Tuesday, November 18, 2014

BOE Budget Goals Create Angst


1/3 of Greece BOE Votes Against 
2% Tax Cap As A Budget Goal

O'Toole & VanOrman : "Because we've been so responsible in the past ..."
   
SCATS ~~ If the stated reason for the opposition isn't enough of a head-scratcher consider this: After protesting and voting against the suggested addition to the budget goals list of "Meeting the 2% tax cap"Julia found herself backed into a corner of her own creation. When the amended goal list was approved on a vote of 6 to 3, she mused over how this left her with the uncomfortable decision of potentially having to vote against the entire list of goals, because she opposed the tax cap goal. Thankfully BOE Prez. Sean McCabe rescued her by giving her a much needed potty break immediately following the vote. What relief!!
  

13 comments:

Charlie Hubbard said...

Am I missing something here? I thought a budget was a 'spending' plan?

SCATS said...

To Charlie ~~ I think what's "missing" is the LOGIC in these BOE members!! As Oberg pointed out, it's JUST a goal, not a directive.

Based on the rhetoric these three spewed, I gather they are pandering to the unions.

Also, it is obvious, they are DEFINITELY planning to spend!

Charlie Hubbard said...

I'm sorry Scats but I read this to mean 'how much 'can' we spend' rather than a spending plan of 'what we need' OR heaven help us what amount can we attribute to 'educational improvement' aka can we show the taxpayers they can get something for MORE of their money.

Anonymous said...

Budget must be balanced. 2% cap on taxes also caps spending.

Anonymous said...

To: SCATS

Does budget exceeding 2% cap mean voters must approve by 60%?

george hubbard said...

To: 6:59PM

1. I disagree. To cap REVENUE would cap spending, but taxes are only one part of revenue.

2. Therefore capping taxes= 2% does not cap spending.

3. For example, cap taxes= 2%, but spending could increase 3%, 4%, etc. by using reserves... for a few years until reserves get used up.

Anonymous said...

Learn to live with it. 2% means 2%. Most of the retirees need to live on an increase of 1.7% since the Feds determined inflation was only 1.7%. And by the way , that will be gobbled up by the Medicare increase.

Why is it that the school can continue to spend more and more in spite of the fact that many of us taxpayers do not get more and more?

Anonymous said...

County under the cap. CHECK
Town under the cap. CHECK
Spencerport school under the cap. CHECK
Greece central schools.???

SCATS said...

To Charlie ~~ I see your point. I think what I heard from the three big spenders was they felt that having the 2% as a goal might limit needed spending since they had no info going in. The "excuse" of having been so responsible previously sounded entirely disingenuous at best.

To 8:35PM ~~ I think so ... I would have to look it up.

To George ~~ As YOU should already know, they've been hitting up reserve funds in prior years. YOU are on the finance committee, aren't YOU??

To 9:41PM ~~ I agree 100% with your first paragraph. Your second paragraph forgot to mention they spend more and more on fewer & fewer students! Enrollments are BELOW 11,000 now & still falling.

SCATS said...

To 8:35PM ~~ Yes, is the answer to your question.

"Voters in school districts can override the cap with a 60% vote." ~~ http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/realprop/

Anonymous said...

Who said, "the beauty of the plan is that the taxpayers are too stupid to know the difference" (or something like that).

Here we go again!

Anonymous said...

Just got the proposed Capital Improvement Project information. I notice that in spite of dropping enrollment and less need for classroom space, every one of the schools has an improvement plan. How about recombining the K-2 and 3-5 schools that are paired and closing some of the excess capacity? Then this capital improvement need would be much less, the on-going cost of operation would be dropped and some of the increased expense for professional staff could be absorbed by dropping staffing needs. We know that the union will never approve a budget that calls for the employees to pick up the increased costs of retirement and health care ( and under NYS law they don't have to give anything back, they can keep the current pay/ benefits going as is) so we can make the cost sustainable by reducing staff and staffing needs. How about it BOE? Can you create a reasonable plan that recognizes the reality of our tax base and our need for facilities?

SCATS said...

To 2:05PM ~~ That's like asking the king to return part of his kingdom!! In addition to your ideas, DO really needs to pare back on staff. GCSD has become exceedingly top heavy under Babs. How many chiefs does it take to steer a sinking ship??