Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Lancaster approves 2023 Budget – Supervisor votes ‘no’

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,919

    Lancaster approves 2023 Budget – Supervisor votes ‘no’

    Lancaster’s town board approved the 2023 Special Districts by 5-0 vote and the General Fund Budget by a 4-1 vote. The $40.01 million budget increases spending by 5.87%, increases the tax levy by 4.14%, and increases the tax rate by only 0.99%.

    The Special Districts portion of the budget passed without incident and with a 5-0 board vote.

    The $31,825,199 General Fund budget increases spending by $1.93 million, an increase of 6.46%. It increases the tax levy (Amount to be Raised by Taxation) by $674,436; 3.97%. Supervisor Ron Ruffino voted ‘no’.

    Declaring he submitted a very conservative budget, Supervisor Ron Ruffino voted against a budget that he put together declaring added budget ‘adjustments’ to dog control and the police department were unacceptable.

    Ruffin declared the changes made to his budget which came in $166,000 below the tax levy limit were reduced to $7,000. “I am probably the only conservative person here.” Ruffino added that the three full-time dog control personnel would also be receiving benefits.

    Outside of the Special Districts budget he voted ‘no’ to resolutions sponsored by Councilmember Leary for dog control and the police adjustments, and a budget he put together that was still under the tax cap limit.

    Dog Control

    Ruffino objected to the $10,000 adjustment resolution sponsored by Councilmember Robert Leary presenting data that substantiated his claim that towns of equal size, and larger had dog control departments budgets less than Lancaster’s He read off a list of surrounding towns with their populations and dog control staffing and department costs.

    Councilmember Leary acknowledged that the budget was a ‘pretty good’ budget and asked whether the Supervisor had ever been out with the dog control officers and witnessed the dangers and risks they take to protect themselves, the community, and the dogs. “We want three experienced full-time professionals. People who go out with the police at times and ensure matters are taken care of with the upmost safety of all in mind. We have a new facility that has to be staffed accordingly to take care of the animals 24/7.”

    “Yes, the new position will receive benefits, but we are only adding $10,000 to the budget,” added Leary. We are better utilizing the budget to meet all staffing requirements.

    Supervisor Ruffino interjected declaring Leary was not explaining how other towns met similar dangers but did it cheaper. Leary responded that he just explained that the town’ dog control reorganization would meet staffing. state performance requirements and ensure staff’s and public’s safety. One dog control officer had recently suffered a severe dog bite and complications.

    Mark Burkard, Dog Control Committee Chair, added that the staffing would allow for the town to perform a census next year which would add to the department’s revenue.

    Police Adjustment

    Supervisor Ruffino was the lone ‘no’ vote to Councilmember Leary’s resolution sponsorship of adding a third police captain to the budget – a budget adjustment of $115,000.

    Referring to the 2003 merger of Town of Lancaster and Village of Lancaster police forces, staffing then and now, 6 positions have been added and he didn’t think this was the right time to add any more. “Has anyone looked at the overtime of the police department,” asked Ruffino. “The Chief said they had to force people to work overtime. $546,000 in overtime alone. If this continues over the rest of the year, that number will reach $700,000. I think the money would be better spent on a patrol person to assist the other patrol officers and reduce department costs.”

    Leary responded that he listened to Chief Karn and believed a third captain was necessary. “We did petition to get a patrol officer through a federal grant. Unfortunately, we were unable to get any. The criteria used by the current Democratic administration precluded us from getting such grant.”

    Ruffino closed in stating that since no grant was available, he believed the money would be better spent hiring another patrol officer to relieve officers forced to work overtime, and to help reduce the budget and voted “no” to the resolution.

    Comment

    As stated repeatedly in earlier posts: “Who would complain about a budget with a 1% tax rate increase?” Supervisor Ruffino claims he submitted a conservative budget that came in $166,000 thousand below the tax cap limit. He balked at budget adjustments that still would have brought the budget $7,000 below the tax cap limit – and still has $9 million in unreserved Fund Balance, after already using $2.2 million.

    The $40.01 million budget increases spending by 5.87%, increases the tax levy by 4.14%, and increases the tax rate by only 0.99%. A lower tax rate doesn’t necessarily indicate lower taxes. The submitted budget leaves too many voids to determine how an increase in spending of such significance, a tax levy increase of 4.14% can result in a tax rate increase of only 1%.

    Questions at the budget ‘preliminary meeting went unanswered; especially on whether the presented budget allocated funds for unsettled union wage & benefit contracts, and whether Covid stimulus funding would be used to offset the union contract increases if not.

    Still can’t decide whether this is a ‘pretty good’ budget as Councilmember Leary quoted.

  2. #2
    Member Frank Broughton's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Oh, good grief...
    Posts
    6,406
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    Ruffino closed in stating that since no grant was available, he believed the money would be better spent hiring another patrol officer to relieve officers forced to work overtime, and to help reduce the budget and voted “no” to the resolution.
    Sound reasoning.
    The above is opinion & commentary, I am exercising my 1st Amendment rights as a US citizen. Posts are NOT made with any malicious intent.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,675
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    Lancaster’s town board approved the 2023 Special Districts by 5-0 vote and the General Fund Budget by a 4-1 vote. The $40.01 million budget increases spending by 5.87%, increases the tax levy by 4.14%, and increases the tax rate by only 0.99%.

