The City–County Relationship

Where the Sales Tax Goes

Chemung County collects the local sales tax and distributes it. In 2024 the City of Elmira — home to roughly a fifth of the county's population — received about 8.2% of the pool. The rest stays with the county government and the towns.

2024 countywide sales-tax pool, by recipient The county keeps $55.7M (74.9%). Of the $18.7M it distributes, the City of Elmira gets $5.9M and the towns and villages $12.8M (17.2% of the pool) between them. Reconstructed from NYS OSC filings: county collection (A1110) less what the county distributes to municipalities (A19854); the City of Elmira's slice is its A1120. The county books the municipal distribution as a single lump, so the towns and villages are named from their own filings — summed across the four funds towns book sales tax in (general, part-town, and two highway funds). Those filings account for 95.7% of what the county says it distributed; the remainder is shown as “not separately reported” rather than spread across the named municipalities, and is mostly the smallest villages, which don't file every year.

The County Stopped Sharing

It is natural to assume the city's slice was cut. It wasn't — not the slice. What shrank was the pot the slices come out of.

From 2007 through 2014 Chemung County distributed exactly 37.5% of its sales-tax pool to the municipalities — the same figure, to a rounding error, eight years running. A round three-eighths, held that precisely, is a rate somebody agreed to, not a number that emerges by accident. Starting in 2015 it falls away: 31.5%, then 29.7%, 27.4%, and settling near 25% from 2022 on.

Through all of it, the City of Elmira's share of the money actually distributed barely moves — between 31% and 35%, with no break at 2015. So the city was not singled out, and the sharing formula was not rewritten. The county simply kept more before any sharing happened, and every recipient's dollars fell together.

That is also how both sides can be telling the truth. New York's Tax Law § 1262 only governs sales-tax revenue "not used for county purposes." A county that enlarges what it uses for county purposes shrinks the shared pot without touching the formula at all. The county can say the population-based formula is unchanged; the city can say its receipts collapsed; the reconciliation is the line below.

Share of the countywide pool distributed to municipalities

Eight flat years at 37.5%, then a step down to a quarter

The formula didn't change; the retention did. Solid line: the share of the pool the county distributes at all. Dashed line: the City of Elmira's share of that distribution, which is flat throughout. Source: NYS OSC Annual Update Document — county collection (A1110) against distribution (A19854), and the city's receipts (A1120).

Seen as dollars rather than percentages, the same change looks like this — county receipts climbing while the city's stay flat.

County-retained sales tax (A1110) vs. city-received sales tax (A1120) NYS OSC Annual Update Document, 2007–2024. The series starts at 2007 because that is when the county began reporting its sales tax gross; through 2006 it booked A1110 net of what it passed to the city and towns, and reported no distribution at all. Splicing the two would show a 66% jump at the boundary that is pure bookkeeping — the distribution share implied by the last net year (37.7%) is the same as the first gross year (37.5%). From 2007 on, A1110 matches the state's own record of what it distributed to Chemung to within about 1%. See Data & Sources.

How the loss is calculated. Had the city held its 2014 share (12.33%) of the growing pool, it would have collected roughly $22.8M more in sales tax from 2015 through 2025 than it actually did. That figure comes from the city's own analysis and matches the OSC receipts we independently pulled. It is comparable to several years of the city's entire fund balance — see the City Budget Explorer.

Note what that measures. 12.33% is the city's share of the whole pool, and it fell because the county shrank the distribution — not because the city's share of the distribution was cut. On that narrower measure the city held steady. The $22.8M is a fair statement of what the city lost; it is not evidence that the sharing formula was rewritten against Elmira specifically. Every recipient's dollars fell together.

The Shared-Services Bundle (Resolution 15-114)

In February 2015 the city and county bundled five services together. A decade later most of that bundle is being unwound — each reversal shifting costs back onto the city.

DPW / Streets

Disputed

The county took on the city's street employees; the city paid $2M in year one, with the county absorbing an additional ~$400K/year until the city paid nothing. By 2025 the county was carrying ~$1.47M in salary and fringe. The county issued a termination notice on 6/30/25 (effective 12/31/25) and offered a four-year, 25%/year takeback — but the service was not actually cut; it continued under negotiation.

Status: unresolved dispute, not a completed termination.

Buildings & Grounds

Returned to city

Merged in January 2016 with five positions cut; later returned to the city. The city is repaying roughly $900K over five years (~$181K/year).

Health Insurance

Dropped 2024

The county dropped the shared health-insurance arrangement in 2024, returning that cost to the city.

Information Technology

Billing disputes

Shared since April 2009; marked by late and lumpy billing in 2022–2024.

Chamberlain Services

Part of the 2015 bundle

The fifth service tied to Resolution 15-114, alongside the four above.

Still being sourced. We are working to obtain the original Resolution 15-114 text and the Feb 15 2015 Public Works Shared Service Agreement, and to confirm the October 2025 legislature minutes. Figures here come from the city's October 2025 council presentation cross-checked against OSC data; see Data & Sources for what is documented versus still pending.