Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TTL News Bot

Chemung County Executive Releases Proposed 2023 Budget

Recommended Posts

Yesterday afternoon, Chemung County Executive, Chris Moss, released highlights of his 2023 proposed budget that is due to be delivered to the Chemung County Legislature by Thursday, November 10, 2022.  Some of the highlights outlined in next year’s proposed spending plan include:

• 0% property tax increase

• A reduction in the number of full-time employees which will be accomplished by capping the number of available beds at the Chemung County Nursing Facility to its current number of 120 beds

• 3% across-the-board salary increase for Single Rate employees

• 0% salary increase for Elected Officials

• Overall spending plan is approximately $230 million

• The County has also experienced a significant increase in the levy’s full value growth resulting in a decrease in the per $1000 assessed value taking us from $6.50 per $1,000 to $5.69 per $1,000

The budget in its entirety will be available to the public after November 10, 2022, but in the meantime, further details pertaining to next year’s spending plan can be found at the link below:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like things got a little testy at last nights budget workshop, right around the 1 hour, 5 minute mark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chris said:

Looks like things got a little testy at last nights budget workshop, right around the 1 hour, 5 minute mark.

if im not mistaken, i believe he is one in the past that has lamented the fact the Legislature re-approves all the motions/proposals that were already done at beginning of the year thereby wasting time that could be better spent discussing matters in depth and in public view

hes not wrong, it is concerning that so little of the funds have been dispersed yet millions has again been given to the IDA for the Arena( as if it hasnt sponged enough over the years) and  he did include the Legislature as "guilty" party, approach could have been bit less confrontational

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As was reiterated in the second budget workshop, Mr. Hoover was there strictly to present and explain the nature of the numbers that the Exec had proposed.

He was not there to defend the Exec's proposals or debate the merits.  So the confrontation in Workshop #1 wasn't appropriate or productive. On the other hand....Mr. Hoover was a bit abrasive (and condescending/insulting) when there were questions about nomenclature in Workshop#3, which I didn't think was productive either.

Edited by MsKreed
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MsKreed said:

So the confrontation in Workshop #1 wasn't appropriate or productive.

I've only been paying half attention to these workshops. What happened then?

I get what Mr. Briggs was saying there, and I don't disagree... how is the $16M helping the community right now? I don't think he intended to single out Mr. Hoover, who I think overreacted ( true personal offense taken or a little showmanship, who knows ). Mr. Briggs was simply pointing out his opinion that the county as a whole has failed to do what he thinks should have been or be done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Chris said:

I've only been paying half attention to these workshops. What happened then?

I believe the discussion you're referencing was during Workshop#1, as the rest were shorter and most didn't have a 1 hour, 5 minute mark 

Links to all of them can be found HERE 

image.png.6384fc2f35e3209686c194944f3ee828.png

I don't think Briggs' observation itself was inappropriate....but the setting/format was for Hoover to answer technical budgetary questions. In that sense the rhetorical "question" of whether something is acceptable seemed to inadvertently be directed at Hoover....which shouldn't have involved him as the "messenger". 

Hoover's reaction wasn't very cool-headed and there should have been a chance to clarify and smoothe over the perceived 'attack'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During last night's Public Hearing on the proposed budget: Video HERE, Mr. Hoover took the opportunity to speak as a taxpaying constituent instead of his earlier role as spokesperson for the Exec branch whose job was to unbiasedly explain the math, spending processes and ledger entries.

His comment/suggestion that excess fund balance money could/should be used to lower the county debt level instead of our tax levy was a reasonable point. 

Given his professional qualifications, I have no reason not to assume he's correct that using $6M for the latter would result in a very modest one-time reduction of about $134 for a home valued at $122,000. Using it to offset debt seems like a responsible option. 

No other members of the public spoke, so the hearing was only 5 minutes.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chris said:

The legislature has approved the 2023 budget.

The budget they voted to approve includes some Amendments to the Executive's proposed budget....including using $5+ million of fund balance to reduce the tax levy that Mr Hoover spoke out against.

