The “Double Deuce Doosie”

If you’re reading this, then it’s likely you’re sitting down already. If not, then I encourage you to take a seat or at least find something to hold on to.

Okay? Ready for this? Probably not, but here it goes, anyway…

As presented last month to the board of trustees, Brockport’s tentative budget for the coming fiscal year calls for a 22% tax increase.

If you’re thinking to yourself, “Whoa! That’s a big increase!” then you know exactly how I felt when the proposal was revealed. Thank goodness the board will have an opportunity to revise it, because it would take an extraordinary set of circumstances before I would support a hike like that in the midst of a recession—or at any other time, for that matter.

So how did it come to this, a “double deuce doosie,” you might ask. Well, if there’s one thing I’ve observed since taking office last summer, it’s that answers in village government are usually harder to come by than questions. I can state for sure, though, that not every department came through on the request that some board members made to trim expenses by 2%. Also, it seems prudent to plan for less revenue to be generated through sales tax during the coming fiscal year, simply because people tend to diminish their spending during economic downturns like the whopper the state and country are in right now.

I know it’s a tangent, but the next government official who begins his remarks about how bad things are fiscally at the moment by saying, “Not since the Great Depression…” ought to be smacked right in his WPA. As I mentioned when talking about the budget at the village board’s last meeting this past Monday, some of us actually know others who have been laid off during the past few months. My own list keeps growing. It includes people with more than a decade with their now former employers. It includes some who held white-collar jobs. It includes folks in the trades, others in professions, and some in education, an industry that tends to do well when the economy doesn’t. So I get it: these are tough times, the kind that come along only about once every other generation.

The difference between most people and me is that I have at least an opportunity and perhaps an obligation to do something about taxes. And while 22% is a big—even an alarming—figure, it’s what’s behind that number that really matters.

As I suggested during my April 3 board report, I feel strongly that Brockport’s leadership must at this time begin to evaluate what programs and services we are asking taxpayers to buy. As an example, I alluded in my remarks that evening to the village’s water fund.

Back in the good old days, many municipalities operated their own water departments for one simple reason: it was profitable. However, as villages’ infrastructure aged and water distribution became more consolidated (locally under the Monroe County Water Authority), the number of municipalities going it alone began to diminish.

Today Brockport is one of the few villages in western New York still selling water to its residents. Problem is, to turn a buck doing it, the village needs to buy the water wholesale, which it does from the MCWA, and then mark it up. The result is that we pay more in Brockport for water than do our neighbors in Sweden, or anywhere else around here. The kicker is that the village lost money on water sales last year, in part because consumption appears to have been down.

Although water isn’t necessarily central to the discussion about the future of the village’s finances, it does illustrate how out of whack things have gotten. While the tentative budget asks you to reach into your pocket and pull out about $200 more per household for the village, if I have anything to say about it, Brockport’s taxpayers are not going to be soaked during the coming fiscal year.

A Supervisor Deposed

“I didn’t realize that was what Buddy meant when he said he was holding the line on taxes.” So went the punch line of the joke I overheard this past week after the arrest on tax-related charges of Sweden Town Supervisor Nat “Buddy” Lester, III had been reported by local media.

While I don’t count Mr. Lester as a personal friend, I did have dealings with the now former supervisor every once in a while in my capacity as an elected official. Although we were on opposite sides of the table, he representing the town and I representing the village, he always was cordial.

This is not an apologia for Lester. Indeed, if what’s been reported is factual, then things don’t seem to look very bright for him at the moment. Beyond that, in my estimation, his fate is the business of the court.

Still, in the wake of his arrest, and the cynical musings about it, I am hoping for the best, even if expecting less out of the situation. Certainly, though, the fall from grace of one of our area's most popular political figures will bring change, some say for the better, others, the worse.

Speaking with friends and family members that reside across western New York, but not in western Monroe County, I realized that to the rest of creation, the Village of Brockport and the Township Sweden are one in the same, interchangeable. I found myself clarifying repeatedly during the past few days that Lester was not part of the governing body on which I serve.

But that reminded me that while the two municipalities are separate, their paths are joined. Judging by the blank looks that my distinguishing Sweden from Brockport elicited over the weekend, outsiders seem to intuit their connectedness even if people like myself see it otherwise from time to time.

