January 19, 2012

The North Shore School District held a Town Meeting to review the School Boards draft budget proposal in the middle school cafeteria at 8PM today. Superintendent Melnick stated that the draft budget shows a 3.46% increase on a 92 millon dollar annual budget, but that he intends to work with the Board to reduce this amount to 1.85%. He stated he would not put forth a vote for override on the 2% cap this year, but he may reach for an override next year (2013).

The Glenwood Landing LIPA power plant issue was discussed. When the power plant is decommissioned, there will be a loss of approximately 15 million dollars in tax revenue, which represents 17% of the school budget. Both the Superintendent and other Board members stated that the closing of the power plant would not affect their budget, even though property owners will have significant tax increases.

The SCPOC will study the issue of how the plant closing will affect taxpayers and the school budget, and what impact the 2% cap has in this situation.

For the 2012-2013 year, the North Shore School District is projected to have a 2825 students, with an average cost (based on the draft budget) of $32,543 per student per annum. The district ranks in the top 25% for spending per public school student on Long Island.

On January 9th 2012, we had a record turnout at the public hearing in Sea Cliff Village Hall. At issue was a Village proposal to override the two percent tax cap. I believe the residents who came out on both sides of the tax cap all have a common goal in our heart, and that is to make Sea Cliff the best Village on Long Island. The hearing made me proud to be an American because democracy in action is a beautiful thing. However several statements were made by some, both at the hearing and later in the press, that cannot go unchallenged.

The reason for the large turnout was a postcard sent by the Sea Cliff Property Owners Committee alerting Villagers of the hearing. The postcard simply stated “ IN 2011 GOVERNOR CUOMO ENTACTED THE 2% PROPERTY TAX CAP. IN 2012, THE VILLAGE OF SEA CLIFF WANTS TO TAKE IT AWAY.” Those seeking to override the tax cap have stated that the postcard was “inaccurate,” and “full of lies.” I challenge these people to tell us specifically where is the inaccuracy? The tax cap law was passed and signed by Andrew Cuomo, and the Village wants to kill it. It’s really as simple as that. Just because the Village was caught in the embarrassing position of providing the bare minimum notice to taxpayers of such a controversial issue, don’t blame the messenger.

Like most politicians running for office since the days of Michael Dukakis, Mayor Kennedy claims to have been elected to office on the platform of not raising taxes. However we need to look at the Sea Cliff budget for the last two years to see if these promises have been kept. In the 2010-2011 budget year, total expenses were $5,071,433. In the 2011-2012 budget year, total expenses where $5,337,001. In other words, spending increased $265,000. To pay for the increased spending, tax revenues were increased by $120,854, or on average $56 more per tax lot. The rest of the spending was paid for by withdrawing $125,000 from the Village checkbook.

Mayor Kennedy, whilst bemoaning state mandates goes on to make a claim, printed in the Gold Coast Gazette, stating that “the members of N.Y.S Mandate Relief Redesign Team have not even been named.” Mayor Kennedy, let me introduce you to the Chairman of the team, Larry Schwartz, along with the other 27 distinguished members. Also running counter to Kennedy’s claims, 70% of the 798 taxing entities in New York are not overriding the property tax cap as of January 15, according to the state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli.

Burdensome regulations and enforcement raise costs for the Village, and hassle property owners. The Village of Sea Cliff needs to reform the Village code with an eye towards reducing costs. We need to stop wasting money paying code enforcement officers to spy on residents in tinted window Suburbans. The Village needs to focus on the flexibility it already has to cut spending, rather that doing away with the cap.

It is easy to point fingers at Albany and gripe about reduced State aid and increased mandates. But at what point do we take responsibility for ourselves? Albany doesn’t dictate Village staffing requirements, costly Village regulations, and other expenses in the Village’s control. When do we stop blaming Albany, and instead start setting the example for Albany?

Anthony Losquadro
Sea Cliff POC

Sea Cliff, Bayville won’t exceed tax cap

Originally published: January 10, 2012 10:15 PM
Updated: January 10, 2012 10:25 PM
By BILL BLEYER bill.bleyer@newsday.com

Village boards in Sea Cliff and Bayville deferred giving themselves authority to exceed the state’s 2 percent cap on tax levy increases in next year’s budgets after boisterous residents opposed the action Monday night.

About 100 residents packed the Sea Cliff Village Hall meeting room for a hearing so heated at times that Mayor Bruce Kennedy broke his gavel trying to maintain order.

