City budget includes 'net zero' tax hike

Reserve fund balance restored for the first time in years

Posted

The city presented its spending plan for the 2015-16 fiscal year at a City Council meeting on Tuesday. The proposed budget totals $86 million, a 1.91 percent increase over the current spending plan. The tax levy would increase 3.18 percent, to $33 million, falling below the state tax cap.

This is the fourth consecutive balanced budget presented by the current administration, officials said, and the third consecutive spending plan to come in under the tax cap. And the city has not only eliminated a $14.7 million deficit, but built a reserve fund totaling $7 million, a nearly $22 million turnaround.

“In short, we’ve restored our rainy-day fund,” City Manager Jack Schnirman said. “Long Beach is back in the black.”

As a result of the city’s compliance with the tax cap, qualifying homeowners will receive 100 percent reimbursements of this year’s proposed tax hike, meaning that there will effectively be no tax increase. The city will still collect more taxes from residents, but the state will refund the increase to homeowners. “A check will be mailed from the state to every homeowner in Long Beach,” Schnirman said.

Under the Property Tax Freeze Credit, a two-year tax relief program, qualifying New York state homeowners are reimbursed for increases in local property taxes on their primary residences if their taxing jurisdiction remains under the cap and creates an efficiency plan. To be eligible, homeowners must be able to prove that their property in Long Beach is their primary residence and that their total household income is under $500,000.

The city will also appropriate $635,000 from the fund balance and $155,555 from a water fund surplus to pay off debt and keep the proposed tax levy low. “What this ultimately does is save our taxpayers $55 per household,” Schnirman explained. “What this means is if we were looking to pay this money on our own, without dipping into the fund balance that we’ve created, this would be an additional tax increase.”

Page 1 / 3