By a 3-2 vote, the required 60% of town board members, the Town of Lancaster adopted a Local Law which amends in part the Town of Lancaster Code, Chapter 40, Taxation, by enacting a new Article VII. Tax Levy Limit Override, which allows a Tax Levy Limit Override for fiscal year 2017 established in General Municipal Law § 3-c. The attached Local Law No. 5 of 2016 is hereby adopted which allows a Tax Levy Limit Override for fiscal year 2017 established in General Municipal Law § 3-c.
Supervisor Johanna Coleman and Town Board members John Abraham and Dawn Gaczewski voted yes; all expressing their intent to stay under the tax cap limit but as a precautionary move in the event an unexpected expense arose before the final budget was approved.
Council members Ron Ruffino and Matt Walter cast ‘no’ votes expressing their intent to finalize a budget that would come in under the allowable 2.96% tax levy increase; an amount that is now only $21,096 below the tax cap limit.
Resident addresses board at pre-file resolution public comment session
Lee Chowaniec: In the work session it was discussed about town employees being treated fairly. I am looking at the same time for like consideration for the taxpayers.
My resolution questions and comments concern the up-coming preliminary 2017 (Res.12) budget and the need for a resolution to override the tax cap (Res. 5). The proposed 2017 budget (excluding Special Districts) appropriates $324,948 more in spending than the 2016 budget, yet the amount to be raised by taxation increases by $533,648. Why the increase of $208,780?
You have reduced the amount of fund balance appropriations from last year by $495,000. No fund balance money came from the police budget ($1.46 million). Is it with the anticipation with settling the police union contract?
Supervisor Johanna Coleman: No, it was left alone because there is a provision in the NYS Controller’s office that there should be enough fund balance money to cover two months of operation. If you did not follow that law you would be written up for not meeting law protocol.
Chowaniec: Your estimated fund balance ending on December 31, 2016 is $6.19 million for this portion of the budget (after 2017 appropriations; excluding Special Districts). Considering the budget is $25.29 million that means we have a fund balance that is 24.47% of this portion of the budget. I have always been led to believe that a healthy fund balance was one that held 12-15% in unreserved fund balance. That said, I can’t understand the reduction in fund balance appropriations when such funds could be used to overcome any ‘unexpected ‘event and where such formula holds back taxpayer monies – and the need for a tax cap override.
Coleman: We are not going to exceed the tax cap limit. We are voting later to have the availability to override the tax cap should the need arise.
Chowaniec: That is good to hear, but from past budgets we have always seen budget amendments and most times an increase in spending over the proposed budget. All I am saying here is that I believe there is enough fund balance money to be used to eliminate the need for a tax cap limit override.
What has changed that we now have a law that dictates that there be enough money in the fund balance to cover two months of department operation and where we now have so much in fund balance.
Dave Brown (Director of Administration & Budget): It is not a law, it is a recommendation.
Mr. Brown tried to explain the difference in fund balance (unreserved funds) vs. reserved fund balances. Time was limited and the matter will be discussed at the budget public hearing.
Abraham & Dawn guess what this is political suicide for both of you. Matt & Ruffino impressive and this bodes well come next election.
So which is it Law or recommendation?
Lee, you make a good point, every year the budget is amended.
So happy Matt Walter voted NO & Ron Ruffino kept his promise to the taxpayers that he would vote NO to override the tax cap.
Make no mistake John, Dawn, Ron & Matt the taxpayers are watching. Next election will be very different.
I was VERY disappointed that Dawn, John and Johanna voted YES to override the tax cap.
Very pleased that John and Matt took a stand and voted NO.
I guess, I misunderstood Lee's post. I thought the vote was for a local law to have the ability to override the tax cap if a situation warranted it. I didn't realize the vote was in fact to override the tax cap.Originally Posted by DebLemaster
Georgia L Schlager
That is correct; a state requirement to have the ability to override the tax cap limit by enacting a law that exists for only the present year.I guess, I misunderstood Lee's post. I thought the vote was for a local law to have the ability to override the tax cap if a situation warranted it.
