Before you consider the potential 15.8% increase in your Cortland County property tax bill and gasp so much that you swallow your tongue, take a deep breath. County legislators and department heads have five months to consider and trim and re-structure to bring the increase to something a bit more reasonable. That’s how budgets are built.
County Administrator Rob Corpora said the county expects to pay $2.4 million more in payroll, $1 million more for pension contributions and $1.8 million more for social services. That’s about $5.2 million of the $6.2 million increase.
But what we haven’t heard, and what we expect county administrators and legislators are already looking at, are ways to save money. We know the county is short a few people, which in departments with mandatory staffing levels — say, the jail — leads to overtime costs. Get the hires and the overtime costs might drop, although police agencies all across America have had difficulty recruiting qualified candidates for several years, now. It’s a similar story with the public defender’s office, where being short a lawyer or two means going the more-expensive route of retaining outside attorneys to represent criminal defendants who cannot afford their own lawyers.
It’s likely similar savings can be had without cutting services.
In any budget, public budget-makers should cut with a scalpel, not a chain saw. Each program was created to effect a public good, and often spending $1,000 here might avoid a $10,000 cost there. In a $156 million spending plan, there are many opportunities to trim but few smart options to hack.
After that, it’s very much true that not all cuts are created equal. Social services spending, for example, is heavily subsidized by the state and federal governments. Public health spending is often funded by grants. Cutting a dollar there might not yield a dollar in savings.
Also, some spending is more popular than others. If, like last year, the county seeks to privatize retirees’ insurance, you can expect some opposition. Last year, the county estimated the change could have saved $800,000 a year, but a retired public defender who filed suit over the measure estimated closer to $316,000, an annual savings that would decline as retirees die. The measure was dropped last year, but will it return? Good question.
When Corpora mentions the sheriff’s office road patrol, there’s both an element of reality there, and perhaps a bit of fear-mongering. The road patrol is not a mandated service, as much as constituents may desire it. And it comes with a larger share of local cost, so cuts yield real savings. But we’ve heard in many counties over many years a threat to road patrols simply to scare constituents into accepting tax increases to save the police protection. We’re uncertain where county officials stand on this issue; perhaps they’re uncertain, too.
Highway Department funding is also a large share of local dollars, but while cuts may yield savings, the department needs a certain amount of staffing simply to plow the roads in the winter — that’s a safety issue as much as a convenience.
What the county should avoid is deferred maintenance and routine capital investment. You see it from time to time: A highway department needs a truck or the sheriff’s office needs a patrol car or two, or maybe a roof needs maintenance. The cost can be delayed a year, maybe even two, but eventually the need becomes critical and now a county has to spend a lot of bucks all at once, rather than a consistent amount each year.
Considering all the possibilities for savings — and the many factors and benefits that must be balanced — about the only thing safe to say is 15.8% projected increase is not likely to be 15.8% when legislators are done. Among other things, state law caps the property tax levy increase to 2%, or the rate of inflation, unless the legislature musters a 60% supermajority. And we expect legislators will work hard to make sure they don’t have to make that call, then explain it to voters.