Fact is, like it or not, Lester’s influence here was substantial. Voters trusted him. In his absence, now what?

Well, for starters, I wish the remaining members of the Sweden Town Board the best of luck as they carry on without Buddy. Beyond that, though, all we can do is wait and see.

Brockport’s Budget Part 2

Since January there’s been a lot of lively discussion at village board meetings about the budget process. While folks have made several comments and asked many questions—both publicly and privately—about the village’s next spending plan, the trustees work on the budget likely will begin sometime in late March. That’s because crafting the tentative budget is the responsibility of the village’s budget officer, which is the mayor or his designee.

In fact, perhaps as a safeguard against willy-nilly planning, the budget calendar for New York’s villages is heavily prescribed by law. For example, by Feb. 8 of each year, the budget officer is required to request in writing each department head’s budget estimates, schedules and statements. By March 1, department heads must submit revenue and expenditure estimates to the budget officer. By March 20, the budget officer is legally obligated to file the tentative budget with the village clerk.

The contents of a tentative budget are spelled out by statute, too. Among what’s required is: comparative information about the past year’s spending, appropriations for the current year, and requests for the coming year; wage and salary schedules; and revenue estimates for both the current and coming fiscal years.

The next step of the process is presentation of the tentative budget by the village clerk to the board of trustees. This must take place by March 31. After this presentation, the board of trustees may revise the budget as deemed necessary and within the confines of the law.

By April 15, the village must host a public hearing on the tentative budget as amended by board resolution. The board may further revise the tentative budget after the public hearing before adopting it by May 1. Finally, within 30 days of its adoption, the chief fiscal officer must file a certified copy of the budget with the state comptroller.

So while there’s been much discussion at board meetings and otherwise about what trustees are doing on the budget, in reality we’re responsible for reviewing the tentative budget, changing it if we find the need, and adopting it in a timely manner. Of course, trustees have been talking for the last couple of months about the budget with one another, with department heads, and with concerned citizens. But until the board is presented formally with a tentative budget, we’re not in a position to thoroughly examine it. And examine it, we shall.

Brockport’s Budget

Fiscal responsibility was a central plank in the platform I shared with Trustee Scott Hunsinger last spring. Faced with capital projects the scope of which Brockport doesn’t see often (I’m thinking of the replacement of the sewer lines and water mains under Main Street later this year and the New York State Department of Transportation’s overhaul of the roadway slated to begin in 2010), a solid understanding of the village’s priorities will be instructive as we begin the budget process.

At last Monday’s village board meeting, Trustee David Wagenhauser suggested that the village’s department heads—the superintendent of the Brockport Department of Public Works, the chief of the Brockport Police Department, etc.—re-submit to the board their budget proposals to reflect a 2% cut compared with current fiscal year budgets. This was an idea he had put forth at a board meeting earlier this year, one that I support.

There’s nothing magical about the number 2%. It just seems like a good starting point if the board’s going to attempt in earnest to hold the line on taxes. Spending is a choice, and I think it’s fair of the board to ask department heads to find items that taxpayers may not need to buy.

In addition to the baseline budget, Trustee Hunsinger suggested that department heads forward to the board prioritized lists of items they’d like to see funded. This will help to clarify and urgent needs and differentiate them from emergent needs. I hope it also will provide a basis for constructive conversation about which expenditures would be wise and which can wait.

Finally, I suggested at the last board meeting that budget proposals ought to follow a common format. There are several reasons for this.

First, I must admit that I was a bit surprised at the some of budget materials we had received. While I realize that the budget request didn’t include any instructions, I had expected to see line items in more or less of a spreadsheet format. Given that department heads have varying degrees of budgetary experience though, it makes sense in retrospect that what they submitted didn’t always follow any established template.

Having a budget protocol—defining what will be most helpful to the board—will help us compare proposals side by side among departments. It will make it easier to make sense of requests and to understand across the organization where money is flowing now, and where more ought to flow.

With this request we are, of course, asking department heads to do more. However, I hope that by doing more they might gain insight into the process, at least the board’s end of it. That’s because the likely outcome this spring is that we’ll adopt a spending plan that includes some items and excludes others. There are tough choices ahead, and I believe that getting everyone on the same page—literally—will streamline the process and benefit decision makers and taxpayers alike.