So....I guess we wait to see if Moss signs or vetoes it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listening to this meeting, I guess I don't understand the frustration of some of the legislators that a couple questions are being raised. Maybe more of the public had the opportunity to say something to someone like Margeson or Sonsire between last night and the previous workshop. I see no problem with pumping the brakes, they're representing their constituents after all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MsKreed said:

The budget they voted to approve includes some Amendments to the Executive's proposed budget....including using $5+ million of fund balance to reduce the tax levy that Mr Hoover spoke out against.

So....I guess we wait to see if Moss signs or vetoes it.

hoping very much he vetoes: the $$ allotted for the Arena is unnecessary( let them recoup through legal action instead of perpetuating incompetence)

and Hoover is correct, reduce the debt( though, the ability for them to say they reduced taxes would be gone)

now having listened to meeting: 

Mr Burin: Ultimate Politician. KV, and other businesses MAY be paying the most as he claims but think of all the incentives and breaks they got over the years, hes willing to screw over the smaller payers for some lip service

Mr Sweet: Ultimate Moron. Mr Hoover even warned againts lowering the tax and instead paying off the debt

Mr Chalk: coming off more and more like angry old man(see Biden), these concerns are now mentioned likely because the meetings are not a forum that allows for discussion with the public, only statements, so Legislators have had time to have discussions to see they are driving towards a cliff, and instead of saying "its too late now, hit the gas" caution is being warranted

Briggs and Smith: ditto as above and gotta love the "fore-sight" of Briggs " Any mistake made this year can be fixed next year"....in other words, if the economy tanks, not only will an increase have to cover that, but also the levy reduction from this year!

i find it funny that there was SO much concern for returning to taxpayers/ saving tax monies, but notice those espousing that regarding the levy; forgot their positions when voting themselves a raise

 

Edited by Adam
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chris said:

Listening to this meeting, I guess I don't understand the frustration of some of the legislators that a couple questions are being raised. Maybe more of the public had the opportunity to say something to someone like Margeson or Sonsire between last night and the previous workshop. I see no problem with pumping the brakes, they're representing their constituents after all. 

Yeah.....that "Eleventh hour" pearl clutching was insulting when you consider that this is the first meeting since the Public Hearing (11/29). By announcing that their minds had already been made up based on their own discussion, it's a full admission that they consider the Public Hearing a pointless formality. 

Granted, they only heard from Mr. Hoover at that meeting, speaking as a taxpayer/constituent. But when Chalk and others clearly stated that the "workshops" were where decisions are formed.....it seems like no amount of Public comment would have mattered (not to mention the indication that some members of the public chose to speak 1-1 with their legislators instead of commenting at the Hearing). 

Edited by MsKreed
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following letter from Chemung County Executive Christopher Moss to the Chemung County Legislature was sent to Elmira Telegram:

Quote

 

Dear Chemung County Legislature:

 Yesterday I approved multiple amendments to the 2023 Chemung County Operating Budget. The legislative amendments to the budget increased the amount appropriated from the fund balance by $5.8 million, the majority of which will be utilized to implement a tax decrease for property owners in Chemung County. While this is an applaudable action, it is one that will have long-term detrimental effects on Chemung County’s reserves. 

During the budgetary process, the Legislature had the opportunity to hear from, not only the County Executive, but the County Treasurer and the Director of Budget and Research, on how implementing a $7.5 million reoccurring reduction of the fund balance will affect future budgets and will affect the long-term financial stability of the county. It was my hope that the Legislature would have utilized the funds to establish a tax stabilization reserve which would be utilized to keep future Legislators and Executives from having to implement property tax increases over an extended period of time. As I’m sure you are aware, a tremendous amount of work goes into completing the annual budget, and there are multiple sources of information utilized, to include:

       Modified budgets from prior years;

       Prior and current year financial reports;

       Year to date revenue and expenditure data;

       Debt service requirements, contracts and other commitments;

       Current economic conditions that could affect revenue (inflation);

       State and Federal information;

       Capital plans;

       5-Year assessment needs;

       Interest rates;

      Strategic plans.

