway at Gabreski Airport (95% federal and State
supported)
Bridges
• Rehabilitate various bridges and embankments
• Paint Goose Creek bridge
Highway projects are the most costly to the County, as expenditures in the Fiscal Years
1996, 1997 and 1998 are projected to be nearly $1.3 million, $2.3 million and $3.6 million
respectively. The increases are mainly due to the increased costs of plans to reconstruct
County Road 58 in Riverhead. Capital appropriations for subsequent years total nearly $7.6
million. The majority of this amount is set aside for the reconstruction of County Road 48 in
Southold.
The Department's Capital Budget allocates $1.0 million in 1996 and $1.1 million in
1998 for the repair and reconstruction of inlets and culverts :in the County. On-going
maintenance will cost the County $2.0 million in subsequent years. Allocations of $580,000
in FY 1996 and $90,000 in FY 1997 will be used for the repair of various bridges and
embankments. Improvements to Gabreski Airport's runways and sewer system account for
$2.6 million of the Capital Budget in 1996 and $2.4 million in 1998 although these
improvements are 95% financed by the State and Federal Government. New signs and
seating at the County's bus stops will account for $13,000 of the Capital Budget in Fiscal
Year 1996.
Peconic County's share of a new closed loop traffic system to increase safety on its
roadways will account for $14,860 of the Capital Budget in both 1997 and 1998 and
$125,580 in subsequent years.
Joint Community College
Two projects are currently budgeted for SCC in the Suffolk County Capital Plan for
1995-1997. It has been determined that $208,333 is budgeted for projects at the Eastern
Campus in 1996 for replacement of underground fuel tanks and $750,000 is budgeted for
1997 to improve fire alarm and sprinkler safety devices. These projects will be added to the
Peconic County Capital Budget. It is expected that the State will meet 50% of these costs,
reducing the County's contribution to $104,167 and $375,000 respectively.
Based upon information provided to the East End Economic and Environmental Institute
in a draft version of the Proposal for a Regional Education Center, the future Capital
Program for the College includes two specific projects, although time frames for
implementation are not discussed. The first is the creation of the Regional Information and
Distance Learning Center. The Center will consist of a library and information center, a
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 172
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND START-UP COSTS
center for community research and a small business development center. The Regional
Information and Distance Learning Center will provide specialized information resources to
all of Peconic and Suffolk Counties. The total estimated cost of this project is $11.06
million.
As to what portion of this cost will be attributable to Peconic County, agreements
regarding the joint Peconic-Suffolk Community College will need to be negotiated before an
accurate estimate can be made.
The second project included in the capital plan is the creation of an Early Childhood
Education, Child Care and Parenting Education Program. This project will focus on serving
the needs of families by offering a degree program in early childhood education, developing
a child care center and by providing training for day care providers. The program will be run
by the student association and funding will come from a state grant, student activity moneys
and user fees. No funds from the County are needed for the completion of this project.
General Start -Up Costs
In its first few years of operation, Peconic County will incur costs associated with
temporary operating adjustments, training, consulting services and supplies, equipment and
other purchases which are not included in the Capital Program or in the individual
departments' budget projections; rather, they are included in the Operating Budget summary
as an aggregate figure for the entire county. Start-up costs are assumed to be 4%, 2% and
0.5% of total departmental operating expenditures for the County's first three fiscal years,
respectively, or $8 million total over the three years.
It is assumed that half of these start-up costs will be capital costs and therefore, can be
capitalized and funded with tax-exempt bond proceeds. The balance of these costs will need
to be paid out of current revenues. Examples of these costs are:
• Legal fees
• Consulting fees
• Equipment and vehicle purchases
• Asset and liability audit
• Employee testing and training
• Printing of County stationery
• Re -configuring office space
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 173
Operating Expenses
Capital Expenses(1)
Total
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND START-UP COSTS
Table 8.1-1
Summary of Start -Up Costs
1996 1997 1998 Totals
$2,472,119 $1,273,141 $327,834 $4,073,094
2,472,119 1,273,141 327,834 4,073,094
$4,944,238 $2,546,282 $655,668 $8,146,188
(1) Debt is to be issued in 1996 to finance capitalized start-up expenses between 1996 and 1998.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 174
Peconic County Feasibility Study
Suffolk County 1995 - 1997 Adopted Capital Program and
Peconic County Capital Improvement Plan 1996 - 2000
Project Adopted Suffolk (1) Subsequent
Number Project Title Location 1995 1996 1997 Years (1)
General Government
Support: Judicial
560,000
1123
Renovation to Court Complex, Gritting Ave., Riverhead
E
General Government
Support: Shared Services
2,500,000
1623
Roof replacement of various county buildings
X
1643
Improvements to the County Center, Riverhead
E
1664
Energy Conservation, Various County Buildings
X
1678
Rehabilitation of Parking lots, drives and curbs
X
1686
Equipment technology advancements and productivity
X
1705
Reconstruction of Power Plant, BOMARC
E
1706
Replacement/Cleanup of Fossil Fuel, Toxic & Hazardous
X
1710
Installation of Emergency Systems for major county Building.
X
1724
Improvements to Water Supply System
X
1732
Removal of toxic & hazardous bldg. materials
X
1737
Replacement of major bldg. operations equipment
X
1750
Geographic information system
X
1753
Renovations to Marine Science Bldg. and Adjacent bldg.
E
1755
Infrastructure Improvements for Traffic & Public Safety & Public Health
X
Education:
Community College
0
2161
Replacement of underground gasoline/fuel oil tanks
X
2167
Life Safety Alternations and Fire Alarm and Sprinklers
X
Public SafMy:
Qlher Protection
0
3047
Purchase of Mobile Security Vehicles
X
Public Safet
: Law Enforcement
3197
Replacing Major helicopter Components
X
Public Safety:
Communications
3205
Purchase & Installation of Equip. for EMS/ALS Training
X
3223
Infrastructure/Productivity Improvements 800 MHz System
X
Public Safely:
Traffic
3309
county share for closed loop traffic signal system
X
Health• Public
Nurse
4055
Purchase of equipment for health centers
X
4073
Planned replac. of health srvs. fleet w/heavy duty vehicles
X
4075
Improvements at health centers for infections control
X
4076
Replacement of Mammography Van
X
400,000 2,525,000 0 14,200,000
760,000
410,000
560,000
590,000
2,055,000
0
0
4,460,000
2,500,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
0
175,000
260,000
0
0
1,525,000
2,019,000
752,000
0
15,000
415,000
0
0
250,000
125,000
125,000
0
0
275,000
450,000
0
600,000
0
0
0
600,000
360,000
360,000
0
630,000
495,000
285,000
265,000
500,000
250,000
0
0
500,000
0
0
0
5,000,000
0
0
0
312,500
0
0
0
0
750,000
1,100,000
14,000,000
265,000
0
0
0
451,000
0
0
0
538,000
353,000
403,000
0
372,000
0
0
0
0
200,000
200,000
600,000
398,160
1,054,407
203,860
140,000
38,000
96,000
88,000
0
6,000,000
0
0
0
537,000
0
0
0
Peconic County Subsequent
1996 1997 1998 Years (2)
400,000 2,525,000 0 0
380,000
205,000
0
0
2,055,000
0
0
4,460,000
700,000
420,000
420,000
0
36,628
54,418
0
0
300,000
400,000
150,000
0
15,000
415,000
0
0
87,500
43,750
43,750
0
0
96,250
157,500
0
100,000
0
0
0
168,000
100,800
100,800
0
200,000
150,000
100,000
75,000
50,000
25,000
0
0
500,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
104,167
0
0
0
0
375,000
0
0
132,500 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 41,860
49,770
131,801
9,721
24,558
750,000
0
537,000
0
41,860 125,580
25,483 17,500
22,512 0
0 0
0 0
Peconic County Feasibility Study
Suffolk County 1995 - 1997 Adopted Capital Program and
Peconic County Capital Improvement Plan 1996 - 2000 .
Project Adopted Suffolk (1) Subsequent
Number Project Title Location 1995 1996 1997 Years (1)
Transpgrtation: Highways
5014 Strengthening and improving County roads
5044 Improvements to old county road - C.R. 58 -Riverhead
5047 Purchase of public works maintenance equipment
5048 Construction of highway maintenance facilities
5054 Traffic Signal Improvement
5173 Drainage Improvements to Middle Road, CR 48 - Southold
5180 Installation of Guide Rail and Safety Upgrading at various locations
5504 Renovations and additions to building C-342
5505 Cnty. Share - Reconst. of North Road CR 39 - Traffic Signal System
5509 Purchase of Vector Control Equipment
5518 Intersection Improvement on Middle Road, CR 48 - Southold
5526 Reconstruction of CR 48 -Southold
Construction of Salt Storage Shed
Transportation: Erosion and Flood Control
5347.1 Const./resetting stone revetment and maint. at Shinnecock Inlet
5371 Reconstruction of Culverts
Transportation: Public Transoortation
5651 Purchase of signs and street furniture
5658 Purchase transit vehicles (UMTA 5 & 9)
Transportation: Aviation
5719 South Taxiway Lighting System at Gabreski Airport - Westhampton
5729 Extend North Taxiway at Gabreski Airport - Westhampton
Transportation: Bridges
5815 Painting of bridge at Goose Creek
5846 County Share for rehab. of bridges on CR 105 Cross River Drive
5847 Rehabilitation of Bridge on Cr 39 -Southampton
5850 Rehabilitation of various bridges and embankments
Transpgrtation: Dredges
5200 Dredging of County Waters
Economic Assistance and Opportunity
6009 Purchase and modification of van for office of the handicapped
6418 High technology greenhouse education facility
X 3,000,000
3,000,000
3,000,000
0
E 100,000
470,000
1,300,000
0
X 1,045,000
996,500
722,500
0
X 600,000
600,000
500,000
0
X 820,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
0
E 0
0
50,000
800,000
X 75,000
175,000
175,000
0
X 245,000
0
0
0
E 0
5,000
340,000
0
X 294,000
346,000
456,000
0
E 20,000
0
680,000
0
E 30,000
0
50,000
6,150,000
E 0
0
0
0
E 1,000,000 0 1,000,000 2,000,000
X 100,000 60,000 100,000 0
X 16,500 0 0 0
X 348,000 0 0 0
E 13,570
0
6,251
0
E 0
0
116,998
0
E 17,000
0
0
0
E 405,000
0
0
0
E 175,000
0
0
0
X 50,000
170,000
0
0
X 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 4,200,000
X 45,000 0 0 0
E 240,000 435,000 0 0
Peconic County Subsequent
1996 1997 1998 Years (2)
612,360
612,360
612,360
612,360
100,000
470,000
1,300,000
0
218,719
208,567
151,219
0
0
600,000
0
0
171,626
209,300
209,300
0
0
0
50,000
800,000
15,750
36,750
36,750
0
0
0
0
0
0
5,000
340,000
0
147,000
173,000
228,000
0
20,000
0
680,000
0
30,000
0
50,000
6,150,000
75,000
0
0
0
1,000,000
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
0
0
100,000
0
1,338
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13,570
0
6,251
0
0
0
116,998
0
17,000
0
0
0
405,000
0
0
0
175,000
0
0
0
0
90,000
0
0
500,000
500,000
500,000
1,000,000
45,000
0
0
0
Peconic County Feasibility Study
Suffolk County 1995 -1997 Adopted Capital Program anc
Peconic County Capital Improvement Plan 1996 - 2000
Project
Number Project Title Location
Culture and
Recreation: Parks
0
7007
Fencing and Surveying County Parks
X
7009
Improvements to Campgrounds
X
7011
Purchase of Equipment for County Parks
X
7079
Improvements & lighting to Park Access Roads and Parking Fields
X
7109
Improvements to County Marinas
X
7153
Automatic Irrigation Systems at County Golf Courses
X
7155
Roof replacement on Park Buildings
X
7167
Demolition/Construction of Park Maintenance Building
X
Home and Community
Services: Sanitation
500,000
8177
Construction of a Sewage Treatment Plant-Gabreski Airport
E
8179
Scavenger Waste Facility Study
X
Home and Community
Services: Water Supply
0
8226
Purchase of equipment for monitoring groundwater contamination
X
8235
Peconic Bay Estuary Program
E
`
Purchase of Environmentally Sensitive Land
E
Home and Community
Services: Farmland Preservation
1,000,000
8701
Acquisition of Farmland
X
Home and Community
Services: Pine Barrens
•
Land Acquisition
E
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Indicates new capital projects in addition to Suffolk County's CIP.
(1) East End or joint use capital projects only.
(2) $24 million of capital projects beyond 1998 are anticipated to be financed
by a bond issue to occur in 1999.
Adopted Suffolk (1) Subsequent
1995 1996 1997 Years (1)
40,000
40,000
40,000
0
1,515,000
513,000
1,070,000
0
392,000
468,000
482,000
0
80,000
80,000
80,000
0
120,000
142,500
0
0
410,000
385,000
0
0
75,000
120,000
0
0
730,000
0
500,000
0
950,000
0
0
0
300,000
0
0
0
94,000
125,000
75,000
0
250,000
0
0
0
500,000 0 0 0
$40,516,730 $22,218,407 $19,770,609 $47,405,000
LEGEND
E = East End
X = Joint Use/Undetermined
Peconic County Subsequent
1996 1997 1998 Years (2)
20,000
0
0
0
750,000
260,000
535,000
0
200,000
235,000
245,000
0
65,000
30,000
30,000
0
40,000
47,500
0
0
370,000
0
0
0
70,000
0
0
0
730,000
0
500,000
0
950,000
0
0
0
24,325
0
0
0
94,000
62,500
75,000
0
250,000
250,000
250,000
250,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000
2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
$17,185,973 $12,298,414 $11,577,782 $18,990,440
Rounded to nearest $1,000 (to be used for bond sizings): $17,186,000 $12,298,400 $11,577,800
INSURANCE COSTS
Insurance
Needs
Peconic County will need to provide insurance for a variety of purposes, ranging from
health insurance for County employees to liability insurance for claims resulting from
County actions. Examples of classifications of insurance are:
• General Liability;
• Workers Compensation;
• Environmental Liability;
• Flood Insurance; and
• Indemnity of County Officials.
Options
There are three fundamental options for the way in which Peconic County can approach
insurance:
1. Private Insurance
2. Self -Insurance
3. Combination of Private and Self -Insurance
Private Insurance
Under this option, Peconic County would contract with a private insurer. The insurer
would provide specific policies regarding coverage for the different classes of potential
claims and the County would pay premiums.
Self -Insurance
The County would bear the costs of all claims itself, establishing a special fund for
payments to claimants. This fund could be endowed and generate interest earnings or the
County could adopt a pay-as-you-go policy of appropriating necessary amounts each year.
Combination of Private and Self -Insurance
Under this option, the County would analyze the costs and benefits of private or self-
insurance for each class of potential claims. It is likely that there will be certain areas where
private insurance will beneficial and others where the costs of private insurance are
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 175
INSURANCE COSTS
prohibitive when measured against the benefits. This "a la carte" approach will allow the
County to optimize the costs and benefits of insurance and develop the best package.
Costs of Insurance for Peconic County
These estimates derived from Suffolk County costs and are, of necessity, based on the
insurance structure adopted by Suffolk County. A relationship has also been made between
the amount of activity generated by Suffolk County and the incurring of insurance liabilities
and claims. That is, if the County has more employees providing more service in the
Western Towns, it is logical to assume that insurance needs will be commensurate with that
higher level of activity. Analyzing the activities of all Suffolk County employees and all
funds, it was determined that activities in the East End account :for 7.72% of total Suffolk
County activities.
Suffolk County utilizes a combination of private and self-insurance. In order to
determine what Peconic County's costs would be, we analyzed both the premiums for private
insurance as well as the actual annual payments out of the Self -Insurance Fund. Based on
the 7.72% activity measure and Suffolk County's actual costs, we estimate that Peconic
County's annual insurance costs for FY 1993 would have been $1,865,757.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 176
DEBT SUMMARY
Debt
Peconic County will need to issue debt for three distinct purposes:
1. funding of certain start-up costs;
2. payment of existing Suffolk County obligations; and
3. funding of capital improvements and purchases necessary for the future
operation of the County.
The debt associated with each of these three purposes has been estimated as separate
bond issues (See Appendix H, "Debt: Bond Sizings Detail"). Each bond series was
structured in accordance with applicable New York State law. Peconic County is assumed
to have a credit rating of Baal, that of Suffolk County, and a constant 6.0% interest rate was
assumed for all bond issues conservatively based upon market interest rates. Interest rate
fluctuations between the time this report is issued and the creation of Peconic County will
affect the annual debt service that the County will need to pay.
The bonds to be issued to fund start-up costs are assumed to be issued in the County's
first year of operation and will be spent down over the County's first five years.
The bonds to be issued for payment of existing Suffolk County debt will also be issued
in the County's first year. These bonds will provide sufficient funds to Suffolk County to
pay for the East End towns' share of debt (14.39%) incurred by Suffolk County prior to the
creation of Peconic County. Detailed cash flows of what the costs of this payment will be
are provided in Appendix II, "Debt: Bond Sizing Detail". The bonds that need to be repaid
include bonds issued by Suffolk County for general capital improvements as well as
Drinking Water Protection bonds.
The bonds to be issued for future capital improvements are assumed to be issued in each
of the first four years of the County's operation and correspond to the County's projected
capital needs for the first three years as shown in the Capital Improvement Plan detailed in
Chapter 8: "Capital Improvement Plan and Start -Up Costs" and an additional $24 million of
capital needs anticipated between 1999 and 2000.
A summary of Peconic County's future debt is shown in Table 8.2-1 on the following
page.
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 177
DEBT SUMMARY
Table 8.2-1
Future Debt Outstanding (orincioal onl
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 178
As of January 15,
($ millions)
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
New Money - Start Up Costs
$4.19
$3.49
$2.87
$2.21
$1.52
New Money - Capital Improvements
17.27
27.30
39.15
61.76
59.21
Repayment of General Obligation to Suffolk County
66.22
62.60
60.74
58.78
56.69
Repayment of Drinking Water to Suffolk County
12.17
9.72
7.47
5.10
2.62
Total
$99.84
$103.10
$110.22
$127.85
$120.03
Peconic County Financial Feasibility Report Page 178
APPENDIX I.
The Case for a Weighted
Board of Supervisors
for
Peconic County
THE CASE FOR A WEIGHTED BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FOR PECONIC COUNTY
Prepared for the Technical Advisory Committee of the
Peconic County Citizens Advisory Committee
Hal Ross and Liz Granitz
January 19, 1995
Revised July 2, 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Conclusion and Summary..................................................................1
II. Advantages of a Board of Supervisors...................................................1
III. The Proposed Weighted Board of Supervisors.........................................4
IV. Note on Legislatures with Equal -Size Districts.......................................7
V. Legal Argument............................................................................9
A. Addendum...............................................................................15
VI. Appendices
A. 1990 U.S. Census of Population Data
B. Division of 4 and 5 Equal -Size District Legislatures
C. Comparison of Actual and Ideal Population in Different -Size
Legislatures Using Town Lines
D. (1) Critical Coalition Analysis With 5 Representatives
D. Critical Coalition Analysis With 93 Weighted Votes
E. Quotes From U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Abate and Brown
F. Allocation of At -Large Voting Power to the Towns Based on Their Population Size
I. CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY
The form of government for Peconic County should be a weighted Board of
Supervisors. This is because there are many compelling substantive advantages to such
a Board rather than a legislature based on districts of equal population.
2. The specific Board of Supervisors we propose will have 7 Supervisors -- one from
each of 5 of the Towns, and two at -large. They will cast 93 (or possibly 81)
weighted votes.
The proposed Board will meet the constitutional requirement of one-person, one vote
because 1) the numerical deviations of voting power conform so closely to the
differences in population size -among the five Towns that they meet the 12 % to 16 %
range of deviation approved by the courts, and 2) the many compelling substantive
advantages -- that is, the practical considerations -- would be given great weight by
any reasonable court in the event that such a Board is ever challenged legally. Among
the most important of these practical considerations are the small rural nature of
Peconic County, the need for Shelter Island to have a voice and vote, and our long
330 -year history of using Town Supervisors as Suffolk County Supervisors and the
subsequent establishment of the East End Supervisors and Mayors Association to
continue handling problems concerning the East End -- that is Peconic County.
II. THERE ARE COMPELLING SUBSTANTIVE ADVANTAGES TO PECONIC
COUNTY FOR A WEIGHTED BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RATHER THAN A
LEGISLATURE BASED ON DISTRICTS OF EQUAL POPULATION
1. It retains the knowledge and experience of the Town Supervisors. No one knows
more about what is happening in the five East End Towns than the Town Supervisors.
Most of them are working full time or almost full time at their jobs. The new County
should have the benefit of this knowledge and experience. Moreover, there is no way
that representatives elected by districts in this small rural county, working perhaps
only two days per week would ever have the knowledge and experience of what is
happening in their areas compared to what Town Supervisors have.
As seen later in this memo, the particular weighted Board of Supervisors that will be
proposed for Peconic County will also include two at -large representatives, one
elected from the Peconic County area as a whole and, to meet the legal range of
deviation, one elected from the 4 largest Towns excluding Shelter Island. The first of
these two representatives will be elected to serve as the Chairman of the Board of
Supervisors, a full-time job. The other will be a part-time Vice Chairman. This will
add a valuable resource to the five Town Supervisors who naturally will be focused on
representing the interests of their own Towns in addition to the county as a whole.
The Chairman's and Vice Chairman's focus will be on county -wide problems.
-1-
We are also recommending that the Board appoint a County Administrator who will
handle the day-to-day operations of Peconic County. Not only will this person
provide solid professional management, but he or she (along with the Chairman and
Vice Chairman of the Board) will relieve the Town Supervisors, who are the other
members of the Board, of much of the executive function in running the new County.
Of the 19 counties in N.Y. State which are governed by a Board of Supervisors, 10
use such a County Administrator.
2. It allows Shelter Island to be able to cast its own vote and influence the votes of other
Towns. Any legislature based on a reasonable number of districts (less than 24) would
require Shelter Island, with only 2% of the population of Peconic County, to be
combined with all,, or a much larger part, of either East Hampton or Southold. See
Section IV. below. Consequently , Shelter Island would not be able to cast its own
vote. Moreover, not only would Shelter Island have no vote, but it would not even be
able to try to influence the votes of the other representatives.
Historically and geographically Shelter Island is, and always has been, a separate
entity from the other four East End Towns. As an island it is geographically separate
-- requiring ferries from Southold or Southampton to reach it. It is much smaller and
more rural than the other towns. The smallest of the other towns, East Hampton, is
more than seven times as large in population size -- 16,132 to 2,263. And with a
population density of only 187 people per square mile, Shelter Island is more rural
than the next most rural town, East Hampton with 220. The average population
density of the other four East End Towns is 314 or 68% more dense than Shelter
Island.
It would certainly be an unfortunate and sad irony if Shelter Island, which gave birth
to the Peconic County movement a generation ago, ended up with no individual vote
and voice in Peconic County.
3. It corresponds to the small, rural nature of Peconic County. A Board of Supervisors
more closely corresponds to the basic purpose of Peconic County -- that is, to
maintain the rural, small scale quality of life which exists on the East End. Such a
Board would obviously require a smaller number of employees and a smaller
infrastructure than would be the case with a new legislature based on districts. With
8% of the population and 38% of the land area of Suffolk County, the rural, rather
than urban or suburban, quality of the five East End Towns is demonstrated. It is here
that the Towns emphasize the identity of their small villages and hamlets rather than
the large commercial and residential developments which are so typical of the five
West End Towns. The difference becomes even more striking when it is recognized
that the West End Towns of Suffolk County have a population of 1,215,271 -- 12
times greater than the five East End Towns; and a population density of 2,153 people
per square mile or seven times the density of a new Peconic county (308 people). (See
Appendix A.)
-2-
4. It adds a new level of government taking it farther away from the people. This is
especially unnecessary in a small rural county such as Peconic.
5. It costs much less to establish and to operate. A Board of Supervisors will cost
considerably less than a legislature based on newly formed districts. Whether it be
the number of elections, the number of employees, the number of offices, the number
of cars ... the infrastructure of a district -based legislature will be more costly to
establish and to operate. It is also less likely to expand over time as the Suffolk
County government has.
6. It corresponds to the boundaries of the five Towns. A Board of Supervisors will
correspond precisely to the current historic identities of each of these Towns. In fact,
4 of the 5 Towns are the oldest in New York State. The fifth, Riverhead, was a part
of Southold for many years.
If a district -based legislature were established, it would be most logical and reasonable
to set up five districts of equal population size. In this event, 7,000 to 11,000 people
(including all 2,263 on Shelter Island) might have to be transferred out of their
Towns into the new districts. Under the best possible legal interpretation, and as an
absolute minimum, the 2,263 residents of Shelter Island would have to be moved.
These "transferees" really lose their influence because they become such a small
minority in the district to which they are transferred. In no case would they represent
more than 13.7% of the new district. (See Appendix B.)
7. It is a simple extension of the East End Supervisors and Mayors Association and the
330 -year history_(that is, born in 1665) using, the Town Supervisors as a County
Board of Supervisors to manage the affairs of the 10 Towns as a whole (before
Suffolk County began 118 years later) and then to manage the affairs of Suffolk
County. The Town Supervisors and Village Mayors in the 5 East End Towns have
been meeting every other month for the last 17 years or so, after the adoption by
Suffolk County in 1970 of a new legislature, to discuss matters pertaining to the East
End as a whole. This is precisely the fact situation that was one of the major reasons
causing the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971 in the Abate case (Rockland County) to
approve a weighted voting concept with what was then considered a large 12%
population discrepancy.
Incidentally, after Suffolk County adopted its legislature in 1970, not only was the
East End Association of Supervisors and Mayors formed, but a Suffolk County
Association of all 10 Town Supervisors came into being. The unusual strength of the
towns, as political units, in N.Y. State and especially on Long Island east of the
Oyster Bay- Huntington line, has been noted by others. It is "directly traceable to the
New England influence upon settlers who came from Connecticut and Massachusetts"
Jack Weinstein, "The Effect of the Federal Reapportionment Decisions on Counties
and other Forms of Municipal Government, " 65 Columbia Law Review 21 (1965).
-3-
Perhaps the many compelling advantages noted above explain, at least in part, why so
many of the smaller, rural counties in New York State are run by a Board of
Supervisors. More specifically, of 62 counties in the State, 19 or 31 % are run by
Boards of Supervisors. And more: importantly, of the 48 rural counties in New York
State (arbitrarily determined to be counties with less than 500 people per square mile)
19 or 40% have a Board of Supervisors.
III. THE PROPOSED WEIGHTED 13OARD OF SUPERVISORS
1. In order to understand how to evaluate a weighted voting scheme to see if it is
equitable. it is necessary to understand why one-person, one -vote is equitable. In a
one-person, one -vote strategy, each person by definition has equal voting power.
Voting power is the ability to cast the deciding vote.'
For example, if there are five legislators (each representing 20% of the population)
and the vote is 3 to 2, then the group of three is called a "critical coalition". That is,
each member of the group is essential for passage of the measure and, by casting a
decisive vote, each is exercising voting power. If a vote is 4 to 1 the coalition is not
critical and no voting power was exercised by any single legislator.
In a 5 -member legislature, there are 10 different net critical coalitions which can be
formed.' These 10 net critical coalitions result in 6 opportunities (see footnote 2) for
each legislator to cast a decisive vote for a total of 30 opportunities. We will refer to
this as 30 gross critical coalitions. Therefore, each of the 5 legislators has the
opportunity to cast 6/30th's of the possible gross critical votes, and each exercises
20% of the voting power. This is exactly proportional to the share of the population
they represent. Thus, one-person one -vote yields a completely equitable result
measured by voting power in critical coalitions.
In our simple example, each district contained exactly the same number of people. In
real life, however, districts are not identical and so a measure must be devised to
determine the deviation from the ideal. And the amount of acceptable deviation must
'Voting power only exists when you are part of a voting coalition where your vote
was essential to success. If you are part of a coalition which had more affirmative votes than
what was needed, you did not exercise voting power. You could have changed your vote
and the outcome would not have changed.
'For this example, the net critical coalitions are: 1,1,1,0,0; 1,1,0,0,1; 1,1,0,1,0;
1,0,1,1,0; 1,0,1,0,1; 1,0,0,1,1; 0,1,1,1.,0; 0,1,1,0,1; 0,1,0,1,1; 0,0,1,1,1.
Note that each member votes, yes or 1, 6 times in forming the 10 critical coalitions. For the
detailed tabulation of this example, see Appendix Table D(1).
-4-
Mahan, (references in Section V. below) both address the issue of districts with
different population size, but whose legislators each have one vote.
The measure used by the Court is to first, take the difference between the population
that is actually represented for each town and the population that would be represented
based on critical coalition voting power. We then divide this population deviation by
the ideal population. In Abate, the Court accepted a maximum spread of deviation of
11.9%. In the Mahan case, two years later in 1973, the Court permitted a spread of
16.4%'
In the Abate case, each of the 5 towns in the county constituted one district and
elected a different number of legislators, 18 in total. Each of the legislators had one
vote -- that is, equal voting power.
2. Our task is slightly different. Instead of multiple representation in each town, our
proposed weighted voting plan has one representative per Town with votes weighted
by votingpower (i.e: critical coalitions). This is done to make the voting power of
the Towns proportionate to the population share of the Towns.
Weighted voting plans require that each legislator cast all of his or her votes as a
single unit. As stated 25 years ago by the N.Y. Court of Appeals in a weighted
voting case pertaining to Washington County:
Ideally, in any weighted voting plan, it should be mathematically
possible for every member of the legislative body to cast the
decisive (emphasis added) vote on legislation in the same ratio with
the population of his constituency bears to the total population.... A
legislator's voting power, must approximate the power he would
have in a legislative body which did not employ weighted voting.
N.Y. Court of Appeals in Iannucci v. Board of Supervisors of
Washington Countv, 282 N.Y.S. 2d 502, 508 (1967).
3. The weighted voting plan which we are prgposing includes each of the 5 Town
Supervisors plus one at -large representative elected by the entire county (who serves
as a full-time Chairman) and one at -large representative who is elected by the four
largest towns, excluding Shelter Island, and who serves as a _part-time Vice Chairman.
'The maximum spread of deviation is the range between the most over -represented
and the most under -represented unit. For example, in Table 1. Col. 8. the most over-
represented Town is Southold with +5.8% and the most under -represented Town is Shelter
Island with -8.0%. Add these two extreme deviations together to get 13.8% -- the maximum
spread of deviation.
-5-
The voting power of the at -large representative who is Chairman is allocated to the 5
Towns in proportion to their share of the population, while the allocation for the Vice
Chairman is, of course, only over the 4 Towns that elect him.° This allocation is
shown in Appendix F.
As Table 1. shows, for a simple: majority vote, our plan has a maximum spread of
deviation of 13.8% -- less than 2% point above the Abate standard of 11.9%. But it
is well below the 16.4% approved by the Court in Mahan when it stated that " While
this percentage may well approach tolerable limits, we do not believe it exceeds
them. " The averse of all of the Towns' deviations is only 4.3 %. 'This average is,
statistically (and any other way), just as valid a measure of deviation as is the
maximum spread -- but with one important exception, the courts rarely use it.'
For a two-thirds vote, Table Ia. shows that the maximum spread of deviation becomes
16.5% (with a 6.0% average) essentially equal to Mahan's 16.4% but moderately
above Abate's 11.9%.
4. An alternative plan with 81, rather than 93, votes is shown below in Tables 2. and 2a.
for the majority and two-thirds votes. This plan results in slightly lower deviations --
12.6% spread (3.9% average) and 15.5% spread (5.4% average), respectively. These
figures are practically equal to the Abate and Mahan standards of 11.9% and 16.4%. 6
While this 81 -vote plan has slightly lower deviations than our recommended plan, it
requires that we change the structure of votes cast when a two-thirds vote is taken.
More specifically, in order to secure a deviation as low as 1.5.5 %, we had to add two
votes to the at -large Chairman (raising him from 10 to 12 votes) and subtract one vote
from each of the Supervisors representing Riverhead and Southold. Please keep in
mind that this chane is only for the two-thirds votes.
5. It should be emphasized that the size of the deviations in either of our plans are 1)
smaller than the 21.7% deviation in our best 5 -district plan (should a legislature be
necessary)(See Appendix C, p.4.), and 2) slightly smaller or equivalent to the 13.7%
4The U.S. Supreme Court requires the allocation of at -large representatives in New
York City Bd. of Estimate v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688, 701, 109 S.Ct., 1433, 1442, 103 L.Ed.
2d 717 (1989).
'An important exception occurred in Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835 (1983) when
the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court used the average deviation as well as the maximum
spread of deviation throughout the decision.
6It should be noted that the court in Mahan did not use the 1.6.4% as a rigid limit, it
used the words "approached tolerable limits" and in both the majority decision and the
dissent it was mentioned that a deviation of 23.6% might, in fact, exist.
-6-
Table 1. Comparison of Critical Coalition Voting Power with Population
Table 1 a. Comparison of Critical Coalition Voting Power with Population
(Based on a two-thirds majority vote.)
Percent of Voting Percent
Voting Power Population Deviation of
Critical Power Population Deviation Population
Town Votes Coalitions Col.(3) / 98 Pop. Col.(4)xTot. Pop Col(6)-(5) Col(7) / (5)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Shelter Island
1
(Based on a simple majority vote.)
2.34%
2263
2499
236
10.43%
Percent of
14
Voting
16.30%
Percent
17375
1243
7.71%
Voting
15
Power
Population
Deviation of
20543
707
Critical
Power
16
Population
Deviation
Population
Town
Votes
Coalitions
Col.(3) / 122
Pop.
Col.(4)xTot. Pop
Col(6)-(5)
Col(7) / (5)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Welter Island
1
2
1.95%
2263
2081
-182
-8.04%
East Hampton
14
14
15.48%
16132
16503
371
2.30%
Southold
15
18
19.68%
19836
20979
1143
5.76%
Riverhead
16
18
20.47%
23011
21820
-1191
-5.18%
Southampton
29
38
42.41%
45351
45209
-142
-0.31%
At -Large 1
15
18
At -Large 2
3
14
Total
93
100.00%
106593
106592
Gross Coalitions
122
Spread
13.80%
Net Coalitions
49
Average
4.32%
Winning Votes
47
Table 1 a. Comparison of Critical Coalition Voting Power with Population
(Based on a two-thirds majority vote.)
Percent of Voting Percent
Voting Power Population Deviation of
Critical Power Population Deviation Population
Town Votes Coalitions Col.(3) / 98 Pop. Col.(4)xTot. Pop Col(6)-(5) Col(7) / (5)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Shelter Island
1
2
2.34%
2263
2499
236
10.43%
East Hampton
14
12
16.30%
16132
17375
1243
7.71%
Southold
15
14
19.27%
19836
20543
707
3.56%
Riverhead
16
16
22.11%
23011
23569
558
2.42%
Southampton
29
28
39.97%
45351
42607
-2744
-6.05%
At -Large 1
15
14
At -Large 2
3
12
Total 93
Gross Coalitions 98
Net Coalitions 30
Winning Votes 62
100.00% 106593 106593
-6a-
Spread 16.48%
Average 6.03%
Table 2. Comparison of Critical Coalition Voting Power with Population
(Based on a simple majority vote.)
Total 81
Voting Percent
Power Population Deviation of
Population Deviation Population
Pop. Col.(4)xTot. Pop Col(6)-(5) Col(7) / (5)
2263
2061
-202
Percent of
16132
15345
-787
Voting
19836
19630
Critical
Power
Town
Votes
Coalitions
Col.(3) / 110
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Shelter Island
1
2
1.93%
East Hampton
12
14
14.40%
Southold
14
18
18.42%
Riverhead
15
22
22.38%
Southampton
26
42
42.87%
At -Large 1
10
6
At -Large 2
3
6
Total 81
Voting Percent
Power Population Deviation of
Population Deviation Population
Pop. Col.(4)xTot. Pop Col(6)-(5) Col(7) / (5)
2263
2061
-202
-8.93%
16132
15345
-787
-4.88%
19836
19630
-206
-1.04%
23011
23856
845
3.67%
45351
45700
349
0.77%
100.00% 106593 106592
Gross Coalitions 110 Spread 12.60%
Net Coalitions 53 Average 3.86%
Winning Votes 41
Table 2a. Comparison of Critical Coalition Voting Power with Population
(Based on a two-thirds majority vote.)
(Note: The vote structure changes by adding 2 to the at -large Chairman and
subtracting 1 each from Southold and Riverhead.)
Town
(1)
Shelter Island
East Hampton
Southold
Riverhead
Southampton
At -Large 1
At -Large 2
Total
Percent of Voting Percent
Voting Power Population Deviation of
Critical Power Population Deviation Population
Votes Coalitions Col.(3) / 96 Pop. Col.(4)xTot. Pop Col(6)-(5) Col(7) / (5)
12
13
14
26
12
3
81
Gross Coalitions
Net Coalitions
Winning Votes
2
12
16
16
30
12
8
96
32
54
2.25%
2263
2403
140
6.19%
15.67%
16132
16705
573
3.55%
20.51%
19836
21867
2031
10.24%
21.24%
23011
22637
-374
-1.63%
40.32%
45351
42980
-2371
-5.23%
100.00% 106593
0
106592
Spread 15.47%
Average 5.37%
deviation in a 17 -member legislature? -- not much smaller than Suffolk County's 18 -
member legislature for 1.3 million people! It would be necessary to set up a 23 -
member, or more, legislature to achieve deviations moderately better than ours --
9.2% (see Appendix C. p.2.) to our 13.8%) and Shelter Island would still have no
vote.
We believe that the size of the deviations in either of our plans would withstand legal
challenge if ever necessary.
IV. NOTE ON LEGISLATURES WITH EQUAL -SIZE DISTRICTS
(See Appendix B)
1. If we are compelled to use a legislature with equal -size districts, it should have 5
districts. This is because 5 districts follow Town boundaries much more closely than
any other number.
Appendix B shows that with 5 districts, starting with Montauk and going west, and
including Shelter Island with East Hampton, only 6,879 people (including Shelter
Island's 2,263) or 6.5% of Peconic's total population would have to be transferred
across Town lines. If the process began with Orient and headed west, including
Shelter Island with Southold, there would be 10,700 transferees across Town
boundaries or 10.0% of the total. In either case, there would be two districts within
Southampton.
In other words, the dislocation (that is, loss of representation) would be very small.
The U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 acknowledged the importance of reducing the
number of transferees across county lines even though it meant that a greater
discrepancy from an ideal share of the population would result. (Mahan v. Howell,
410 U.S. 323-4.) For more detail see Section V. below.
The Table on page 4 of Appendix C shows 1) that the maximum spread of deviation
with 5 districts, and combining Shelter Island with East Hampton, is 21.7% using the
Abate method of comparing actual populations with an ideal population of 21,319
(106,593 divided by 5), and 2) 8.7% which is the average of the actual town -by -town
deviations.
While the 21.7% figure is a little on the high side, we think there would be a good
chance for the 5 district plan to withstand legal challenge for all the reasons
'Legislatures sized between 6 members and 15 members have higher maximum
deviations than the 5 -member legislature. Equal -size legislative districts are discussed in
Section IV. with supporting Tables in Appendix C.
-7-
enumerated in Section II. above.
2. The most ideal number of districts from the point of view of minimum deviation from
population would, of course be 106,593 districts - one for each citizen. To say the
least, this is not very practical. The Abate methodology would result in 47 districts -
also with only minimum discrepancies from population although it should be noted
that even with 47 districts, the maximum spread of deviation is 4.4% (and the average
is 1.2%). But 47 is too large for an efficient and orderly deliberative body, although
this would mean that Shelter Island could be one district. All of the deviation figures
shown in this subsection are in Appendix C.
At the level of 24 districts, and 24 is still too large and impractical, the deviations
would be increased significantly to 60.7 % and 15.1 %, respectively. But, in this case,
Shelter Island would be able to represent a little over 50% and, at least conceivably,
be able to have a decisive vote (that is, if almost every person in Shelter Island voted
together). While still too large, a 17 -district legislature is a good possibility as far as
deviations are concerned (13.7% spread and 4.8% average). The next best fit is the 5 -
district legislature we recommended at the outset of this Section IV. with its
deviations of 21.7% at 8.8%, respectively.
3. A 4 -District Legislature would result in too many people being, transferred across
Town lines, and it is likely that Southampton would be significantly under-
represented. The discrepancies from population would also be much too large. As
Appendix C, p.4 shows, the maximum spread of deviation would be 101.2% and the
average deviation would be 35.1 91o.
This alternative is discussed here because it has been proposed, at least as one
possibility, by the government sub -committee of the Peconic County Citizens
Advisory Committee.
Appendix B shows that with 4 districts starting with Montauk and including Shelter
Island with East Hampton, 27,779 people would have to be transferred across Town
lines. This number is reduced to 25,515 if the process begins with Orient, and
Shelter Island is combined with Southold. But in either event, the dislocation is at
least 2.5 times as great as with 5 districts.
Moreover Southampton, with 42.6% of the population, is likely to have only 1 of 4
representatives or 25% (excluding its theoretical share of any at -large representatives).
This is because, as shown in Appendix B, if the process begins in Montauk, 8,253
people from Southampton would be transferred to District 1 (East Hampton and
Shelter Island) and 10,450 would be transferred to District 3 (with Riverhead
constituting more than 50%).
If the process begins at Orient, these numbers become 8,186 (to the Riverhead
-8-
district) and 10,517 (to the East Hampton -Shelter Island district). In other words,
about 18,700 Southampton residents, or 41.2% of Southampton's population is
transferred across its Town lines to wind up as minorities (substantially losing
representation) in these other districts.
As the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized in Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 323-4, a
proposed apportionment plan (of Virginia's State Legislature) while resulting in less
deviation of population than the current plan (approximately 10% compared to 16%),
reduced substantially the representation of several counties because so many people
would need to be transferred out of these counties into other districts. The parallel
with the proposed 4 -district plan for Peconic County is striking.
In our ideal 5 -district plan, Southampton has, of course, 2 of its 5 representatives, or
40%, corresponding much more closely to its 42.6% share of population.
Incidentally, Southampton is also larger in population than any other 2 towns, has
40.1 % of the land area of Peconic County, and 45.1 % of the maximum seasonal
population during the summer months. It should be clear from these comparisons that
a 25% share for Southampton would not be reasonable.
V. LEGAL ARGUMENT
1. Conclusion: The Weighted Board of Supervisors which we propose will pass the
constitutional test of one-person, one -vote.
2. For a good summary of some of the more important legal cases see Linda Riley's
recent memorandum to the Peconic County Technical Advisory Committee entitled
"County Board of Supervisors"._
3. There are recent U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. District Court decisions which declare
that weighted voting is unconstitutional under certain circumstances. In the most
recent case which pertained to Nassau County, the U.S. District Court in our district
(Eastern) held in 1993 that:
What is clear from [the U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1989 in
Morris, a New York City case] ... is that the Supreme Court firmly
rejected weighted voting, not only because of the mathematical
quagmire such a system engenders, but just as importantly because
the methodology fails to take into account other critical factors
related to the actual daily operations of a governing body. There is
no question that the Supreme Court took the opportunity to express
not only a preference, but a directive that legislators be elected by
and represent citizens in districts of substantially equal size.
Jackson v. Nassau County Board of Supervisors, 818 F.Supp.
-9-
509,532 (E.D.N.Y. 1993).
4. Fortunately, these two decisions pertained to large urban and suburban areas such as
New York City (69 times the size of Peconic County) and Nassau County (12 times
the size of Peconic) where the specific problems involved were not only much more
complex, but the particular weighted voting plans being considered had such large
obvious disabilities that even a layman could see that theypresentedserious
constitutional problems. In the Morris case, Brooklyn and Staten Island were each
given one vote even though the population of Brooklyn is six times larger than Staten
Island. Board of Estimate v. Morris 489 U.S. 688,109S.Ct. 1433, 103 L.Ed. 2d 717.
In the Jackson case, Hempstead, with more than 50% of the population of Nassau
County, was given a weighted vote that amounted to less than a majority.
5. It is critical to note that there are no court decisions that ban weighted voting per se.
And there are several New York court decisions which specifically state this fact.
Iannucci v. Board of Supervisors, 282 N.Y.S. 2d 502 (1967), Greenburgh v. Board of
Supervisors, 293 N.Y.S. 2d 958 (1968), and Franklin v. Krause, 72 Misc. 2d
104,338 N.Y.S. 2d 561 (1972) cited in Jackson, Ibid. at 515.
6. There are, in fact, 19 counties in New York State (out of 48 rural counties and 62
total counties) that have weighted Boards of Supervisors. In addition, there are four
counties run by weighted legislative districts. A number of these weighted voting
plans have been specifically approved by various New York Supreme courts.' We are
proposing a form of government for Peconic County which already exists in many
places in this State.
7. There is one important U.S. Supreme Court case (not overruled by later cases) that
specifically approved a weightedvoting concept in Rockland County - a small
suburban county in New York State with, what was then a population of 219,000.
Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182,91 S.Ct. 1904, 29 L.Ed.2d 399 (1971). In this case,
each of the 5 towns in the County elected a different number of legislators (18 in
total) depending upon the proportion of its population to that of the smallest town.
As noted in Section III above, the "weights" in this plan are multiple representatives
from each of these 5 towns (in proportion to their populations). This may be
compared to our proposed plan which has only one representative from each of the
five towns (plus two elected at large), but with voting power that is weighted in
proportion to the populations of the 5 towns.
8. As long go as 1966, the Supreme Court in Westchester County (Town of
'Jefferson, Oswego and Sullivan Counties are among those counties that have such
court -approved plans.
-10-
Greenburgh v. Board of Supervisors of Westchester County, 272 N.Y. S. 2d 906,
912) citing the U.S. Supreme Court (Cf. Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73,86 S. Ct.
128 6, 16 L. Ed. 2d 376) stated that:
It is the distribution of legislators, or of voting power, rather than
the method of distributing legislators or voting power, which must
satisfy the demands of the equal protection clause and the similar
provision of our own constitution... (emphasis added).
There is no reason to think that this concept is not valid today.
9. We are convinced that the specific weighted voting plan we are proposing (described
in detail in Section III. above) will be considered constitutional if ever challenged.
This is not only because the deviations in population in our plan are so small when
compared to an ideal district -based plan, and meet the range of deviations approved
by the courts, but because the courts will give significant weight to the many
compelling advantages of a weighted voting plan for Peconic County discussed in
Section II. above.
First, as shown in detail in Section III. above, compared to an ideal legislature based
on equal sized districts, the deviations in our plan are within the range of deviations
approved by the U. S. Supreme Court in Abate, (11.9 % deviation) and in Mahan
(16.4% deviation) two years later in 1973. Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315, 93 S.
Ct. 979, 35 L. Ed. 2d 320.
The U.S. Supreme Court has invalidated at least three different apportionment plans
with deviations approximating 25% - 26%. Mahan, Ibid. at 336-7.)
As the Supreme Court said in Mahan Qid. at 329.):
Neither courts nor legislatures furnished any specialized calipers
that enable them to extract from the general language of the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment the mathematical
formula that establishes what range of percentage deviations is
permissible, and what is not. The 16 -odd percent maximum
deviation ... in the legislative plan for the reapportionment of the
House is substantially less than the percentage deviations that have
been found invalid in the previous decisions of this Court. While
this percentage may well approach tolerable limits, we do not
believe it exceeds them. (emphasis added) Virginia has not
sacrificed substantial equality to justifiable deviations.
The policy of maintaining the integrity of political subdivision lines
in the process of reapportioning a state legislature, the policy
consistently advanced by Virginia as a justification for disparities in
population among districts that elect members to the House of
Delegates, is a rational one.
Second, the compelling advantages of a weighted voting plan for Peconic County,
which are set forth in Section II. above, are the same factors (if not more so) that the
N.Y. Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized in Abate. The
Appeals Court said (305 N.Y.S. 2d 465,469):
What the plan does is not to ignore population equality, but rather
to achieve substantial equality within the context of a long-
established town government framework, thus accommodating both
constitutional and practical considerations. (See Jackson v. Bodine,
53 N.J. 585,252, A.2d. 209. cert.den. 396 U.S. 822, 90 Ct. 63,24
L.Ed.73 (Oct. 14, 1969). It represents a balanced, bona fide
application of the 'one man -one vote' principle to the needs and
circumstances of local government. As such, it comes within the
gambit of the Supreme Court's declaration "that variations from a
pure population standard might be justified by such state policy
considerations as the integrityof.political subdivisions, the
maintenance of compactness and contiguity in legislative districts or
the recognition of natural or historical boundaryines. (Swann v.
Adams, 385 U.S. 440,444, 87 S.Ct. 569,17 L.Ed.2d 501 (emphasis
added).
In affirming the Court of Appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court (Ibid. at 186.) noted that:
To us, therefore, it is significant that Rockland County has long
recognized the advantages of having the same individuals occupy the
governing positions of both the county and its towns. For over 100
years, the five town supervisors were the only members of the
county board, a system that necessarily fostered extensive
interdependence between the towns and their county government.
As far as "historical" and "natural"' boundary lines are concerned, our Town lines ,
with 350 years of age, are as old as any in N.Y. state or most other parts of the
country. And as an island, Shelter Island certainly is a clear cut "natural "
line.
Perhaps the most cogent early statement 1) recognizing "that the one man -one vote
doctrine would not be applied with the same precision to local elective bodies as to
State legislatures." and 2) opposing the idea of equal -size districts because they would
eliminate the vote and voice of places such as Shelter Island is that of Judge Breitel of
the N.Y. Court of Appeals in his dissent in Iannuci v. Board of Supervisors, 282
-12-
N.Y.S. 2d 511 (1967). In referring to the Rockland County plan, he states that:
This would appear to be a recognition that mathematical precision in
this area may involve a correlative sacrifice of socially and
politically desirable values. Consequently, it cannot be said that
weighted voting plans are generically invalid, or that there is or
should be any presumption to that effect. Most suggested
alternatives to a weighted voting plan (of some formula)...are
undesirable: either local bodies are to be composed of numerous
members, with a commensurate loss of deliberative capability, or
the political voices of small but discrete and geographically compact
groups are to be overwhelmed by combining the votes of their
members with those of larger groups in a single district.
The Supreme Court in Abate, Ibid. at 185 (1971), then emphasized the need for more
flexibility -- that is allowing more deviation -- for local government apportionment
plans. One part of this opinion is in Appendix E.
Then, in an extraordinary 5 to 4 decision in 1983, (12 years after Abate and 10 years
after Mahan , the U.S. Supreme Court upheld that part of Wyoming's
reapportionment plan which permitted one tiny county with 2,924 people to be given
one representative in the 64 -seat State legislature even though the maximum deviation
was 89% and the average was 16% (emphasis added) Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S.
835, 103 S.Ct. 2690. Here, "the narrow issue [was] whether Wyoming's policy of
preserving county boundaries justifies the additional deviation from population
equality resulting from the provision of representation to Niobrara County."bid. at
846.) There was no need for the Court to decide on the constitutionality of the whole
State-wide plan.
The Court noted that if Niobrara County were combined with a nearby county, the
deviation would only drop to 66% maximum and 13% average. Thus, Niobrara's
impact was considered "de minimis"I( bid. at 847.)
It is important to recognize that the problem in Wyoming was that Niobrara was
significantly over -represented and the court was trying to justify this fact. Shelter
Island is actually under -represented in the simple majority vote by 8.0%, and over-
represented in the two-thirds majority by only 10.4%.
Our case for giving Shelter Island a vote is much stronger. The realistic alternative to
a weighted voting plan for Peconic County is a 5 -district legislature that follows Town
lines. Our weighted voting plan, in fact, gives lower maximum and average
deviations -- 13.8 % and 4.3 % compared to 21.7 % and 8.7 %, respectively, for the 5-
-13-
district legislature.'
The small deviations in our proposed plan are hardly enough to justify the elimination
of Shelter Island's vote, and voice, in view of the "...longstanding and legitimate
policy of preserving county [substitute "town"] boundaries..." and when the effect of
not allowing our proposed plan "'...would be to deprive the voters of Niobrara County
[substitute "Shelter Island"] of their own representative, even though the rest of the
House of Representatives [substitute "Peconic County Board of Supervisors"] would
be constituted so as to facilitate representation of the interests of each county. "
[substitute "town"] .Imo. at 847, 848.)
For the sake of brevity, we will not set forth here the long, specific discussion of the
U.S. District Court, also approving Wyoming's plan, except to note that the parallels
with Shelter Island are overwhelming.Ibid. at 844 and 536 F. Supp. at 784.) Some
of the full text is in Appendix E.,
10. The courts have consistently stated that a proposed reapportionment scheme cannot
discriminate against minority groups or show "indigenous bias" Abate, 403 U.S.
186). This is probably not a problem for us because we have only small pockets of
minorities . The black population of the 5 East End Towns in 1990 was 8,370 or
7.85 % of the total, and 4,116 resided in the contiguous communities of Flanders and
Riverhead. If for some reason a district providing special black representation was
ever considered necessary, it would require a legislature with 26 districts. This is not
an efficient or reasonably deliberative body for only 106,000 people. Moreover, as
far as we know, there is no historic identity of this 4,116 black population.
It can also be argued that if we create a legislature with equal -size districts, rather
than our proposed Board of Supervisors, we would, in fact, be showing a built-in
"indigenous bias" against Shelter Island. This is because Shelter Island would receive
no chance for representation unless the legislature we set up had at least 24 districts --
again, much too large to be an efficient or deliberative body for only 106,000 people.
11. The courts state that the burden of proof is on us to prove that the particular weighted
voting plan we are recommending does conform to the one-person, one -vote principle.
(Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 579 (1964), Iannucci v. Board of Supervisors, 282
N.Y.S. 2d 502,509-10(1967), and Curcio v. Boyle, 147 A.D. 2d 194,542 N.Y.S. 2d
1009, 1011(2d Dept 1989).
We believe we have done this.
'See Table 1. and Appendix C.
-14-
ADDENDUM
On May 15, 1995, the U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York, issued a
landmark decision in Roxbury Taxpayers Alliance v. Delaware County Board of
Supervisors.
Delaware County, a small rural county, is located northwest of the Catskill Mountains
with a population in 1990 of 47,225 in 19 towns ranging in population from 550 to
6,667. The County had been run by a Board of Supervisors from its beginning in 1797.
After the one-person, one vote cases of the 1960's, the Board proposed (and a Court
finally ordered) a weighted Board of Supervisors in 1976. The specific weights in this
plan were revised by the Board in 1991, based on the population figures in the 1990
census.
The 1991 plan was established by a computer -projected analysis and used a different
number of weighted votes for a simple majority, three-fifths and two-thirds decisions --
3,480, 2,244 and 2,428, respectively. It is this plan that is the subject of this case.
The plaintiffs argued simply that the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1988 Morris case (the
New York City Board of Estimate case), held that weighted boards of supervisors were
unconstitutionalep r se, because this "system violates the one person, one vote principle
implicit in the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment" (p. 1), and that
legislatures with districts of equal population size are required. They did not question
that the precise Delaware County plan was, or was not, proportional to the population of
the 19 towns involved.
. Judge Thomas McAvoy, Chief Justice of the District, ruled unequivocally that
"Weighted voting plans which apportion votes in proportion to the populations of the
electoral districts were not made per se unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Board
of Estimate v. Morris." (p. 29)
The decision emphasized that in the Abate case, discussed at length in our earlier
comments, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971 specifically approved a weighted voting
scheme in Rockland County, New York. And that the concept of multiple representatives
for each of the 5 towns in Rockland County, while different from using 1 Supervisor with
multiple votes to represent each town, was clearly the same concept "and serves the same
purposes - providing all citizens a vote of equal weight, while maintaining traditional
political units." (p. 20)
Judge McAvoy said:
"The desire to provide for the efficient delivery of local services and the
maintenance of traditional political units that formed the purpose behind the
multiple representative system in Abate also underlies weighted voting systems.
-15-
Both systems are designed to satisfy the quantitative command of one person,
one vote by giving all citizens a vote of equivalent weight, while preserving the
traditional political units. " (p. 13)
He also stated that the concept of a weighted board of supervisors
"... is designed to maintain a smaller and more efficient legislature in counties
in which the difference in population between the largest and smallest towns
would require the election of a large number of representatives in order to
ensure that the smallest town was assigned one representative. " (p. 14)
and that
"If Delaware County was required to use the Abate method to
achieve its goal of retaining the traditional political units, the Board
of Supervisors would be large and unwieldy, with over 85
members. To force Delaware County into this inefficient method of
apportionment would run counter to the very flexibility that the
Supreme Court was trying to encourage in Abate. Inflexibly using
this method to calculate the deviation from population equality of all
electoral systems will simply invalidate all systems other than an
Abate -type multiple representative plan or a plan designed around
equal population districts. Because this approach frustrates the
objective of encouraging flexibility and efficiency in local
government organization, this Court declines to adopt the position
that a single test is appropriate in all situations." (pp. 26-27)
The Court then noted that the total deviation in population was less than 1 % in
Delaware County -- well within the 11.9% deviation allowed in Abate. Thus "This
deviation is clearly within the permissible constitutional range, as defined by Abate and
its progeny." (p. 27)
The District Court also considered at some length the opinion of observers who
believed that Judge Spatt's decision in the Jackson case, holding the Nassau Board of
Supervisors to be unconstitutional, meant that all weighted Boards of Supervisors were
unconstitutionalen r se. It was clear to Judge McAvoy that the Jackson decision "was
narrowly tailored to the facts of the weighted voting system in Nassau County" and that
the Nassau system was "artificial and contrived" and "could not work with a simple
majority, which is a fundamental part of most democratic systems." (p. 23)
Judge McAvoy concluded by stating:
"The Court conducting this inquiry should be guided by the
desirability of affording local governments considerable flexibility in
-16-
structuring municipal arrangements to meet the changing needs of
their communities, and to preserve traditional political units.
Because the Delaware County weighted voting system satisfies each
of these requirements, this Court holds that the plan is
constitutional. " (p. 30)
The importance placed by Judge McAvoy on the desires of local governments cannot
be overemphasized. He repeated the arguments offered by the Defendants
"... as justification for the weighted voting plan: (1) that the
natural and historical political units in the county have been the
nineteen towns that today form the electoral districts; (2) that
citizens identify with their towns through the school PTAs and other
civic organizations; and (3) that this identification of the voters with
their political units would be lost if a system of equal population
districts split some communities and artificially created others. "
(p. 28)
While the essence and critical reasoning of the Delaware case has been discussed
immediately above, it must be noted that Judge McAvoy appears to have made a
mem cal error. For some reason, which I am not able to even imagine, he seems to
believe that the weighted system of Delaware County is not based on the concept of
voting power but on a simple method of comparing the population of the different towns
as was used by Rockland County in the Abate case.
In discussing Morris, Judge McAvoy stated that "When the Court rejected the
Branzhaf Index as a measure of deviation from ideal population, the Court reaffirmed the
'population -based approach of...cases from Reynolds through Abate'," (p. 18) and even if
the population deviations of a place are constitutionally acceptable it cannot "substantially
circumscribe or overvalue the votes of any particular population groups by, for example,
granting a representative with 51 % of the population 100 % of the power, thereby denying
the smaller political units an effective voice in government. " (p. 20) And then in talking
about the Delaware County plan, he notes that "No single group of voters are
permanently underrepresented in proportion to their numbers, and even the smallest
political unit has a meaningful say in the decisions of the board." (p. 29) These
comments represent the very heart of the voting power concept.
Judge McAvoy doesn't seem to understand that the Delaware County weighted scheme
that he has ringingly endorsed as both constitutional and practical is, in fact, a computer-
assisted plan based on voting power - not simple proportions of populations. How else
can one explain the fact that 3,480 weighted votes are used to determine simple majority
votes, and 2,428 and 2,244 to determine two-thirds and three-fifths majorities,
respectively?
-17-
APPENDIX A
1990 U.S. CENSUS OF POPULATION DATA
Nassau County 1,287,348
287.8
* Includes 1.3 square miles for the Shinnecock Indian Reservation.
-1-
4,473
Pop. Density
Percent of
Land Area
Percent of
Per Sq. Mile
Area
Population
Population
Sq. Miles
Land Area
Col. (2) / Col. (4)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Suffolk County
1,321,864
100.00%
911.2
100.00%
1,451
Shelter Island
2,263
2.12%
12.1
3.49%
187
East Hampton
16,132
15.13%
73.3
21.14%
220
Southold
19,836
18.61%
53.7
15.49%
369
Riverhead
23,011
21.59%
67.4
19.44%
341
Southampton
45,351
42.55%
138.9
40.06%
327
Peconic County
106,593
8.06%
346.7*
38.04%
308
5 West End Towns
1,215,271
91.94%
564.5
61.96%
2,153
Nassau County 1,287,348
287.8
* Includes 1.3 square miles for the Shinnecock Indian Reservation.
-1-
4,473
--cont'd. Appendix A
CONCLUSIONS ON POPULATION AND POPULATION DENSITY:
Peconic County, with a population of 106,593,would be larger than 36 other
counties in N.Y. State and smaller than 26 (including the 5 N.Y.C. boroughs
as counties). It is larger in land area than 12 other counties and smaller than
50. Its population is more dense than 43 other counties and less dense than 19.
2. Peconic County has 8.1% of the population but covers 38% of the land area
of Suffolk County.
3. The population density of Peconic County is 308 people per square mile
compared to the 5 West End Towns with 2,153 people per square mile --
7 times as dense as Peconic.
4. The population density of the 5 Peconic Towns ranges from 187 people per
square mile for Shelter Island to 369 people for Southold..
5. The population of Nassau County (site of the recent Jackson case) is just
under 1.3 million or 12 times the population of Peconic County.
6. The population density of Nassau County is 4,473 people per square miles
compared to Peconic County's 308 -- 14.5 times as dense as Peconic.
7. The black population in Peconic County is 8,370 or 7.85% of the total.
Except for 4,116 located in the contiguous areas of Flanders (in
Southampton) and Riverhead, there are no other even relatively large pockets
of minority populations.
-2-
APPENDIX B
DIVISION OF 4 AND 5 EQUAL -SIZE DISTRICTS FOR PECONIC COUNTY
(If districts, rather than a Board of Supervisors, are necessary.)
Note: All transfers across Town lines are underlined.)
Plan I. 5 Districts, East to West from Montauk (106593 _ 5 = 21,319)
District 1: EH 16,132 -+ ,.I. 2,263 = 18,395 + 2,924 from District 2 = 21,31'
District 2: SH (east) 45,351 - 2,924 to District 1 = 42,427 but only use 21,319
42,427 SH bal. - 21,319 for Dist 2 = 21,108 SH for Dist 3 .
District 3: SH (west) 21,108 SH balance + 211 from Dist 4 = 21,319
District 4: Riverhead 23,011 - 211 to Dist 3 = 22,800 - 1.481 to Dist 5 = 21,319
District 5: Southold 19,836 + 1,481 from Dist 4 = 21,317
Total People Transferred = 6,879
Plan H. 5 Districts, East to West from Montauk (106593 _ 5 = 21,319)
District 1: Southold 19,836 + S.I. 2,263 = 22,099 - 780 to Dist 2 = 21,319
District 2: Riverhead 23,011 + 780 from Dist 1 = 23,791 - 2,472 to Dist 3 = 21,319
District 3: SH (west) 45,351 S.H. + 2,472 from Dist 2 = 47,823 use only 21,319
47,823 - 21,319 = 26,504 balance of SH available for Dist 4
District 4: SH (east) 26,504 - 5.185 Dist 5 = 21,319
District 5: East Hampton 16,132 + 5,185 from Dist 4 = 21,317
Total People Transferred = 10,700
Plan III. 4 Districts, East to West from Montauk (106593 - 4 = 26.648)
District 1: East Hampton 16,132 + S.I. 2,263 = 18,395 + 8,253 from District 2 = 26,648
District 2: Southampton 45,351 - 8,253 to District 1 = 37,098 but only use 26,648
37,098 SH bal. - 26,648 for Dist 2 = 10,450 SH Bal.
istrict 3: Riverhead 10,450 SH balance + 16,198 Rivf -ead = 26,648
Riverhead 23,011 -.16,198 used in Dist 3 = 6,813 nal.
District 4: Southold 19,836 + Riverhead Bal. 6.813 = 26,649
Total People Transferred = 27,779
Plan IV. 4 Districts, East to West from Montauk (106593 _ 4 = 26,648)
District 1: Southold 19,836 + S.I. 2,263 = 22,099 + 4,549 from Dist 2 = 26,648
District 2: Riverhead 23,011 - 4,549 to Dist 1 = 18,462 + 8,186 from Dist 3 = 26,648
District 3: Southampton 45,351 S.H. - 8,186 to Dist 2 = 37,165 use only 26,648
37,165 SH bal. - 26,648 for Dist'2 = 10,517 SH Bal.
District 4: East Hampton 16,132 + 10,517 from Dist 3 = 26,649
Total People Transferred = 25,515
CONCLUSIONS:
Plan I Plan II Plan III Plan IV
1. No. of Transfers: 6,879 10,700 27,779 25,515
2. Shelter Island has no vote in either district plan.
3. Southampton, with 42.55 % of the population, is likely to have 1 of 4 votes, or 25 % if
there are 4 districts; or a more reasonable (and legally allowable) 40% if it has 2 of the 5
districts in a 5 -district plan. Southampton is also bigger than any other 2 Towns, and has
40.1 % of the land area, and 45.1 % of the maximum seasonal population.
51A
APPENDIX C.
Comparison of Actual and Ideal Population in Different -Size Legislatures
Using town Lines
(The methodology follows the "Abate" case.)
47 -Person Legislature (2268 People per representative)
Population Percent
Summary Statistics Spread 4.43%
Average 1.23%
24 -Person legislature (4441 People per representative)
Population Percent
Ideal
Actual
Deviation
Deviation
Town
Votes
Population
Population
Col.(3)-(4)
Col.(5)/(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Shelter Island
1
2268
2263
5
0.22%
East Hampton
7
15876
16132
-256
-1.61%
Riverhead
9
20412
19836
576
2.82%
Southold
10
22680
23011
-331
-1.46%
Southampton
20
45360
45351
9
0.02%
Total
47
106596
106593
3
Summary Statistics Spread 4.43%
Average 1.23%
24 -Person legislature (4441 People per representative)
Population Percent
Total
Summary Statistics
24 106584
-1-
106593 -9
Spread 60.71%
Average 15.13%
Ideal
Actual
Deviation
Deviation
Town
Votes
Population
Population
Col.(3)-(4)
Col.(5)/(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Shelter Island
1
4441
2263
2178
49.04%
East Hampton
4
17764
16132
1632
9.19%
Riverhead
4
17764
19836
-2072
-11.66%
Southold
5
22205
23011
-806
-3.63%
Southampton
10
44410
45351
-941
-2.12%
Total
Summary Statistics
24 106584
-1-
106593 -9
Spread 60.71%
Average 15.13%
23 -Person legislature (4634 People per representative)
Population Percent
Summary Statistics Spread 9.15%
No vote for Shelter Island Average 2.65%
17 -Person legislature (6270 People per representative)
Population Percent
Ideal
Actual
Deviation
Deviation
Town
Votes
Population
Population
Col.(3)-(4)
Col.(5)/(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
East H. + Shlt. Is
4
18536
18395
141
0.76%
Riverhead
4
18536
19836
-1300
-7.01%
Southold
5
23170
23011
159
0.69%
Southampton
10
46340
45351
989
2.13%
Total
23
106582
106593
-11
Summary Statistics Spread 9.15%
No vote for Shelter Island Average 2.65%
17 -Person legislature (6270 People per representative)
Population Percent
Total
17 106590
Summary Statistics
No vote for Shelter Island
-2-
106593 -3
Spread 13.70%
Average 4.81%
Ideal
Actual
Deviation
Deviation
Town
Votes
Population
Population
Col.(3)-(4)
Col.(5)/(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
East H. + Shlt. Is
3
'18810
18395
415
2.21%
Riverhead
3
'18810
19836
-1026
-5.45%
Southold
4
25080
23011
2069
8.25%
Southampton
7
43890
45351
-1461
-3.33%
Total
17 106590
Summary Statistics
No vote for Shelter Island
-2-
106593 -3
Spread 13.70%
Average 4.81%
9 -Person legislature
15 -Person legislature
(7106 People per representative)
Population
Population
Percent
Ideal
Ideal
Actual
Deviation
Deviation
Town
Votes
Population
Population
Col.(3)-(4)
Col.(5)/(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
East H. + Shlt. Is
3
21318
18395
2923
13.71%
Riverhead
3
21318
19836
1482
6.95%
Southold
3
21318
23011
-1693
-7.94%
Southampton
6
42636
45351
-2715
-6.37%
Total
15
106590
106593
-3
Summary Statistics
Summary Statistics
Spread
21.65%
No vote for Shelter Island
Average
8.74%
9 -Person legislature
(11844 People per representative)
Population
Percent
Ideal
Actual
Deviation
Deviation
Town
Votes
Population
Population
Col.(3)-(4)
Col.(5)/(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
East H. + Shlt. Is
1
11844
18395
-6551
-55.31%
Riverhead
2
23688
19836
3852
16.26%
Southold
2
23688
23011
677
2.86%
Southampton
4
47376
45351
2025
4.27%
Total
9
106596
106593
3
Summary Statistics
Spread
71.57%
No vote for Shelter Island
Average
19.68%
-3-
4 -Person legislature (26648 People per representative)
Population Percent
Ideal Actual Deviation Deviation
Town
5 -Person legislature
(21319 People per representative)
Population
Col.(3)-(4)
Col.(5)/(3)
(1)
Population
Percent
(4)
(5)
Ideal
Actual
Deviation
Deviation
Town
Votes
Population
Population
Col.(3)-(4)
Col.(5)/(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
East H. + Shit. Is
1
21,319
18395
2924
13.72%
Riverhead
1
21319
19836
1483
6.96%
Southold
1
21,319
23011
-1692
-7.94%
Southampton
2
42638
45351
-2713
-6.36%
Total
5
106595
106593
. 2
Summary Statistics
Spread
21.65%
No vote for Shelter Island
Average
8.74%
4 -Person legislature (26648 People per representative)
Population Percent
Ideal Actual Deviation Deviation
Town
Votes
Population
Population
Col.(3)-(4)
Col.(5)/(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
East H. + Shlt. Is
1
26648
18395
8253
30.97%
Riverhead
1
26648
19836
6812
25.56%
Southold
1
26648
23011
3637
13.65%
Southampton
1
26648
45351
-18703
-70.19%
Total
4
106592
106593
-1
Summary Statistics
No vote for Shelter Island
-4-
Spread 101.16%
Average 35.09%
-1-
APPENDIX 01
CRITICAL
COALITION
ANALYSIS
All
Possible Voting
Combinations
with 5 Representatives
Voting Combinations
Simple
Majority, 3 Votes to Pass
x13
Majority, 4 Votes to Pass
No. of
Tot.
Tot.
Yes
Yes
WT,n
Yes
Win
Votes
R1
R2
R3
R4 R5
Vote
13y
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
CC
VoteBy
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
CC
5
1
1
1
1
1
5
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
1
1
1
0
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
4
1
1
1
0
1
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
3
1
1
1
0
0
3
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
3
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
1
0
1
1
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
3
1
1
0
1
0
3
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
3
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
1
0
0
1
3
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
3
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
2
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
-2
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
0
1
1
1
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
3
1
0
1
1
0
3
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
3
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
1
0
1
3
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
3
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
2
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
-2
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
1
1
3
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
3
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
1
0
2
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
-2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
1
2
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
-2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
-2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
-3
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
1
1
1
1
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
3
0
1
1
1
0
3
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
3
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
1
0
1
3
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
3
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
2
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
-2
0
0
o
o
0
0
3
0
1
0
1
1
3
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
3
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
2
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
-2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
1
2
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
-2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
-2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
-3
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
1
1
1
3
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
3
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
1
0
2
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
-2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
2
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
-2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
-2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
-3
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
1
2
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
-2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Q
0
1
0
1
-2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
-3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
-2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
-3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-3
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
-4
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
6
6
6
6
6
10
4
4
4
4
4
5
-1-
APPENDIX D
CRITICAL COALITION ANALYSIS
All Possible Voting Combinations
93 Weighted
Votes - Simple Majority Vote
93 Weighted
Votes - 213 Majority Vote
No. of
Tot.
Tot.
Yes
At
At
Yes
Win
At
At
Yes
Win
At
At
Votes
SH
RH
HD
EH
SI
Lg1
Lg2
Vote
By
SH
RH
HD
EH
SI
Lg1
Lg2
CC
Vote
By
SH
RH
HD
EH
SI
Lg1
Lg2
CC
7
29
16
15
14
1
15
3
93
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
93
31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
29
16
15
14
1
15
0
90
43
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
90
28
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
6
29
16
15
14
1
0
3
78
31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
78
16
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
5
29
16
15
14
1
0
0
75
28
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
75
13
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
6
29
16
15
14
0
15
3
92
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
92
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
29
16
15
14
0
15
0
89
42
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
89
27
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
5
29
16
15
14
0
0
3
77
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
77
15
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
29
16
15
14
0
0
0
74
27
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
74
12
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
6
29
16
15
0
1
15
3
79
32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
79
17
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
5
29
16
15
0
1
15
0
76
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
76
14
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
5
29
16
15
0
1
0
3
64
17
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
64
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
4
29
16
15
0
1
0
0
61
14
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
61
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
29
16
15
0
0
15
3
78
31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
78
16
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
29
16
15
0
0
15
0
75
.28
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
75
13
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
4
29
16
15
0
0
0
3
63
16
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
63
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
3
29
16
15
0
0
0
0
60
13
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
60
-2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
29
16
0
14
1
15
3
78
31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
78
16
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
5
29
16
0
14
1
15
0
75
28
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
75
13
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
5
29
16
0
14
1
0
3
63
16
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
63
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
4
29
16
0
14
1
0
0
60
13
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
60
-2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
29
16
0
14
0
15
3
77
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
77
15
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
29
16
0
14
0
15
0
74
27
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
74
12
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
4
29
16
0
14
0
0
3
62
15
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
62
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
3
29
16
0
14
0
0
0
59
12
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
59
-3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
29
16
0
0•
1
15
3
64
17
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
64
2
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
4
29
16
0
0
1
15
0
61
14
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
61
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
29
16
0
0
1
0
3
49
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
49
-13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
29
16
0
0
1
0
0
46
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
-16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
29
16
0
0
0
15
3
63
16
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
63
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
3
29
16
0
0
0
15
0
60
13
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
60
-2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
29
16
0
0
0
0
3
48
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
48
-14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0"
0
2
29
16
0
0
0
0
0
45
-2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
-17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
29
0
15
14
1
15
3
77
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
77
15
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
No. of
Tot.