What Lemaster was referring to is the concern that the override ability doesn’t become a reality despite the fact that all board members expressed their intent was not to vote for a budget that exceeds the tax cap limit. The great majority of proposed budgets are amended and with rare exception increase spending (appropriations).I didn't realize the vote was in fact to override the tax cap.
Had three or more board members voted ‘no’ to the override resolution the board would have been obligated to come in with a final budget under the tax cap limit.
From the Buffalo News:
In a separate matter, the Town Board tabled a proposal to increase the compensation and benefits for about 12 full-time, non-union workers that would have closely mirrored what was awarded two weeks ago to about 60 workers represented by a union. Three board members indicated they would not support the resolution introduced by Coleman. The employees represented by a union are receiving 10 percent pay raises over seven years in a pact that runs from 2012 through 2018.
During the board work session, some board members said the raises for non-union workers should not be approved before the 2017 budget is finalized.
"I leave all options on the table," Walter said, noting he is not necessarily opposed to granting them raises and the suggested benefits. "This ties our hands. It's not a lot of money, but I'd rather let the budget process play out and do the public hearings."
Town Clerk Diane Terranova said the staff in her office deserve the raise. "This is inconceivable, if it comes to a 'no' vote," she said. "My employees work their tails off and they work hard."
Ruffino pushed back. "These are non-union people. You can't just keep continuing to give them what the settlements" are for union workers, he said.
Coleman said it boiled down to "fairness."
From all appearances from last night’s town board meeting the proposed budget will be amended. Department heads and some employees are not too happy with the proposed budget. Don't discount the use of the tax cap limit override law yet!
Thanks Lee. Don't the non-union workers already contribute to their healthcare?Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
From all appearances from last night’s town board meeting the proposed budget will be amended. Department heads and some employees are not too happy with the proposed budget. Don't discount the use of the tax cap limit override law yet!
Georgia L Schlager
Diane Terranova has no right to make the statement since she is now the town clerk making a hefty salary. If you don't like the pay look for another job.
I am very impressed with Matt Walters stance on pay increases. He is thinking about the taxpayers.
But we always did it this way
http://www.lancasterbee.com/news/201..._benefits.html
It was both interesting and refreshing to hear a council member say, “That was before, now we need to be looking at this in another manner. ”I heard the, "But we always did it this way too many times in the past under another administration." Yes indeed, we are witnessing a change in direction with this board; and I like it.
As interesting to hear two other board members agree. The budget public hearing should be especially interesting this year; much in contention and with only $22,000 under the tax cap levy and the entire board promising to stay under the cap.
I guess, I'm the lone dog with the opinion that the non-union employees deserve a raise as well.
They have been paying 8.5% of their healthcare premium since March 2015. The union members don't start paying 8.5% towards their premiums until January 2018.
They stepped up to the plate to help out the taxpayer when the unions refused to. I believe they are deserving a raise not because they've always done it that way but because they earned it.
Georgia L Schlager
[QUOTE=gorja;1672862]
Not true, gorga. Fairness was the theme of the discussion at the work session. It is time to review policies and procedures that have been followed for decades with the mantra, “That is the way we always did it.”I guess, I'm the lone dog with the opinion that the non-union employees deserve a raise as well.
True but the non bargaining unit got a salary increase last year and they don’t pay union dues.They have been paying 8.5% of their healthcare premium since March 2015. The union members don't start paying 8.5% towards their premiums until January 2018.
Yes, they are deserving but right now we are comparing apples to oranges and all things need to be considered before coming to a determination. The resolution was tabled, not denied.They stepped up to the plate to help out the taxpayer when the unions refused to. I believe they are deserving a raise not because they've always done it that way but because they earned it.
Great way to move back to Lancaster next month. John, dawn and Mrs. Coleman I will be holding you accountable. 11 years I can finally come back from Cheektowaga and they're more frigged up than here!! I am ticked. Just remember this folks who voted these people into office
Dawn is so wrapped up with Coleman, from the Woman's vote to I will do what you want me to do.... Watch out their in together.
Yep, I voted for one of three that you mentioned.
Georgia L Schlager
Sadly sometimes you find out later who they really are
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote