.
Feedback

Legislature Begins Budget Review Process

The legislature will vote on whether or not to adopt the proposed 2013 budget on Dec. 4

 

In what Legislator Alden Wolfe called the start of a six-week process, the Rockland County Legislature began its annual budget review process at the Budget & Finance Committee’s meeting Wednesday.

County Commissioner of Finance Stephen DeGroat presented the legislature with an overview of the proposed 2013 budget, which Rockland County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef recently proposed. DeGroat said there’s a $43 million gap in the 2013 budget.


The proposed $736.9 million budget cuts 69 positions across several county departments and offers early retirement initiatives to 55 other county employees. If all eligible employees take the early retirement, DeGroat said the county would be down 124 employees, or 5.6 percent of the county’s workers. The 69 positions eliminated would save about $4 million.

The budget will also close an employee pharmacy and raise property taxes 18.4 percent, which amounts to roughly $15 million, or $157 per taxpayer. The cuts in the budget total out to about $27.95 million, DeGroat said.

“Where we’re at today in this budget is a very, very conservative budget,” DeGroat said. “We have not increased a dollar of revenue in the items that have been going up and up years and years and years and why we got in this mess. Our sales tax was held last year, it’s held the same this year. Our mortgage recording tax last year is the same this year. We did not put any increases in. What’s going to help us to be in the property tax cap are modest gains in the economy.”

He added that something like the Shops at Nanuet opening late in 2013 could certainly help in that regard.

Wolfe said that the 2013 proposed budget is “probably the most real budget we’ve gotten in a long time.”

Legislator Ed Day questioned DeGroat about savings last year’s budget, saying the budget called for $17.8 million in savings. He asked DeGroat how much of those savings from that total the county actually saw, and DeGroat estimated it was either $3 or $4 million and that $11 or $12 million went into this year’s budget. He added that last year’s gap was somewhere between $26-$28 million.

“A big part of what got us up to the 43 [million gap this year] was what we had to bring back on what we did not get in those savings,” DeGroat said.

Day also noted that the money the county is expecting to come in this year from raised property tax is very close to the number of savings expected last year that didn’t come in.

The legislators didn’t get into too many specifics Wednesday, though, as it was the first time they were going through the proposed budget, which they will vote on at a meeting Dec. 4. Between Wednesday and the vote, the legislators will comb the budget and meet with the heads of different county departments to go over proposed cuts.

Like last year, one big issue that will be discussed during the budget review process will be cutting jobs.

“I am appalled by the lack of compassion in this budget,” said Legislator John Murphy.

Murphy took issue that a lot of jobs cut in the proposed budget are lower paying positions. He asked that instead of cutting three positions, why not look at cutting one position for someone making north of $100,000.

“Seeing some politically connected character, who’s making over $100,000, walking around here with total immunity from being considered, I consider that very, very uncharitable,” Murphy said.

He said they should look for people making six figures who also collects two pensions.

“They tell me we have less employees now than when I came to work here 40 years ago, but we don’t have less managers,” he said. “That doesn’t make sense to me. The smaller the squadron, the fewer the sergeants you need.”

Chairwoman of the Legislature Harriet Cornell spoke out over cuts in the mental health department, as well as health department. When the budget was explained, the positions dropped were listed as program eliminations opposed to layoffs.

“Mental health is not a program,” Cornell said.

“It’s concerning because public health, public safety, public wellness, that’s what government is all about.”

BET YOU A QUARTER October 25, 2012 at 01:52 pm
It is amazing how the legislature is analyzing every word in the budjet but when it came to the Rockland County Transportation contract it was not even read and then voted almost unanimiously to Brega Transportation.....just doesn't make sense...must be me
stephany October 25, 2012 at 10:28 pm
most of the analyzing was probably done via the backroom process rockland is famous for

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Nyack-Piermont Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Lisa Buchman (Editor) June 13, 2013 at 11:09 am
Congratulations to Nyack Boat Club and member Justin Coplan! Would love to see photos of the team inRead More action!
Aerial of United Water's proposed water treatment plant location
Caleb June 13, 2013 at 10:23 pm
Untrue. Perhaps if United Water wasn't sending over 2 million gallons a day from Deforest Lake toRead More they're customers in Bergen County we would not have this shortage. Hydrologists have shown that there is enough water regularly collected in Rockland's reservoirs and aquifers for our current and growing needs. Many of the "facts" that United Water is putting forward are outdated, and are based on they're own mismanagement of our water basin. Lets remember that United Water has repeatedly been removed as a water provider of major cities throughout this country (6+ last time I checked, notably even from Camden NJ) for mismanagement of water resources. I think its a prudent choice to look into a plant that we will be stuck paying for for the next 4 years from a company that has repeatedly lied and provided water with toxin levels high above legal limits to they're customers. Better safe than sorry.
John Taggart June 13, 2013 at 11:59 pm
Rockland has grown to the point that it needs more water. Terminating the flow of a river and takingRead More the water resources away from other communities (stealing what we need) isn't going to happen.
drostan June 19, 2013 at 03:13 pm
A Response to the Response Mr. Michael Pointing, writing on behalf of United Water, opined in theRead More Journal News (June 7) and the Nyack Patch (June 11) that an Issues Conference on the pending desalination project is unnecessary. When it is so greatly to his personal and professional benefit to support this project, how can he expect to be taken seriously? Comments on the "desal" plant have only rarely mentioned that the radioactive tritium, which each day leaks into the Hudson from Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant - just 3 miles upstream from the plant - will end up, in diluted form, in our drinking water. Problem is, although highly diluted, there's no way to filter out tritium since it is chemically identical to water. Worse, there's no known safe exposure level. Like "normal" water, tritium goes into your body as fast as you drink it. Good news: about half of the tritium you do drink is filtered out by the kidneys within about ten days. Bad news: When your kitchen faucet keeps providing you with small amounts of tritium day after day, it tends to keep whatever levels you have in your body elevated. Welcome to your future, Rockland. Say, how about cracking open a nice plastic bottle of Deer Park for mixing up that baby formula? Why does United Water want this project to go forward so quickly as to necessarily preclude a thorough public education process in which all the variables and all the options can be openly discussed? What if one day you decided you don't like UW anymore and you wished the water utility was still owned by the government and not the private sector, because at least that way through your vote, you could democratically elect new people who would shut the plant down (whereas you can never "vote out" a private corporation from owning the pipes that carry your drinking water)? Let's just say arbitrarily that for the first ten years following completion of this more or less irreversible project there was an average of 500 additional picocuries of tritium per liter showing up in drinking water in Rockland County that was not there before. Even the NRC says Indian Point emits tritium into the ground water and presumably into the Hudson as well, since Hudson water is what flows - 24 hours a day - into and out of the power plant, cooling the atomic reaction that creates electrical power). In 1976 the EPA decided (more or less arbitrarily) that 20,000 picocuries of radioactivity would be roughly the "safe" upper limit for human consumption (due to drinking tritium or any other radionuclide). I say "arbitrarily" because I am aware of no one who has actually tried this since then, to see if it really turned out to be safe. Whose insurance policy would make Rockland homeowners whole again if at some future point tritium (or other radionuclide) levels skyrocketed while property values plummeted? Maybe something so terrible could never, ever happen. I certainly hope it couldn't. But why are we residents the guinea pigs, and how come we pay more - not less - for our water just so UW can do more business and, of course, collect more in utility bills? By the way, Fukushima was also never ever supposed to happen. Human health is not something you go back and study all over again once you realize you've lost it. Doesn't Rockland County have enough cancer already? Dan Rostan Nyack