LEGISLATURE STUFF- What to Do with the Dough

CATSKILL - Taxpayers won’t be asked to pay more taxes in the proposed 2026 Greene County budget, but some will end up doing so anyway.

And there could be resistance by some county legislature members to approve the financial plan with its $141,858,252 bottom line.

Lawmakers will gather in the Catskill High School auditorium on October 27 at 6:15 p.m. to conduct a mandatory public hearing on the fiscal package.

Overall spending is slated to rise just over $5.7 million, from $136,082,679 to $141,858,252, according to tentative budget figures.

That increase will be offset by an equal amount of Estimated Revenue in the form of Fund Balances and usual income sources.

Which boils down to a $27,404,370 tax levy, the precisely same number as in the past six years, making it a lucky seven if ultimately okayed.

It is expected to pass although there could be a few “nayes,” particularly as the budget dictates who will.paying what in the county’s 14 towns.

Six of the fourteen towns will shell out a higher percentage than a year ago, ranging between 15 percent to 1.5 percent, due to a complicated NY State Equalization Rate (ER) system that seems to defy explanation.

Former legislator Joseph Izzo, who represented the Catskill district for many years, is a frequent speaker at the annual public hearing.

Izzo, last year, suggested that more-than-anticipated sales tax revenues be returned to the towns, using the reserves to even up the ER jumps.

“I don’t think the State even understands these Equalization Rates,” Izzo quipped, to no avail as the recommendation was not put in place.

It was noted by lawmaker Greg Davis (District 4, Greenville) that in one of four towns fated to pay more, last year, the average homeowner would save just under $32, while taking $1.2 million from the piggy bank.

“It’s a bad way to throw away over a million dollars,” Davis said, urging his colleagues to invest the money elsewhere which was ultimately done.

Similar appeals have already been voiced about the 2026 spending plan, when it was initially revealed to the board, earlier this month.

Floor debates could ensue, next Monday night, if lawmakers Michael Bulich and Michael Lanuto (both District 1, Catskill) express their perspectives on what to do with income from new short term rental taxes and traditional sales tax which has fortunately far exceeded the estimated levels.

Despite any and all possible ideas, county budget officer and legislative Finance Committee chairman Charles Martinez likes what he sees.

Martinez, with over 40 years of service on the legislature, presented his annual report to lawmakers and the public, two weeks ago.

“The development of this year’s budget has been more difficult than usual due to potential fiscal changes from both the Federal and State governments,” Martinez said.

Over the past several months, lawmakers have been forewarned that dollars usually coming in to help offset costs for various programs, particularly within Social Services, may be substantially cut.

If that occurs, the county would need to either reduce current service levels or find the money to maintain HEAP (Home Energy Assistance Program) and SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program).

And meanwhile, “the State will not address budget reductions until after January 2026,” Martinez pointed out. “This leaves many unanswered questions that may very well compromise our financial plan.

Despite the doubts, Martinez expressed optimism, saying, “absent those dilemmas, this Tentative Budget will not result in any property tax levy increase for fiscal year 2026.

“Once again, the overall property tax levy will remain at $27,404,370,” Martinez said. “This is the same levy amount as Fiscal Year 2020,” uninterruptedly continuing to today.

“That is a remarkable accomplishment and one that we should all be proud of,” Martinez said, noting concerted effort was required to stay put.

“If there [is] a central message of this budget proposal and the overall status of the county’s fiscal condition, [it is that] this proposal once again holds the line of property tax increases while not sacrificing the budget to future threats,” Martinez said.

“Our establishment of reserve funds and property tax stabilization funds marks sincere efforts and accomplishments in fiscal security,” Martinez said.