An excerpt from Marv Cermak's most recent column in the Times Union. I found the last three paragraphs interesting.


Trash smells like cash

Various Schenectady government critics are all bent out of shape worrying about how the city will make up a $5 million budget deficit from 2011.

Chief crower is Paul Vandenburgh who uses his radio and TV shows to predict the sky over Schenectady is collapsing. He forecasts municipal bankruptcy, but this always pessimistic crank doesn't think so.

Several years ago, Schenectady was caught in a similar fiscal bind. Then, Mayor Brian U. Stratton, now state canal Commodore Stratton, solved the mess. He implemented a garbage tax that smelled something awful because property owners were already being taxed for the service.

About 150 citizens demonstrated outside City Hall against imposing the tax. Stratton and his all-Democrat city council didn't blink at the protest. One council member said 150 grumblers in a city of about 65,000 wasn't worthy of recognition. The city reaped about $4 million from the $144 per household tax that has since been upped to $189.

So, you see, the city can get out of its latest money shortage simply by doubling the garbage tax. Oh, perhaps a couple dozen people will grumble at a council meeting, but they'll go away like they always do.

Some folks tell me doubling the garbage tax would be an outrageous move that will never happen. Well, that's what I mistakenly thought when the politicians proposed creation of the original garbage tax rip-off.

Since then, no City Hall "stickup'' should be a surprise.

Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/First-down-and-Doppler-radar-3872617.php#ixzz26onXQHyg

The trash fee already was increased twice.

Yeah, this is the SAME trash fee, that when proposed by the previous, republican, mayor, the dems UNANIMOUSLY said "NO WAY, NEVER"

Quoted from mikechristine1

The trash fee already was increased twice.

Yeah, this is the SAME trash fee, that when proposed by the previous, republican, mayor, the dems UNANIMOUSLY said "NO WAY, NEVER"

If the trash fee were to be increased once again, my prediction is there will be no outrage from the majority of the residents. Just as before. Apathy and complacency will continue to reign supreme.

The City is broke. They don't have enough money to knock down their 700 abandoned properties. They can't
pay the $3.5 MILLION owed City schools. It's the high taxes-stupid. This is a typical DEM moron solution.

Quoted Text

COUNCIL REJECTS MAYOR'S TRASH FEE PLAN
Section: CAPITAL REGION, Page: B5
Date: Friday, October 16, 1998

Schenectady Mayor Albert Jurczynski's call to implement a $196 garbage collection fee for property owners to help balance his proposed 1999 budget was rejected unanimously Thursday night by the (NOTE: DEMOCRAT) City Council.


The fee would produce about $4 million in revenues aimed at closing most of a $4.4 million budget gap in the $42.3 million city spending plan for 1999. But even with the fee -- which amounts to a 3.4 percent garbage tax increase -- and a $29 sewer rate hike, the average property tax bill would increase about 22 percent in 1999 since the fee increase would be included in property taxes. Council members did not offer any substantial alternative revenue sources, but they are continuing review of the budget looking for cuts.


When the mayor revealed his proposed budget, City Council President Gary McCarthy said efforts would be made to produce a spending plan without need for a property tax increase.


Councilman David Bouck brought the garbage tax proposal to a head Thursday night. ``I will vote against the $196 fee now and spare us all the pain and aggravation of going through the motions of discussing the mayor's proposal,'' Bouck said.


The council will hold a public hearing on the mayor's budget Monday, Oct. 19. Budget adoption will be considered Oct. 27. -- Marv Cermak

COMMENTS ANYONE ???

And the DEMS, in 2004, what did they do??????    Huh??     Where's the cheerleader for the dems who claims to ignore those of us who tell the truth and provide EVIDENCE of what we say?



In 2004, excerpts:

Quoted Text

Stratton said the trash fee is needed to balance Schenectady's finances, … Schenectady homeowners bear the heaviest combined property-tax burden in the Capital Region.


Stratton said he understood the public anger over the trash fee, but he added it was the only way to avoid reaching the city's constitutional tax limit, the amount the city can raise from local taxes.


The fee has met with criticism from property owners, but Stratton was undeterred, calling it key to stabilizing city finances.

HYPOCRITE DEMOCRATS, THE EVIDENCE IS HERE.   1998 Dems say NO WAY to a trash fee proposed by the then Rep Mayor.   2004, the Dem mayor proposes the same thing and the dems say it's the saving grace of the city


And 8 years later, the Schenectady homeowners STILL bear the heaviest combined property tax burden in the Capital Region.  

Actually, thanks to the DEMs, Schenectady homeowners bear one of THEE HIGHEST combined property tax burdens IN THE WHOLE DANG USA!

David Bouck? Didn't have the distinction of being the first Schenectady City Councilman caught in a sex sting? And if memory serves me, wasn't his replacement that Kosiur fellow? Just wonderful leaders wouldn't you all agree?

Water and sewer fees can only be set at rates that pay the expenses for those specific utilities.  Since there is a surplus of cash in those departments balance sheets they are already too high.  The city cannot legally use these fees for other city operational purposes....therefore raising these fees to raise the city's budget gap isn't the answer.

Quoted from TakingItBack

Water and sewer fees can only be set at rates that pay the expenses for those specific utilities.  Since there is a surplus of cash in those departments balance sheets they are already too high.  The city cannot legally use these fees for other city operational purposes....therefore raising these fees to raise the city's budget gap isn't the answer.

True, fees can't be used for other purposes, but it is quite obvious that the dems in the city are moving the city tax situation to one where the the budgets of various departments will be exclusively funded by fees.   So water dept financed via water fee, sewer dept by sewer fee, trash department ultimately will be funded exclusively by fees---at that point for sure the trash fee will be at least $400 per household, then there will be a "Four Season Fee."   How about that.   This fee will have a breakdown to it, let's say the fee was $200 a year and it could have a breakdown such as $90 for snow plowing, $20 for leave pick-up in the fall, $10 toward Xmas tree collection in winter, $30 for the pothole repair in winter, $5 for street sweeping in the spring, and $45 for the heavy rains, the cleaning out gutters and the like.

A fee could be added to your phone bill every time you call the police dept.

How about a fee to attend the Christmas parade, oh wait, there is no such thing, remember, Santa comes on a sled for Hanukah

So with all the fees added on, the "property taxes" (that which is based on the assessment) will go to pay the mayor, the cars for his favored few, the council salary, the insurance for council reps, and for homeowners to pay for the taxes of the politically connected and wealthy downtown

Quoted from mikechristine1

True, fees can't be used for other purposes, but it is quite obvious that the dems in the city are moving the city tax situation to one where the the budgets of various departments will be exclusively funded by fees.   So water dept financed via water fee, sewer dept by sewer fee, trash department ultimately will be funded exclusively by fees---at that point for sure the trash fee will be at least $400 per household, then there will be a "Four Season Fee."   How about that.   This fee will have a breakdown to it, let's say the fee was $200 a year and it could have a breakdown such as $90 for snow plowing, $20 for leave pick-up in the fall, $10 toward Xmas tree collection in winter, $30 for the pothole repair in winter, $5 for street sweeping in the spring, and $45 for the heavy rains, the cleaning out gutters and the like.

A fee could be added to your phone bill every time you call the police dept.

How about a fee to attend the Christmas parade, oh wait, there is no such thing, remember, Santa comes on a sled for Hanukah

So with all the fees added on, the "property taxes" (that which is based on the assessment) will go to pay the mayor, the cars for his favored few, the council salary, the insurance for council reps, and for homeowners to pay for the taxes of the politically connected and wealthy downtown

Why not a fee for the privilege of walking Downtown? Oh wait, Proctors is ahead of the curve on that one. $5 wingwalk fee.

Everything the corrupt DEM City machine does smells like trash. Or the pollution plant that McCheese is now
running into the dirt. They have no answers on getting out of the $10 MILLION hole they created. Have another
party for Fat Morris. At the last meeting they actually voted against 4 minor cuts to City payroll. Waiting for law
enforcement "expert" Visitor to post her $10 million cuts- ROTFLMAO! Got garage debt?

no law stops the lawless

Schenectady smells like Poughkeepsie!

Look at the past 3 years of budgets and compare them to the actuals and you will see they either dont have a clue or are being shady on purpose.   Maybe a little of both....

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/press/releases/sept12/090612.htm

DiNapoli: Town Deficit Caused By Inaccurate Budgeting
Due to unreasonable budget estimates, the Town of Poughkeepsie was left with a $1.5 million deficit in its major fund balances at the end of 2010, according to an audit released today by State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli. The town has also failed to repay more than $3 million in inter-fund loans it made between different tax bases.

From 2008 to 2010, auditors found the town's three major funds declined from a total surplus of $77,500 to a combined deficit of $1.5 million. The deficits were caused by the failure of the town to develop reasonable budget estimates and make adjustments when it became clear that the anticipated results would not be achieved.

Revenues in the town's major funds were overestimated by a total of approximately $4 million and $2 million in 2009 and 2010, according to the audit.

"Budgets should be an accurate financial blueprint so that local governments can provide needed services with the resources available," said DiNapoli. "Town officials need to make more realistic budget estimates so they don't experience continued revenue shortfalls and operating deficits."

Town officials addressed their cash flow problems by using inter-fund loans, mostly from the town's water fund, to pay for recurring expenditures in the general town wide fund, general town outside village fund, and highway fund. Inter-fund loans transfer money from one fund to overcome shortages in another fund.

Auditors found that 79 percent of inter-fund transfers made as of Dec. 31, 2010 came from the water fund. The town has yet to repay $3.5 million to the water fund. It is improper to use special water tax assessment revenues for non-water fund purposes without repayment.

Other audit findings include:

•Town officials did not use competitive methods, enter into written contracts or comply with Workers' Compensation Law when they procured professional services.
•The town appropriated $400,000 in both 2010 and 2011 from the water fund to the general town-wide fund for services that officials purportedly rendered to the water district. Documentation to support these allocations was not provided.
•The town's external audits were not performed in a timely manner.
DiNapoli recommends that the town board develop reasonable revenue estimates and monitor and adjust budgeted revenues when necessary. Town officials should also adopt a policy to govern unexpended surplus funds.

The audit also called on town officials to:

•Develop a plan to address the negative fund balances from prior fiscal years.
•Repay inter-fund advances between tax bases, with comparable amounts of interest, by the end of the fiscal year in which the advances are made.
•Ensure that annual audits are performed in a timely manner.
•Obtain proposals for professional service contract amounts in excess of $15,000.
Town officials disagreed with certain aspects of the audit, but indicated they planned to implement some of the recommendations contained in the report. Their full response is included in the audit.

For a copy of the report visit: http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/audits/towns/2012/poughkeepsie.htm

Here is the proof of these loans.  

http://www.scribd.com/doc/92140062/Schenectady-2011-Budget-Report

Look at page 12.  So they expected to increase the Interfund (Water and Sewer Loans) from $3,200,000 in 2011 to $7,400,000 in 2012.