http://www.speakupwny.com/article_4455.shtml
Your comments please. Do you believe this final budget proposal is responsible? Especially considering all town employees do not pay for their health insurance, are all getting salary increases (2.75% - 3%) and getting longevity pay on top of that (and other) and where no job cut backs are had?
Future contract negotiations concerning salary increases, longevity pay, health insurance contributions, stipends and other are a must. Is this Board up to it and is their a conflict of interest in setlling negotiations when town elected and appointed officials get the same consideration as the union white collar workers.
To many of us this budget still looks like a political party set up for next year. But do the Dems have to worry as long as Mohr and his minions are around and still have influence in the Republican Party?
This is a start !
The problems with these cuts are smoking mirrors at best. The fact that the Town Board cut this much in two weeks with only a few pain in the butts speaking at the last meeting is a joke. The fact that millions of dollars are a steak and the taxpayers are paying the cost for the Boards overspends must be confronted.Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec
Lee - first of all, good job in doing this.
Secondly - you've shown how the final budget compares to the proposed budget....but, is it possible to show how it compares with last year's budget, as well? (Maybe you've already done that?) Without seeing prior year figures, most of us will be unqualified to comment.
I have what may be a naive question -- the 2.75 - 3% raises - are those renegotiated with the Unions every year? In other words, were these raises negotiated this year, or were they part of prior year contracts that the town is obligated to?
First off, thank you.
In the 2010 budget spending in the General Fund budget (excluding Special Districts) increased by $430,000, a 2.05% increase; whereas this final budget increase in spending (despite the slashing of $426,777 from the tentative budget) still increases by $1.35 million, 6.33% (lowered from 8.94%).
Spending increases by Fund - 2010 and Final 2011 Budget
General Fund -Townwide: 1.9% in 2010, 4.23% in 2011
General Fund - Town Outside of Villages : 0.15% in 2010, 6.84% in 2011
Police Fund: 3.75% in 2010, 6.63% in 2011
Highway Department: -1.4% in 2010, 8.9% in 2011
Total Budget (Town & Special Districts)
The total $28.02 million 2010 budget had a 1.8% spending increase. In the final proposed 2011 budget spending will increase from $28.02 million in 2010 to $29.69 in 2011, or by 5.96%.
As per contract negotiations, they take place every three years and are not due until 2012 (I believe).
It is incredible to think that $426,777 was cut from the budget in such short timeframe; and without using more fund balance reserves, in fact $130,000 less than originally planned.
All because a few residents spoke out; a few residents who wonder why the hell the community outrage was not present at the public hearing; or anywhere for that matter.
The presentation of the preliminary budget and its outrageous spending increase should have had no political undertone, yet how can one not suspect otherwise for next year's election.
I agree Lee. Most of my neighbors have the opinion that attending meetings are a waste of their time. We try to stress the importance of attending and speaking out. If our board members believe that passing this budget will get votes next year, they will be sorely disappointed.
I for one am waiting to see how Mr. Aquino votes. There is something really wrong when public service employees as well as our elected officials get more money and benefits than their employer.. the taxpayer!!!! Things have to change and soon.
Proposed, slashed, inflated, uninflated = B.S.
Bottom line is taxes will increase. Spending will increase. Salaries and cost of benefits will increase.
Theres a fair number of employees who will be ready to retire soon - just watch the Overtime roster. They now have two more years to stack the deck and jump ship.
Supervisor Giza has just about maxed out on what he can take with him. Mrs Coleman is in the same position. Thats part of the reason for all the extra job titles and paychecks - it averages into their life time tax funded retirement checks.
Call it a dog and pony show - smoke and mirrors - what ever - its Lancaster and thats the way they have done it for over twenty five years. The silent majority in this Town don't care. The majority of those who vote are tied to someone who receives either a pay check from the Town or their serving their self interests.
Again bottom line - we will pay more - they will receive more and the beat goes on. My sincere thanks to those like Lee that have the personal strength and community devotion - they are truly our watch dogs.
Thank You all for trying to keep then honest!
#Dems play musical chairs + patronage and nepotism = entitlement !
Amen and Woman agree and Agree again !!!
Hats off to the people that take the shoots at the board meetings and standup for the taxpayers, years ago i stood with you now I watch from a far and sorry for lack of attendance but they are in my thoughts. Kick butts and take no prisoners !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Bottom line is taxes will increase. Spending will increase. Salaries and cost of benefits will increase.
Theres a fair number of employees who will be ready to retire soon - just watch the Overtime roster. They now have two more years to stack the deck and jump ship.
Supervisor Giza has just about maxed out on what he can take with him. Mrs Coleman is in the same position. Thats part of the reason for all the extra job titles and paychecks - it averages into their life time tax funded retirement checks.
Call it a dog and pony show - smoke and mirrors - what ever - its Lancaster and thats the way they have done it for over twenty five years. The silent majority in this Town don't care. The majority of those who vote are tied to someone who receives either a pay check from the Town or their serving their self interests.
Again bottom line - we will pay more - they will receive more and the beat goes on. My sincere thanks to those like Lee that have the personal strength and community devotion - they are truly our watch dogs.
Thank You all for trying to keep then honest!
Lee: Let me see if we have this right. In 2009 all Lancaster homes were assessed at 92% of their real market value and the tax rate was $8.19 per $1,000 of assessed value. So a house with a $100,000 market value would be taxed at $8.19 X $92K (92% of market value) = $754. So now in 2010 that same house is assessed at full market value and the new tax rate is $8.11 per $1,000 of assessed value. So now that same house pays $8.11 X $100K = $811. Consequently the same house pays an increase of $57 or $57/$754 = 7.6% increase! That's an outrageous increase, when in this fiscal environment, there should be no increase at all! For the Town to imply that property taxes have been reduce from $8.19/1,000K to $8.11/1,000K (1%) is totally misleading due to the move to full market assessment! The Town Board needs to ring out all non-mandated budget increases, shift whatever medical etc cost increases that are legal to the town employees, and block any future contract give aways that the taxpayers will have to pay for in years to come.
Do you agree with the math above?
That's correct LR. But there were homes that assessments didn't just change from their original assessment value to the full market value.Originally posted by Lancaster resident:
Lee: Let me see if we have this right. In 2009 all Lancaster homes were assessed at 92% of their real market value and the tax rate was $8.19 per $1,000 of assessed value. So a house with a $100,000 market value would be taxed at $8.19 X $92K (92% of market value) = $754. So now in 2010 that same house is assessed at full market value and the new tax rate is $8.11 per $1,000 of assessed value. So now that same house pays $8.11 X $100K = $811. Consequently the same house pays an increase of $57 or $57/$754 = 7.6% increase! That's an outrageous increase, when in this fiscal environment, there should be no increase at all! For the Town to imply that property taxes have been reduce from $8.19/1,000K to $8.11/1,000K (1%) is totally misleading due to the move to full market assessment! The Town Board needs to ring out all non-mandated budget increases, shift whatever medical etc cost increases that are legal to the town employees, and block any future contract give aways that the taxpayers will have to pay for in years to come.
Do you agree with the math above?
My elderly neighbor again as an example. Last year's assessment was $89,000. 89 x $8.19= $728.91. This year her assessment is $110,000.
110 X $8.11 = $892.10. So her house will have an increase in taxes of $163.19 or a 163.19/728.91= 22% increase.
As Lee has stated, "some of you where your assessments increased significantly over the 12.5% break point are in for some big tax hikes."
Georgia L Schlager
Gorja: Yes, some will see a larger increase than the typical homes, and some will see a smaller increase, depending upon how their full market value changed relative to the rest of the homes in town. However, by using a home with no change in market value from 2009 to 2010 we can reveal the true magnitude of the overall property tax increase to the residents in general. The data I don't have is did the typical Lancaster same home come in with no increase or decrease in true market value from 2009 to 2010. That is did the whole Lancaster real estate market increase or decrease over that year for the same home? So for example if all same homes on average increased in value by 5% over that year (a large increase so I doubt it) then the 2009 home with a $92K assessed value ($100K full market value) is taxed at 8.19 X 92 = $754 as above. In 2010 that same home is now assessed at $105K for a tax bill of 8.11 X 105 = $852. That would be a tax increase of $99 or 99/753 X 100 = 13%. Now if we assume that typical Lancaster same house had its market value drop by 5% then the new tax bill would be 8.11 X 95 = $770, an increase of $16 or 16/754 X 100 = 2%. So the real tax increase on the TYPICAL property owner in Lancaster is in the 8% range if I am correct in assuming that the typical Lancaster same house did not increase or decrease significantly in real market value from 2009 to 2010 (given the state of the real estate market in WNY). Did Dave Marrano provide the average change in full market value from 2009 to 2010 for same house (needs to be the same house because of the increased size and value of newer homes built) to the public?
OMG, getting past the fuzzy shocking reality of this. OK so Gorja what about the neighboring towns? LIke Clarence, Amherst, and Hamburg. Just for kicks since tonight is the town meeting and will be voting yes or no on this outragious budget. Are these towns within the same range as Lancaster~~~since we know how inept I am in the research computer department~~~how do we get those numbers?
LR, you can't use words like average, typical and assumng when attempting to determine your tax load from a reval. Although the reassessment process is based on home type comparables and market sales, there are still variables.
Nor can you say because the overall market value of sales in the area went up an average on 3%, that yours did as well.
Gorja's numbers are right. It is what it is. One can only determine what one will be paying by doing the math. There is no "typical", "average" or "whatever" otherway of looking at it.
No matter how much one dislikes the reval process, it makes more sense than any other method thought of; as yet and in my opinion.
Is there unfairness and inequity in the process? Yes, and no more so than the 40% tax break patio and townhome owners are getting from Condominium Law 339-y compliance. In 2010, up to last week, Lancaster has issued 139 building permits. 49 have been issued for patio home and townhouse construction where 339-y consideration will be given. There are now over 300 such homes in Lancaster now. That's a big piece of change the town is losing out on - and by town I mean we the taxpayer who have to pick up the slack.
Do 339-y homeowners deserve tax break consideration for services that are privately paid for by associations and not the town? Of course they do. But in no way do those private paid services add up to their getting a 40% tax break; 20% would be more appropriate. In giving the great majority of 339-y homeowners a 40% tax break we are picking up their entire Association fee and then some.
Lastly, the town picked up $300 million in added town valuation from the reval. No one should be paying hundreds of dollars more in town property taxes, and those seeing reductions should get more of their money back. The final budget proposal still increases total spending (Special Districts included) by 5.7%.
Lee: I completely agree that each individual homeowner will find out what the tax consquences are when they open their upcoming tax bills. The Town is making three changes at the same time, 1) going from 92% to 100% of market valuation, 2) changing the tax rate per thousand of assessed value, and 3) doing a revaluation of all of the homes. Doing these three things at the same time makes assessing the impact on the majority of the homeowners more difficult to calculate. This may make many homeowners think they were unlucky in the reval and not realize that a large part of the tax increase is due to the increased spending and taxing that the new budget is inflicting on the town in general. Since most homeowners are not aware of what goes on in the Town more broadly, and they don't try to get properly informed, they will likely just grumble to themselves and their neighbors but do nothing much about it in the end---this allows the entrenched political system to continue on the ever increasing taxing and spending spree until something dramatic happens. I agree that a townwide revaluation done within reasonable intervals is fair because of changes in market valuation as time passes and situations change. The fact that the total assessed valuation went up in the Town by $300M still does not give us a clear picture of the impact on most Lancaster homeowners because new homes were built, new commercial buildings, etc. So I think the best we can do is to carry out our calculations with assumptions such as I was using? At least this way you can say that if your home would sell for the same price this year as last, as determined in the reval, then your tax bill will increase by 7.6%---and do you think this is fair and reasonable in today's financial climate? Do this make sense?
Anyone who thinks that they are fine because of how they came out of reval is not looking at the big picture or doesn’t give a **** about his community a whole. The town is acting irresponsibly with a budget proposal that is out of line and being presented at a time when taxpayers can no longer afford and/or should be subjected to more taxes
To put it in simple terms, it's a money-grab by the town under the pretense that:
• Some homeowners will see a tax decrease
• Some homeowners will see no change
• "We got hit hard by health care and pension increases"
• There is nothing we can do as the union contracts mandate we must give them negotiated wage increases and give them free health insurance, longevity pay, stipends, etc, etc, etc.
Oh great, the spending has been reduced from 8.94% to 6.33%. Let’s all gather around the campfire and sing kumbaya.
Don’t knock yourself out trying to figure out how you are being screwed, they will tell you what you what to pay and you will have to pay it.
There should be a crowd of people at the Town Board meeting tonight just saying “I oppose this budget resolution as it now stands.” That’s it. But there will be but the few regulars.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
