new york state 2006 report on local governments

8/9/2019 New York State 2006 Report on Local Governments

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/new-york-state-2006-report-on-local-governments 1/44



For additional copies of this report contact:

Comptroller’s Press Of fice

110 State Street, 15th floor

Albany, New York 12236(518) 474- 4015or email us:

[email protected]

www.osc.state.ny.us

To be removed from our mailing list:

In an effort to reduce the cost of printing, if you would like to have your name

removed from our mailing list or if your present address has changed, contact theComptroller’s Press Of fice at (518) 474-4015 or at the Of fice of the State Comptroller, 110 State Street, 15th Floor, Albany, NY 12236. Date of Issue: November 2006 RMD1



2006 Annual ReportDIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Comptroller’s Message ..........................................................................................................................3Division Mission .....................................................................................................................................4

Executive Summary...................................................................................................................................5

The State of Local Governments..............................................................................................................8Property Taxes .......................................................................................................................................8Tax and Debt Limits ...............................................................................................................................9Deficit Financing .................................................................................................................................. 10City Deficit Projections .........................................................................................................................10Sales Tax ............................................................................................................................................. 11Medicaid...............................................................................................................................................12Revenue Sharing ................................................................................................................................. 13Health Insurance .................................................................................................................................. 14Local Government Pensions ................................................................................................................14Local Government Debt ....................................................................................................................... 15

2006 State Legislation Affecting Local Governments ......................................................................... 16

Audits and Oversight ............................................................................................................................... 17Accountability Audits ............................................................................................................................ 17Internal Control Audits ......................................................................................................................... 17Efficiency Audits .................................................................................................................................. 18Budget Reviews ................................................................................................................................... 18

Policy Reports ..........................................................................................................................................19Property Taxes ..................................................................................................................................... 19Sales Tax in New York State ................................................................................................................19

Industrial Development Agencies (IDAs) .............................................................................................20Outdated Municipal Structures ............................................................................................................20

Other Division Activities .........................................................................................................................20Electronic Filing ....................................................................................................................................20Local Government Financial Data Advisory Group ............................................................................. 21Training ................................................................................................................................................21Justice Court Fund ...............................................................................................................................22

Demographic and Fiscal Overview of Local Governments .................................................................23Population Trends ................................................................................................................................23Revenue Trends- “Where the Money Comes From” ............................................................................24Expenditure Trends- “Where the Money Goes” ...................................................................................25Summary of Local Government Entities ..............................................................................................29Trends in Local Government Finances 1994-2004 ..............................................................................30

Division Services/Resources ..................................................................................................................35Summary of Services/Resources ........................................................................................................35Map of New York State Counties and Cities by Region .......................................................................38Regional Office Directory ....................................................................................................................39Central Office Directory .......................................................................................................................40

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1



2006 Annual ReportDIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

A MESSAGE FROM THE NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER

3

Local governments across New York operate amid

evidence of mounting fiscal stress despite several positivedevelopments in the past year, including increases to theState’s revenue–sharing program and an improved economy.Signs of growing fiscal stress include increased numbersof municipalities that are dangerously approaching theirConstitutional tax limits, growing numbers of budgetdeficit financing bills, large projected budget gaps in many of our cities, and school district tax levies that continueto signif icantly exceed inflation. Not surprisingly in thesetimes, there is heightened interest around the State inintermunicipal cooperation and consolidation.

As my Office pointed out in a recent report, New York State’s laws and historic municipaldesignations have not changed over the years despite dramatic shifts in the population andcharacter of today’s local governments. It may be time to focus attention on the basic structure of local government, including State laws covering service provision, governance, revenue structure,intergovernmental aid and the provisions under which municipalities may merge, dissolve or annexterritory. With today’s heightened focus on local government efficiency, it makes sense for the Stateto take an in-depth look at these issues.

Highlighted within this report are some of the major fiscal trends in New York’s local governmentsand recent policy developments that affect their operations and financial health. This report helps

illustrate the complex and changing environment in which local governments must operate, and thedelicate balance local officials must achieve between service delivery and fiscal responsibility.

The services and activities of the Division of Local Government Services and EconomicDevelopment are also summarized in this report. My Office has an obligation to assist localgovernments in coping with fiscal pressures, and we have been expanding our performanceauditing and budget review capabilities, issuing policy reports highlighting key local governmentissues and enlarging our training and technical assistance efforts.

I will continue to focus the attention of this Office on improving the condition of localgovernments and the communities they serve.

Sincerely,

Alan G. Hevesi



2006 Annual Report OFFICE OF THE S TATE COMPTROLLER

OFFICE OF THE

NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER

DIVISION OFLOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES

AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

MISSION AND GOALS

Our mission is to improve the condition of local governments

and the communities they serve.

Our goals are to:

• Enable and encourage local of ficials to maintain orimprove fiscal health by increasing their governments’ef ficiency and effectiveness; managing costs and improving service delivery; and accounting for and protecting assets.

• Promote government reform and facilitate economic

development across New York State.

4



2006 Annual Report 5DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Executive Summary

Local governments across the State continue to

operate amid a barrage of fiscal pressures thatshow no signs of diminishing in the near future. The tenuous financial condition of some localgovernments (particularly upstate) persists despiteseveral positive developments in the past year. These include significant structural changesto the Medicaid program which effectively capthe growth in local Medicaid costs; considerableincreases in the State’s revenue sharing program;substantial increases in school aid; and animproved economy marked by relatively

low inflation.

New York State has many layers of government. At each level, evidence of fiscal stress is mounting. A small but growing number of municipalitiesare approaching or are dangerously close to theirConstitutional tax limits. In recent years, the StateLegislature has approved increased numbers of deficit financing bills. Large projected budgetgaps threaten the fiscal stability of many of our cities. School district tax levies continue to

significantly exceed inf lation. Negative populationtrends, particularly the loss of young adults, drainthe vitality of many upstate communities. Notsurprisingly, in these times of f iscal uncertainty,interest in intermunicipal cooperation andconsolidation is on the rise.

These developments around the State illustrate thecomplexity and changing nature of the fiscal andorganizational environments within which localgovernments must operate. Moreover, they reflect

the delicate balance local officials must achievebetween service delivery and fiscal responsibility as they develop their annual budgets.

In response to these growing pressures, theOffice of the State Comptroller (OSC) isexpanding its performance auditing capabilities,increasing the number of budget reviewsperformed on behalf of local governments,initiating a series of local government policy reports and enlarging its already robust training and technical assistance efforts. Many of the services and activities of the Division of Local Government Services and EconomicDevelopment are discussed in this report.

In Western New York, Monroe County faces

significant projected budget deficits overthe next few years and is attempting to

restructure its municipal sales tax sharing

agreements. Erie County’s fiscal situation has

yet to stabilize despite the fact it is subject to

the overview of a financial control board. The

City of Buffalo, also under financial control

board oversight, has been operating under

a wage freeze for the past several years. On

Long Island, overburdened taxpayers are

questioning school district budgets and

special district operations that add hundreds,

even thousands, of dollars to their tax bills

each year.

Broome County is examining shared services, governmental consolidation and village dissolutions.

Three volunteer fire companies in the Essex County town of Moriah are studying consolidation.

Herkimer County is considering consolidation of county and municipal highway services.

Fulton County is investigating school consolidation while Chemung County is considering police

service consolidations.



2006 Annual Report OFFICE OF THE S TATE COMPTROLLER 6

This report highlights some of the majorfiscal trends that exist among New York’slocal governments, as well as recent policy

developments and initiatives that affect theiroperations and financial health. The informationpresented is based on financial data that localgovernments submit to OSC on a yearly basis,and supplemented by other sources. These dataare critical to understanding the condition of local governments and guiding State and localpolicymakers as they develop strategies forcoping with today’s fiscal realities. Accordingly,OSC has also organized a Local GovernmentFinancial Data Advisory Group to review the

structure of our local government financial dataset and the underlying systems for recording andreporting that data. The purpose of this review is to determine if reporting can be made lesscomplicated or otherwise improved to providemore consistent data.

