.

Tax Cap Override a Necessary Evil This Year in Town of Mamaroneck

The Town of Mamaroneck Board of Trustees voted on a local law that would allow them to override the two percent property tax cap in this year's budget.

 

Though the Town of Mamaroneck was able to avert overriding the two percent tax cap last year in the wake of state mandated costs, dwindling revenue and a down economy, it seems like an unlikely proposition for the future.

“I have to say, keeping the services that we enjoy in the Town of Mamaroneck, it is not possible to stay within the cap year after year and I don’t think it’s possible this year,” said Town Supervisor Nancy Seligson.

The $22.4 million preliminary budget for 2013 is $1.06 million—or almost 5 percent—higher than the $21.3 budget that passed in 2011.  By comparison, the 2012 budget increased the tax levy by $589K from 2011, a percentage within the range that the town was permitted without overriding the cap.

If the budget is passed by the board on Dec. 19, a taxpayer with an average assessed home valued at $20K in the unincorporated area of Mamaroneck will pay an additional $254 in property taxes; those in the Villages of Larchmont and Mamaroneck will be looking at an $83 annual increase.

Last year’s budget was achieved, in part, by two employees who took retirement incentives, shaving $110K off the final numbers, as well as more favorable deductions in the tax levy formula that would have allowed the town to raise the levy by as much as 3.23 percent without overriding the cap.

However, this year the state has reduced the amount by which municipalities may exclude their pension contribution from the tax cap levy formula, which amounts to an approximately $98K drop, from $162,362 to $63,992.  Also, the state has decreased the growth factor accounting for inflationary change, another factor in the formula that further decreases the amount by which the town can raise the levy.

Additionally, the town was faced with state-mandated increases in health insurance and pension costs equal to 87 percent—or $468K—of the allowable increase for the town under the cap.

Employee salaries and benefits, at $21.18 million, make up an overwhelming portion of the preliminary budget; last year these costs amounted to $20.3 million of the budget.

The town has opted to put $570K back into their surplus funds in order to achieve a 15-20 percent balance with appropriations. Surplus has declined in recent years due to poor performance on investments and low revenue.

“We need the surplus in the event of an emergency and to maintain our AAA credit rating,” said Seligson, referring to the town’s ability to borrow money at very low rates of interest.

Officials were also steadfast in their belief that borrowed funds should not pay for built-in budgetary costs like healthcare and benefits.  

“I think borrowing for a pension is like taking out a mortgage to buy your groceries,” said Town Administrator Steve Altieri.

Offsetting some of the increases in mandated budget costs was a little over 6 percent—or $572K—increase in non-tax revenue from the previous year including sales tax, ambulance charges and building permit, recreation and parking fees.

Some of the cost-cutting measures the town has proposed for 2013 include an energy use reduction; retirement incentive plans to be offered to senior employees; no additional full-time positions and a series of negotiations that are currently taking place with both the Civil Service Employee’s Association (CSEA) and career firefighters’ unions.

Other future measures could include reducing garbage pick-up days, modifying leaf pick-up and charging fees for sewer usage.

The board unanimously approved a local law to override the tax cap levy.   

The preliminary budget can be viewed in full by visiting the town's website. 

The Board of Trustees will vote to pass the budget at a Dec. 19 meeting at 8 p.m. 

Catherine Wachs December 06, 2012 at 03:14 PM
This is why the tax cap at the state level is just smoke and mirrors. A government needs flexibility to raise revenues.
Rose M December 06, 2012 at 04:19 PM
Those on fixed incomes are not seeing 2% increases in our funds. Exceeding a cap designed to control costs is not the way to go. Lead the fight (enlisting all citizens) to control State government mandates if that is the problem. Citizens have to cut our expenses to live within their means. So too should our State and local governments. I hope our local government doesn't see people on fixed incomes "necessary evils" for protesting an excessive budget increase.
jjinla December 06, 2012 at 07:20 PM
Did they think they could meet the cap by just grabbing low hanging fruit? No...they actually needed to find efficiencies and cut waste. Clearly, that is too much for them to handle. If they won't make hard decisions, I'm sure their replacements will.
LMP December 06, 2012 at 07:29 PM
The "Headline" belongs with an editorial rather than a purported news article. What is certainly not news, is the inability of so many of our elected officials to serve the needs of the people. Individuals behaving in that manner would reach bankruptcy. So may our governments.
Buddy December 06, 2012 at 07:37 PM
The fact is that most people in our town are not willing to put up with any reduction in services... Stuff like once a week garbage collection, reduced leaf collection, consolidation of services between VOL and VOM, all seem like no brainers to me...
John Cronin December 08, 2012 at 01:28 PM
Buddy, if you were to actually review the cost of delivering the services we've all come to expect (twice a week garbage collection, annual leaf pick-up), relative to what we pay-out in state mandated benefits, you'd be opposed to any service cut-backs whatsoever. The City of New Rochelle, whose budget for 2013 is going up $5M, along with a 5% property tax increase, is considering cutting leaf pick-up entirely next year - and do you know what leaf pick up costs that city? $250,000 annually!! And the city's proposed budget for 2013 is $153M!!! Just absolutely absurd, it costs peanuts to deliver the services we expect - so don't let anyone in the Larchmont/Mamaroneck adminstrations that we need to cut back on anything.
jjinla December 08, 2012 at 06:56 PM
A 5% annual increase equates to over a 20% increase in 4 years. Do you expect to be making 20% more in 4 years. The bottom line is that we simply cannot afford so many layers of government anymore...village, town, county, etc...nor can we afford to have public employees for anything that can be privatized like trash pick up, gardeners, maintenance...

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »