Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for June, 2015

Still-NOREVISED:
All, an error in my calculations was brought to my attention. Therefore, I withdraw my objection to the elimination of marketing funds, as this will take the budget over the prescribed tax cap. However, I point out again that this cut would be unnecessary had the council taken the ambulance service in-house. My revised veto is as follows:

OBJECTION TO BUDGET MODIFICATIONS • Resolution #14/15-241
In order to protect the interests of the taxpayers of the City of Amsterdam, I am objecting on this date, June 9th, 2015, to the following modifications to the proposed budget contained in the adoption resolution #14/15-241.

In general, the budget I proposed contained accurate and realistic estimates of revenues and expenses. It is unfortunate that the Common Council has decided to forgo the city ambulance proposal and thereby increase the tax burden on our property owners. In-house ambulance services have been proven beneficial to municipalities across the state in the way of hundreds of thousands of dollars in new revenue unrelated to property taxes or utility fees.

The modifications made by the Common Council substantially underestimate expenses for the city’s health insurance program and numerous other areas. The problem with doing this is that the “cuts” are not real; the costs that many of these items estimate are not entirely under the control of the city. The net result will be a significant deficit across all operating funds at the end of the fiscal year, while simultaneously damaging the ability of city staff to provide services.

I would object to all of these modifications if I had the votes to support my objections. Instead, I will only object to certain items that will lessen the negative financial impact of this budget in the hope that the Common Council will reconsider its actions. These objections are also constrained by the various tax caps.

OBJECTIONS:
1. Item 37 – Remove an additional $100,000 from the health insurance appropriation.
Removal of this modification will reduce the amount of the year-end deficit that will be caused by the underestimating of this expense. Again, this harkens to my prior veto of Resolution 240 citing the “practice of the County Board of Supervisors that earned negative comments during a recent audit. The OSC noted that the supervisors had adopted budgets that were structurally unsound, “The County’s declining financial condition is the result of poor budgeting and financial management practices, and the board’s failure to develop and use long-term financial plans”.” I reiterate, we should not make the same mistake here.

2. The amendment to increase the transfer from the Water Fund to the General Fund by $40,000 sponsored by Alderman Barone.
Removal of this amendment will prevent the loss of taxing power under the 2% annual tax cap. Retaining flexibility under this cap is important, as it will allow future administrations to more easily comply with the state-mandated cap and secure the associated compliance checks for our residents. It is particularly concerning that this action was taken so swiftly, without proper justification, analysis or thought, after lengthy discussion about the negative impact the loss of taxing power has on our taxpayers. Please refer to the OSC citation in reference to Item 37.

It is my hope that the Council will recognize my restraint in crafting this veto and that they will concede these few points to better serve our taxpayers.

In light of the aforementioned points, I hereby veto this budget resolution.

Mayor Ann M. Thane

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

once again, no.

OBJECTION TO BUDGET MODIFICATIONS • Resolution #14/15-241

In order to protect the interests of the taxpayers of the City of Amsterdam, I am objecting on this date, June 8th, 2015, to the following modifications to the proposed budget contained in the adoption resolution #14/15-241.

noIn general, the budget I proposed contained accurate and realistic estimates of revenues and expenses. It is unfortunate that the Common Council has decided to forgo the city ambulance proposal and thereby increase the tax burden on our property owners. In-house ambulance services have been proven beneficial to municipalities across the state in the way of hundreds of thousands of dollars in new revenue unrelated to property taxes or utility fees.

The modifications made by the Common Council substantially underestimate expenses for the city’s health insurance program and numerous other areas. The problem with doing this is that the “cuts” are not real; the costs that many of these items estimate are not entirely under the control of the city. The net result will be a significant deficit across all operating funds at the end of the fiscal year, while simultaneously damaging the ability of city staff to provide services.

I would object to all of these modifications if I had the votes to support my objections. Instead, I will only object to certain items that will lessen the negative financial impact of this budget in the hope that the Common Council will reconsider its actions. These objections are also constrained by the various tax caps.

OBJECTIONS:
1. Item 37 – Remove an additional $100,000 from the health insurance appropriation.
Removal of this modification will reduce the amount of the year-end deficit that will be caused by the underestimating of this expense. Again, this harkens to my prior veto of Resolution 240 citing the “practice of the County Board of Supervisors that earned negative comments during a recent audit. The OSC noted that the supervisors had adopted budgets that were structurally unsound, “The County’s declining financial condition is the result of poor budgeting and financial management practices, and the board’s failure to develop and use long-term financial plans“.” I reiterate, we should not make the same mistake here.

2. The amendment to increase the transfer from the Water Fund to the General Fund by $40,000 sponsored by Alderman Barone.
Removal of this amendment will prevent the loss of taxing power under the 2% annual tax cap. Retaining flexibility under this cap is important, as it will allow future administrations to more easily comply with the state-mandated cap and secure the associated compliance checks for our residents. It is particularly concerning that this action was taken so swiftly, without proper justification, analysis or thought, after lengthy discussion about the negative impact the loss of taxing power has on our taxpayers. Please refer to the OSC citation in reference to Item 37.

3. Item 27 – Reduce Mayor’s Marketing Lines by $30,000.
The funds expended under this line will help promote the soon-to-be completed Mohawk Valley Gateway Overlook, update the City’s website, and otherwise improve the image of the City of Amsterdam. It is necessary to adequately market the positive aspects of our community to change undesirable perceptions about our municipality. Ultimately, this will increase outside investment in the City and alleviate many of the stresses cause by the current climate of disinvestment in real property. Failure to fund these efforts is shortsighted and detrimental to the future of the City.

It is my hope that the Council will recognize my restraint in crafting this veto and that they will concede these few points to better serve our taxpayers.

In light of the aforementioned points, I hereby veto this budget resolution.

Mayor Ann M. Thane

Read Full Post »

News_No
VETO STATEMENT • Resolution #14/15-239
I am vetoing this resolution on this date, June 5th, 2015.

I take issue with this resolution for several reasons:

1. Just as was the case with Resolution #14/15-226 (consent), this current resolution was introduced without prior public discussion by the Council in any committee.

2. Just as was the case with Resolution #14/15-226 (consent), this current resolution ignores the recommendations of the Golf Commission, a body that the Council had supposedly given complete control of course management.

3. Just as was the case with Resolution #14/15-226 (consent), this Council has not done any analysis as to what impact the action will have on the Golf Course Budget or City Operational Budget nor have they suggested how this anticipated revenue might be recouped in other ways.

4. Just as was the case with Resolution #14/15-226 (consent) and given that the Golf Course Budget must be made whole by tapping the General fund, this action will further negatively impact our city and its taxpayers.

In light of the aforementioned points, I hereby veto this resolution.

VETO STATEMENT • Resolution #14/15-240
I am vetoing this resolution on this date, June 5th, 2015.

1. The resolution cites “a difficult financial outlook” and that the “taxpayers are continually asked to bear the burden for balancing the city budget.” These conditions exist in every municipality and do not form the basis to ask the state to make an exception to the law that prohibits using sewer fund revenue for general fund purposes. The reality is that the City of Amsterdam operates at 39% of its constitutionally imposed taxing limit and that this budget and the last budget were adopted with property tax decreases.

2. Though the city’s financial records have been inaccurate, the identified accounting problems are being straightened out and the city does not appear to have a poor financial outlook.

3. This Council was presented a budget that was balanced through the inclusion of a new revenue source (city-run ambulance service). This proposal would have removed tax burden from our taxpayers. The Council has chosen to ignore this option.

4. The Council has proposed a shift of money from the Sewer Fund without specifying the amount needed or why it is necessary, given that they have adopted a proposed budget without this transfer.

5. This proposed transfer appears to be intended as a short-term solution to funding recurring costs. This was a practice of the County Board of Supervisors that earned negative comments in its 2013 audit. The OSC noted that the supervisors had adopted budgets that were structurally unsound, “The County’s declining financial condition is the result of poor budgeting and financial management practices, and the board’s failure to develop and use long-term financial plans”. We should not make the same mistakes here.

6. I have spoken with our financial advisors and have been informed that transferring fund balance from the Sewer Fund to support the General Fund may have a detrimental impact on the city’s credit rating, putting us at risk for a rating downgrade, which would then needlessly increase the cost of borrowing in the future.

7. There are critical repairs that must be made to the Waste Water System (treatment plant, pump stations, and distribution lines) that may require drawing from our established reserves. Further, it would be wise to accumulate Sewer Fund balance to defray future capital costs while there are significant high volume users on the system.

8. The Common Council sought state legislative action without discussing this with my office or staff. To approach the State without the counsel of staff or the Mayor is inappropriate. Clearly, it demonstrates an unwillingness to work collaboratively with this administration.

In light of the aforementioned points, I hereby veto this resolution.

Read Full Post »