Tot.
Yes
At
At
Yes
W n
At
At
Yes
Win
At
At
Votes
SH
RH
HD
EH
Sl
Lg1
Lg2
Vote
By
SH
RH
HD
EH
Sl
Lg1
Lg2
CC
Vote
By
SH
RH
HD
EH
SI
Lg1
Lg2
CC
5
29
0
15
14
1
15
0
74
27
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
74
12
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
5
29
0
15
14
1
0
3
62
15
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
62
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
4
29
0
15
14
1
0
0
59
12
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
59
-3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
29
0
15
14
0
15
3
76
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
76
14
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
4
29
0
15
14
0
15
0
73
26
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
73
11
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
4
29
0
15
14
0
0
3
61
14
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
61
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
29
0
15
14
0
0
0
58
11
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
58
-4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
29
0
15
0
1
15
3
63
16
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
63
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
4
29
0
15
0
1
15
0
60
13
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
60
-2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
29
0
15
0
1
0
3
48
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
48
-14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
29
0
15
0
1
0
0
45
-2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
-17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
29
0
15
0
0
15
3
62
15
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
62
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
3
29
0
15
0
0
15
0
59
12
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
59
-3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
29
0
15
0
0
0
3
47
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
47
-15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
29
0
15
0
0
0
0
44
-3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44
-18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
29
0
0
14
1
15
3
62
15
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
62
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
4
29
0
0
14
1
15
0
59
12
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
59
-3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
29
0
0
14
1
0
3
47
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
47
-15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
29
0
0
14
1
0
0
44
-3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44
-18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
29
0
0
14
0
15
3
61
14
t
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
61
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
29
0
0
14
0
15
0
58
11
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
58
-4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
29
0
0
14
0
0
3
46
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
-16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
29
0
0
14
0
0
0
43
-4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
-19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
29
0
0
0
1
15
3
48
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
48
-14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
29
0
0
0
1
15
0
45
-2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
-17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
29
0
0
0
1
0
3
33
-14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
-29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
29
0
0
0
1
0
0
30
-17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
-32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
29
0
0
0
0
15
3
47
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
47
-15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
29
0
0
0
0
15
0
44
-3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44
-18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
29
0
0
0
0
0
3
32
-15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32
-30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
-18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
-33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
16
15
14
1
15
3
64
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
64
2
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
5
0
16
15
14
1
15
0
61
14
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
61
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
16
15
14
1
0
3
49
2
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
49
-13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
16
15
14
1
0
0
46
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
-16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
16
15
14
0
15
3
63
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
63
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
-2-
No. of
Tat.
Tot.
Yes
At
At
Yes
Win
At
At
Yes
Win
At
At
Votes
SH
RH
HD
EH
St
Lg1
Lg2
Vote
By
SH
RH
HD
EH
SI
Lg1
Lg2
CC
Vote
By
SH
RH
HD
EH
SI
Lg1
Lg2
CC
4
0
16
15
14
0
15
0
60
13
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
60
-2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
16
15
14
0
0
3
48
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
48
-14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
16
15
14
0
0
0
45
-2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
-17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
16
15
0
1
15
3
50
3
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
50
-12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
16
15
0
1
15
0
47
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
47
-15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
16
15
0
1
0
3
35
-12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
-27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
16
15
0
1
0
0
32
-15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32
-30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
16
15
0
0
15
3
49
2
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
49
-13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
16
15
0
0
15
0
46
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
-16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
16
15
0
0
0
3
34
-13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
34
-28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
16
15
0
0
0
0
31
-16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
-31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
16
0
14
1
15
3
49
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
49
-13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
16
0
14
1
15
0
46
-1
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
-16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
16
0
14
1
0
3
34
-13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
34
-28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
16
0
14
1
0
0
31
-16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
-31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
16
0
14
0
15
3
48
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
48
-14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
16
0
14
0
15
0
45
-2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
-17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
16
0
14
0
0
3
33
-14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
-29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.
0
16
0
14
0
0
0
30
-17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
-32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
16
0
0
1
15
3
35
-12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
-27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
16
0
0
1
15
0
32
-15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32
-30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
16
0
0
1
0
3
20
-27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
-42
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
16
0
0
1
0
0
17
-30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
-45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
16
0
0
0
15
3
34
-13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
34
-28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
16
0
0
0
15
0
31
-16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
-31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
16
0
0
0
0
3
19
-28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
43
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
16
0
0
0
0
0
16
-31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
-46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
15
14
1
15
3
48
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
48
-14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
15
14
1
15
0
45
-2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
-17
0
'0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
15
14
1
0
3
33
-14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
-29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
15
14
1
0
0
30
-17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
-32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
15
14
0
15
3
47
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
47
-15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
15
14
0
15
0
44
-3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44
-18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
15
14
0
0
3
32
-15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32
-3D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
15
14
0
0
0
29
-18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
-33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
15
0
1
15
3
34
-13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
34
-26
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-3-
110. ut
I.Ot.
Tot.
Yes
At
At
Yes
V`An
At
At
Yes
Win
At
Votes
SH
RH
HD
EH
Si
Lg1
Lg2
Vote
By
SH
RH
HD
EH
SI
L91
L92
CC
Vote
By
SH
RH
HD
EH
SI
Lg1
Lg2
CC
3
0
0
15
0
1
15
0
31
-16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
-31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
15
0
1
0
3
19
-28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
-43
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
15
0
1
0
0
16
-31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
15
0
0
15
3
33
-14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
-29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
15
0
0
15
0
30
-17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
-32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
15
0
0
0
3
18
-29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
-44
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
15
-32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
-47
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
14
1
15
3
33
-14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
-29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
14
1
15
0
30
-17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
-32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
14
1
0
3
18
-29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
-44
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
14
1
0
0
15
-32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
-47
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
14
0
15
3
32
-15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32
-30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
14
0
15
0
29
-18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
-33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
14
0
0
3
17
-30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
-45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
14
0
0
0
14
-33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
48
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
1
15
3
19
-28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
-43
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
15
0
16
-31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
-46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
4
-43
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
-58
'0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
46
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
0
1
-61
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
15
3
18
-29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
-44
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
15
-32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
-47
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
-44
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
-59
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-47
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-62
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
448
38
18
18
14
2
18
14
49
28
16
14
12
2
14
12
30
448
-4-
APPENDIX E
QUOTES FROM U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS IN ABATE AND BROWN
1. Abate V. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182, 185, 91 S . Ct. 1904 (1971)
In assessing the constitutionality of various apportionment plans, we have
observed that viable local governments may need considerable flexibility in
municipal arrangements if they are to meet changing societal needs, Sailors v.
Board of Education, 387 U.S. 105, 110-111 (1967), and that a desire to
preserve the integrity of political subdivisions may justify an apportionment
plan which departs from numerical equality. Reynolds v. Sims, supra, at 578.
These observations, along with the facts that local legislative bodies frequently
have fewer representatives than do their state and national counterparts and that
some local legislative districts may have a much smaller population than do
congressional and state legislative districts, lend support to the argument that
slightly greater percentage deviations may be tolerable for local government
apportionment schemes, cf. ibid. Of course, this Court has never suggested
that certain geographic interests are entitled to disproportionate representation.
Rather, our statements have reflected the view that the particular circumstances
and needs of a local community as a whole may sometimes justify departures
from strict equality.
2. Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835, 844, 103 S.Ct. 2690 (1983)
The District Court stated:
"Wyoming as a state is unique among her sister states. A small population
is encompassed by a large area. Counties have always been a major form of
government in the State. Each county has its own special economic and social
needs. The needs of the people are different and distinctive. Given the fact
that the representatives from the combined counties of Niobrara and Goshen
would probably come from the larger county, i.e., Goshen, the interests of the
people of Niabrara County would be virtually unprotected.
"The people within each county have many interests in common such as
public facilities, government administration, and work and personal problems.
Under the facts of this action, to deny these people their own representative
borders on abridging their right to be represented in the determination of their
futures.
"In Wyoming, the counties are the primary administrative agencies of the
State government. It has historically been the policy of the State that counties
-1-
remain in this position.
"The taxing powers of counties are limited by the Constitution and some
State statutes. Supplemental monies are distributed to the counties in
accordance with appropriations designated by the State Legislature. It comes
as no surprise that the financial requirements of each county are different.
Without representation of their own in the State House of Representatives, the
people of Niobrara County could well be forgotten." 536 F , Supp., at 784.
To see the dramatic similarities with our own case, simply substitute the words
"town" or "Shelter Island" for "county" or "Niobrara County," and "Peconic County"
or "Suffolk County" for "Wyoming" or "State," and "East Hampton" or "Southold"
for "Goshen County."
-2-
APPENDIX F
ALLOCATION OF AT -LARGE VOTING POWER TO THE TOWNS
BASED ON THEIR POPULATION SIZE
(93 -Vote Case)
Table 1 b. Allocation of At -Large Voting Power for Simple Majority
Total
Voting
Power
Col(5) + (6)
(7)
1.95%
15.48%
19.68%
20.47%
42.41%
100.00%
Table 1 c. Allocation of At -Large Voting Power for Two -Thirds Majority
Percent of
Allocated
Total
Gross
At -Large
At -Large
Percent of
Critical
Coalitions
Share
Town
Population
Votes
Coalitions
Col(4) / 122
Col(4)AL x (3)
(1)
(3)
(2)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Shelter Island
2.12%
1
2
1.64%
0.31%
East Hampton
15.13%
14
14
11.48%
4.01%
Southold
18.61%
15
18
14.75%
4.93%
Riverhead
21.59%
16
18
14.75%
5.72%
Southampton
42.55%
29
38
31.15%
11.27%
At -Large 1
22.11%
15
18
14.75%
28
At -Large 2
11.40%
3
14
11.48%
15
Total
14.29%
93
122
100.00%
26.23%
Total
Voting
Power
Col(5) + (6)
(7)
1.95%
15.48%
19.68%
20.47%
42.41%
100.00%
Table 1 c. Allocation of At -Large Voting Power for Two -Thirds Majority
-1-
Percent of
Allocated
Total
Gross
At -Large
Voting
Percent of
Critical
Coalitions
Share
Power
Town
Population
Votes
Coalitions Col(4) / 98
Col(4)AL x (3)
Col(5) + (6)
(1)
(3)
(2)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Shelter Island
2.12%
1
2
2.04%
0.30%
2.34%
East Hampton
15.13%
14
12
12.24%
4.06%
16.30%
Southold
18.61%
15
14
14.29%
4.99%
19.27%
Riverhead
21.59%
16
16
16.33%
5.78%
22.11%
Southampton
42.55%
29
28
28.57%
11.40%
39.97%
At -Large 1
15
14
14.29%
At -Large 2
3
12
12.24%
Total
93
98
100.00%
26.53%
100.00%
-1-
APPENDIX II.
DEBT0
:
BOND SIZINGS DETAIL
DEBT: BOND SIZINGS DETAIL
Peconic County
Capital Projects and Debt
New Money Bonds for Start Up Costs
Sources and Uses of Funds
Sources:
Par Amount of Bonds 4,185,000.00
Accrued Interest 0.00
Total Sources 4,185,000.00
Uses:
Available for Start -Up Costs 4,073,094.05
Accrued Interest 0.00
Bond Insurance Premium 0.500% 24,809.25
Underwriters' Discount + Costs of Issuance 2.000% 83.700.00
Rounding 3,396.70
Total Sources 4,185,000.00
Assumptions
Dated Date 1/15/96
Delivery Date 1/15/96
Appendix II. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail page II -1
Peconic County
Capital Projects and Debt
New Money Bonds for Start Up Costs
Debt Service Schedule
Appendix H. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -2
Interest
Total
Annual
Date
Principal
Rate
Interest
Debt Service
Debt Service
1/15/96
7/15/96
700,000.00
6.000%
125,550.00
825,550.00
825,550.00
1/15/97
104,550.00
104, 550.00
7/15/97
620,000.00
6.000%
104,550.00
724,550.00
829,100.00
1/15/98
85,950.00
85,950.00
7/15/98
655,000.00
6.000%
85,950.00
740,950.00
826,900.00
1/15/99
66,300.00
66,300.00
7/15/99
695,000.00
6.000%
66,300.00
761,300.00
827,600.00
1/15/00
45,450.00
45,450.00
7/15/00
735,000.00
6.000%
45,450.00
780,450.00
825,900.00
1/15/01
23,400.00
23,400.00
7/15/01
780,000.00
6.000%
23,400.00
803,400.00
826,800.00
4,185,000.00
4,961,850.00
776,850.00
4,961,850.00
Appendix H. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -2
Peconic County
Capital Projects and Debt
New Money Bonds for Capital Improvement Projects
Total Debt Service Obligations for 1996 - 1999 Annual Bond Issues
Appendix II. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -3
1996 Financing
1997 Financing
1998 Financing
1999 Financing
Total
Total Annual
Date
Debt Service
Debt Service
Debt Service
Debt Service
Debt Service
Debt Service
1/15/96
7/15/96
1,462,950.00
1,462,950.00
1,462,950.00
1/15/97
489,600.00
489,600.00
7/15/97
974,600.00
1,045,650.00
2,020,250.00
2,509,850.00
1/15/98
475,050.00
350,400.00
825,450.00
7/15/98
990,050.00
695,400.00
983,900.00
2,669,350.00
3,494,800.00
1/15/99
459,600.00
340,050.00
329,850.00
1,129,500.00
7/15/99
1,004,600.00
705,050.00
654,850.00
2,043,300.00
4,407,800.00
5,537,300.00
1/15/00
443,250.00
329,100.00
320,100.00
683,700.00
1,776,150.00
7/15/00
1,018,250.00
719,100.00
665,100.00
1,358,700.00
3,761,150.00
5,537,300.00
1/15/01
426,000.00
317,400.00
309,750.00
663,450.00
1,716,600.00
7/15/01
1,036,000.00
732,400.00
674,750.00
1,378,450.00
3,821,600.00
5,538,200.00
1/15/02
407,700.00
304,950.00
298,800.00
642,000.00
1,653,450.00
7/15/02
1,052,700.00
739,950.00
688,800.00
1,402,000.00
3,883,450.00
5,536,900.00
1/15/03
388,350.00
291,900.00
287,100.00
619,200.00
1,586,550.00
7/15/03
1,073,350.00
756,900.00
697,100.00
1,424,200.00
3,951,550.00
5,538,100.00
1/15/04
367,800.00
277,950.00
274,800.00
595,050.00
1,515,600.00
7/15/04
1,092,800.00
767,950.00
709,800.00
1,445,050.00
4,015,600.00
5,531,200.00
1/15/05
346,050.00
263,250.00
261,750.00
569,550.00
1,440,600.00
7/15/05
1,116,050.00
783.250.00
721,750.00
1,474,550.00
4,095,600.00
5,536,200.00
1/15/06
322,950.00
247,650.00
247,950.00
542,400.00
1,360,950.00
7/15/06
1,137,950.00
797,650.00
737,950.00
1,497,400.00
4,170,950.00
5,531,900.00
1/15/07
298,500.00
231,150.00
233,250.00
513,750.00
1,276,650.00
7/15/07
1,163,500.00
816,150.00
753,250.00
1,528,750.00
4,261,650.00
5,538,300.00
1/15/08
272,550.00
213,600.00
217,650.00
483,300.00
1,187,100.00
7/15/08
1,187,550.00
833,600.00
767,650.00
1,558,300.00
4,347,100.00
5,534,200.00
1/15/09
245,100.00
195,000.00
201,150.00
451,050.00
1,092,300.00
7/15/09
1,220,100.00
850,000.00
786,150.00
1,591,050.00
4,447,300.00
5,539,600.00
1/15/10
215,850.00
175,350.00
183,600.00
416,850.00
991,650.00
7/15/10
1,245,850.00
870,350.00
803,600.00
1,626,850.00
4,546,650.00
5,538,300.00
1/15/11
184,950.00
154,500.00
165.000.00
380,550.00
885,000.00
7/15/11
1,279,950.00
894,500.00
820,000.00
1,660,550.00
4,655,000.00
5,540,000.00
1/15/12
152,100.00
132,300.00
145,350.00
342,150.00
771,900.00