    The Special Districts portion of the budget passed without incident and with a 5-0 board vote.

    The $31,825,199 General Fund budget increases spending by $1.93 million, an increase of 6.46%. It increases the tax levy (Amount to be Raised by Taxation) by $674,436; 3.97%. Supervisor Ron Ruffino voted ‘no’.

    Declaring he submitted a very conservative budget, Supervisor Ron Ruffino voted against a budget that he put together declaring added budget ‘adjustments’ to dog control and the police department were unacceptable.

    Ruffin declared the changes made to his budget which came in $166,000 below the tax levy limit were reduced to $7,000. “I am probably the only conservative person here.” Ruffino added that the three full-time dog control personnel would also be receiving benefits.

    Outside of the Special Districts budget he voted ‘no’ to resolutions sponsored by Councilmember Leary for dog control and the police adjustments, and a budget he put together that was still under the tax cap limit.

    Dog Control

    Ruffino objected to the $10,000 adjustment resolution sponsored by Councilmember Robert Leary presenting data that substantiated his claim that towns of equal size, and larger had dog control departments budgets less than Lancaster’s He read off a list of surrounding towns with their populations and dog control staffing and department costs.

    Councilmember Leary acknowledged that the budget was a ‘pretty good’ budget and asked whether the Supervisor had ever been out with the dog control officers and witnessed the dangers and risks they take to protect themselves, the community, and the dogs. “We want three experienced full-time professionals. People who go out with the police at times and ensure matters are taken care of with the upmost safety of all in mind. We have a new facility that has to be staffed accordingly to take care of the animals 24/7.”

    “Yes, the new position will receive benefits, but we are only adding $10,000 to the budget,” added Leary. We are better utilizing the budget to meet all staffing requirements.

    Supervisor Ruffino interjected declaring Leary was not explaining how other towns met similar dangers but did it cheaper. Leary responded that he just explained that the town’ dog control reorganization would meet staffing. state performance requirements and ensure staff’s and public’s safety. One dog control officer had recently suffered a severe dog bite and complications.

    Mark Burkard, Dog Control Committee Chair, added that the staffing would allow for the town to perform a census next year which would add to the department’s revenue.

    Police Adjustment

    Supervisor Ruffino was the lone ‘no’ vote to Councilmember Leary’s resolution sponsorship of adding a third police captain to the budget – a budget adjustment of $115,000.

    Referring to the 2003 merger of Town of Lancaster and Village of Lancaster police forces, staffing then and now, 6 positions have been added and he didn’t think this was the right time to add any more. “Has anyone looked at the overtime of the police department,” asked Ruffino. “The Chief said they had to force people to work overtime. $546,000 in overtime alone. If this continues over the rest of the year, that number will reach $700,000. I think the money would be better spent on a patrol person to assist the other patrol officers and reduce department costs.”

    Leary responded that he listened to Chief Karn and believed a third captain was necessary. “We did petition to get a patrol officer through a federal grant. Unfortunately, we were unable to get any. The criteria used by the current Democratic administration precluded us from getting such grant.”

    Ruffino closed in stating that since no grant was available, he believed the money would be better spent hiring another patrol officer to relieve officers forced to work overtime, and to help reduce the budget and voted “no” to the resolution.

    Comment

    As stated repeatedly in earlier posts: “Who would complain about a budget with a 1% tax rate increase?” Supervisor Ruffino claims he submitted a conservative budget that came in $166,000 thousand below the tax cap limit. He balked at budget adjustments that still would have brought the budget $7,000 below the tax cap limit – and still has $9 million in unreserved Fund Balance, after already using $2.2 million.

    The $40.01 million budget increases spending by 5.87%, increases the tax levy by 4.14%, and increases the tax rate by only 0.99%. A lower tax rate doesn’t necessarily indicate lower taxes. The submitted budget leaves too many voids to determine how an increase in spending of such significance, a tax levy increase of 4.14% can result in a tax rate increase of only 1%.

    Questions at the budget ‘preliminary meeting went unanswered; especially on whether the presented budget allocated funds for unsettled union wage & benefit contracts, and whether Covid stimulus funding would be used to offset the union contract increases if not.

    Still can’t decide whether this is a ‘pretty good’ budget as Councilmember Leary quoted.
    I read in another thread here that Ruffino voted against a police captain, but in this thread he wanted to add an extra officer?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. 2023 Lancaster budget up for vote
    By Lee Chowaniec in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 5th, 2022, 03:43 PM
  2. Lancaster 2023 preliminary budget now on website for review
    By Lee Chowaniec in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 1st, 2022, 12:58 AM
  3. 2023 Budget: Lancaster residents deserve to know
    By Lee Chowaniec in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 18th, 2022, 11:13 AM
  4. 2023 Town of Lancaster Budget
    By Lee Chowaniec in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 14th, 2022, 02:05 PM
  5. Lancaster approves 2013 amended budget, Supervisor votes no
    By Lee Chowaniec in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: December 3rd, 2012, 07:51 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •