When Taxpayers Pay More but Receive Less in Basic City Services: It’s Time to Examine How Our City Is Governed -PART 1

By Joseph Berger, John P. O’Leary Northwest Yonkers Republican Club co-founder, member and guest writer.

Yonkers currently operates under a Strong Mayor form of government, where executive authority is concentrated in a single political office. For taxpayers, this means major decisions about hiring, city services, and operations are largely controlled at the top, with limited independent oversight. While this structure can provide clear leadership, it also carries risks when accountability is weak—cost overruns, inefficient service delivery, and decisions driven by political loyalty rather than results all ultimately fall on taxpayers.

An alternative used in many well-run cities is the City Manager form of government, which separates politics from day-to-day management. Under this model, the mayor and City Council set policy and represent residents, while a professionally trained, non-partisan manager is hired to run city operations efficiently and transparently. For taxpayers, this approach emphasizes merit-based hiring, measurable performance, and reliable delivery of basic services—such as timely snow removal, infrastructure maintenance, and public safety coordination.

The following plan outlines how this model could bring greater accountability, better value for tax dollars, and restore trust in Yonkers government.

COMPARISIONS: Strong Mayor vs. City Manager Forms of Government

1. Strong Mayor Form of Government

(Current system in Yonkers, NY)

DEFINITION:

In a Strong Mayor system, the mayor is both the political leader and the chief executive of the city. They have significant control over the administration, budget, hiring/firing of department heads, and implementation of policies.

PROS:

•         Clear accountability: Voters know who is in charge, and the mayor can be held directly responsible for city performance.

•         Strong leadership during crises: A Mayor with executive authority can make swift decisions when needed.

•         Political visibility: A Strong Mayor can advocate for the city at state or national levels more effectively.

CONS:

•         High potential for patronage and corruption: As seen in Yonkers, control over hiring often leads to politically motivated appointments, including rewarding party officials, donors, and even opponents in exchange for loyalty.

•         Less Council Oversight: The City Council has limited ability to oversee or override administrative decisions or budgetary priorities.

•         Political gridlock or favoritism: Decisions may be made to appease certain factions rather than the public.

•         Policy swings: Changes in administration often lead to abrupt policy shifts and instability in long-term planning.

COST IMPLICATIONS:

• High salary for Mayor and top staff.

• Patronage jobs inflate city payrolls.

•  Duplicated roles or unqualified hires cost taxpayers without adding

real value.

2. City Manager Form of Government

(System Yonkers previously had)

DEFINITION:

In this system, the City Council appoints a professional City Manager to oversee the day-to-day operations of the city. The mayor (if one exists) serves more as a ceremonial figure or policy leader with limited executive power.

PROS:

•  Professional management: City Managers are typically credentialed and selected based on qualifications, not politics.

• Greater transparency: The Council retains more control over budgets, contracts, and policy enforcement.

•  Reduced patronage: Hiring is done through a more merit-based process, limiting political interference.

• Policy continuity: Managers tend to serve longer than elected mayors, ensuring long-term planning and consistent service delivery.

CONS:

•  Less direct accountability to voters: The City Manager is hired by the Council, not directly elected.

•  Potential for Council dysfunction: If the Council is divided, hiring/firing a City Manager or managing direction may become politicized.

•  Public disconnect: Residents may not understand who is truly in charge, reducing civic engagement.

COST IMPLICATIONS:

• City Manager salary is generally comparable to a mayor, but without the layers of patronage hires, overall city payroll may be significantly reduced.

• Professional efficiency: Savings through streamlined services, strategic planning, and reduced political waste.

YONKERS CONTEXT & WHY RECONSIDER THE CITY MANAGER SYSTEM:

•  Under the Strong Mayor system, Yonkers has experienced a significant rise in political patronage, with tax dollars being used to maintain power structures by rewarding Council Members, party officials (both Democrat and Republican), and allies with jobs and favors.

• This diminishes public trust, inflates the cost of governance, and reduces the effectiveness of services.

•  Under the City Manager system, the Council had stronger oversight, more influence on budget priorities, and a greater ability to focus on quality-of-life issues like infrastructure, sanitation, and public safety.

CONCLUSION -WHY PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT:

Moving to a City Manager form of government via public referendum could:

 •  Restore professionalism and fiscal responsibility to City Hall.

 •  Empower the City Council and, by extension, the residents.

 •  Reduce wasteful spending on political favors.

 •  Encourage long-term, stable planning free from the political drama

           of election cycles.