7/15/12
1,312,100.00
912,300.00
840,350.00
1,702,150.00
4,766,900.00
5,538,800.00
1/15/13
117,300.00
108,900.00
124,500.00
301,350.00
652,050.00
7/15/13
1,347,300.00
938,900.00
859,500.00
1,741,350.00
4,887,050.00
5,539,100.00
1/15/14
80,400.00
84,000.00
102,450.00
258,150.00
525,000.00
7/15/14
1,380,400.00
964,000.00
882,450.00
1,783,150.00
5,010,000.00
5,535,000.00
1/15/15
41,400.00
57,600.00
79,050.00
212,400.00
390,450.00
7/15/15
1,421,400.00
987,600.00
909,050.00
1,832,400.00
5,150,450.00
5,540,900.00
1/15/16
29,700.00
54,150.00
163,800.00
247,650.00
7/15/16
1,019,700.00
929,150.00
1,878,800.00
3,827,650.00
4,075,300.00
1/15/17
27,900.00
112.350.00
140,250.00
7/15/17
957,900.00
1,932,350.00
2,890,250.00
3,030,500.00
1/15/18
57,750.00
57,750.00
7/15/18
1,982,750.00
1,982,750.00
2,040,500.00
29,251,950.00
20,935,150.00
19,707,200.00
40,850,900.00
110,745,200.00
110,745,200.00
Appendix II. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -3
Peconic County
Capital Projects and Debt
New Money Bonds for Capital Improvement Projects
1996 Financing
Sources and Uses of Funds
Sources:
Par Amount of Bonds
Accrued Interest
Total Sources
Uses:
Deposit to Construction Fund
Accrued Interest
Bond Insurance Premium
Underwriters' Discount + Costs of Issuance
Rounding
Total Sources
17,265,000.00
0.00
17,265,000.00
16,771,385.51
0.00
0.500% 146,259.75
2.000% 345,300.00
2,054.74
Assumptions
Dated Date 1/15/96
Delivery Date 1/15/96
Construction Fund investment rate 5.500%
17,265,000.00
Appendix II. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -4
Peconic County
Capital Projects and Debt
New Money Bonds for Capital Improvement Projects
1996 Financing
Debt Service Schedule
Appendix H. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -5
Interest
Total
Annual
Date
Principal
Rate
Interest
Debt Service
Debt Service
1/15/96
7/15/96
945,000.00
6.000%
517,950.00
1,462.950.00
1,462,950.00
1/15/97
489,600.00
489,600.00
7/15/97
485,000.00
6.000%
489,600.00
974,600.00
1,464,200.00
1/15/98
475,050.00
475,050.00
7/15/98
515,000.00
6.000%
475,050.00
990,050.00
1,465,100.00
1/15/99
459,600.00
459,600.00
7/15/99
545,000.00
6.000%
459,600.00
1,004,600.00
1,464,200.00
1/15/00
443,250.00
443,250.00
7/15/00
575,000.00
6.000%
443,250.00
1,018,250.00
1,461,500.00
1/15/01
426,000.00
426,000.00
7/15/01
610,000.00
6.000%
426,000.00
1,036,000.00
1,462,000.00
1/15/02
407,700.00
407,700.00
7/15/02
645,000.00
6.000%
407,700.00
1,052,700.00
1,460,400.00
1/15/03
388,350.00
388,350.00
7/15/03
685,000.00
6.000%
388,350.00
1,073,350.00
1,461,700.00
1/15/04
367,800.00
367,800.00
7/15/04
725,000.00
6.000%
367,800.00
1,092,800.00
1,460,600.00
1/15/05
346,050.00
346,050.00
7/15/05
770,000.00
6.000%
346,050.00
1,116,050.00
1,462,100.00
1/15/06
322,950.00
322,950.00
7/15/06
815,000.00
6.000%
322,950.00
1,137,950.00
1,460,900.00
1/15/07
298,500.00
298,500.00
7/15/07
865,000.00
6.000%
298,500.00
1,163,500.00
1,462,000.00
1/15/08
272,550.00
272,550.00
7/15/08
915,000.00
6.000%
272,550.00
1,187,550.00
1,460,100.00
1/15/09
245,1010.00
245,100.00
7/15/09
975,000.00
6.000%
245,100.00
1,220,100.00
1,465,200.00
1/15/10
215,850.00
215,850.00
7/15/10
1,030,000.00
6.000%
215,850.00
1,245,850.00
1,461,700.00
1/15/11
184,950.00
184,950.00
7/15/11
1,095,000.00
6.000%
184,950.00
1,279,950.00
1,464,900.00
1/15/12
152,100.00
152,100.00
7/15/12
1,160,000.00
6.000%
152,100.00
1,312,100.00
1,464,200.00
1/15/13
117,300.00
117,300.00
7/15/13
1,230,000.00
6.000%
117,300.00
1,347,300.00
1,464,600.00
1/15/14
80,400.00
80,400.00
7/15/14
1,300,000.00
6.000%
80,400.00
1,380,400.00
1,460,800.00
1/15/15
41,400.00
41,400.00
7/15/15
1,380,000.00
6.000%
41,400.00
1,421,400.00
1,462,800.00
17,265,000.00
29,251,950.00
11,986,950.00
29,251,950.00
Appendix H. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -5
Peconic County
Capital Projects and Debt
New Money Bonds for Capital Improvement Projects
1996 Financing
Yield Calculations
Delivery Date 1/15/96
Yield 6.11035223% 6.37681920%
Target Present Value
Par Amount of Bonds 17,265,000.00
+ Accrued Interest 0.00
Bond Insurance Premium (146,259.75)
Underwriters' DiscountfCosts of Issuance
Target Amount
17,118,740.25
17,265,000.00
0.00
(146,259.75)
(345,300.00)
16,773,440.25
Appendix II. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -6
Arbitrage
Yield
All -In
Yield
Present Value
Present Value
Date
Debt Service
PV Factor
Debt Service
PV Factor
Debt Service
1/15/96
1.00000000
1.00000000
7/15/96
1,462,950.00
0.97035398
1,419,579.35
0.96910109
1,417,746.44
1/15/97
489,600.00
0.94158684
461,000.92
0.93915692
459,811.23
7/15/97
974,600.00
0.91367254
890,465.25
0.91013799
887,020.49
1/15/98
475,050.00
0.88658578
421,172.57
0.88201572
419,001.57
7/15/98
990,050.00
0.86030204
851,742.03
0.85476239
846,257.51
1/15199
459,600.00
0.83479750
383,672.93
0.82835116
380,710.19
7/15/99
1,004,600.00
0.81004908
813.775.30
0.80275601
806,448.69
1/15/00
443,250.00
0.78603434
348,409.72
0.77795173
344,827.10
7/15/00
1,018,250.00
0.76273155
776,651.40
0.75391386
767,672.79
1/15/01
426,000.00
0.74011959
315,290.95
0.73061875
311,243.59
7/15101
1,036,000.00
0.71817799
744,032.40
0.70804342
733,532.98
1/15/02
407,700.00
0.69688687
284,120.78
0.68616565
279,749.74
7/15102
1,052,700.00
0.67622695
711,864.11
0.66496388
700,007.47
1/15/03
388,350.00
0.65617951
254,827.31
0.64441722
250,259.43
7/15/03
1,073,350.00
0.63672639
683,430.28
0.62450543
670,312.90
1/15/04
367,800.00
0.61784999
227,245.23
0.60520889
222,595.83
7/15/04
1,092,800.00
0.59953319
655,169.87
0.58650859
640,936.59
1/15/05
346,050.00
0.58175942
201,317.85
0.56838611
196,690.01
7/15/05
1,116,050.00
0.56451257
630,024.25
0.55082360
614,746.66
1/15/06
322,950.00
0.54777701
176,904.59
0.53380375
172,391.92
7/15/06
1,137,950.00
0.53153760
604,863.22
0.51730980
588,672.68
1/15/07
298,500.00
0.51577963
153,960.22
0.50132549
149,645.66
7/15/07
1,163,500.00
0.50048881
582,318.73
0.48583507
565,269.11
1/15/08
272,550.00
0.48565131
132,364.26
0.47082330
128,322.89
7/15/08
1,187,550.00
0.47125368
559,637.31
0.45627537
541,849.82
1/15/09
245,100.00
0.45728288
112,080.03
0.44217696
108,377.57
7/15/09
1,220,100.00
0.44372626
541,390.41
0.42851417
522,830.14
1/15/10
215,850.00
0.43057155
92,938.87
0.41527355
89,636.80
7/15/10
1,245,850.00
0.41780681
520,524.62
0.40244205
501,382.43
1/15/11
184,950.00
0.40542050
74,982.52
0.39000703
72,131.80
7/15/11
1,279,950.00
0.39340140
503,534.12
0.37795623
483,765.08
1/15/12
152,100.00
0.38173861
58,062.44
0.36627780
55,710.85
7/15/12
1,312,100.00
0.37042158
486,030.15
0.35496021
465,743.30
1/15/13
117,300.00
0.35944005
42,162.32
0.34399233
40,350.30
7/15/13
1,347,300.00
0.34878408
469,916.79
0.33336334
449,140.43
1/15/14
80,400.00
0.33844402
27,210.90
0.32306278
25,974.25
7/15/14
1,380,400.00
0.32841050
453,337.86
0.31308049
432,176.30
1/15/15
41,400.00
0.31867444
13,193.12
0.30340664
12,561.03
7/15/15
1,421,400.00
0.30922701
439,535.27
0.29403171
417,936.67
29,251,950.00
17,118,740.25
16,773,440.25
Delivery Date 1/15/96
Yield 6.11035223% 6.37681920%
Target Present Value
Par Amount of Bonds 17,265,000.00
+ Accrued Interest 0.00
Bond Insurance Premium (146,259.75)
Underwriters' DiscountfCosts of Issuance
Target Amount
17,118,740.25
17,265,000.00
0.00
(146,259.75)
(345,300.00)
16,773,440.25
Appendix II. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -6
Peconic County
Capital Projects and Debt
New Money Bonds for Capital Improvement Projects
1996 Financing
Construction Fund Cashflows
Date
Beginning
Balance
Interest
Earnings
Drawdown
Ending
Balance
1/15/96
16,771, 385.51
0.00
1,432,166.67
15,339, 218.84
2/15/96
15,339,218.84
68,592.37
1,432,166.67
13,975,644.54
3/15/96
13,975,644.54
62,494.87
1,432,166.67
12,605,972.75
4/15/96
12,605,972.75
56,370.11
1,432,166.67
11.230,176.20
5/15/96
11,230,176.20
50,217.97
1,432,166.67
9,848,227.50
6/15/96
9,848,227.50
44,038.31
1,432,166.67
8,460,099.14
7/15/96
8,460,099.14
37,831.02
1,432,166.67
7,065,763.49
8/15/96
7,065,763.49
31,595.97
1,432,166.67
5,665,192.79
9/15/96
5,665,192.79
25,333.04
1,432,166.67
4,258,359.16
10/15/96
4,258,359.16
19,042.10
1,432,166.67
2,845,234.59
11/15/96
2,845,234.59
12,723.03
1,432,166.67
1,425,790.96
12/15/96
1,425,790.96
6,375.71
1,432,166.67
0.00
414,614.49 17,186,000.00
Appendix II. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -7
Peconic County Feasibility Study
Capital Projects and Debt
New Money Bonds for Capital Improvement Projects
1997 Financing
Sources and Uses of Funds
Sources:
Par Amount of Bonds
Accrued Interest
Total Sources
Uses:
Deposit to Construction Fund
Accrued Interest
Bond Insurance Premium
Underwriters' Discount + Costs of Issuance
Rounding
Total Sources
Assumptions
12,355,000.00
0.00
12,355,000.00
12,001,699.50
0.00
0.500% 104,675.75
2.000% 247,100.00
11 ,524.75
Dated Date 1/15/97
Delivery Date 1/15/97
Construction Fund investment rate 5.500%
12,355,000.00
Appendix H. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -8
Peconic County
Capital Projects and Debt
New Money Bonds for Capital Improvement Projects
1997 Financing
Debt Service Schedule
Appendix II. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -9
Interest
Total
Annual
Date
Principal
Rate
Interest
Debt Service
Debt Service
1/15/97
7/15/97
675,000.00
6.000%
370,650.00
1,045,650.00
1,045,650.00
1/15/98
350,400.00
350,400.00
7/15/98
345,000.00
6.000%
350,400.00
695,400.00
1,045,800.00
1/15/99
340,050.00
340,050.00
7/15/99
365,000.00
6.000%
340,050.00
705,050.00
1,045,100.00
1/15/00
329,100.00
329,100.00
7/15/00
390,000.00
6.000%
329,100.00
719,100.00
1,048,200.00
1/15/01
317,400.00
317,400.00
7/15/01
415,000.00
6.000%
317,400.00
732,400.00
1,049,600.00
1/15/02
304,950.00
304,950.00
7/15/02
435,000.00
6.000%
304,950.00
739,950.00
1,044,900.00
1/15/03
291,900.00
291,900.00
7/15/03
465,000.00
6.000%
291,900.00
756,900.00
1,046,800.00
1/15/04
277,950.00
277,950.00
7/15/04
490,000.00
6.000%
277,950.00
767,950.00
1,045,900.00
1/15/05
263,250.00
263,250.00
7/15/05
520,000.00
6.000%
263,250.00
783,250.00
1,046,500.00
1/15/06
247,650.00
247,650.00
7/15/06
550,000.00
6.000%
247,650.00
797,650.00
1,045,300.00
1/15/07
231,150.00
231,150.00
7/15/07
585,000.00
6.000%
231,150.00
816,150.00
1,047,300.00
1/15/08
213,600.00
213,600.00
7/15/08
620,000.00
6.000%
213,600.00
833,600.00
1,047,200.00
1/15/09
195,000.00
195,000.00
7/15/09
655,000.00
6.000%
195,000.00
850,000.00
1,045,000.00
1/15/10
175,350.00
175, 350.00
7/15/10
695,000.00
6.000%
175,350.00
870,350.00
1,045,700.00
1/15/11
154,500.00
154,500.00
7/15/11
740,000.00
6.000%
154,500.00
894,500.00
1,049.000.00
1/15/12
132,300.00
132,300.00
7/15/12
780,000.00
6.000%
132,300.00
912,300.00
1,044,600.00
1/15/13
108,900.00
108,900.00
7/15/13
830,000.00
6.000%
108,900.00
938,900.00
1,047,800.00
1/15/14
84,000.00
84,000.00
7/15/14
880,000.00
6.000%
84,000.00
964,000.00
1,046,000.00
1/15/15
57,600.00
57,600.00
7/15/15
930,000.00
6.000%
57,600.00
987,600.00
1,045,200.00
1/15/16
29,700.00
29,700.00
7/15/16
990,000.00
6.000%
29,700.00
1,019,700.00
1,049,400.00
12,355,000.00
20,935,150.00
8,580,150.00
20,935,150.00
Appendix II. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -9
Peconic County
Capital Projects and Debt
New Money Bonds for Capital Improvement Projects
1997 Financing
Yield Calculations
Date
Debt Service
Arbitrage
PV Factor
Yield
Present Value
Debt Service
All -in
PV Factor
Yield
Present Value
Debt Service
1/15/97
1.00000000
Par Amount of Bonds
1.00000000
12,355,000.00
7/15/97
1,045,650.00
0.97035406
1,014,650.72
0.96910151
1,013,340.99
1/15/98
350,400.00
0.94158700
329,932.09
0.93915774
329,080.87
7/15/98
695,400.00
0.91367277
635,368.05
0.91013918
632,910.79
1/15/99
340,050.00
0.88658608
301,483.60
0.88201725
299,929.97
7/15/99
705,050.00
0.86030241
606,556.21
0.85476425
602,651.53
1/15/00
329,100.00
0.83479793
274,732.00
0.82835333
272,611.08
7/15/00
719,100.00
0.81004956
582,506.64
0.80275846
577,263.61
1/15/01
317,400.00
0.78603488
249,487.47
0.77795443
246,922.74
7/15/01
732,400.00
0.76273214
558,625.02
0.75391682
552,166.68
1/15/02
304,950.00
0.74012023
225,699.66
0.73062192
222,803.16
7/15/02
739,950.00
0.71817867
531,416.31
0.70804681
523,919.24
1/15/03
291,900.00
0.69688759
203,421.49
0.68616923
200,292.80
7/15/03
756,900.00
0.67622770
511,836.75
0.66496764
503,314.01
1/15/04
277,950.00
0.65618030
182,385.31
0.64442114
179,116.86
7/15/04
767,950.00
0.63672722
488,974.67
0.62450950
479,592.07
1/15/05
263,250.00
0.61785084
162,649.23
0.60521310
159,322.35
7/15/05
783,250.00
0.59953407
469,585.06
0.58651293
459,386.25
1/15/06
247,650.00
0.58176032
144,072.94
0.56839057
140,761.92
7/15/06
797,650.00
0.56451349
450.284.18
0.55082815
439,368.08
1/15/07
231,150.00
0.54777796
126,618.87
0.53380840
123,389.81
7/15/07
816,150.00
0.53153856
433,815.20
0.51731452
422,206.25
1/15/08
213,600.00
0.51578060
110,170.74
0.50133028
107,084.15
7/15/08
833,600.00
0.50048980
417,208.30
0.48583994
404,996.17
1/15/09
195,000.00
0.48565231
94,702.20
0.47082821
91,811.50
7/15/09
850,000.00
0.47125469
400,566.49
0.45628033
387,838.28
1/15/10
175,350.00
0.45728391
80,184.73
0.44218196
77,536.61
7/15/10
870,350.00
0.44372729
386,198.05
0.42851921
372,961.69
1/15/11
154,500.00
0.43057258
66,523.46
0.41527861
64,160.55
7/15/11
894,500.00
0.41780785
373,729.12
0.40244713
359,988.95
1/15/12
132,300.00
0.40542155
53,637.27
0.39001212
51,598.60
7/15/12
912,300.00
0.39340244
358,901.05
0.37796133
344,814.12
1/15/13
108,900.00
0.38173966
41,571.45
0.36628290
39,888.21
7/15/13
938,900.00
0.37042263
347,789.81
0.35496531
333,276.93
1/15/14
84,000.00
0.35944110
30,193.05
0.34399742
28,695.78
7/15/14
964,000.00
0.34878513
336,228.87
0.33336842
321,367.15
1/15/15
57,600.00
0.33844507
19,494.44
0.32306783
18,608.71
7/15/15
987,600.00
0.32841155
324,339.24
0.31308553
309,203.27
1/15/16
29,700.00
0.31867548
9,464.66
0.30341166
9,011.33
7/15/16
1,019,700.00
0.30922804
315,319.84
0.29403669
299,829.22
20,935,150.00 12,250,324.25
12,003,224.25
Delivery Date
1/15/97
Yield
6.11033450%
6.37672942%
Target Present Value
Par Amount of Bonds
12,355,000.00
12,355,000.00
+Accrued Interest
0.00
0.00
Bond Insurance Premium
(104,675.75)
(104,675.75)
Underwriters' Discount/Costs of Issuance
(247,100.00)
Target Amount
12,250,324.25
12,003,224.25
Appendix H. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -10
Peconic County
Capital Projects and Debt
New Money Bonds for Capital Improvement Projects
1997 Financing
Construction Fund Cashflows
Date
Beginning
Balance
Interest
Earnings
Drawdown
Ending
Balance
1/15/97
12,001,699.50
0.00
1,024,866.67
10,976,832.83
2/15/97
10,976,832.83
49,085.09
1,024,866.67
10,001,051.25
3/15/97
10,001,051.25
44,721.69
1,024,666.67
9,020,906.28
4/15/97
9,020,906.28
40,338.78
1,024,866.67
8,036,378.39
5/15/97
8,036,378.39
35,936.26
1,024,866.67
7,047,447.98
6/15/97
7,047,447.98
31,514.07
1,024,866.67
6,054,095.38
7/15/97
6,054,095.38
27,072.09
1,024,866.67
5,056,300.81
8/15/97
5,056,300.81
22,610.25
1,024,866.67
4,054,044.40
9/15/97
4,054,044.40
18.128.47
1,024,666.67
3,047,306.20
10/15/97
3,047,306.20
13,626.64
1,024,866.67
2,036,066.17
11/15/97
2,036,066.17
9,104.67
1,024,866.67
1,020,304.17
12/15/97
1,020,304.17
4,562.49
1,024,866.67
0.00
296, 700.50 12, 298,400.00
Appendix H. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -11
Peconic County Feasibility Study
Capital Projects and Debt
New Money Bonds for Capital Improvement Projects
1998 Financing
Sources and Uses of Funds
Sources:
Par Amount of Bonds
Accrued Interest
Total Sources
Uses:
Deposit to Construction Fund
Accrued Interest
Bond Insurance Premium
Underwriters' Discount + Costs of Issuance
Rounding
Total Sources
Assumptions
11,630,000.00
0.00
11,630,000.00
11,298,484.06
0.00
0.500% 98,536.00
2.000% 232,600.00
379.94
Dated Date 1/15/38
Delivery Date 1/15/98
Construction Fund investment rate 5.500%
11,630,000.00
Appendix II. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -12
Peconic County
Capital Projects and Debt
New Money Bonds for Capital Improvement Projects
1998 Financing
Debt Service Schedule
Appendix II. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -13
Interest
Total
Annual
Date
Principal
Rate
Interest
Debt Service
Debt Service
1/15/98
7/15/98
635,000.00
6.000%
346,900.00
983,900.00
983,900.00
1/15/99
329,850.00
329,850.00
7/15/99
325,000.00
6.000%
329,850.00
654,850.00
984,700.00
1/15/00
320,100.00
320,100.00
7/15/00
345,000.00
6.000%
320,100.00
665,100.00
985,200.00
1/15/01
309,750.00
309,750.00
7/15/01
365,000.00
6.000%
309,750.00
674,750.00
984,500.00
1/15/02
298,800.00
298,800.00
7/15/02
390,000.00
6.000%
298,800.00
688,800.00
987,600.00
1/15/03
287,100.00
287,100.00
7/15/03
410,000.00
6.000%
287,100.00
697,100.00
964,200.00
1/15/04
274,800.00
274,800.00
7/15/04
435,000.00
6.000%
274,800.00
709,800.00
964,600.00
1/15/05
261,750.00
261,750.00
7/15/05
460,000.00
6.000%
261,750.00
721,750.00
983,500.00
1/15/06
247,950.00
247,950.00
7/15/06
490,000.00
6.000%
247,950.00
737,950.00
985,900.00
1/15/07
233,250.00
233,250.00
7/15/07
520,000.00
6.000%
233,250.00
753,250.00
986,500.00
1/15/08
217,650.00
217,650.00
7/15/08
550,000.00
6.000%
217,650.00
767,650.00
985,300.00
1/15/09
201,150.00
201,150.00
7/15/09
585,000.00
6.000%
201,150.00
786,150.00
987,300.00
1/15/10
183,600.00
183,600.00
7/15/10
620,000.00
6.000%
183,600.00
803,600.00
987,200.00
1/15/11
165,000.00
165,000.00
7/15/11
655,000.00
6.000 %
165,000.00
820,000.00
985,000.00
1/15/12
145,350.00
145,350.00
7/15/12
695,000.00
6.000%
145,350.00
840,350.00
985,700.00
1/15/13
124,500.00
124,500.00
7/15/13
735,000.00
6.000%
124,500.00
859,500.00
984,000.00
1/15/14
102,450.00
102,450.00
7/15/14
780,000.00
6.000%
102,450.00
882,450.00
984,900.00
1/15/15
79,050.00
79,050.00
7/15/15
830,000.00
6.000%
79,050.00
909,050.00
988,100.00
1/15/16
54,150.00
54,150.00
7/15/16
875,000.00
6.000%
54,150.00
929,150.00
983,300.00
1/15/17
27,900.00
27,900.00
7/15/17
930,000.00
6.000%
27,900.00
957,900.00
985,800.00
11,630,000.00
8,077,200.00
19,707,200.00
19,707,200.00
Appendix II. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -13
Peconic County
Capital Projects and Debt
New Money Bonds for Capital Improvement Projects
1998 Financing
Yield Calculations
19,707, 200.00 11,531,464.00 11,298,864.00
Delivery Date 1/15/98
Yield 6.11032752% 6.37669763%
Target Present Value
Par Amount of Bonds 11,630,000.00
+ Accrued Interest 0.00
Bond Insurance Premium (98,536.00)
Underwriters' Discount/Costs of Issuance
Target Amount
11,531,464.00
11,630,000.00
0.00
(98,536.00)
(232,600.00)
11,298,864.00
Appendix H. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -14
Arbitrage
Yield
All -In
Yield
Present Value
Present Value
Date
Debt Service
PV Factor
Debt Service
PV Factor
Debt Service
1/15/98
1.00000000
1.00000000
7/15/98
983,900.00
0.97035409
954,731.39
0.96910166
953,499.12
1/15/99
329,850.00
0.94158707
310,582.49
0.93915802
309,781.27
7/15/99
654,850.00
0.91367286
598,318.68
0.91013960
596,004.92
1/15/00
320,100.00
0.88658620
283,796.24
0.88201780
282,333.90
7/15/00
665,100.00
0.86030255
572,187.23
0.85476491
568,504.14
1/15/01
309,750.00
0.83479610
258,578.71
0.82835409
256,582.68
7/15/01
674,750.00
0.81004976
546,581.07
0.80275932
541,661.85
1/15/02
298,800.00
0.78603510
234,867.29
0.77795539
232,453.07
7/15/02
688,800.00
0.76273237
525,370.06
0.75391786
519,298.62
1/15/03
287,100.00
0.74012048
212,488.59
0.73062305
209,761.88
7/15/03
697,100.00
0.71817894
500,642.54
0.70804801
493,580.27
1/15/04
274,800.00
0.69688787
191,504.79
0.68617050
188,559'.65
7/15/04
709,800.00
0.67622800
479,986.63
0.66496897
471,994.97
1/15/05
261,750.00
0.65618061
171,755.27
0.64442253
168,677.60
7/15/05
721,750.00
0.63672754
459,558.10
0.62451094
450,740.77
1/15/06
247,950.00
0.61785117
153,196.20
0.60521459
150,062.96
7/15/06
737,950.00
0.59953442
442.426.42
0.58651447
432,818.35
1/15/07
233,250.00
0.58176067
135,695.68
0.56839214
132,577.47
7/15/07
753,250.00
0.56451385
425,220.06
0.55082977
414,912.52
1/15/08
217,650.00
0.54777833
119,223.95
0.53381004
116,183.76
7/15/08
767,650.00
0.53153894
408,035.87
0.51731620
397,117.78
1/15/09
201,150.00
0.51578099
103,749.35
0.50133198
100,842.93
7/15/09
786,150.00
0.50049019
393,460.36
0.48584166
381,944.42
1/15/10
183,600.00
0.48565271
89,165.84
0.47082996
86,444.38
7/15/10
803,600.00
0.47125509
378,700.59
0.45628209
366,668.29
1/15/11
165,000.00
0.45728431
75,451.91
0.44218373
72,960.32
7/15/11
820,000.00
0.44372770
363,856.71
0.42852099
351,387.21
1/15/12
145,350.00
0.43057299
62,583.78
0.41528040
60,361.01
7/15/12
840,350.00
0.41780826
351,105.17
0.40244892
338,197.95
1/15/13
124,500.00
0.40542196
50,475.03
0.39001392
48,556.73
7/15/13
859,500.00
0.39340286
338,129.76
0.37796314
324,859.32
1/15/14
102,450.00
0.38174007
39,109.27
0.36628470
37,525.87
7/15/14
882,450.00
0.37042304
326,879.81
0.35496711
313,240.73
1/15/15
79,050.00
0.35944152
28,413.85
0.34399922
27,193.14
7/15/15
909,050.00
0.34878555
317,063.50
0.33337021
303,050.19
1/15/16
54,150.00
0.33844548
18,326.82
0.32306963
17,494.22
7/15/16
929,150.00
0.32841196
305,143.97
0.31308731
290,905.07
1/15/17
27,900.00
0.31867589
8,891.06
0.30341343
8,465.23
7/15/17
957,900.00
0.30922845
296,209.93
0.29403846
281,659.44
19,707, 200.00 11,531,464.00 11,298,864.00
Delivery Date 1/15/98
Yield 6.11032752% 6.37669763%
Target Present Value
Par Amount of Bonds 11,630,000.00
+ Accrued Interest 0.00
Bond Insurance Premium (98,536.00)
Underwriters' Discount/Costs of Issuance
Target Amount
11,531,464.00
11,630,000.00
0.00
(98,536.00)
(232,600.00)
11,298,864.00
Appendix H. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -14
Peconic County
Capital Projects and Debt
New Money Bonds for Capital Improvement Projects
1998 Financing
Construction Fund Cashflows
Date
Beginning
Balance
Interest
Earnings
Drawdown
1/15/98
11,298,484.06
0.00
964,816.67
2/15/98
10,333,667.40
46,209.05
964,816.67
3/15/98
9,415,059.78
42,101.31
964,816.67
4/15/98
8,492,344.43
37,975.21
964,816.67
5/15/98
7,565,502.97
33,830.65
964,616.67
6/15/98
6,634,516.95
29,667.56
964,816.67
7/15/98
5,699,367.85
25,485.86
964,816.67
8/15/98
4,760,037.04
21,285.45
964,816.67
9/15/98
3,816,505.82
17,066.26
964,616.67
10/15/98
2,868,755.42
12,828.21
964,816.67
11/15/98
1,916,766.97
8,571.20
964,816.67
12/15/98
960,521.50
4,295.16
964,816.67
279,315.94 11,577,800.00
Ending
Balance
10, 333, 667.40
9,415,059.78
8,492,344.43
7,565,502.97
6,634,516.95
5,699,367.85
4,760,037.04
3,816,505.82
2.868,755.42
1,916,766.97
960,521.50
0.00
Appendix II. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -15
Peconic County Feasibility Study
Capital Projects and Debt
New Money Bonds for Capital Improvement Projects
1999 Financing
Sources and Uses of Funds
Sources:
Par Amount of Bonds
Accrued Interest
Total Sources
Uses:
Deposit to Construction Fund
Accrued Interest
Bond Insurance Premium
Underwriters' Discount + Costs of Issuance
Rounding
Total Sources
24,110,000.00
0.00
24,1 10,000.00
23,420,996.87
0.00
0.500% 204,254.50
2.000% 482,200.00
2,548.63
Assumptions
Dated Date 1/15/99
Delivery Date 1/15/99
Construction Fund investment rate 5.500
24,110,000.00
Appendix II. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -16
Peconic County
Capital Projects and Debt
New Money Bonds for Capital Improvement Projects
1999 Financing
Debt Service Schedule
Appendix H. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -17
Interest
Total
Annual
Date
Principal
Rate
Interest
Debt Service
Debt Service
1/15/99
7/15/99
1,320,000.00
6.000%
723,300.00
2,043,300.00
2,043,300.00
1/15/00
683,700.00
683,700.00
7/15100
675,000.00
6.000%
683,700.00
1,358,700.00
2,042,400.00
1/15/01
663,450.00
663,450.00
7/15/01
715,000.00
6.000%
663,450.00
1,378,450.00
2,041,900.00
1/15/02
642,000.00
642,000.00
7/15/02
760,000.00
6.000%
642,000.00
1,402,000.00
2,044,000.00
1/15/03
619,200.00
619,200.00
7/15/03
805,000.00
6.000%
619,200.00
1,424,200.00
2,043,400.00
1/15/04
595,050.00
595,050.00
7/15/04
850,000.00
6.000%
595,050.00
1,445,050.00
2,040,100.00
1/15/05
569,550.00
569,550.00
7/15/05
905,000.00
6.000%
569,550.00
1,474,550.00
2,044,100.00
1/15/06
542,400.00
542,400.00
7/15/06
955,000.00
6.000%
542,400.00
1,497,400.00
2,039,800.00
1/15/07
513,750.00
513,750.00
7/15/07
1,015,000.00
6.000%
513,750.00
1,528,750.00
2,042,500.00
1/15/08
483,300.00
483,300.00
7/15/08
1,075,000.00
6.000%
483,300.00
1,558,300.00
2,041,600.00
1/15109
451,050.00
451,050.00
7/15/09
1,140,000.00
6.000%
451,050.00
1,591,050.00
2,042,100.00
1/15/10
416,850.00
416,850.00
7/15/10
1,210,000.00
6.000%
416,850.00
1,626,850.00
2,043,700.00
1/15/11
380,550.00
380,550.00
7/15/11
1,280,000.00
6.000%
380,550.00
1,660,550.00
2,041,100.00
1/15/12
342,150.00
342,150.00
7/15/12
1,360,000.00
6.000% y
342,150.00
1,702,150.00
2,044,300.00
1/15/13
301,350.00
301,350.00
7/15/13
1,440,000.00
6.000%
301,350.00
1,741,350.00
2,042,700.00
1/15/14
258,150.00
258,150.00
7/15/14
1,525,000.00
6.000%
258,150.00
1,763,150.00
2,041,300.00
1/15/15
212,400.00
212,400.00
7/15/15
1,620,000.00
6.000%
212,400.00
1,832,400.00
2,044,800.00
1/15/16
163,800.00
163,800.00
7/15/16
1,715,000.00
6.000%
163,800.00
1,878,800.00
2,042,600.00
1/15117
112,350.00
112,350.00
7/15/17
1,820,000.00
6.000%
112,350.00
1,932,350.00
2,044,700.00
1/15/18
57,750.00
57,750.00
7/15/16
1,925,000.00
6.000%
57,750.00
1,982,750.00
2,040,500.00
24,110,000.00
16,740,900.00
40,850,900.00
40,850,900.00
Appendix H. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -17
Peconic County
Capital Projects and Debt
New Money Bonds for Capital Improvement Projects
1999 Financing
Yield Calculations
40,850,900.00 23,905,745.50 23,423,545.50
Delivery Date 1/15/99
Yield 6.11034335% 6.37677801°k
Target Present Value
Par Amount of Bonds 24,110,000.00 24,110,000.00
+ Accrued Interest 0.00 0.00
Bond Insurance Premium (204,254.50) (204,254.50)
Underwriters' Discount(Costs of Issuance (482,200.00)
Target Amount
23,905,745.50
23,423,545.50
Appendix II. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -18
Arbitrage
Yield
All -In
Yield
Present Value
Present Value
Date
Debt Service
PV Factor
Debt Service
PV Factor
Debt Service
1/15/99
1.00000000
1.00000000
7/15/99
2,043,300.00
0.97035402
1,982,724.37
0.96910128
1,980,164.65
1/15/00
683,700.00
0.94158692
643,762.98
0.93915729
642,101.84
7/15/00
1,358,700.00
0.91367265
1,241,407.03
0.91013854
1,236,605.23
1/15/01
663,450.00
0.88658593
588,205.44
0.88201642
585,173.80
7/15/01
1,378,450.00
0.86030222
1,185,883.60
0.85476324
1,178,248.39
1/15/02
642,000.00
0.83479772
535,940.14
0.82835216
531,802.08
7/15/02
1,402,000.00
0.81004932
1,135,689.15
0.80275714
1,125,465.50
1/15/03
619,200.00
0.78603461
486,712.63
0.77795297
481,708.48
7/15/03
1,424,200.00
0.76273185
1,086,282.70
0.75391522
1,073,726.05
1/15/04
595,050.00
0.74011991
440,408.35
0.73062020
434,755.55
7/15/04
1,445,050.00
0.71817833
1,037,803.60
0.70804498
1,023,160.39
1/15/05
569,550.00
0.69688723
396,912.12
0.68616729
390,806.58
7/15/05
1,474,550.00
0.67622732
997,131.00
0.66496560
980,525.03
1/15/06
542,400.00
0.65617990
355,911.98
0.64441902
349,532.88
7/15/06
1,497,400.00
0.63672681
953,434.72
0.62450730
935,137.23
1/15/07
513,750.00
0.61785041
317,420.65
0.60521082
310,927.06
7/15/07
1,528,750.00
0.59953363
916,537.04
0.58651058
896.628.05
1/15/08
483,300.00
0.58175987
281,164.55
0.56838816
274,702.00
7/15/08
1,558,300.00
0.56451303
879,680.65
0.55082569
858,351.67
1/15/09
451,050.00
0.54777749
247,075.03
0.53380588
240,773.14
7/15/09
1,591,050.00
0.53153808
845,703.67
0.51731196
823,069.20
1/15/10
416,850.00
0.51578012
215,002.94
0.50132769
208,978.45
7/15/10
1,626,850.00
0.50048931
814,221.03
0.48583730
790,384.42
1/15/11
380,550.00
0.48565181
184,814.80
0.47082555
179,172.66
7/15/11
1,660,550.00
0.47125419
782,541.14
0.45627765
757,671.85
1/15/12
342,150.00
0.45728339
156,459.51
0.44217925
151,291.63
7/15/12
1,702,150.00
0.44372678
755,289.54
0.42851648
729,399.33
1/15/13
301,350.00
0.43057206
129,752.89
0.41527587
125,143.38
7/15/13
1,741,350.00
0.41780733
727,548.80
0.40244438
700,796.52
1/15/14
258,150.00
0.40542102
104,659.44
0.39000936
100,680.92
7/15/14
1,783,150.00
0.39340192
701,494.63
0.37795857
673,956.83
1/15/15
212,400.00
0.38173913
81,081.39
0.36628014
77,797.90
7/15/15
1,832,400.00
0.37042210
678,761.46
0.35496255
650,433.38
1/15/16
163,800.00
0.35944058
58,876.37
0.34399466
56,346.33
7/15/16
1,878,800.00
0.34878461
655,296.52
0.33336567
626,327.42
1/15/17
112,350.00
0.33844455
38,024.24
0.32306510
36,296.36
7/15/17
1,932,350.00
0.32841103
634,605.04
0.31308280
604,985.55
1/15/18
57,750.00
0.31867496
18,403.48
0.30340894
17,521.87
7/15/18
1,982,750.00
0.30922753
613,120.88
0.29403399
582,995.90
40,850,900.00 23,905,745.50 23,423,545.50
Delivery Date 1/15/99
Yield 6.11034335% 6.37677801°k
Target Present Value
Par Amount of Bonds 24,110,000.00 24,110,000.00
+ Accrued Interest 0.00 0.00
Bond Insurance Premium (204,254.50) (204,254.50)
Underwriters' Discount(Costs of Issuance (482,200.00)
Target Amount
23,905,745.50
23,423,545.50
Appendix II. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -18
Peconic County
Capital Projects and Debt
New Money Bonds for Capital Improvemenj Projects
1999 Financing
Construction Fund Cashtlows
Date
Beginning
Balance
Interest
Earnings
Drawdown
Ending
Balance
1/15/99
23,420,996.67
0.00
2,000,000.00
21,420,996.87
2/15/99
21,420,996.87
95,788.25
2,000,000.00
19,516,785.12
3/15/99
19,516,785.12
87,273.19
2,000,000.00
17,604,058.31
4/15/99
17,604,058.31
78,720.05
2,000,000.00
15,682,778.36
5/15/99
15,682,778.36
70,128.66
2,000,000.00
13,752,907.02
6/15/99
13,752,907.02
61,496.86
2,000,000.00
11,814,405.88
7/15/99
11,814,405.88
52,830.47
2,000,000.00
9,867,236.35
8/15/99
9,867,236.35
44,123.31
2,000,000.00
7,911,359.66
9/15/99
7,911,359.66
35,377.22
2,000,000.00
5,946,736.88
10/15/99
5,946,736.88
26,592.02
2,000,000.00
3,973,328.90
11/15/99
3,973,328.90
17,767.53
2,000,000.00
1,991,096.43
12/15/99
1,991,096.43
8,903.58
2,000,000.00
0.01
579,003.14 24,000,000.00
Appendix II. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -19
Peconic County
Capital Projects and Debt
Repayment of Suffolk County G.O. Debt
Sources and Uses of Funds
Sources:
Par Amount of Bonds 66,220,000.00
Accrued Interest 0.00
Total Sources 66,220,000.00
Uses:
Amount to be Paid to Suffolk County
64,332,805.00
Accrued Interest
0.00
Bond Insurance Premium
0.500%
560,982.50
Underwriters' Discount + Costs of Issuance
2.000%
1,324,400.00
Rounding
1,812.50
Total Sources
66,220,000.00
Assumptions
Dated Date
1/15/96
Delivery Date
1/15196
Appendix H. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -20
Peconic County
Capital Projects and Debt
Repayment of Suffolk County G.O. Debt
Debt Service Schedule
Date
Principal
Interest
Rate
Interest
Total
Debt Service
Annual
Debt Service
1/15/96
7/15/96
3,625,000.00
6.000%
1,986,600.00
5,611,600.00
5,611,600.00
1/15/97
1,877,850.00
1,877,850.00
7/15/97
1,855,000.00
6.000%
1,877,850.00
3,732,850.00
5,610,700.00
1/15/98
1,822,200.00
1,822,200.00
7/15/98
1,965,000.00
6.000%
1,822,200.00
3,787,200.00
5,609,400.00
1/15/99
1,763,250.00
1, 763, 250.00
7/15/99
2,085,000.00
6.000%
1,763,250.00
3,848,250.00
5,611,500.00
1/15/00
1,700, 700.00
1,700,700.00
7/15/00
2,210,000.00
6.000%
1,700,700.00
3,910,700.00
5,611,400.00
1/15/01
1,634,400.00
1,634,400.00
7/15/01
2,340,000.00
6.000%
1,634,400.00
3,974,400.00
5,608,800.00
1/15/02
1,564, 200.00
1,564, 200.00
7/15/02
2,480,000.00
6.000%
1,564,200.00
4,044,200.00
5,608,400.00
1/15/03
1,489,800.00
1,489,800.00
7/15/03
2,630,000.00
6.000%
1,489,800.00
4,119,800.00
5,609,600.00
1/15/04
1,410,900.00
1,410,900.00
7/15/04
2,790,000.00
6.000%
1,410,900.00
4,200,900.00
5,611,800.00
1/15/05
1,327,200.00
1, 327, 200.00
7/15/05
2,955,000.00
6.000%
1,327,200.00
4,282,200.00
5,609,400.00
1/15/06
1,238,550.00
1,238,550.00
7/15/06
3,130,000.00
6.000%
1,238,550.00
4,368,550.00
5,607,100.00
1/15/07
1,144,650.00
1,144,650.00
7/15/07
3,320,000.00
6.000%
1,144,650.00
4,464,650.00
5,609,300.00
1/15/08
1,045,050.00
1,045,050.00
7/15/08
3,520,000.00
6.000%
1,045,050.00
4,565,050.00
5,610,100.00
1/15/09
939,450.00
939,450.00
7/15/09
3,730,000.00
6.000%
939,450.00
4,669,450.00
5,608,900.00
1/15/10
827,550.00
827,550.00
7/15/10
3,955,000.00
6.000%
827,550.00
4,782,550.00
5,610,100.00
1/15/11
708,900.00
708,900.00
7/15/11
4,190,000.00
6.000%
708,900.00
4,898,900.00
5,607,800.00
1/15/12
583,200.00
583,200.00
7/15/12
4,445,000.00
6.000%
583,200.00
5,028,200.00
5,611,400.00
1/15/13
449,850.00
449,850.00
7/15/13
4,710,000.00
6.000%
449,850.00
5,159,850.00
5,609,700.00
1/15/14
308,550.00
308,550.00
7/15/14
4,995,000.00
6.000%
308,550.00
5,303,550.00
5,612,100.00
1/15/15
158,700.00
158,700.00
7/15/15
5,290,000.00
6.000%
158,700.00
5,448,700.00
5,607,400.00
66,220,000.00 45,976,500.00 112,196,500.00 112,196,500.00
Appendix II. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -21
Peconic County
Capital Projects and Debt
Repayment of Suffolk County G.O. Debt
Debt Service to be Repaid
Suffolk County
General Purpose Peconic Share @
Fiscal Year Debt Service 14.39
1996
70,255,920.86
10,106,926.58
1997
65,535,698.76
9,427,881.49
1998
60,034,740.11
8,636,520.64
1999
56,622,032.89
8,145,572.96
2000
51,575,568.86
7,419,595.12
2001
47,893,703.80
6,889,926.74
2002
44,922,635.19
6,462,512.63
2003
40,093,901.75
5,767,857.23
2004
31,377,096.63
4,513,868.84
2005
25,737,971.43
3,702,631.53
2006
18,797,883.11
2,704,239.33
2007
17, 325,849.31
2,492,474.44
2008
15,611,797.54
2,245,893.15
2009
13,963,308.55
2,008,743.64
2010
12, 245,363.94
1,761,602.34
2011 10,456,129.74 1,504,205.40
2012 9,645,010.91 1,387,518.89
2013 8,974,154.71 1,291,010.38
2014 7,497,337.58 1,078,557.36
2015
5,169,436.05
743,668.43
2016
3,271,171.50
470,586.53
2017
3,139,261.86
451,610.18
2018
2,965,567.34
426,622.71
2019
2,661,386.53
382,863.65
2020
2,192,451.68
315,403.28
627,965,380.63 90,338,293.49
Appendix II. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -22
Peconic County
Capital Projects and Debt
Repayment of Suffolk County G.O. Debt
Cash Flow Requirements for Repayment "Escrow"
Suffolk County Peconic
General Purpose Share @ Present Value Present Value
Date Debt Service 14.39% @ 6.000% of Peconic Share
1/15/96
1,607,532.06
231,257.50
1.00000000
231,257.50
2/1/96
1,054,787.50
151,740.38
0.99737600
151,342.21
2/15/96
3,521,606.29
506,613.76
0.99508565
504,124.08
3/1/96
666,630.00
98,777.71
0.99247454
98,034.36
3/15/96
651,750.00
93,759.92
0.99019545
92,840.64
4/l/96
10, 254,673.15
1,475, 224.11
0.98759717
1,456, 927.17
4/15/96
2,346,561.29
337,573.29
0.98532928
332,620.85
5/1/96
4,919,036.96
707,646.34
0.98274377
695,435.04
6/15/96
7,696,326.17
1,107,183.60
0.97566857
1,080,244.24
7/15/96
8,153,060.86
1,172,888.87
0.97087379
1,138,727.06
8/1/96
781,093.75
112,367.14
0.96832621
108,608.05
8/15/96
399,846.91
57,521.46
0.96610257
55,571.63
9/1/96
67,680.00
9,736.36
0.96356752
9,381.64
9/15/96
538,250.00
77,431.95
0.96135480
74,439.58
10/1/96
9,233,707.01
1,328,349.24
0.95883221
1,273,664.03
10/15/96
4,889,989.29
703,467.58
0.95663037
672,958.45
11/1/96
12,198,919.46
1,754,920.89
0.95412017
1,674,405.42
12/15/96
1,254;470.16
180,466.47
0.94725103
170,947.05
1/15/97
1,492,985.31
214,778.95
0.94259591
202,449.76
2/1/97
1,018,275.00
146,487.73
0.94012254
137,716.42
2/15/97
3,039,846.91
437,308.47
0.93796366
410,179.46
3/1/97
662,680.00
95,332.29
0.93550244
89,183.59
3/15/97
552,750.00
79,517.91
0.93335418
74,218.37
4/1/97
10,062,434.89
1,447,568.97
0.93090506
1,347,549.27
4/15/97
2,193,668.08
315,578.27
0.92876735
293,098.80
5/1/97
4,411,058.58
634,569.22
0.92633026
587,820.68
6/15/97
7,252,369.71
1,043,316.60
0.91966120
959,497.79
7/15/97
7,917,019.02
1,138,932.19
0.91514166
1,042,284.30
8/1/97
644,225.00
92,677.38
0.91274033
84,590.38
8/15/97
328,187.53
47,212.64
0.91064433
42,993.92
9/1/97
48,717.50
7,008.44
0.90825480
6,365.45
9/15/97
516,500.00
74,303.03
0.90616910
67,331.11
10/1/97
8,693,564.85
1,250,645.08
0.90379132
1,130,322.16
10/15/97
4,929,161.08
709,102.78
0.90171587
639,409.24
11/1/97
10,674,346.08
1,535,597.72
0.89934977
1,381,039.46
12/15/97
1,097,909.22
157,943.81
0.89287495
141,024.07
1/15/98
1,374,140.69
197,682.12
0.88848705
175,638.00
2/1/98
983,125.00
141,431.10
0.88615566
125,329.97
2/15/98
2,868,187.53
412,613.78
0.88412071
364,800.38
3/1/98
638,717.50
91,885.08
0.88180078
81,024.33
3/15/98
531,000.00
76,388.98
0.87977583
67,205.18
4/1/98
9,818,206.67
1,412,434.61
0.87746730
1,239,365.18
4/15/98
2,040,266.50
293,510.12
0.87545230
256,954.11
5/1/98
3,768,932.75
542,193.83
0.87315511
473,419.31
6/15/98
6,645,374.52
955,995.05
0.86686888
828.722.36
7/15/98
7,776,680.44
1,118,743.26
0.86260878
965,037.77
8/1/98
259,075.00
37,270.20
0.86034530
32,065.24
8/15/98
258,978.15
37,256.26
0.85836962
31,979.65
9/1/98
29,577.50
4,254.98
0.85611726
3,642.76
9/15/98
494,750.00
71,174.10
0.85415129
60,793.45
10/1/98
8,852,262.99
1,273,475.19
0.85191000
1,084,886.25
10/15/98
3,177,779.50
457,151.28
0.84995369
388,557.42
11/1/98
9,569,822.75
1,376,702.42
0.84772341
1,167,062.87
12/15/98
947,862.62
136,358.30
0.84162027
114,761.91
1/15/99
1,249,291.16
179,721.42
0.83748426
150,513.86
2/1/99
956,675.00
137,626.04
0.83528670
114,957.20
2/15/99
2,498,978.15
359,499.79
0.83336856
299,595.82
3/1/99
589,577.50
84,815.86
0.83118180
70,497.40
3/15/99
509,250.00
73,260.05
0.82927310
60,752.59
4/1/99
9,417,989.89
1,354,859.93
0.82709709
1,120,600.70
4/15/99
1,832,641.04
263,641.39
0.82519776
217,556.28
5/1/99
3,468,853.25
499,024.78
0.82303244
410,713.58
Appendix II. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -23
Peconic County
Capital Projects and Debt
Repayment of Suffolk County G.O. Debt
Cash Flow Requirements for Repayment "Escrow"
Suffolk County Peconic
General Purpose Share @ Present Value Present Value
Date Debt Service 14.39% @ 6.000% of Peconic Share
6/15/99
6,448,618.41
927,689.97
0.81710706
758,022.02
7/15/99
7,525,335.82
1,082,585.15
0.81309151
880,240.80
8/1/99
232,625.00
33,465.13
0.81095796
27,138.82
8/15/99
197,637.52
28,431.88
0.80909569
23,004.11
9/1/99
11,212.50
1,613.02
0.80697263
1,301.66
9/15/99
473,000.00
68,045.17
0.80511951
54,784.50
10/1/99
8,622,680.77
1,240,447.79
0.80300688
996,088.10
10/15/99
2,687,122.04
386,565.93
0.80116287
309,702.27
11/1/99
9,106,343.25
1,310,026.85
0.79906062
1,046,790.87
12/15/99
794,201.59
114,252.82
0.79330783
90,637.66
1/15/00
1,120,632.25
161,212.72
0.78940923
127,262.81
2/1/00
930,225.00
133,820.97
0.78733782
105,362.31
2/15/00
2,437,637.52
350,675.40
0.78552980
275,465.98
3/1/00
336,212.50
48,367.10
0.78346857
37,894.10
3/15/00
487,500.00
70,131.12
0.78166943
54,819.36
4/1/00
8,562,473.18
1,231,786.40
0.77961833
960,323.25
4/15/00
1,736,866.42
249,863.37
0.77782803
194,350.74
5/1/00
3,181,377.45
457,668.88
0.77578701
355,053.57
6/15/00
5,837,322.19
839,749.68
0.77020177
646,776.69
7/15/00
7,275,181.83
1,046,598.32
0.76641673
802,130.46
8/1/00
206,175.00
29,660.07
0.76440565
22,672.33
8/15/00
136,296.89
19,607.50
0.76265029
14,953.66
9/1/00
0.00
0.00
0.76064910
0.00
9/15/00
451,250.00
64,916.25
0.75890236
49,265.09
10/1/00
6,553,504.04
942,778.68
0.75691100
713,599.55
10/15/00
2,648,200.42
380,966.71
0.75517285
287,695.72
11/1/00
9,026,567.45
1,298,550.41
0.75319127
978,056.83
12/15/00
648,146.72
93,241.56
0.74776871
69,723.12
1/15/01
988,309.44
142,176.93
0.74409391
105,792.99
2/1/01
903,775.00
130, 015.91
0.74214141
96,490.19
2/15/01
1,951,296.89
280,711.07
0.74043718
207,848.91
3/1/01
0.00
0.00
0.73849427
0.00
3/15/01
465,750.00
67,002.20
0.73679841
49,367.11
4/1/01
7,802,775.07
1,122,497.20
0.73486505
824,883.96
4/15/01
1,639,038.58
235,789.99
0.73317752
172,875.92
5/1/01
2,862,627.05
411,813.85
0.73125366
301,140.39
6/15/01
5,712,519.27
821,795.69
0.72598904
596,614.66
7/15/01
7,031,363.93
1,011,522.99
0.72242128
730,745.73
8/1/01
179,725.00
25,855.01
0.72052564
18,629.20
8/15/01
86,031.26
12,376.35
0.71887104
8,897.00
9/1/01
0.00
0.00
0.71698473
0.00
9/15/01
404,500.00
58,190.85
0.71533826
41,626.14
10/1/01
5,948,557.13
855,757.79
0.71346121
610,545.71
10/15/01
2,561,822.58
368,540.51
0.71182284
262,335.55
11/1/01
8,858,167.05
1,274,324.54
0.70995501
904,713.09
12/15/01
497,445.55
71,561.88
0.70484373
50,439.94
1/15/02
855,362.24
123,051.31
0.70137988
86,305.72
2/1/02
902,325.00
129,807.32
0.69953946
90,805.34
2/15/02
1,751,031.26
251,901.11
0.69793305
175,810.11
3/1/02
0.00
0.00
0.69610168
0.00
3/15/02
444,750.00
63,981.16
0.69450316
44,435.12
4/1/02
7,569,100.78
1,088,881.12
0.69268079
754,247.03
4/15/02
1,446,589.11
208,104.45
0.69109013
143,818.93
5/1/02
2,437,841.30
350.704.72
0.68927671
241,732.60
6/15/02
4,968,230.33
714,723.24
0.68431430
489,095.33
7/15/02
6,781,921.65
975,638.54
0.68095134
664,362.37
8/1/02
152,537.50
21,943.85
0.67916452
14,903.48
8/15/02
39,815.63
5,727.83
0.67760491
3,881.20
9/1/02
0.00
0.00
0.67562687
0.00
9/15/02
383,500.00
55,169.82
0.67427492
37,199.62
10/1/02
5,791,022.25
833,089.03
0.67250562
560,257.05
10/15/02
2,523,996.11
363,098.84
0.67096129
243,625.27
11/1/02
8,450,851.30
1,215,728.62
0.66920069
813,566.43
12/15/02
423,760.73
60,961.67
0.66438282
40,501.89
Appendix II. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -24
Peconic County
Capital Projects and Debt
Repayment of Suffolk County G.O. Debt
Cash Flow Requirements for Repayment "Escrow"
Date
Suffolk County
General Purpose
Debt Service
Peconic
Share @
14.39%
Present Value Present Value
@ 6.000% of Peconic Share
1/15/03
719,051.38
103,441.81
0.66111781
68,387.22
2/1/03
875,137.50
125,896.16
0.65938303
83,013.79
2/15/03
1,454,815.63
209,287.91
0.65786884
137,683.99
3/1/03
0.00
0.00
0.65614259
0.00
3/15/03
423,750.00
60,960.13
0.65463584
39,906.69
4/1/03
7,332,868.69
1,054,897.08
0.65291808
688,761.37
4/15/03
457,188.00
65,770.48
0.65141873
42,844.12
5/1/03
1,397,767.22
201,081.00
0.64970941
130,644.22
6/15/03
4,605,956.65
662,607.01
0.64503186
427,402.63
7/15/03
6,439,114.59
926,322.76
0.64186195
594,571.33
8/1/03
50,350.00
7,243.29
0.64017770
4,636.99
8/15/03
0.00
0.00
0.63870761
0.00
9/1/03
0.00
0.00
0.63703164
0.00
9/15/03
362,500.00
52,148.78
0.63556878
33,144.14
10/1/03
5,505,436.53
792,005.03
0.63390105
502,052.62
10/15/03
2,174,059.00
312,757.34
0.63244537
197,801.93
11/1/03
7,943,679.72
1,142,767.57
0.63078583
720,841.59
12/15/03
352,226.84
50,670.90
0.62624453
31,732.37
1/15/04
584,629.89
84,104.11
0.62316694
52,410.90
2/1/04
750,350.00
107,944.39
0.62153175
67,090.86
2/15/04
0.00
0.00
0.62010448
0.00
3/1/04
0.00
0.00
0.61847732
0.00
3/15/04
327,750.00
47,149.69
0.61705707
29,094.05
4/1/04
5,669,333.13
815,582.99
0.61543791
501,940.69
4/15/04
419,646.84
60,369.86
0.61402463
37,068.58
5/1/04
1;095,981.99
157,666.56
0.61241343
96,557.12
6/15/04
3,867,055.43
556,309.63
0.60800439
338,238.70
7/15/04
4,103,198.01
590,280.80
0.60501645
357,129.59
8/1/04
28,762.b0
4,137.74
0.60342888
2,496.83
8/15/04
0.00
0.00
0.60204318
0.00
9/1/04
0.00
0.00
0.60046342
0.00
9/15/04
343,750.00
49,451.43
0.59908453
29,625.59
10/1/04
5,103,390.31
734,167.18
0.59751253
438,674.09
10/15/04
2,132,859.84
306,830.48
0.59614042
182,914.05
11/1/04
6,664,901.99
958,804.24
0.59457615
570,082.13
12/15/04
285,486.70
41,069.75
0.59029553
24,243.29
1/15/05
500,184.25
71,955.86
0.58739461
42,266.49
2/1/05
353,762.50
50,891.82
0.58585328
29,815.14
2/15/05
0.00
0.00
0.58450794
0.00
3/1/05
0.00
0.00
0.58297419
0.00
3/15/05
309,000.00
44,452.34
0.58163547
25,855.06
4/1/05
4,880,735.54
702,136.35
0.58010925
407,315.79
4/15/05
381,334.54
54,858.30
0.57877710
31,750.73
5/1/05
790,602.29
113,735.03
0.57725839
65,654.50
6/15/05
3,163,489.82
