Quoted Text

SCHENECTADY
City, county close to sales tax deal
BY KATHLEEN MOORE Gazette Reporter

    The City Council is close to accepting an offer for an eight-year sales tax agreement that some city officials say will ruin the city.
    Councilmen Carl Erikson and Vince Riggi said the agreement was tantamount to “gambling with constituents’ money.”
    The county has offered to give the city $500,000 more in sales tax next year, for a total of $11.9 million. The towns would get $7.7 million. But the county gets to keep the rest, estimated at $60 million.
    Over the years, the city would also get a small bump up if sales tax revenues overall increased.
    That’s a big change from previous contracts, and it’s a change that city officials have wanted for years. Council President Denise Brucker said it would be a great improvement.
    “For the first time, it allows the city to share in the growth in the county,” she said.
    Mayor Gary McCarthy also noted that the agreement added $100,000 a year from the county for demolition, as well as $100,000 total for the land bank. He plans to use that money to fi nance the demolition of the 25 to 100 “worst of the worst” buildings this fall or winter.
    The county also agreed to offer labor contract negotiation attorneys and its purchasing department to the city, which Brucker said would save a substantial amount of money.
    It amounts to about $600,000 more each year than in the current contract, while the county collected $7 million more in sales tax last year — a record — and is on pace to top that by more than $1 million this year.
    In total, before distribution, the county collected $89 million last year and will likely collect $90 million this year. The city gets slightly more than $11 million of that.
    “It’s not even close to fair distribution,” Erikson said, noting that 42 percent of the county’s residents live in the city.
    Riggi added, “It’s a low-ball offer.”
    Both men wanted to pass legislation for a pre-emptive sales tax, which they said had been recommended by the state’s Department of Taxation and Finance. The others on the council disagreed, and no vote was held, eliminating it from the city’s options.
ALTERNATE IDEA
    With pre-emptive sales tax, the city would instantly get the fi rst 1.5 percentage points of the 4 percent county sales tax collected in the city, then split another 1.5 percentage points with the towns. The county would keep the rest, unless all sides agreed to a contract sharing the sales tax. In addition to the county sales tax, the state also collects a 4 percent sales tax that it keeps.
    Erikson and Riggi argued that passing pre-emptive sales tax would give the city a better negotiating position, allowing for a better contract. But Brucker and Councilwoman Leesa Perazzo said they were afraid the county wouldn’t negotiate and the city would be stuck with whatever it collected.
    “We may have 42 percent [of the population], but it’s where they’re spending their money,” Perazzo said. “We have no way of knowing what the sales tax would be. I don’t think that’s a risk we can take.”
    Brucker agreed, saying the city would be forced to raise property taxes if it didn’t collect enough in sales tax.
    But Erikson said simply passing a pre-emptive sales tax would force the county to negotiate. The city wouldn’t have to rely on what was actually collected — it could simply use the tax as leverage to push for a better contract.
    “Not passing pre-emptive legislation is the gamble,” he said. “I think we have the ability to demand more.”
    Perazzo disagreed, saying a hardball negotiation could “endanger the welfare” of the library system and the community college, which receive county funds.
    Erikson responded: “We seem to want to play nice. This is kind of what we’ve always done, status quo, slight little carrots to entice you to stay on the end of the leash.”
    The contract passed in committee by a vote of 2-1, with Perazzo and Councilwoman Margaret King voting in favor and Erikson voting against. It will be on the agenda for the full council vote on Monday.
    With Riggi and Erikson clearly opposed, and three others clearly in favor, the decision will fall to Councilwoman Marion Porterfield. She was not at Tuesday’s committee meeting because she is a delegate at the Democratic National Convention this week. She’ll be back for next week’s vote, .......................>>>>................>>>>....................................http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....r01103&AppName=1

Porterfield knows NOTHING about taxes, finance, and budgets

But DV better hurry and start spending mommies' money IN the city, huh?

Erikson and Riggi - not standing for crap and actually negotiating.

See fellow Council members - that's how it's done.

Take off the leashes McCheesy has around you and think for yourself. Worse than sheep.

Dissolve the county leg and replace it with a board of supervisors!!!

Too many layers of bullsh!t!!

[quote=1][/quote]

Bravo to Erikson and Riggi!    There is no way that the Sales Tax numbers went up to $90 million and the city had nothing to do with it.  Staying flat at $11 million this long has been robbery!

Soooooo this does not speak well for all the Plex funded business's generating all that alledged sales tax revenue in Sch'dy as one has been led to believe?   And if the City has in part been resp. for a sales tax income increase, why is the City not partaking in the additional booty?  

"Who's (the mayor) working for here?" Riggi said. "It really shows you the political end takes precedent."

Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/loca.....02.php#ixzz264cqvlv6

McCarthy giving the City's share of tax revenue to his croneys on the County Leg.

He's not a Mayor, he's a sheep.

maybe he hopes to get picked for a Rotterdam little league team....???

Quoted from senders

maybe he hopes to get picked for a Rotterdam little league team....???

Haven't you heard. There is no Rotterdam Little League.

Quoted from 3303

Haven't you heard. There is no Rotterdam Little League.

YUP!!!

I just thought they would at least be entertaining and do a halloween joke.....and dress up a little league players....

Since its creation in 1998, the Metroplex has received $87 million in sales tax revenue

Schenectady Metroplex receives $7.7M in sales tax revenue, a record
The Business Review by Michael DeMasi, Reporter
Date: Thursday, February 9, 2012, 6:57am EST
     
Michael DeMasi
    Reporter- The Business Review

The Schenectady Metroplex Development Authority received $7.7 million in sales tax revenue last year for redevelopment projects in Schenectady County, the highest amount in the authority’s history.

The Metroplex was created by an act of the state Legislature in 1998 to spur redevelopment in the county, particularly downtown Schenectady, which had been decimated by decades of corporate downsizing and businesses closing or moving to the suburbs.

The county sales tax rate was increased 0.5 percent to fund the Metroplex.

Of the 0.5 percent, the Metroplex keeps 70 percent of the revenue to finance economic development projects downtown and in other parts of the county.

The rest of the money is distributed to towns and villages outside the city of Schenectady to reduce the burden on property taxpayers to pay for government operations in those municipalities.

Last year the county distributed $3.3 million to the towns and villages – also a record – under the population-based formula for divvying up the 0.5 percent.

The record-breaking amounts were due to an overall increase in sales tax revenue in Schenectady County last year. Revenue rose 7.9 percent, to $88.9 million, the 14th highest percentage increase among the state’s 57 counties.

Since its creation, the Metroplex has received $87 million in sales tax revenue, according to Ray Gillen, authority chairman.

A total of $38.4 million has been distributed to towns and villages outside the city of Schenectady.

The Metroplex has been praised by business leaders and developers for its role in bringing new private sector investment to the county.

The authority has also been criticized by the state Public Authorities Office, in part because of its record-keeping and lack of a comprehensive economic development plan.

And you see the county blaming yet another level of government (the state )

Quoted from TakingItBack

Bravo to Erikson and Riggi!    There is no way that the Sales Tax numbers went up to $90 million and the city had nothing to do with it.  Staying flat at $11 million this long has been robbery!

THe city really did NOT have anything to do with sales tax going up.  Sales tax is not much on the gin.   DV doesn't pay much in sales tax when he stuff himself on Villa Italia. ETC