While Chemung County does have a healthy fund balance, it was created by multiple factors, to include employee breakage, sales tax revenue outperforming expectations, as well as the unintended financial impact of COVID-19. In 2021, when a modest property tax decrease was presented to the Legislature, there were concerns from multiple Legislators as to whether or not it was prudent to offer a 5% property tax decrease:

Mike Smith, 14th Legislative District, stated at the 11/15/21 Budget Workshop:

 “All this government rain, people have money.” 

“So I’m not sure I agree that people are hurting as much as you say.” 

“I have a lot of concerns about having to come back and say last year gee folks, that it didn’t turn out quite like we thought.”

“I got a lot of concerns about that. I think if we look at what you have shown shown us on one of these charts, our reserve funds of what our neighbors have a percentage of, we are one of the lowest in the whole area.”

If these comments that were made in a 2021 Budget Workshop are seen as valid, isn’t the same methodology being utilized at the 2023 Operating Budget?

Rodney Strange, 15th Legislative District, stated at the 11/15/21 Budget Workshop:

“If you were not the way you were over the past ten years, then I would have questions, but I am confident that you are saying what you are saying this year. It’s based on the credibility you have gained over the past ten years that I truly believe you are genuine and your expertise in this subject is totally valid.”

 If the recommendations given by the Director of Budget and Research were held in such high esteem in 2021, why were they totally discounted during this year’s budgetary workshops?

John Burin, 9th Legislative District, stated at the 11/16/21 Budget Workshop when responding to a question pertaining to the proposed 5% property tax decrease outlined in the 2022 budget:

“It’s politics.”

I would like to reiterate that while I think it’s great that the Legislature wants to do something for give back to the taxpayers, there are multiple ways that could be done without placing the almost certain long-term, detrimental effect on county taxpayers. Over the next four years, absent a solid increase in sales tax revenue or some other unknown form of revenue, there is a high probability that we would utilize $30 million from the fund balance due to the Legislature’s amendments to this year’s budget. While I certainly hope that’s not the case, it’s the reality of the situation the Legislature has placed us in.

Now that the budget has been passed, I would like to point out multiple issues, some of which will preclude my staff from taking action on amendments implemented by the Legislature. 

A.   Amendments to Organizational Funding: The Legislature has utilized $2,751 of the General Fund Balance to facilitate an increase to Cornell Cooperative Extension. The General Fund Balance cannot be utilized to increase appropriations in Fund 24.

B.    Single Rate Salary Increases: Again, the Legislature has utilized the General Fund Balance to increase single rate salaries by an additional 2%. The salaries of multiple titles outlined in the Single Rate Salary Plan come from other funds, to include the Sewer District, Airport, Solid Waste, DPW, Road Machinery and CCNF. The aforementioned positions amount to approximately $46,437.

C.    Increased Revenue Appropriated from the General Fund: The Legislature has overstated the increase by $49,188, due to the fact that those moneys will have to come from other funds.

D.   Unused Casella Community Development Funds were miscalculated by the Legislature. That funding is not available to be distributed within the 2023 Operating Budget.  Furthermore, revenue account number 10-8030-8030-41282 should not be used as the source or increased for the unused Casella Community Development funds received in 2022.  I’ll be requesting a full financial audit of the Casella Community Development account from 2006 to present.

E.    The Legislature has failed to balance the increase placed in the Federal Grants revenue with a request of $2,180,000 when they are attempting to expend $2,680,000. It would appear they have miscalculated the amount by half a million dollars, which is the same amount indicated for the IDA/First Arena.

Unfortunately, since the budget has been adopted, all of the aforementioned issues will have to be dealt with sometime in the 2023 calendar year, which means many of the amendments that were improperly funded and budgeted for will not take place until such time the appropriate corrections and/or additional resolutions have been completed.

 In closing, I would like to thank the Chemung County Legislature for their work on the 2023 Budget.

 

Sincerely,      

Christopher J. Moss, Chemung County Executive

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Moss, please veto this budget. i realize the Legislature can vote to over-ride it, but thats on THEM. they have been warned, by their own members, against some of these actions yet to choose to press forward...as one member stated " Legislators can fix any issues next year"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...