455,095.58
0.57310245
260,816.40
7/15/05
2,857,257.28
411,041.36
0.57028603
234,411.15
8/1/05
19,175.00
2,756.49
0.56878960
1,569.00
8/15/05
0.00
0.00
0.56748344
0.00
9/1/05
0.00
0.00
0.56599436
0.00
9/15/05
0.00
0.00
0.56469463
0.00
10/1/05
4,327,282.93
622,517.37
0.56321287
350,609.79
10/15/05
2,102,736.54
302,496.98
0.56191952
169,978.96
11/1/05
5,827,402.29
838,322.61
0.56044504
469,833.75
12/15/05
225,008.45
32,369.43
0.55641015
18,010.68
1/15/06
442,435.96
63,648.27
0.55367575
35,240.50
2/1/06
344,175.00
49,512.57
0.55222291
27,341.98
2/15/06
0.00
0.00
0.55095480
0.00
3/1/06
0.00
0.00
0.54950909
0.00
3/15/06
0.00
0.00
0.54824721
0.00
4/1/06
4,183,465.32
601,827.95
0.54680861
329,084.70
4/15/06
341,979.79
49,196.77
0.54555293
26,839.44
5/1/06
639,290.66
91,967.53
0.54412140
50,041.50
6/15/06
1,892,644.00
272,273.34
0.54020403
147,083.15
7/15/06
2,663,013.91
383,097.76
0.53754928
205,933.92
Appendix II. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -25
Peconic County
Capital Projects and Debt
Repayment of Suffolk County G.O. Debt
Cash Flow Requirements for Repayment "Escrow"
Suffolk County Peconic
General Purpose Share @ Present Value Present Value
Date Debt Service 14.39% @ 6.000% of Peconic Share
8/1/06
9,587.50
1.379.25
0.53613875
739.47
8/15/06
0.00
0.00
0.53490757
0.00
9/1/06
0.00
0.00
0.53350397
0.00
9/15/06
0.00
0.00
0.53227885
0.00
10/1/06
3,456,762.90
497,285.47
0.53088215
263,999.98
10/15/06
2,050,807.79
295,026.58
0.52966304
156,264.67
11/1/06
2,574,290.66
370,334.15
0.52827320
195,637.61
12/15/06
199,429.62
28,689.69
0.52446993
15,046.88
1/15/07
386,921.50
55,662.03
0.52189250
29,049.60
2/1/07
334,587.50
48,133.33
0.52052305
25,054.51
2/15/07
0.00
0.00
0.51932774
0.00
3/1/07
0.00
0.00
0.51796502
0.00
3/15/07
0.00
0.00
0.51677558
0.00
4/1/07
3,858,680.08
555,104.76
0.51541956
286,111.85
4/15/07
302,064.83
43,454.66
0.51423596
22,345.95
5/1/07
578,821.91
83,268.58
0.51288661
42,707.34
6/15/07
1,303,525.93
187,523.57
0.50919411
95,485.90
7/15/07
2,571,005.49
369,861.55
0.50669175
187,405.80
8/1/07
0.00
0.00
0.50536219
0.00
8/15/07
0.00
0.00
0.50420169
0.00
9/1/07
0.00
0.00
0.50287866
0.00
9/15/07
0.00
0.00
0.50172386
0.00
10/1/07
3,224,128.22
463,818.95
0.50040734
232,098.40
10/15/07
2.044,143.83
294,067.91
0.49925821
146,815.82
11/1/07
2,533,821.91
364,512.37
0.49794816
181,508.26
12/15/07
188,148.11
27,066.75
0.49436321
13,380.80
1/15/08
331,227.36
47,649.94
0.49193374
23,440.61
2/1/08
0.00
0.00
0.49064290
0.00
2/15/08
0.00
0.00
0.48951620
0.00
3/1/08
0.00
0.00
0.48823171
0.00
3/15/08
0.00
0.00
0.48711055
0.00
4/1/08
3,694,425.92
531,475.37
0.48583237
258,207.94
4/15/08
260,690.46
37,502.59
0.48471671
18,178.13
5/1/08
517,728.16
74,479.71
0.48344482
36,006.83
6/15/08
1,177,955.64
169,459.19
0.47996428
81,334.36
7/15/08
2,488,502.88
357,992.83
0.47760557
170,979.37
8/1/08
0.00
0.00
0.47635233
0.00
8/15/08
0.00
0.00
0.47525845
0.00
9/1/08
0.00
0.00
0.47401137
0.00
9/15/08
0.00
0.00
0.47292286
0.00
10/1/08
3,047,782.14
438,450.03
0.47168191
206,808.95
10/15/08
1,592,989.46
229,165.42
0.47059875
107,844.96
11/1/08
2,322,728.16
334,144.69
0.46936390
156,835.46
12/15/08
177,767.36
25,573.38
0.46598474
11,916.81
1/15/09
275,138.20
39,581.03
0.46369473
18,353.51
2/1/09
0.00
0.00
0.46247799
0.00
2/15/09
0.00
0.00
0.46141597
0.00
3/1/09
0.00
0.00
0.46020521
0.00
3/15/09
0.00
0.00
0.45914841
0.00
4/1/09
3,223,002.33
463,656.98
0.45794360
212,328.75
4/15/09
228,715.29
32,902.69
0.45689199
15,032.97
5/1/09
461,321.91
66,365.18
0.45569311
30,242.15
6/15/09
1,164,063.52
167,460.68
0.45241237
75,761.28
7/15/09
2,098,660.82
301,910.65
0.45018906
135,916.87
8/1/09
0.00
0.00
0.44900776
0.00
8/15/09
0.00
0.00
0.44797667
0.00
9/1/09
0.00
0.00
0.44680118
0.00
9/15/09
0.00
0.00
0.44577515
0.00
10/1/09
2,840,483.23
408,628.27
0.44460544
181,678.35
10/15/09
1,232,465.29
177,300.87
0.44358446
78,647.91
11/1/09
2,296,321.91
330,345.92
0.44242049
146,151.81
12/15/09
143,136.05
20,591.37
0.43923531
9,044.46
1/15/10
227,270.73
32,694.88
0.43707675
14,290.17
2/1/10
0.00
0.00
0.43592986
0.00
Appendix II. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -26
Peconic County
Capital Projects and Debt
Repayment of Suffolk County G.O. Debt
Cash Flow Requirements for Repayment "Escrow"
Suffolk County Peconic
General Purpose Share @ Present Value Present Value
Date Debt Service 14.39% @ 6.000% of Peconic Share
2/15/10
0.00
0.00
0.43492880
0.00
3/1/10
0.00
0.00
0.43378755
0.00
3/15/10
0.00
0.00
0.43279141
0.00
4/1/10
2,762,354.21
397,388.73
0.43165577
171,535.14
4/15/10
204,375.91
29,401.26
0.43066452
12,662.08
5/1/10
403,978.16
58,115.78
0.42953446
24.962.73
6/15/10
1,136,024.03
163,426.96
0.42644205
69,692.13
7/15/10
2,019,858.52
290,574.25
0.42434636
123,304.13
8/1/10
0.00
0.00
0.42323288
0.00
8/15/10
0.00
0.00
0.42226097
0.00
9/1/10
0.00
0.00
0.42115296
0.00
9/15/10
0.00
0.00
0.42018584
0.00
10/1/10
1,893,353.47
272,375.40
0.41908327
114,147.97
10/15/10
1,226,005.91
176,371.64
0.41812089
73,744.67
11/1/10
2,263,978.16
325,692.99
0.41702375
135,821.71
12/15/10
108,164.84
15,560.46
0.41402141
6,442.36
1/15/11
179,767.16
25,861.07
0.41198676
10,654.42
2/1/11
0.00
0.00
0.41090571
0.00
2/15/11
0.00
0.00
0.40996211
0.00
3/1/11
0.00
0.00
0.40888637
0.00
3/15/11
0.00
0.00
0.40794741
0.00
4/1/11
2,478,963.52
356,620.51
0.40687696
145,100.67
4/15/11
179,410.34
25,809.74
0.40594262
10,477.27
5/1/11
345,853.16
49,753.99
0.40487742
20,144.27
6/15/11
1,122,442.45
161,473.13
0.40196253
64,906.15
7/15/11
1,942,828.55
279,492.82
0.39998715
111,793.54
8/1/11
0.00
0.00
0.39893758
0.00
8/15/11
0.00
0.00
0.39802147
0.00
9/1/11
0.00
0.00
0.39697706
0.00
9/15/11
0.00
0.00
0.39606545
0.00
10/1/11
1,510,974.92
217,366.91
0.39502617
85,865.62
10/15/11
1,022,673.34
147,120.47
0.39411905
57,982.98
11/1/11
1,600,853.16
230,296.68
0.39308488
90,526.14
12/15/11
72,363.14
10,410.07
0.39025488
4,062.58
1/15/12
132,164.50
19,013.02
0.38833703
7,383.46
2/1/12
0.00
0.00
0.38731804
0.00
2/15/12
0.00
0.00
0.38642861
0.00
3/1/12
0.00
0.00
0.38541462
0.00
3/15/12
0.00
0.00
0.38452956
0.00
4/1/12
2,299,965.03
330,870.02
0.38352056
126,895.45
4/15/12
158,815.39
22,846.96
0.38263985
8,742.16
5/1/12
306,184.41
44,047.30
0.38163580
16,810.03
6/15/12
1,093,127.30
157,255.89
0.37888824
59,582.41
7/15/12
1,780,700.63
256,169.31
0.37702625
96,582.55
6/1/12
0.00
0.00
0.37603693
0.00
8/15/12
0.00
0.00
0.37517341
0.00
9/1/12
0.00
0.00
0.37418895
0.00
9/15/12
0.00
0.00
0.37332967
0.00
10/1/12
1,380,082.62
198,536.91
0.37235006
73,925.23
10/15/12
1,016,477.39
146,229.13
0.37149500
54,323.39
11/1/12
1,441,184.41
207,326.94
0.37052020
76,816.82
12/15/12
36,309.23
5,223.40
0.36785266
1,921.44
1/15/13
87,654.02
12,609.79
0.36604490
4,615.75
2/1/13
0.00
0.00
0.36508440
0.00
2/15/13
0.00
0.00
0.36424603
0.00
3/1/13
0.00
0.00
0.36329024
0.00
3/15/13
0.00
0.00
0.36245599
0.00
4/1/13
2,188,164.89
314,786.59
0.36150491
113,796.90
4/15/13
137,802.67
19,824.12
0.36067476
7,150.06
5/1/13
270,259.41
38,879.17
0.35972835
13,985.94
6/15/13
1,063,660.07
153,016.77
0.35713850
54,648.18
7/15/13
1,717,906.36
247,135.80
0.35538340
87,827.96
8/1/13
0.00
0.00
0.35445087
0.00
8/15/13
0.00
0.00
0.35363692
0.00
Appendix II. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -27
Peconic County
Capital Projects and Debt
Repayment of Suffolk County G.O. Debt
Cash Flow Requirements for Repayment "Escrow"
Suffolk County Peconic
General Purpose Share @ Present Value Present Value
Date Debt Service 14.39% @ 6.000% of Peconic Share
9/1/13
0.00
0.00
0.35270898
0.00
9/15/13
0.00
0.00
0.35189902
0.00
10/1/13
1,276,477.21
183,632.37
0.35097564
64,450.49
10/15/13
886,970.67
127,598.46
0.35016967
44,681.11
11/1/13
1,345,259.41
193,527.29
0.34925082
67,589.57
12/15/13
0.00
0.00
0.34673641
0.00
1/15/14
43,637.21
6,277.59
0.34503243
2,165.97
2/1/14
0.00
0.00
0.34412706
0.00
2/15/14
0.00
0.00
0.34333661
0.00
3/1/14
0.00
0.00
0.34243590
0.00
3/15/14
0.00
0.00
0.34164954
0.00
4/1/14
2,083,939.88
299,792.92
0.34075305
102,155.35
4/15/14
119,448.05
17,183.64
0.33997055
5,841.93
5/1/14
236,203.16
33,979.88
0.33907847
11,521.85
6/15/14
0.00
0.00
0.33663729
0.00
7/15/14
1,659,830.02
238,781.02
0.33498294
79,987.57
8/1/14
0.00
0.00
0.33410394
0.00
8/15/14
0.00
0.00
0.33333671
0.00
9/1/14
0.00
0.00
0.33246204
0.00
9/15/14
0.00
0.00
0.33169858
0.00
10/1/14
1,209,151.05
173,946.92
0.33082820
57,546.55
10/15/14
818,925.05
117,809.51
0.33006850
38,885.21
11/1/14
1,326,203.16
190,785.88
0.32920240
62,807.17
12/15/14
0.00
0.00
0.32683232
0.00
1/15/15
0.00
0.00
0.32522615
0.00
2/1/15
0.00
0.00
0.32437276
0.00
2/15/15
0.00
0.00
0.32362788
0.00
3/1/15
0.00
0.00
0.32277868
0.00
3/15/15
0.00
0.00
0.32203746
0.00
4/1/15
1,649,157.95
237,245.75
0.32119243
76,201.54
4/15/15
102,310.86
14,718.31
0.32045485
4,716.55
5/1/15
201,668.78
29,011.81
0.31961398
9,272.58
6/15/15
0.00
0.00
0.31731293
0.00
7/15/15
0.00
0.00
0.31575355
0.00
8/1/15
0.00
0.00
0.31492501
0.00
8/15/15
0.00
0.00
0.31420182
0.00
9/1/15
0.00
0.00
0.31337736
0.00
9/15/15
0.00
0.00
0.31265772
0.00
10/1/15
1,146,931.82
164,996.14
0.31183731
51,451.95
10/15/15
777,697.86
111,878.62
0.39112121
34,807.81
11/1/15
1,291,668.78
185,817.81
0.31030483
57,660.16
12/15/15
0.00
0.00
0.30807081
0.00
1/15/16
0.00
0.00
0.30655684
0.00
2/1/16
0.00
0.00
0.30575244
0.00
2/15/16
0.00
0.00
0.30505031
0.00
3/1/16
0.00
0.00
0.30424986
0.00
3/15/16
0.00
0.00
0.30355119
0.00
4/1/16
385,847.47
55,507.52
0.30275467
16,805.16
4/15/16
85,763.88
12,337.88
0.30205943
3,726.77
5/1/16
167,128.15
24,042.84
0.30126683
7,243.31
6/15/16
0.00
0.00
0.29909787
0.00
7/15/16
0.00
0.00
0.29762800
0.00
8/1/16
0.00
0.00
0.29684702
0.00
8/15/16
0.00
0.00
0.29616535
0.00
9/1/16
0.00
0.00
0.29538821
0.00
9/15/16
0.00
0.00
0.29470989
0.00
10/1/16
616,542.97
88,695.08
0.29393657
26,070.73
10/15/16
758,760.88
109,154.37
0.29326158
32,010.76
11/1/16
1,257,128.15
180,848.84
0.29249206
52,696.85
12/15/16
0.00
0.00
0.29038628
0.00
1/15/17
0.00
0.00
0.28895922
0.00
2/1/17
0.00
0.00
0.28820099
0.00
2/15/17
0.00
0.00
0.28753918
0.00
3/1/17
0.00
0.00
0.28678467
0.00
Appendix II. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -28
Peconic County
Capital Projects and Debt
Repayment of Suffolk County G.O. Debt
Cash Flow Requirements for Repayment "Escrow"
Suffolk County Peconic
General Purpose Share @ Present Value Present Value
Date Debt Service 14.39% @ 6.000% of Peconic Share
3/15/17
0.00
0.00
0.28612611
0.00
4/1/17
359,723.74
51,749.40
0.28537531
14,768.00
4/15/17
68,995.45
9,925.60
0.28471998
2,826.02
5/1/17
132,581.27
19,072.97
0.28397288
5,416.21
6/15/17
0.00
0.00
0.28192843
0.00
7/15/17
0.00
0.00
0.28054294
0.00
8/1/17
0.00
0.00
0.27980679
0.00
8/15/17
0.00
0.00
0.27916425
0.00
9/1/17
0.00
0.00
0.27843172
0.00
9115/17
0.00
0.00
0.27779234
0.00
10/1/17
592,130.68
85,183.16
0.27706341
23,601.14
10/15/17
748,249.45
107,642.21
0.27642717
29,755.23
11/1/17
1,237,581.27
178,036.85
0.27570182
49,085.08
12/15/17
0.00
0.00
0.27371692
0.00
1/15/18
0.00
0.00
0.27237178
0.00
2/1118
0.00
0.00
0.27165708
0.00
2/15/18
0.00
0.00
0.27103325
0.00
3/1/18
0.00
0.00
0.27032206
0.00
3/15/18
0.00
0.00
0.26970130
0.00
411118
324,413.82
46,669.76
0.26899360
12,553.87
4/15/18
52,071.23
7,490.90
0.26837589
2,010.38
5/1/18
97,559.39
14,034.77
0.26767167
3,756.71
6/15/18
0.00
0.00
0.26574459
0.00
7/15/18
0.00
0.00
0.26443862
0.00
8/1/18
0.00
0.00
0.26374474
0.00
8/15/18
0.00
0.00
0.26313908
0.00
9/1/18
0.00
0.00
0.26244860
0.00
9/15/18
0.00
0.00
0.26184592
0.00
10/1/18
573,016.28
82,433.39
0.26115884
21,528.21
10/15/18
740,947.23
106,591.72
0.26055912
27,773.44
11/1/18
1,177,559.39
169,402.18
0.25987541
44,023.46
12/15/18
0.00
0.00
0.25800445
0.00
1115/19
0.00
0.00
0.25673653
0.00
2/1119
0.00
0.00
0.25606285
0.00
2115/19
0.00
0.00
0.25547483
0.00
3/1/19
0.00
0.00
0.25480447
0.00
3/15/19
0.00
0.00
0.25421934
0.00
4/1/19
190,966.18
27,472.15
0.25355227
6,965.63
4/15119
34,906.27
5,021.57
0.25297002
1,270.31
5/1/19
63,312.51
9,108.06
0.25230622
2,298.02
6/15/19
0.00
0.00
0.25048976
0.00
7/15119
0.00
0.00
0.24925876
0.00
8/1/19
0.00
0.00
0.24860471
0.00
8/15/19
0.00
0.00
0.24803382
0.00
9/1/19
0.00
0.00
0.24738298
0.00
9/15/19
0.00
0.00
0.24681489
0.00
10/1/19
546,695.79
78,646.95
0.24616725
19,360.30
10/15/19
732,193.27
105,332.38
0.24560196
25,869.84
11/1119
1,093,312.51
157,282.53
0.24495750
38,527.54
12/15/19
0.00
0.00
0.24319394
0.00
1115/20
0.00
0.00
0.24199880
0.00
2/1/20
0.00
0.00
0.24136380
0.00
2/15/20
0.00
0.00
0.24080953
0.00
3/1/20
0.00
0.00
0.24017765
0.00
3/15/20
0.00
0.00
0.23962611
0.00
4/1120
128,230.94
18,447.14
0.23899733
4,408.82
4/15120
17,530.24
2,521.88
0.23844850
601.34
5/1/20
30,628.13
4,406.12
0.23782281
1,047.88
6/15/20
0.00
0.00
0.23611062
0.00
7/15/20
0.00
0.00
0.23495029
0.00
8/1120
0.00
0.00
0.23433378
0.00
8/15/20
0.00
0.00
0.23379566
0.00
9/1/20
0.00
0.00
0.23318218
0.00
9/15/20
0.00
0.00
0.23264671
0.00
Appendix II. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -29
Peconic County
Capital Projects and Debt
Repayment of Suffolk County G.O. Debt ,
Cash Flow Requirements for Repayment "Escrow"
Suffolk County
General Purpose
Date Debt Service
10/1/20 299,425.00
10/15/20 721,009.24
11/1/20 995,628.13
12/15/20 0.00
Peconic
Share @ Present Value Present Value
14.39% @ 6.000% of Peconic Share
43,074.90 0.23203624 9,994.94
103,723.46 0.23150340 24,012.33
143,229.78 0.23089594 33,071.18
0.00 0.22923361 0.00
627,965,380.63 90,338,293.49
64,332,805.00
c,-r7,,tgs Detail Page II -30
Peconic County
Capital Projects and Debt
Repayment of Suffolk County G.O. Debt
Yield Calculations
Yield 6.11034645% 6.37679735%
Target Present Value
Par Amount of Bonds 66,220,000.00
+ Accrued Interest 0.00
Bond Insurance Premium (560,982.50)
Underwriters' Discount/Costs of Issuance
Target Amount
65,659.017.50
66,220,000.00
0.00
(560,982.50)
(1,324,400.00)
64,334,617.50
Appendix H. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -31
Arbitrage Yield
All -In
Yield
Present Value
Present Value
Date
Debt Service
PV Factor
Debt Service
PV Factor
Debt Service
1/15/96
1.00000000
1.00000000
7/15/96
5,611,600.00
0.97035400
5,445,238.53
0.96910119
5,438,208.24
1/15/97
1,877,850.00
0.94158689
1,768,158.95
0.93915712
1,763,596.19
7/15/97
3,732,850.00
0.91367261
3,410,602.81
0.91013828
3,397,409.68
1/15/98
1,822,200.00
0.88658588
1,615,536.79
0.88201609
1,607,209.72
7/15/98
3,767,200.00
0.86030216
3,258,136.33
0.85476284
3,237,157.84
1/15/99
1,763,250.00
0.83479764
1,471,956.94
0.82835169
1,460,591.12
7/15/99
3,848,250.00
0.81004924
3,117,271.97
0.80275661
3,089.208.12
1/15/00
1,700,700.00
0.78603452
1,336,808.91
0.77795239
1,323,063.62
7/15/00
3,910,700.00
0.76273174
2,982,815.03
0.75391458
2,948,333.76
1/15/01
1,634,400.00
0.74011980
1,209,651.80
0.73061952
1,194,124.54
7/15/01
3,974,400.00
0.71817821
2,854,327.49
0.70804425
2,814,051.05
1/15/02
1,564,200.00
0.69688710
1,090,070.81
0.68616652
1,073,301.67
7/15/02
4,044,200.00
0.67622719
2,734,798.01
0.66496479
2,689,250.62
1/15/03
1,489,800.00
0.65617976
977,576.61
0.64441817
960,054.19
7/15/03
4,119,800.00
0.63672666
2,623,186.50
0.62450642
2,572,841.54
1/15/04
1,410,900.00
0.61785027
871,724.94
0.60520991
853,890.67
7/15/04
4,200,900.00
0.59953348
2,518,580.19
0.58650965
2,463,868.38
1/15/05
1,327,200.00
0.58175971
772,111.49
0.56838720
754,363.49
7/15/05
4,282,200.00
0.56451287
2,417,357.00
0.55082471
2,358,741.57
1/15/06
1,238,550.00
0.54777732
678,449.60
0.53380488
661,144.04
7/15/06
4,366,550.00
0.53153792
2,322,049.96
0.51731095
2,259,698.74
1/15/07
1,144,650.00
0.51577995
590,387.51
0.50132665
573.843.56
7/15/07
4,464,650.00
0.50048914
2,234,508.82
0.48583626
2,169,088.85
1/15/08
1,045,050.00
0.48565164
507,530.24
0.47082450
492,035.14
7/15/08
4,565,050.00
0.47125401
2,151,298.12
0.45627658
2,082,925.40
1/15/09
939,450.00
0.45728322
429,594.72
0.44217818
415,404.29
7/15/09
4,669,450.00
0.44372660
2,071,959.17
0.42851540
2,000,931.22
1/15/10
827,550.00
0.43057188
356,319.76
0.41527478
343,660.65
7/15/10
4,782,550.00
0.41780715
1,998,183.59
0.40244328
1,924,705.13
1/15/11
708,900.00
0.40542084
287,402.83
0.39000827
276,476.86
7/15/11
4,898,900.00
0.39340174
1,927,235.77
0.37795748
1,851,575.88
1/15/12
583,200.00
0.38173895
222,630.16
0.36627904
213,613.94
7/15/12
5,028,200.00
0.37042192
1,862,555.50
0.35496145
1,784,817.18
1/15/13
449,850.00
0.35944039
161,694.26
0.34399357
154,745.51
7/15/13
5,159,850.00
0.34878442
1,799,675.31
0.33336458
1,720,111.20
1/15/14
308,550.00
0.33844436
104,427.01
0.32306401
99,681.40
7/15/14
5,303,550.00
0.32841084
1,741,743.33
0.31308171
1,660,444.52
1/15/15
158,700.00
0.31867478
50,573.69
0.30340786
48,150.83
7/15/15
5,448,700.00
0.30922735
1,684,887.04
0.29403292
1,602,097.17
112,196,500.00
65,659,017.50
64,334,617.50
Delivery Date
1/15/96
Yield 6.11034645% 6.37679735%
Target Present Value
Par Amount of Bonds 66,220,000.00
+ Accrued Interest 0.00
Bond Insurance Premium (560,982.50)
Underwriters' Discount/Costs of Issuance
Target Amount
65,659.017.50
66,220,000.00
0.00
(560,982.50)
(1,324,400.00)
64,334,617.50
Appendix H. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -31
Peconic County
Capital Projects and Debt
Repayment of Suffolk County Drinking Water Debt
Sources and Uses of Funds
Sources:
Par Amount of Bonds 12,165,000.00
Accrued Interest 0.00
Total Sources 12,165,000.00
Uses:
Amount to be Paid to Suffolk County
11,850,563.72
Accrued Interest
0.00
Bond Insurance Premium
0.500%
68,696.54
Underwriters' Discount + Costs of Issuance
2.000%
243,300.00
Rounding
2,439.74
Total Sources
12,165,000.00
Assumptions
Dated Date
1/15/96
Delivery Date
1/15/96
Appendix H. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page I1-32
Peconic County
Capital Projects and Debt
Repayment of Suffolk County Drinking Water Debt
Debt Service Schedule
Appendix H. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -33
Interest
Total
Annual
Date
Principal
Rate
Interest
Debt Service
Debt Service
1/15/96
7/15/96
2,445,000.00
4.700%
303,187.50
2,748,187.50
2,748,187.50
1/15/97
245,730.00
245,730.00
7/15/97
2,255,000.00
4.900%
245,730.00
2,500,730.00
2,746,460.00
1/15/98
190,482.50
190,482.50
7/15/96
2,365,000.00
5.000%
190,482.50
2,555,482.50
2,745,965.00
1/15/99
131,357.50
131,357.50
7/15/99
2,465,000.00
5.100%
131,357.50
2,616,357.50
2,747,715.00
1/15/00
67,990.00
67,990.00
7/15/00
2,615,000.00
5.200%
67,990.00
2,682,990.00
2,750,980.00
12,165,000.00
13,739,307.50
1,574,307.50
13,739,307.50
Appendix H. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -33
Peconic County
Capital Projects and Debt
Repayment of Suffolk County Drinking Water Debt
Debt Service to be Repaid
Suffolk County
Drinking Water Peconic Share @
Fiscal Year Debt Service 14.39
1996
18,597,600.00
2,675,426.86
1997
20,457,506.25
2,942,990.59
1998
19,326,918.75
2,780,345.72
1999
18,196,331.25
2,617,700.85
2000
17,065,743.75
2,455,055.99
93,644,100.00 13,471,520.01
i
Appendix II. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -34
Peconic County
Capital Projects and Debt
Repayment of Suffolk County Drinking Water Debt
Cash Flow Requirements for Repayment "Escrow"
Suffolk County Peconic
Drinking Water Share @ Present Value Present Value
Date Debt Service 14.39% @ 5.750% of Peconic Share
1/15/96 1.00000000
3/1/96 12,028,125.00 1,730,350.62 0.99278258 1,717,861.96
6/15/96 705,050.00 101,427.59 0.97665638 99,059.90
9/1/96 1,659,375.00 238,715.56 0.96503775 230,369.52
12/15/96 4,205,050.00 604,933.09 0.94936222 574,300.63
3/1/97 12,909,375.00 1,857,126.11 0.93806829 1,742,111.11
6/15/97 601,800.00 86,574.18 0.92283083 79,893.32
9/1/97 1,244,531.25 179,036.67 0.91185253 163,255.04
12/15/97 5,701,800.00 820,253.63 0.89704091 735,801.06
3/1/98 12,494,531.25 1,797,447.23 0.88636941 1,593,202.23
6/15/98 451,350.00 64,930.63 0.67197172 56.617.67
§/1/98 829,687.50 119,357.78 0.86159845 102,838.48
12/15/98 5,551,350.00 798,610.08 0.84760313 676,904.41
3/1/99 12,079,687.50 1,737,768.34 0.83751976 1,455,415.31
6/15/99 300,900.00 43,287.09 0.82391556 35,664.91
9/1/99 414,843.75 59,678.89 0.81411398 48,585.42
12/15/99 5,400,900.00 776,966.54 0.80088997 622,264.71
3/1/00 11,664,843.75 1,678,089.45 0.79136231 1,327,976.75
6/15/00 150,450.00 21,643.54 0.77850787 16,649.67
9/1/00 0.00 0.00 0.76924648 0.00
12/15/00 5,250,450.00 755,323.00 0.75675127 571,591.64
93,644,100.00 13,471,520.01 11,850,563.72
Appendix II. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -35
Peconic County
Capital Projects and Debt
Repayment of Suffolk County Drinking Water Debt
Yield Calculations
13,739,307.50 12,096,303.46
11,853,003.46
Delivery Date
1/15/96
Arbitrage Yield
All -In Yield
Yield
Present Value
6.20689217%
Present Value
Date
Debt Service
PV Factor
Debt Service
PV Factor
Debt Service
1/15/96
12,165,000.00
1.00000000
0.00
1.00000000
Bond Insurance Premium
7/15/96
2,748,187.50
0.97407789
2,676,948.67
0.96989969
2,665,466.19
1/15/97
245,730.00
0.94882773
233,155.44
0.94070540
231,159.54
7/15/97
2,500,730.00
0.92423211
2,311,254.96
0.91238987
2,281,640.73
1/15/98
190,482.50
0.90027406
171,486.45
0.88492665
168,563.04
7/15/98
2,555,482.50
0.87693705
2,240,997.29
0.85829008
2,193,345.28
1/15/99
131,357.50
0.85420499
112,206.23
0.83245528
109,349.24
7/15/99
2,616,357.50
0.83206219
2,176,972.16
0.80739812
2,112,442.12
1/15/00
67,990.00
0.81049338
55,105.44
0.78309518
53,242.64
7/15/00
2,682,990.00
0.78948368
2,116,176.82
0.75952377
2,037,794.68
13,739,307.50 12,096,303.46
11,853,003.46
Delivery Date
1/15/96
Yield
5.32239034%
6.20689217%
Target Present Value
Par Amount of Bonds
12,165,000.00
12,165,000.00
+Accrued Interest
0.00
0.00
Bond Insurance Premium
(68,696.54)
(68,696.54)
Underwriters' DiscountfCosts of
Issuance
(243,300.00)
Target Amount
12,096,303.46
11,853,003.46
Appendix H. Debt: Bond Sizings Detail Page II -36
APPENDIX III.
SUMMARY OF SUFFOLK
COUNTY BALANCE SHEET
SUMMARY OF SUFFOLK COUNTY BALANCE SHEET
The following pages contain an explanation of Suffolk County's audited balance sheet
from its General Purpose financial statements, fiscal year ended December 31, 1993.
The assets and liabilities presented in the balance sheet conform to Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles ("GAAP") of governmental entities. These accounting principles
have been developed to provide a standard method of evaluating and presenting the financial
position of a government or an enterprise, but the individual items do not represent a specific
"value" of a specific asset or liability. That is, the dollar amount on a GAAP basis does not
necessarily reflect the dollar amount for which Suffolk County could sell a respective asset,
or the dollar amount Suffolk would have to pay another party to take and be responsible for a
respective liability, or the dollar amount to replace a respective asset. .
For example, as described below, fixed assets (e.g., buildings) are valued at historical
cost plus the cost of additional improvements made to the building since its purchase or
construction. This historical cost basis may or may not have anything to do with the value of
the asset if it were sold or had to be replaced.
Description of Major Suffolk County Funds
Suffolk County has created separate funds and accounts in accordance with GAAP due
to past and present financial practices, past political initiatives and in general to enable the
County to perform its various functions. While most County functions are performed
County -wide for the benefit of the entire County and accounted for in the County's main
general purpose fund, (i.e., the General Fund), there are often specific County functions that
have targeted uses and purposes and are established by legislative authorization that benefit
limited and specific groups of citizens. These funds are usually funded by dedicated revenue
streams and are segregated into special funds in order to prevent the commingling of
resources or liabilities as well as to better match sources and uses of funds. An example of
this in Suffolk County is the Police District. There is an independent property tax levy to
fund Police District operations and purchases. These revenues, and the operations, assets
and liabilities that they support are accounted for in the Police District Fund.
Suffolk County utilizes transfers between funds to alternate the cost or the benefit of
certain pay for employee benefits, payments in claims against the County, and debt service.
In the past, Suffolk County has been criticized for over utilization and inadequate tracking of
interfund transfers.
Appendix III Page III -1
V
to
0a
0)
r�4
N
BALANCE SHEET - ALL FUND TYPES AND ACCOUNT GROUPS
CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS
PROPERTY TAX RECEIVABLE (net of
allotxence for estimated uncollectibles
of 96,343,000)
DUE FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTS:
Now York Stec end Federal sources:
Programs of e"lalance
Gkents4n-ald
Sobs tax
Other
Total due from other governments
DUE FROM OTHER FUNDS
CONTRACTORS'BONDSHELD
INVESTMENT SECURITIES
OTHER ASSETS
FIXED ASSETS
AMOUNTS TO BE PROVIDED IN FUTURE
BUDGETS FOR RETIREMENT OF LONG-
TERM
ONGTERM DEBT
AMOUNTS AVAILABLE IN SEGREGATED
FUNDS FOR FUTURE RETIREMENT
OF LONGTERM DEBT
AMOUNTS TO BE PROVIDED BY PAYMENTS
TO BE RECEIVED FROM NEW YORK STATE
AND HOSPITALS
TOTAL ASSETS
FIDUCIARY
GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPES FUND TYPE ACCOUNT GROUPS TOTALS MEMORANDUM ONLY
TRUST GENERAL
SPECIAL CAPITAL AND GENERAL LONG-TERM DECEMBER 31, DECEMBER 31,
ME & REVENUE PROJECTS AGENCY FIXED ASSETS am An im
$26,346,506
$62,970,859 $114,761,631
{47,236,683
$251,214,679
9288,908,610
121,100,854
121,100,064
106,408,400
22,931,622
22,931,622
27,144,669
71,280,388
16,082,671
87,362,959
91,092,7"
17,118,784
17,119,784
16,892,627
2,200,000
2,200,000
3,800,000
78,699,035
78,699,035
38.110.618
192,129,829
18,092,671
208,212,400
176,460,741
30,662,861
10,442,002
2,461,647
51,656,400
104,9119,672
1,326,400
1,326,400
1,264,"0
110,904,296
110,904,298
92,471,9"
8,412,064
6,490,769 114,760
9,628,601
23,646,444
21,117,901
•
1,148,407,161
1,148,407,161
1,105,60,001
1,636,074,107 1 1,636,074,107 1,500,970,672
2,689,690 2,696,690 4,466,631
6,043,406 $,1
$378,641,004 $102,006,191 $116,202,781 $170,231,409 $1,148,407,151 $1,646,807,203 $3,663,1
00
ED BALANCE SHEET - ALL FUND TYPES AND ACCOUNT GROUPS
FIDUCIARY
GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPES FUND TYPE ACCOUNT GROUPS TOTALS MEMORANDUM ONLY
TRUST GENERAL
SPECIAL CAPITAL AND GENERAL LONG-TERM DECEMBER 31, DECEMBER 31,
91HEBAL REVENUE PROJECTS AGENCY FIXED ASSETS DEBT Im ion
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE AND ACCRUED LIABILITIES
$106,349,969 $33,332,406
$9,361,832 $32,601,634
RETIREMENT BENEFITS
7,991,963
68,363,978
CONTRACT RETAINAGE PAYABLE
4,730.833
4,730,833
NOTES PAYABLE
94,61
24,093,000
DUE TO STATE OF NEW YORK • MEDICAID CLAIMS
9,222,000
9,364,868
DUE TO MASS TRANSIT AUTHORITY •
8,866,000
8,687,986
MASS TRANSIT AUTHORITY AID
61,666,400
104,339,372
TO LONG ISLAND RAILROAD
134, 307,246
114,302,698
DUE TO OTHER FUNDS
36.922,147 11,920,926
100,004 2,614,334
AGENCY FUND LIABILITIES
28,390,706
134,307,246
DEFERRED TAX REVENUE
116,166.974
160,966,867
OTHER DEFERRED REVENUE
12,176,447 16,214,269
176.064,1184
ACCUMULATED VACATION AND SICK LEAVE
166,660,000
166,660,000
ESTIMATED LIABILITY FOR CLAIMS
1,041,490,000
986,016000
OBLIGATION UNDER CAPITAL LEASE
2,382.466,292
2,294,884 062
GENERAL LONG-TERM DEBT
416,844
33 216,666
Total IabONas
366,406,637 61,476,660 39,266,669 169,613,214
3TMENT IN GENERAL FIXED ASSETS
$190,736,920
8167,981,186
7,991,963
7,991,963
68,363,978
1,106,660,001
4,730.833
3,690,198
119, 703,000
196, 636,000
9,222,000
9,222,000
9,364,868
8,866,000
8,866,000
8,687,986
302,361
61,666,400
104,339,372
rved for debt service
134, 307,246
114,302,698
116,166,974
99.090,608
4,466,631
28,390,706
36,032,9N
171,603,262
171,603,262
160,966,867
240,984,978
240,984,979
176.064,1184
166,660,000
166,660,000
166,660,000
1,041,490,000
1,041,490,000
986,016000
1,640,807,203
2,382.466,292
2,294,884 062
3TMENT IN GENERAL FIXED ASSETS
1,148,407,161
1,140,407,161
1,106,660,001
I BALANCES (DEFICIT):
rved for encumbrances
12,462,480
9,870,237
67,231,232
302,361
70,946,300
06,620,401
rved for debt service
366,600
2,199,069
2,666,870
4,466,631
rve for water quality protection
16,672,662
16,672,862
rve for long-term deposits with Insurance company
2,620,266
larval
416,468
12,760,364
19,614,800
416,844
33 216,666
•34 406 072
equity and other credits
13,236,667
41,410,622
76,646,122
718,106 1,140,407,161
1,280,707,647
1 174 660 147
L LIABILITIES, EQUITY AND OTHER CREDITS
$379,641,094
$102,906,191
$116,112,701
$170,231,409 $1,148,407,161 $1,646,807,203
$3,663,176,829
$3,460,744,209
T
i11I1 IIIIII IN III VIII III
SUMMARY OF SUFFOLK COUNTY BALANCE SHEET
General Fund
The General Fund is the general operating fund of the County, responsible for most
County services including:
• General Government and Administration
• Economic Assistance
• Health
• Public Safety
• Culture and Recreation
• Education
• Home and Community Services
• General Transportation expenditures
• General Fund Employee Benefits (not including Police District, Sewer
District, or other Special Fund employees)
• Certain Debt Service Costs (not including Police District, Sewer District, or
other Special Fund debt service costs)
The assets and liabilities associated with the General Fund are for County -wide
purposes and are not assignable to the Police District, the District Court, the Sewer Districts,
or other Special Funds.
Special Revenue Funds
Special Revenue Funds are used to account for the uses of proceeds of specific and
designated revenue sources. The proceeds from these sources are legally restricted to
expenditures for specific purposes. Suffolk County has twenty-eight Special Revenue
Funds, not including the individual Sewer District funds. Each Sewer District has its own
,fund, as well. The Suffolk County Special Revenue Funds are:
1)
District Court
2)
Police District
3)
County Road
4)
Hotel and Motel Tax
5)
Assessment Stabilization Reserve
6)
Deficit Bond
7)
Environmental Trust
8)
Dislocated Workers (Fairchild)
9)
Federal Manpower Revenue
10)
Veterans' Grant
11)
Edge Program
12)
Dislocated Workers
13)
Displaced Homemakers
14)
Dislocated Workers (Grumman
28)
Corp.)
15)
Community Development Block Grants
16)
Community Development Rental Rehabilitation
17)
Housing Preservation
18)
State Home Improvement
19)
Environmental Preservation
20)
State Youth Conservation
21)
Suffolk County Nursing Home
22)
Housing Trust
23)
Community College
24)
Electrical Authority
25)
Community Development Emergency Shelter
Grant
26)
Water Quality Protection Reserve
& Hams 27)
Home Improvement Partnership
28)
Sewer Tax Rebate Reserve
Appendix III Page III -4
SUMMARY OF SUFFOLK COUNTY BALANCE SHEET
Capital Projects Funds
The Suffolk County Capital Projects Funds are used to account for financial resources
to be used for the acquisition or construction of major capital facilities. Suffolk County has
four Capital Projects Funds:
Road Construction Fund: funded solely from the County Road Fund, it is used for
construction or reconstruction of County roads. The County Road Fund is funded
through the General Fund and provides resources for work on roads in both the East
End and the Western Towns.
Capital Sewer Fund: accounts for capital projects involving the costs of acquisition
and construction of operating sewer districts other than the Southwest Sewer
District.
Southwest Sewer Fund: accounts for capital projects involving the costs of
acquisition and construction for the Southwest Sewer District.
Capital Fund: all capital projects not specifically accounted for by the Road
Construction, Capital Services and Southwest Services Funds.
Fiduciary Funds
Suffolk County has two fiduciary funds. Fiduciary Fund are established to account for
Suffolk's or a third party's individual service in a separate and distinct manner.
ExMndable Trust Funds: account for the assets and activities used to satisfy the
current year's claims and settlements, insurance department costs, and covered.
medical costs for County employees and retirees. These Trust Funds are funded by
transfers from the General Fund and Special Revenue Funds based upon the
departmental source of the current year's claims, settlements and costs.
The Agency Fund: is a custodial fund whose assets equal its liabilities. It is used to
account for assets held by the County as an agent for individuals, private
organizations, other governmental units and/or other funds.
Description of Major Account Groups
The Account Groups are used to establish accounting control for Suffolk County's
general fixed assets and long-term debt. They represent an aggregate of assets and liabilities
from all Suffolk County funds.
Appendix III Page III -5
SUMMARY OF SUFFOLK COUNTY BALANCE SHEET
General Fixed Assets Account Group: The General Fixed Assets Account of the
Suffolk County Balance Sheet includes all Suffolk County fixed assets. These
assets are not broken down by the fund or function to which they are assigned, and
therefore sewer district and District Court assets are included in this account. An
accurate schedule assigning assets to individual funds is not available.
General Lona -Terni Debt Account Group: This group accounts for all outstanding
long-term bonds as well as other long-term obligations of the County including
pension liabilities, medical assistance liabilities, estimated liability on claims and
litigation, and accrued vacation and sick leave.
Description of Major Asset / Liability Categories
Assets
Cash and cash equivalents: Cash and securities with an original maturity of three
months or less. These are both liquid and easily valued. The GAAP value of these
assets as of December 31, 1993 in the General Fund was $26,345,506.
Property Tax Receivables: Aggregate unpaid taxes transferred from the Towns Tax
Receivers to the County and interest and penalties on such unpaid taxes. [See
Chapter 3 "Revenue", for a description of Suffolk County's property tax collection
method.]
Due from Other Governments: Grants, repayments, fees for services or other funds
owed to the County from other governmental units. This consists mostly of federal
and State reimbursements or grants. A substantial portion of these funds are used for
Economic Assistance programs, which are paid on a reimbursement basis.
Due from Other Funds: Transfers between governmental funds. Certain Funds, such
as the Self -Insurance Fund and the County Road Fund provide specific services on a
government -wide basis.
Contractor Bonds Held: Good faith or surety bonds provided by private contractors
and held by Suffolk County as security for the provisions of the contract being met in
a timely manner.
Investment Securities: Securities held by the County as part Agent for the Agency
Funds.
Other Assets: Miscellaneous assets that do not fall into other asset categorizations.
Appendix III Page III -6
SUMMARY OF SUFFOLK COUNTY BALANCE SHEET
Fixed Assets: Assets of a long-term character that are intended to continue to be held
or used, such as land, buildings, machinery, furniture, and other equipment. Suffolk
County does not assign assets to separate operating funds, thus all fixed assets are
aggregated into a single account.
Liabilities
Current Liabilities
Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities: Expenses recorded as soon as they result
in liabilities for benefits received, payment for which may take place in whole or in
part in another accounting period. These need to be segregated according to fund,
ensuring that only those liabilities used for County -wide purposes are included in the
allocation.
Retirement Benefits: In 1993, Suffolk County made a payment to the State of New
York retirement system for amounts owed to the system as a result of a change in
State collection methods. The County has been current in its contribution to the State
system and makes payments in the current fiscal year and does not create annual
liabilities. This item is a holdover from the State's conversion to a different billing
system and then reconverting. By the time secession takes place, Suffolk County
should be current on all actuarially determined pension contributions and Peconic
County will have no ongoing responsibility to Suffolk County employees.
Contract Retainage Pam: This represents funds owed by Suffolk County to
contractors for capital projects. This liability should be segregated into both Special
Fund projects and, where possible, County -wide projects that can be located in the
East End or Western Towns.
Due to the State of New York: This represents a long-term liability for which the
County needs to reimburse the State of New York for Medicaid claims.
Due to Mass Transit (LIRR): The County makes annual payments to the Long Island
Rail Road. This amount represents a disputed payment between the County and the
LIRR and is currently the subject of litigation.
Due to Other Funds: Transfers between governmental funds.
Agency Fund Liabilities: Liabilities owed to funds consisting of resources received
and held by the County as an agent for individuals, private organizations, other
governmental units (e.g. taxes collected and held for the school districts) and/or
other funds. For the purposes of allocation, however, these liabilities have nothing to
do with the operations of Suffolk County.
Appendix III Page III -7
SUMMARY OF SUFFOLK COUNTY BALANCE SHEET
Deferred Tax Revenue: Tax revenues not recognized as revenues because they are
not received until a subsequent period. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
allow Suffolk County to show as revenue taxes that are not collected until sixty days
after the close of a fiscal year.
Other Deferred Revenue: Other revenues not recognized as revenues because they
are not received until a subsequent period.
Loner -Term Liabilities
Accumulated Vacation and Sick Leave: Under the terms of multiple union contracts,
County employees are granted vacation and sick leave in varying amounts. In the
event of termination, employees are reimbursed for certain accumulated vacation and
sick leave. The 1993 Suffolk County Balance Sheet values this liability at
$171,603,262. This account also aggregates all vacation and sick leave for all
Suffolk County employees.
Estimated Liability for Claims: This represents the total GAAP -based amount of
liability which the County must set aside for pending claims and litigation. It should
be noted that this is not the amount that the County believes it will have to pay;
instead, it represents total potential liability.
Obligations Under Capital Lease: The County entered into an agreement with the
New York State Dormitory Authority regarding the leasing of the Cohalan Court
Complex in Central Islip. The Dormitory Authority issued debt for the construction
of the complex. In return, the County is obligated under the lease to operate and
maintain the Cohalan Court Complex as well as pay annual lease rental payments
equal to the debt service on the Dormitory Authority bonds. These rental payments
are subject to annual appropriation and are not general obligations of the County. In
addition, the Cohalan Court Complex will not provide any services to Peconic
County.
Long Term Debt: Includes General Obligation bonds of the County, including
certain debt associated with the sewer districts, and the drinking water protection
program. Suffolk County does not segregate long-term general obligation debt by the
fund which it benefits.
The information from Suffolk County's balance sheet has been used to determine a
proposed method of allocating Suffolk's assets and liabilities between Suffolk and Peconic.
In addition, information from these financial statements have been used in the analysis of
valuing asset and liabilities. See "General Issues Regarding Secession" and "Implementing a
Peconic County Divestiture" for a description of how the information above is proposed to
be implemented.
Appendix III Page III -8
Peconic County
Citizens
District Legal Aid County Board of Peconic - Suffolk
Attomey Sheriff _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -_ -_ Community College
Society Clerk Supervisors ' Board of Trustees
I
I
I
1
Town & L
Exe cut al County I President
Vill e _ Investigative � I
unitive Services Administration Administrator I
Police Services Unit Unit 1
� Administration
1
1
I
I Support
i Faculty Staff
Civil Claims Family Orders Criminal '
Bureau Investigation Court of Invest.- Pistol 1
Bureau Protection tion
I
1
I
I
1
(Continued)
I
I
Commissioner of Parks Law Board of Health Services Public Works Director of
Planning & Cultural Affairs Public Safety Office (County Finance Health - Administration Administration Economic
Director Attorney) Assistance
1
Fire, Rescue & Civil Finance
I Cooperative Emergency and
Office of Service Aviation
4 Extensive Services Taxation
Cultural Division of Historic Public Environ- Community Emergency Division
Association Affairs Parks Services Health mental Mental Medical
Health Health Services Welfare Family &
Division of Budget and Management & Children's
:::P:Ia:nn]ing
Police Support Elections Public
Management Administration Services
Admini- Environmental
Recreational
Facilities stration Enforcement Patient Alcohol & MedicauLegal Transportation
Probation Purchasing Care Substance Investigations
Abuse &Forensic
Sciences Public Labor/Jobs
Soil and
Assistant Other
Water Operations & Park Services
ConservationAudit and
Maintenance Security Control Buildings and
Administration Facilities Design
& Maintenance
Criminal Family
Court Court
Intensive I I Juvenile I I Persons in Need
Supervision I IDelinquentsiof Supervision