More than half of the 302 villages in the state have passed exemption laws with little fuss, Peter Baynes, executive director of the New York State Conference of Mayors, said. In Massapequa Park Monday night, the board authorized exceeding the new tax cap with no residents voicing concern.

But with overflow audiences mostly opposed to the proposals, the Sea Cliff board reserved its decision pending more information from the state, while Bayville trustees withdrew the proposal when residents called it premature.

Sea Cliff trustees decided to postpone a vote after Kennedy pointed out the board had 62 days to act and would wait until the last minute to make a decision. Kennedy pledged that there would be no large tax increase, saying his goal was no tax increase at all.

“What the governor and State Legislature did not consider when passing this tax cap is that . . . there are a multitude of expenses and state mandates that local governments must budget for but cannot control the costs of,” Kennedy told the crowd.

The large turnout was driven by a community group, Sea Cliff Property Owners Committee, recently formed by 20-year resident Anthony Losquadro, who mailed postcards to every resident urging them to attend and fight to keep the cap.

“Even though we have not been presented with any looming fiscal crisis, they [trustees] want to immediately jettison our tax cap protections,” Losquadro said.

Resident Nancy Rose said the board had been responsible about holding down spending and taxes and favored giving the mayor and trustees flexibility to exceed the cap if necessary.

“You have nothing to lose,” she said.

But Jerry Romano said, “The village needs to live within its budget, just like the rest of us do.”

And Brian Griffin said, “There are a lot of residents who would be willing to accept service cuts” rather than pay higher taxes.

In Bayville, Mayor Doug Watson told a standing-room crowd of 65 residents that the village faced a $25,000 increase in its payroll and a $55,000 increase in pension costs, which would represent all but $11,000 of a 2 percent increase in the tax levy.

Baynes said he was not aware of any major opposition in the 158 villages that already passed the override provision. “Because it’s the first year of the cap and the administration of the process is not 100 percent clear, municipalities don’t want to be caught inadvertently exceeding the cap,” he said.

In Massapequa Park, while the board passed the law, Mayor James Altadonna Jr. said he did not plan to exceed the 2 percent limit.

The Thomaston board Monday night unanimously approved a budget with a 2.4 percent increase in spending to $1.9 million, but a tax levy increase of only 0.24 percent.

With Emily Ngo

and Emi Endo

Originally published: January 8, 2012 6:54 PM
Updated: January 8, 2012 7:29 PM
By BILL BLEYER bill.bleyer@newsday.com

A newly formed Sea Cliff taxpayers group is opposing the village board’s plan to approve exceeding, if necessary, the state’s 2-percent cap on tax levy increases in next year’s budget.

The village board will hold a hearing Monday at 8 p.m. on the waiver, which Mayor Bruce Kennedy said may not be necessary unless there is a large jump in expenses or an unexpected cut in state aid to the village.

Nonetheless, the Sea Cliff Property Owners Committee, recently formed by 20-year resident Anthony Losquadro, has mailed postcards to residents urging them to attend the meeting to oppose the exception.

“In 2011, Governor Cuomo enacted the 2% property tax cap,” the postcard reads. “In 2012, the Village of Sea Cliff wants to take it away.”

Sea Cliff is one of a number of Long Island villages considering such an action. Massapequa Park, Flower Hill and Bayville also are holding public hearings Monday night on exceeding the tax levy cap.

Sea Cliff’s Kennedy said, “In 2009 I was campaigning that you cannot raise people’s taxes — that it’s out of control. Since then I’ve held the line on taxes. In that same amount of time, state aid has decreased by over 20 percent and New York State-mandated costs have increased by over 40 percent.”

He said the village fiscal year begins June 1, “and it’s our intention to hold the line on taxes again, but I don’t know at this time what the village can expect from the state in the form of revenues and I’m not sure what to expect as far as our mandated costs. This being the case, I want to leave the option of increasing the tax levy over 2 percent.”

He said he would propose an increase of more than 2 percent only if it was required to maintain the current level of services. He said there should be a proposed budget in March followed by a hearing and final adoption.

Losquadro said, “The problem is that the tax cap was something that was given to all New Yorkers by Albany to give some protection to property owners.” He added that the village should not be challenging it in the first year it takes effect.

“I don’t buy that,” he said of the mayor’s explanation that the village should have the option to exceed the 2-percent cap if financial conditions warrant. “Their current budget shows no need for it,” he said. “Maybe some point down the road if the conditions warrant it.”