PRELIMINARY BUDGET - GENERAL & HIGHWAY FUND

Motion by Supervisor Clark, seconded by Councilman Osmanski, that proofs of publication and posting of legal notice: “OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE PRELIMINARY BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2005” in the Town of West Seneca, be received and filed.

Ayes: All Noes: None Motion Carried

Motion by Supervisor Clark, seconded by Councilman Osmanski, to open the public hearing.

Ayes: All Noes: None Motion Carried

Supervisor Clark stated that the proposed budget represented a 6.3 percent increase in taxes over the year 2004.

Councilman Graber stated that when the budget was proposed it preceded the American Refuel litigation resolution adopted at the last Town Board meeting. Money had been set aside in case the town did not prevail in this matter, but due to the hard work of Town Attorney Tim Greenan they were victorious. He suggested that funds from the American Refuel litigation be utilized by passing them on to the taxpayers through the budget. Councilman Graber thought that this would have a dramatic positive effect on the overall tax increase.

Supervisor Clark noted that there was a correction put through by Munistat, the town’s municipal bond fund advisors, that issued a difference of $165,000 in the original workups of what would be needed next year to service debt principal and interest. With the $350,000 from the American Refuel litigation the change in the budget would amount to $515,000.

Motion by Councilman Graber, unanimous second, to modify the proposed General Fund budget as follows:

Increase appropriations – Bond Principal 01.9711.0910 $100,000
Increase appropriations – Bond Interest 01.9711.0911 $ 65,000
Increase appropriated Fund Balance (Revenue) $515,000
Decrease tax levy (Revenue 01.1001) $350,000

On the question, Councilman Osmanski stated that they had been taxing the property owners of West Seneca for this money and putting it aside in case they did not win the American Refuel litigation, but the town prevailed and did not need to use the money so it was only right that it went back to the taxpayers.

Supervisor Clark stated that based on his calculations the tax increase for the General Fund and Highway Fund for 2005 would change from an increase of 6.3 percent to 4.36 percent.

Councilman Graber stated that typically they did not advocate non-recurring revenue sources, but this was already money they had set aside and they should be giving it back.

Ayes: All Noes: None Motion Carried

Supervisor Clark stated that the costs that were passed on to the residents by other towns were quite staggering, even those with large commercial tax bases and increases in assessed value larger than West Seneca. He thought that the cost control programs and revenue enhancement programs utilized in West Seneca had paid off, along with an increase in assessed value. The Town of Hamburg was approving a 5.9 percent increase, Amherst had an 11 percent increase, and Cheektowaga was a 9.5 percent increase. Although he did not like to increase taxes, Supervisor Clark thought they had things in good stead compared to other similar sized towns in an extremely difficult budgetary environment.

Councilman Graber stated that in 2001 the total pension costs for all town employees including the police was $159,000. In 2005, the cost would be $1,700,000. This increase was due to the state legislature’s action in the late 1990’s when the stock market was booming that eliminated the 3 percent employee contribution to the state pension fund. Councilman Graber noted that at least half the increases for the towns were pension related costs. Although the state legislature now saw the errors in their ways, they still had not commenced taking contributions back again from the employees. This was an unfunded mandate that was passed down by the state, and it amounted to at least 50 percent of the tax increase. Councilman Graber commented that there was only so much the Town Board could do in terms of reducing expenses, but unlike the county budget, every dollar in the town budget was spent in West Seneca. Everyone paid a hefty county tax, but the town received very little county funding in return. There were no county parks in West Seneca and no sheriff’s patrols. The same was true for the state taxes. Councilman Graber suggested that the taxpayers contact their state legislators and ask them to do what was right for all the taxpayers in New York State.

Frank Boncore, 250 Heather Hill Drive, stated that he was a public employee for 34 years and Tier 1 and 2 employees never paid into the pension fund. Tier 3 and 4 employees paid 3 percent, but the state legislature eliminated that for employees with 10 or more years of service. Employees with less than 10 years of service continued to pay 3 percent of their salary to the pension fund.

