“It’s all interconnected into the situation we have now,” said Gallo. “It’s the state, it’s the previous administration in the city, it’s the county and it’s completely insane.”
Towns not rushing to help
Long-term relief forKingstonwould likely involve the county taking on Safety Net costs. That would spread the burden, based on property assessments, to every taxpayer in the county. But numbers compiled by the county executive’s office show why the move would be unpalatable to many town taxpayers — and the elected officials who represent them. The figures show that four communities, the City of Kingston and the towns of Esopus, Wawarsing and Plattekill, would pay less for the welfare program. The remaining 17 towns would pay more. In many cases, much more.
Woodstock, for example, paid $40,636 in Safety Net charges last year. According to calculations — we took a community’s percentage share of the county tax levy (using 2012 tax rates) and multiplied it byUlster’s total Safety Net costs — under a countywide funding plan, Woodstockers would pay more than $200,000. New Paltz taxpayers whose Safety Net bill totaled $44,124 in 2011 would pay more than $180,000 if the tab is placed with the county. In addition, county officials would have to absorb the Safety Net charges, which last year totaled $2.93 million, into their own calculations as they too struggle to stay under the 2 percent tax cap. But inKingston, the study found that taxpayers’ Safety Net costs would drop from $1,234,710 to just under $250,000 if the county absorbs the costs. (The figures on Kingston Safety Net costs in the County study differ from those given by Tuey. Representatives from Hein’s office did not return four calls seeking comment on, among other things, the discrepancy).
A compromise?
While county lawmakers appear unlikely to scrap the current system entirely, the legislature’s Social Services Committee is working on a deal that, supporters say, would protect Kingston and other municipalities from escalating Safety Net costs. The plan, as described by Roberts would allow municipalities to pay this year’s Safety Net expenses by giving up a portion of the revenue they receive each year from county sales taxes in a dollar-for-dollar exchange. Those costs would then be capped at 2012 levels. If Safety Net charges rise in subsequent years, the county would absorb the difference. Over the years, lawmakers representing towns with low Safety Net costs have sought to tie any changes in the funding mechanism to a redistribution of the sales tax proceeds. Currently, 20 Ulster County towns share 3 percent of total sales tax revenue. Kingston, meanwhile, gets 11.5 percent.
It’s a solution that several generations of Kingston’s elected officials, including Gallo, have rejected — in part because the county sales tax could not exist unless Kingston had waived its right as a city to impose its own sales tax. As for the plan developed by the Social Services Committee, Gallo said he saw no benefit to city taxpayers, since any savings in this year’s Safety Net costs would be offset by lost sales tax revenue. A cap on Safety Net Costs, meanwhile, would do nothing to balance out the wide disparity between the city and the towns.
Roberts, meanwhile, said that while the city would see no savings this year under the plan, it would address what he believes is a major concern of city officials: additional costs brought by new Safety Net recipients moving into the city. Said Roberts, “That sounds like a bargain to me.”
