Chemung County Legislature moves to require its consent before terminating Elmira shared‑service agreements

Elmira officials told the Chemung County Legislature on Thursday that decades‑old shared‑service agreements — including public works (streets/DPW), buildings and grounds, IT and insurance arrangements — changed the city’s tax and operating picture and that the city seeks renegotiation or additional sales‑tax distribution to offset new costs.

The Legislature voted to amend and clarify a 2015 resolution (15‑114) to explicitly state that any termination of shared‑service agreements entered pursuant to that 2015 resolution requires the expressed consent of the Legislature. The vote followed more than an hour of presentations and discussion between county and city officials about how the agreements were structured and the fiscal effects on Elmira.

Why it matters: Elmira officials said the 2015 shared‑service arrangements were negotiated when the city faced severe fiscal pressure and agreed to share services in exchange for changes to sales‑tax distribution. City presenters said those changes reduced Elmira’s sales‑tax share and that returning certain functions to the city has generated new, sizable costs. County officials said the agreements also produced administrative savings and services that would otherwise have required new city staff and that any change must be negotiated in the context of county fiscal constraints.

City presentation: Mike Collins, Elmira city manager, and Charmaine Cartan, Elmira city chamberlain, told the Legislature the 2015 arrangements included shared health insurance, DPW (streets), buildings and grounds, chamberlain services and IT. Collins said the city’s sales‑tax share fell from 12.33% in 2014 to as low as 7.87% in later years and currently sits at about 8.167%. The city’s presenters showed a cumulative figure they said represented lost sales‑tax receipts since 2015 of about $22,800,000 and said 38.55% of property parcels in the city are tax‑exempt (listing examples such as New York State, Chemung County, Arnot‑Ogden Medical Center, Elmira College and the Elmira City School District).

Cartan walked the Legislature through the city’s payments to the county after services returned. She said buildings and grounds (B&G) returned to Elmira after a period in which the county provided the service and the city now is repaying roughly $900,000 over five years for previously incurred costs (about $181,000 per year). She described IT costs that were not billed promptly and then were charged to the city in later years, creating lumpy increases in 2022–2024.

County response and negotiations: Chemung County Executive Chris Moss said he has offered to continue negotiating and that his office also offered specific proposals, including a gradual transition of DPW back to the city over four years with ongoing fringe coverage by the county; Moss estimated the fully restored city cost at roughly $2,000,000 per year when all pay and benefits are included. Moss told the Legislature he does not want to unilaterally “abolish” agreements and that any final plan must preserve county fiscal stability while addressing the city’s stress.

Legislative debate and authority: Several legislators pressed for clarity about who may terminate or amend the shared‑service contracts. Adam (legislative counsel) explained the 2015 resolution’s intent and recommended clarifying language to remove ambiguity about whether termination requires legislative approval. After extended discussion — including concerns from legislators who said the buildings‑and‑grounds transition in a previous year had been handled without a clear vote here — the Legislature voted to adopt the clarifying amendment.

Votes at a glance: - Resolution authorizing transfers and appropriations by the county executive; and resolution awarding a contract to Garnett Asphalt Products Inc., for Elmira‑Corning Regional Airport — moved and approved together (no roll‑call vote tally provided in the record). Outcome: approved. - Resolution clarifying and amending Resolution 15‑114 (the 2015 shared‑services resolution) so that termination of agreements entered under that resolution requires the Legislature’s expressed consent — mover: John (legislator); second: Marty (legislator). Outcome: approved. - Resolution(s) approving applications for disbursement of Community Development funds (county executive application and legislature application) — motion approved; one abstention was recorded (legislator Mark Strange declared a conflict of interest with a grant to the Josh Palmer Fund and abstained). Outcome: approved (1 abstention).

What’s next: City and county officials said they will continue negotiations with financial teams from both jurisdictions. City leaders asked for increased sales‑tax distribution as one possible remedy; county leaders said any change must be balanced against county obligations and staffing/union commitments.

Ending: Officials on both sides told the Legislature they are willing to continue talks. The adopted clarification makes clear that any future unilateral termination of shared‑service agreements executed under the 2015 resolution will require the Legislature’s explicit approval before taking effect.