Councilman Graber agreed but stated that the 3 percent contribution for employees with 10 or more years of service was a major revenue source that was eliminated. The $1,700,000 figure would be reduced considerably if the 3 percent contribution were reinstated.

Mr. Boncore noted that municipalities had a free ride for a number of years when the stock market was booming, but that was a temporary thing.

Virginia Grandoni, 870 Orchard Park Road, stated that she was a Tier 3 employee of the City of Buffalo for 10 years and she paid into the pension fund for 10 years. Mrs. Grandoni did not agree with the elimination of the 3 percent employee contribution and thought that it should be reinstated.

Councilman Graber noted that even if the state legislature were to change the employee contribution into the pension fund, they could only change it for new employees because of the New York State constitution. They could not go back to existing employees and require them to contribute.

Mrs. Grandoni commented that the majority of people did not get free pensions or a raise every year like civil service employees did. People with jobs in private industry had a tax increase on their tax bill every year without the raises, free pensions, or tax-free pensions when they retired. Raises were not automatic in private industry and Mrs. Grandoni did not believe they should be automatic in public sector jobs. She suggested that the elected officials and department heads forego their raise this year to help lower the tax increase. Mrs. Grandoni further commented that in private industry most employees had to pay for their health insurance. She understood that union contracts were involved, but thought that there should be some give and take when negotiating those contracts.

Supervisor Clark responded that they had made some progress in the area of hospitalization insurance. In the recently signed police contract, the town would be saving at least $80,000 per year on hospitalization insurance and that could be as much as $130,000 next year. The raises only amounted to about $22,000 in total.

Councilman Graber stated that in the third year of the police contract that was recently approved the total package only increased 1.6 percent. He thought that this was commendable and noted that the unions had worked very closely with the Town Board and helped to lower expenses.

Mrs. Grandoni questioned if the 2005 budget reflected an increase in pay for the 350+ town employees. She further questioned the number of non-union employees

Supervisor Clark responded that the 2005 budget included contractual pay increases under existing union contracts. The number of part-time employees with no benefits was in the high 200’s. Some part-time employees would receive a very modest raise, but many had not received raises in two or three years.

Mrs. Grandoni questioned how this was broken down and how it was reflected in the tax increases.

Supervisor Clark stated that he could work up a schedule and furnish Mrs. Grandoni with that information.

Amy Carpenter, 406 Woodward Crescent, noted that the columns on the budget were not labeled. She questioned what each of the columns represented and if there was anything on the budget that indicated what last year’s figures were.

Councilman Osmanski explained that the first column was the category, the second was the account code, the third column was the proposed amount of money budgeted for each account code, the forth column was a subtotal for an individual category, and the fifth column was a total for all the individual categories for a department.

Supervisor Clark stated that the 2005 budget did not show last year’s budget figures, but he would furnish Mrs. Carpenter with a copy of the 2004 budget.

Paula Minklei, 896 Orchard Park Road, questioned whether all town employees were on incremental pay grades. She further requested a copy of the information that Supervisor Clark would be furnishing to Mrs. Grandoni.

Supervisor Clark responded that almost all town employees were on incremental pay scales. He asked that Deputy Town Comptroller Chuck Malinowski make copies of the schedules contained in each of the bargaining unit contracts.

Mrs. Minklei questioned who the Comptroller was, whether he was elected or appointed, and who the budget officer was. Mrs. Minklei further referred to Page three of the budget and a $25,000 allocation for Professional Negotiation Costs and questioned who did the professional negotiating.

Supervisor Clark responded that Charles Koller was the Comptroller and the Town Board appointed him. The budget officer was Supervisor Clark. The town had a labor attorney for professional negotiating, and the Comptroller and appropriate department head also sat in on negotiations.

Councilman Osmanski noted that the $25,000 line item was for outside legal work with regard to negotiations, and the town had used the same law firm for negotiations since he was on the Town Board. They were experts at negotiating and represented many municipalities.

Mrs. Minklei questioned the amount of $240,388 on Page five, Special Items, Contractual Expenses, Unallocated Insurance and the amount of $5000 for Other Expense, Strategic Plan. She also referred to the Contingent Account and asked for an example of a contingency.