Dear Editor,
During his 2014 re-election campaign, Governor Andrew Cuomo claimed that New York’s high property taxes were due to the waste and duplication of New York’s “more than 10,500 local governments.” Not only is his contention incorrect, the Governor also failed to acknowledge the role the State has played in exacerbating this property tax problem.
New York State’s unfunded mandates, too numerous to mention, for municipalities have increased local property taxes. Our State Representatives and Governor, during the financial good times, wielded a mighty pen and helped pay for those laws favoring special interests.
Over the recent years, and during these tough financial times, the State reduces their budget by passing these costs to local municipalities and cleansing their budgets for those laws. The State, to date, turns a deaf ear to eliminating or changing Wickes Law and Prevailing Wage, to name just a few.
First, the 10,500 number is grossly overstated. There are only 1,613 cities, villages, towns, and counties in New York and 715 school districts. The remaining 8,000 or so entities are primarily special districts created as a line in a budget to help apportion the cost of specific municipal services to those people that receive the service.
In fact, New York is well below the national average for the number of local governments per 1,000 residents. The Governor can – and should – singlehandedly reduce by 65 percent the number of our local governments by simply using the accurate number.
Your Village tax rate for the following fiscal year ends were and are: February 2012 – 0.83880; February 2013 – 0.84707, an increase over the previous year of 0.976 percent; February 2014 – 0.86401, an increase over the previous year of 1.999 percent; February 2015 – 0.87705, an increase over the previous year of 1.510 percent; and February 2016 – 0.89162, an increase over the previous year of 1.580 percent projection.
Take a look at the fiscal discipline we have shown here in the Village. Your Village refused the State Retirement Option of deferring or kicking the can down the road for current retirement costs. Please see the State Mandate Retirement Cost for our Village for the past six years averaging annual increases of 14.11752 percent; in February 2011 – $23145.00; and February 2016 – $36591.00, an increase for the six previous years of 84.70512 percent.
Healthcare cost increases have been offset by smart tactics by the Village. We search for the best programs understanding employees must share in those cost burdens.
Cost avoidance due to best plan searches and additional employee deductible calculations result in the following health cost stabilization, with no increases from the most recent five years: February 2011 – $33958.00; and February 2015 – $33,809.00, a decrease from the five previous years of $150.00.
We constantly search for cost savings and stabilization by sharing services. This current year the Town of Berkshire and the Village of Newark Valley signed “Code Enforcement” agreements, while saving significant dollars with personnel and new software. This package will better serve both communities.
Our Public Works staff will serve the Towns of Berkshire, Newark Valley, and Richford along with our Village properties on joint projects. We are discussing other sharing of services with other municipalities, so look for that information down the road.
We are negotiating with telephone services, searching for better technology at a lower cost. Those results will be shared early in 2015. We are stabilizing electric utilities by contracting with a third party carrier, and this is already proving savings.
And what has the State’s role been in all of this? The last increase in State aid (AIM funding) for local governments was in 2008-09, and since that time AIM funding to cities, villages, and towns has decreased by 14 percent in real dollars. Additionally, relief from costly state mandates, as was promised when the property tax cap was implemented, has been virtually non-existent.
So I ask you, who is really to blame here? Instead of pointing fingers, focusing on rebate checks, and disparaging local governments and the economic growth they help generate, it is time for the State to realize that it does have a role to play – an important role – to partner with local governments and help us continue to do what we do best – provide essential municipal services in the most cost-effective manner.
Then, instead of the blame game, we can all take credit for the long overdue revitalization of our communities and our state.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jim Tornatore, Michael Reynolds, Pat Flint-Beck, Doug Card and Ginger VanEtten
