Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Lancaster budget public hearing – Part I

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,922

    Lancaster budget public hearing – Part I

    The Town of Lancaster Town Board held a public hearing on the tentative 2015 budget as presented by Supervisor Dino Fudoli.

    The first to speak on the Preliminary Budget was resident Lee Chowaniec. Chowaniec was advised by Supervisor Fudoli to present the questions to him and if he could not answer them Director of Administration & Finance Dave Brown would.

    As the tentative budget is currently proposed, with a 1.76% reduction in a Town of Lancaster’s tax bill, how could anyone be opposed to it, challenge it, or question it? But it will be amended and changed; changes made that will decrease the tax savings.

    As such I look at this budget as not coming directly by the supervisor, but by the town board as they will have the final say.

    Supervisor Fudoli is quoted in the media as admitting that the four council members on the board will add two eliminated line items back into the General Fund portion of the budget – the elimination of an employee in the Parks & Recreation Department and a full time Deputy in the Town Clerk’s office. These two reinsertions will add near $100,000 in spending back into the budget and reduce the tax cut by near $4 per hundred thousand dollars of property assessment; every $27,000 in spending in General Fund portion of the budget adds one cent per thousand dollars of property assessment.

    In a town communication submittal posted on the town website, Supervisor Fudoli listed 26 budget line items that illustrate how the final budget numbers were derived (increases and decreases in spending) and how residents of the Town of Lancaster would realize a $16 per hundred thousand dollars of property assessment reduction. The list, a never before published itemized list, is further testimony to the openness and transparency Mr. Fudoli has brought to the town. It serves the public well in informing them on where to on budget hot spots. It saves time and effort by the public in not having to do extensive budget line item research.

    As a Republican, Supervisor Fudoli openly favors a smaller, a more efficient government, and in fiscal responsibility. In my mind, too often resident taxpayers consider only the bottom line (tax increase or decrease) but do not consider how their money is being spent and/or what direction the town is heading in.

    In his communication list, Supervisor Fudoli declares that spending in this budget (appropriations) is less by $120,000 than in last year’s budget, the tax levy is approximately $20,000 less than last year, and that this would be the third consecutive year with a tax levy reduction and a cumulative reduction of over $420,000 since he took office; all good stuff.

    However, there are some budget questions that do need asking and/or commenting on?

    On page 2 of the tentative budget, under Summary of Appropriations by Category, under appropriations for Personal Services, is that line item $10.56 million for town employee wages?

    Dave Brown: Yes.

    Chowaniec: As that total is less by $136,223 than less year, does that number reflect the two employee positions eliminated in the proposed budget?

    Brown: Yes.

    Supervisor Fudoli: The bulk of the decrease.

    Chowaniec: As the budget does not include wage increases for any town employee, for the third consecutive budget year, if the four union contracts were to be negotiated in favor of the union position, where would the money come from to fund the increase as it is not budgeted for?

    Fudoli: It is not budgeted for.

    Chowaniec: If the police contract went to binding arbitration and if the arbiter favors the police, and as you are bound by the ruling where would the money come from to cover the increase in appropriation?

    Fudoli: Some of it would come from the possibility of not filling a position; is what I would suggest. I would suggest we leave a position vacant so we could free up approximately $150,000; for raises, part of it. Some of it could come from the police fund; which comes from sales tax revenue. Depending on how harsh the negotiation goes there could be layoffs. I won’t speak for the board here but I do know to override the tax cap would create a problem for us. It would take a supermajority vote of 4-1 to override the tax cap. I know that for myself I would never vote to override the tax cap. I don’t know what the positions of board members are, I would leave the 49th police position open, some could come from the police fund, and if the arbiter’s ruling was harsh, forced layoffs could be possible.

    Chowaniec: It’s been a long time that negotiations have been taking place – three years this coming December 31. Where are we in the process; impasse, arbitration?

    Fudoli: Arbitration with the police contract. The first arbitration meeting is scheduled for March 2015. That doesn’t mean we still can’t negotiate before then. My intention is to reach out to the unions again and open up negotiations so that we don’t have to go to arbitration.

    Chowaniec: Am I correct in saying that no town employee or the police contribute to their health insurance?

    Brown: That is correct.

    Chowaniec; I don’t think it’s any secrete that the sticking point to settling contract negotiations is that no town employee, or police, contribute anything to their health insurance; a generous policy that covers dental and vision as well. As a senior citizen who is paying combined Medicare and supplemental insurance of $340 per month with high deductibles, I feel it’s time town and police employees contribute to their health insurance.

