Thursday, September 17, 2009

Maloney: Greece Hoardes Taxpayer Money In Reserve Funds

Maloney says the town under-estimates revenues, over-estimates expenses and has accumulated three times the amount the State Comptroller calls appropriate

Maloney claims excess funds for the highway, library & street light funds in addition to the general fund approaches $13 million.

Auberger says $3 million of the reserves will be used to hold taxes down in next year's budget

"They're hoarding money, the taxpayers' money in the town of Greece. Our question is why? Did they expect a rash of lawsuits?" ~~ Dan Maloney, Supervisor candidate (Dem)

"I question my opponent's knowledge of municipal budgeting. He can come out and say what he wants about this or that. But looking at my record, it's been a very conservative, fiscally well run town." ~~ John Auberger, Greece Supervisor (Rep)

WHEC.com

In a different short clip, Auberger said the police chief's position won't be filled until after Rahn's October hearing.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

It doesn't really hold taxes down, it is just that they have been pre-paid. Typical political spin. When the tax levy stays the same and they dip into the reserve means spending is up not down. Coffee

Anonymous said...

Auberger says he is holding taxes down. What a joke, they over-budget everything, raise our assessments and then try to make us believe they are holding taxes at the same level. What a bunch of political cr--! They really believe we are stupid.

Anonymous said...

Well now it makes sense about the latest Auberger rumor I heard.

WOW.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps Maloney and his friend(s), does not understand the concept of fund balance. I suggest he take time to understand the issue, then hold a news conference.

He clearly does understand the concept of pay raises!

SCATS said...

To 4:50AM ~~ I saw most of the different videos showing both sides of this topic yesterday. I'm very familiar with Fund Balances, i.e. "reserve funds" from the school budget debates. It's not rocket science as some would have us believe. It appeared clear to me that Maloney hit a nerve with Uncle Jack on this topic ;)

Anonymous said...

If you understand budgets (general comment, not directing this at SCATS) then you know that you plan for "anticipated costs" throughout the year, and you plan for a worst case scenerio. If the winter is a particularly bad one, you've done good. If it's light, you role what you didn't use over into next year. But the possibility for a bad winter remains. Now do this for every service provided (hot summer means less mowing, rainy summer means you're mowing more). So much more is impacted - fuel, manpower, maintenance, wear and tear, etc.

Then, factor in the insanely through the roof pension costs. NYS has been screwing up the pension system so bad that local governments are whacked with double digit increases in contributions. If you can't cover that, well, I don't even want to think about it.

Union contracts, healthcare, paperclips (I'm not being funny, just pointing out that costs for every single little thing goes up) are all fluid costs that fluctuate yearly.

I'm not a wiz on this but if the town benefits from a good bond rating because they carry a fund balance, why is that bad? Municipalities have been criticized for not carry a fund balance which also results in higher interest rates.

This is not a shot at Dan Maloney, but if Greece had little or no fund balance, I'd expect that he'd be criticizing that.

Politics is politics, but let's be as honest as possible here.

I can't believe I just wrote that. ;)

Charlie Hubbard said...

There is nothing wrong with reserve funds as long as they are known upfront the $$ amount and purpose.
Example; if we were putting money away for anticipated legal fees and or law suits that would be prudent budgeting. Last year we had XX $$ in reserve for this purpose, we are getting an extra $$ from the state and we feel putting more $$ into that reserve would be good budgeting. You need to have more particulars to pass judgement.
This does however fit with what you must look at as far as prudent budgeting - SPENDING - every dollar of SPENDING is going to be paid by the taxpayers - PERIOD.

As for spending the proposal by 'unshackle upstate' to make changes to the taylor law and tribourgh will have a much bigger impact on spending and or taxes than anything we have seen in years.
This item has been overdue for years and this group is to be applauded for bringing it forth. EVERY local public official should be joining this effort. EVERY town board member, EVERY school board member. And EVERY candidate for public office should tell the voters where they stand on this item.
Simply put this item tells you if an elected official or candidate is concerned for 'taxpayers' or 'special interest' and it's just that simple. This item has more impact on controlling SPENDING than anything in our town or school budgets.

chubbard005@rochester.rr.com
775-6015

SCATS said...

To 11:12AM ~~ I've heard your arguments before, but in the BOE meeting room. The question becomes one of how much is too much? Even the Comptroller has some guidelines. You can't plan for EVERY catastrophe (like the ice storm of '91 or the back-to-back blizzards in 1999). I suspect the town could reserve a bit less than $13 million and still get that good bond rating ;)

Anonymous said...

much of this is an AUberger slush fund

Charlie Hubbard said...

You may be right Scats as to the amount which is why I said we need to know more. The guildlines are I suspect - general in nature. As I said we 'may' have a specific need.

One of the items at the school district was a very POOR explanation as to why we needed MORE,MORE,MORE mostly because we always have. I think we have broken some of those paradigms.

I applaud those looking into this and hopefully force accountability.

Simply put if taxes need to be raised you better have a D##N good reason and that reason had better be an explanation of any increase in SPENDING. Needless to say raising taxes to pad the coffers NO NO NO.