City Council President Marianne Clattenberg got a little worked up at Monday night's council meeting during a discussion of a proposed local property-tax cap that some Albany politicians are pushing.
“Why do they need us?" Clattenberg said. "They’re going to tell us what we can charge for property tax and then they’re going to tell us what we have to pay. They don’t even need local governments. They want control of everything. Albany is crazy right now.
"This whole sham of a property-tax cap is just a political ploy by the governor’s office to act like they're for the people," Clattenberg added. "So they say one thing to the people and then go the other way to stab them in the back."
At issue was a proposed resolution to send a message to Albany politicians, "no tax cap without mandate relief." The resolution will state that the legislature shouldn't approve a property-tax cap without eliminating mandated expenses.
A vote to place the resolution on the next council business agenda passed 6-3, with Rosemary Christian, Bob Bialkowski and Bill Cox voting no.
Cox argued that the city should be ready to make any spending cuts necessary without tax increases.
"We have other things we can cut," Cox said. "We need to give our property owners and our citizens tax relief. We can’t do it to them unless we take a stand, draw a line in the sand say, 'no more taxes.'"
Councilman Frank Ferrando said he was concerned that if a tax cap is enacted without mandate relief, the city will be forced to cut vital city services and eliminate key city jobs.
Albany, Ferrando said, shouldn't be dictating to local governments how to raise and spend money.
"If we're forced into that situation that could create real problems for our community," Ferrando said. "If we're in a situation where we need to make those decisions, that’s different. We will be making those decisions. We will make those hard decisions, but they shouldn’t be making them for us."
City Manager Jason Molino said mandated expenses on employee pensions, health insurance and health costs continue to escalate. Next year, for example, the city is looking at a $361,000 increase in mandated retirement benefit costs, and under the property-tax cap proposal, taxes could only go up by $72,000, leaving a $289,000 shortfall.