    How much does single and family plan insurance coverage cost the town?

    Fudoli: Single is somewhere around $9,000, family $19,000 - $20,000.

    Chowaniec: On page 2 of the tentative budget, under Summary of Appropriations by Category, under appropriations for Contractual ($10.381 million), what does that include?

    Brown: That includes everything from fire contracts, refuse, etc.

    Chowaniec: On page 2 of the tentative budget, under Summary of Appropriations for Employee Benefits there is a significant difference in spending from last year’s budget; $739,870. Pension costs were decreased by $214,000 and self-instituted Workers Comp Insurance results in a $300,000 cost avoidance. What else resulted in further decreases in employee benefits that make up another $215,000 in decreased spending?

    Fudoli: LVAC is no longer under our policy. They are paying their own way.

    Brown: The bulk of that is still due to the pension and Workman’s Comp. adjustments.

    Chowaniec: On page 2 of the tentative budget, under Summary of Appropriations for Debt Service overall debt service is increased by $122,000 and the total increase placed at $2.78 million. Am I correct in saying that the $2.78 million is the combined interest and principal payout of all Serial Bonds, Bond Anticipation Notes and installment purchase debt?

    Brown: Correct.

    Chowaniec: Under budgets in the last three years outstanding debt has increased by $6.15 million (from $19.15 million to $25.29 million) and the interest due on that debt has increased by $509,232 (from $257,813 to $767,529).

    As a regular attendee at town board meetings I have become well aware of the need for the spending increases in the past several years – new police/courts building, Townwide waterline improvement project, baseball facility mortgage brokerage, construction of Highway storage building, highway equipment purchase, Energy Performance contract and for culverts/road stabilization. Well deserved projects and some of them should have been undertaken years go under past administrations.

    At the end of 2015 the Projected Outstanding Debt will be $23.27 million. The interest payback will again be substantial; most likely over $600,000.

    On the outstanding debt list I have to question why there is still an outstanding debt of $1 million for land acquisition in 2003 for the purchase of the Walden Avenue Colecraft Building for the then proposed use for a police and courts building. We were told the sale price of the Walden Avenue building ($1,250,000) could only be used to pay down the debt. As of 12/31/14 there was $1,058,000 in Mandatory Reserve from the Colecraft Building sale and only $120,000 of that is being appropriated into the budget to pay down this debt.

    Is the $120,000 of that number going to pay down the land acquisition portion of the debt service?

    Brown: Yes.

    Chowaniec: So the Colecraft sale money is targeted for only paying down the debt for the land acquisition?

    Brown: Yes.

    Chowaniec: So why wasn’t more spent from the reserve to lower the interest obligation ($36,000).

    Brown: When you take a long term bond, the amortization is garbage. You cannot accelerate the payment.

    Highway Department Storage Facility

    Chowaniec: The project was approved and bonded for $865,000 two years ago. The town started paying interest on the Bond Anticipation Note (BAN) in 2014 ($4,325) and principal payback of $86,500. In the budget the town is scheduled to pay $7,800 interest on the BAN and pay down the debt by another $85,000 this coming year. The length of the bond is for 25 years. As no construction has started on this facility, we are paying for something we don’t have, and we are going to be paying out money again to lease a building for storing equipment. So I ask what, is the status of getting this storage building constructed; especially considering there was a $50,000 shortage in getting the job underway and further delay only increases the cost.

    Fudoli: Currently the numbers have gone up. The bond will have to be amended and we are currently working on that. Mr. Abraham would you comment on that?

    Council member John Abraham: We did get a $50,000 grant from Senator Galivan’s office. We are also looking at some of the proceeds from the sale of the OEM building on Columbia Avenue. But because of the change in what we will be spending the bond must be amended as a technicality.

    Chowaniec: What will the current cost be for the construction of the storage building?

    Fudoli: The last numbers that came in were $1,330,000.

    Chowaniec: A few years ago there was a bid to get the building constructed for $850,000. The low bidder than came in and said he refigured his numbers and said he couldn’t do the job for less than $900,000. So there was the $50,000 shortage. The town board was reluctant in amending the bond then for $50,000. The delay, and the delay in getting work done in a timely manner over the years has cost taxpayers significant dollars. That building could have been up and in operation for a lot less than it’s going to cost taxpayers now.

    Fudoli: Actually, there were some mistakes made.

    Chowaniec: Actually, I don’t think the board took this construction seriously enough. When I visited the Highway Department I learned of the need to have this building; the need to protect today’s vehicle-sensitive electronics and the time and efficiency involved in keeping snow plows in doors rather than having their beds become snow laden and having to be shoveled out before loading salt into them.

    In your report you note a $214,000 decrease in appropriations from New York State Retirement pension obligations because of the health of the stock market, $300,000 in cost avoidance from Workman’s Comp. self insurance, and increased sales tax. You also note the $41.6 million growth in Town Taxable Assessed Valuations (an increase of $7 million over last year). All these contribute significantly to a budget that reduces taxes by 1.76%. Tell me why I should not be concerned that in the 2016 budget such positive indicators will not be positive and the outstanding debt will become a burden in reaching a zero sum budget?

    Fudoli: Some of the bad news associated with the stock market has abated and we should see an easement in pension costs. Two years ago we had an $863,000 increase. So we are just getting back some of that money now.

    We are looking at different ways of cost savings; in merging departments and entering in inter-municipal agreements with other towns – like with the kennel service with the Town of Clarence. My office is working diligently and looking for cost savings wherever possible. We are still providing all the dog services as before but doing it for $100,000 less. I am quite sure there are areas we quite honestly we don’t need; spending too much on.

    I am confident that with the pension relief we have been getting in the last year and this, in finding better ways, more cost-efficient ways to operate, like with inter-municipal agreements. State tax cap requirements are forcing us to look for savings so that our residents can get a tax rebate check by meeting certain criteria.

    Chowaniec: I told Mr. Brown when he sat next to me earlier that I knew the answer to my questions. I asked them because I want other residents to know the answers as well as to how the budget is derived.

    The residents who come before the board to question, challenge or comment on agenda items do so to hold the town accountable. Often they do not agree amongst themselves. The departments need the tools and the equipment to do their job and I back that 100%. At the same time the residents expect to see town employees not abusing the system.

    Lastly, the taxable valuation for the Town General Fund portion of the budget is $2.74 billion ($41.6 million increase). What is the total town taxable valuation before exemptions, IDAS, Condo 339-y tax reductions, etc? I last remembered being at 3.72 billion? Or, should I check with the Assessor’s office?

    Brown: Don’t have that information. Check with the Assessor’s office.

    Comment

    Kudos to all town board members for keeping their composure throughout a meeting that got ugly at times. Lancaster is fortunate to have a very professional board make up. It wasn’t always that way.


    NEXT: Part II: Other residents address the board on the budget

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    10,873
    Nice post Lee - isn't it amazing how things change when ever items are questioned ?

    We were told by Councilman Stempniak for years and years how LVAC "didn't cost us a dime" - its a volunteer organization ! Yet time after time we find out that was not the truth - it cost tax payers every year.

    The Colecraft building seems to be the big "gift" given to Lancaster taxpayers by the Giza/Stempniak era that just keeps popping up and cost us tax payers - year after year.


    Also as you stated - we could have saved thousands and thousands of dollars by building the Highway Storage building when first estimated - just think how much we could have saved if it was built back in 2001 when the past Highway Superintendent wanted to building it !!!!!!!!

    Well as we see year after year - budget after budget - tax payers have been misinformed - some may say "Lied to" by some past and present Town Board Controllers.

    All this growth - all the wasted tax dollars to enhance patronage.
    #Dems play musical chairs + patronage and nepotism = entitlement !

  3. #3
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
    Kudos to all town board members for keeping their composure throughout a meeting that got ugly at times.
    I'm waiting with bated breath to hear the ugly part

    Georgia L Schlager

  4. #4
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
    What is the total town taxable valuation before exemptions, IDAS, Condo 339-y tax reductions, etc? I last remembered being at 3.72 billion?
    Lee, from the Final 2014 assessment roll. It shows the total assessed value of the properties for the school districts. If I'm understanding this correctly, the total value would be $2.03 billion. What am I missing?


    Georgia L Schlager

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 14th, 2011, 05:11 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 6th, 2010, 10:10 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 5th, 2010, 10:40 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 4th, 2010, 10:10 AM
  5. Lancaster 2011 budget public hearing: Part I
    By speakup in forum Speakup Here
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 2nd, 2010, 10:30 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
  •