To expedite dissemination of local governmentfinancial data, the Division began publishing separate financial reports for each major classof local government (the first such report on

village finances was published in October 2006). These reports will be released at various timesthroughout the year as information becomesavailable.

Here are some of the highlights of current fiscaltrends in New York’s local governments:

Property Tax Pressures – Local governmentsdepend heavily on local property taxes, and New York State has some of the highest local property

taxes in the nation. Recent revenue trends show property taxes have grown at two to three timesthe rate of inf lation since 2000. Growth in theproperty tax exceeds growth in all other localrevenues, including sales tax, State aid and othernontax revenues.

Tax Limit Warnings – Local governments are

subject to Constitutional limits on the amount of revenue they may levy through property taxes. As of 2006, 27 municipalities1 had exhaustedover 80 percent of their tax limits, a clear sign of fiscal stress. In 1999, only two municipalities hadexhausted 80 percent of their tax limits.

Local Sales Tax Rates Climb – Localgovernments also depend heavily on the salestax and, while sales tax revenues have increasedin recent years, most of that increase has been

driven by local tax rate increases. As of August2006, 52 of 57 counties have local sales tax ratesabove 3 percent – 41 of these are at or above 4percent.

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

Cities Villages Towns Specia lDistricts

Counties SchoolDistricts

1995 to 2000 2000 to 2005

Annual Average Inflation Rate, 1995-2005 (2.5%)

Excluding STAR

2

27

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1999 2006

N u m b e r o f M u n

i c i p a l i t i e s

Total Number of Municipalities Exceeding

80% of Their Constitutional Tax Limits

Property Tax GrowthAnnual Average Percent Change by Class of Government

1995-2000 vs. 2000-2005




Revenue Sharing Increases Help, But Are Still

Below Inflation – With the restructuring of theState’s revenue sharing program, municipalitieshave received significant increases in aid. Despitethese increases, there remains a considerabledisparity between current funding levels and whatmunicipalities would be receiving had levels of funding kept pace with inflation or growth in theState budget over the last two decades.

Pension Contribution Rates Level Off – Although some local officials continue to notepension costs as a major strain on their budgets,the recent rise in pension contributions has

leveled off. Rates for 2008 will be 9.6 percent of payroll (down from 12.9 percent in 2005) for theEmployee Retirement System (ERS) and 16.6percent (down from 17.6 percent in 2005) for thePolice and Fire Retirement System (PFRS).

Local Government Debt is on the Rise – Debtis becoming an increasingly significant financialburden for local governments. Between 1994 and2004, increased reliance on debt resulted in thedoubling of total outstanding debt for all classes

of local government, from $16.6 billion to $31.3billion.

Increased Deficit Financing – Deficit financing is a relatively infrequent practice that has becomemore common in recent years. Since 1994,the State Legislature has authorized 34 bondissuances to finance local government operating deficits, totaling $279.4 million. Eleven of thesefinancings have been authorized in the last threeyears.

Negative Population Trends – New York State’spopulation grew 1.5 percent from 2000 through2005, but virtually all of that growth occurred inthe New York City metropolitan area. Continuedpopulation losses upstate (especially among

young adults) threaten the vitality of many communities. This trend has a negative effect ontax bases, business investment and job growth,and has caused the fiscal health of upstate localgovernments to suffer.

11

5

7

11

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1994-1997 1998-2000 2001-2003 2004-2006

Number of Authorizations for Bonding

Local Government Operating Deficits




The tenuous financial condition of localgovernments (particularly upstate) continuesdespite several positive developments in the pastyear, including changes to the Medicaid program which effectively cap the growth in county Medicaid costs, increases in the State’s revenuesharing program and substantial increases inschool aid.

These realities help illustrate the complex fiscal

environment in which local governments mustoperate. Moreover, they reflect the delicatebalance local governments must achieve betweenservice delivery and fiscal responsibility.

Property Taxes

One commonality among local governments istheir significant dependence on property taxesand the increasing dissatisfaction of taxpayers

with the levels of local property tax burdens.New York State has one of the highest property tax burdens in the nation.

• Tax Burden – According to the U. S. CensusBureau, New York’s local taxes per capitawere the highest in the nation in 2004. Onemajor reason for this is New York’s high local

property tax, which ranked third in the nationin 2004. Local property taxes in New York were $1,704 per capita in 2004, or 56 percentabove the national average of $1,093. Only New Jersey and Connecticut have higher localproperty taxes.

• Levy Growth – Property tax levies grew muchfaster between 2000 and 2005 than during theprevious five years. From 1995 to 2000, levies

for every level of local government other thanschool districts grew slower than inf lation.From 2000 to 2005, however, levy growth was two to three times the rate of inflation.Some of the reasons for this increase weredecreased rates of growth in other sourcesof revenue (such as sales tax and State aid)and significant increases in some categoriesof expenditures (such as health care costs andother fringe benefits).

• Share of Total Revenue – The property taxis the largest single revenue source for localgovernments, accounting for 31 percent of alllocal government revenue in 2004. WhenNew York City is excluded, property taxesaccounted for 43 percent of total local revenuein 2004. Counties and cities, with theirmore complex tax structures, raise only aboutone-quarter of their revenue from this source.

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%8%

Cities Vil lages Towns Specia lDistricts

Counties SchoolDistricts

1995 to 2000 2000 to 2005

Annual Average Inflation Rate, 1995-2005 (2.5%)Excluding STAR

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Counties Cit ies Towns Vil lages SchoolDistricts

FireDistricts

NYC Total

1994 2004

The State of Local Governments

Property Tax as a Share of Total Revenue(1994 and 2004)

Property Tax GrowthAnnual Average Percent Change by Class of Government

1995-2000 vs. 2000-2005




In contrast, villages, towns and school districtsuse property taxes to raise about half of all revenues, while fire districts are almostentirely dependent on them. Most classes of government, other than school districts,showed less reliance on property taxes in2004 compared to ten years ago. This shiftreflects efforts by local governments to reducetheir reliance on property taxes through localsales tax rate increases as well as fee andfine increases. However, this trend may bereversing as the capacity to raise rates inthese revenue categories is diminished.

• Tax Rates– Despite the increase in levies,tax rates (as measured in dollars paid per

$1,000 of home value) declined downstate.This was due to extraordinary increases inhome values, especially on Long Island(Nassau and Suffolk counties) and in theMid-Hudson Valley (Dutchess, Orange,Putnam, Rockland, Sull ivan, Ulster andWestchester counties).

• Tax Relief – Rising property taxes havetriggered calls for relief, especially for schoollevies, which accounted for 61 percent of allproperty taxes levied in 2005. The School Tax Relief program (STAR) – a State-fundedproperty tax exemption program enacted in1997– reimburses school districts for taxesthey would have collected on a portion of the

value of eligible homeowners’ properties. The 2006-07 State budget increased theSTAR exemption for seniors and institutednew STAR-based rebates for all eligiblehomeowners.

Tax and Debt Limits

Local governments are subject to statutory limits on the amount of revenue they may levy through property taxes and the amountof debt they may issue. A small but growing number of municipalities are approaching or are

dangerously close to their tax or debt limits, asign of fiscal stress. Nearly 15 percent of citiesexhausted 80 percent or more of their tax limitsin 2006, compared to less than 2 percent in1999. Local governments that exhaust 80 percentor more of their tax limits are notified by theState Comptroller that they are in a potentially dangerous financial condition.

• Tax Limits – As of fiscal years ending in 2006,nine cities and 13 villages exhausted more

than 80 percent of their tax limits, including five villages which exhausted 90 percent of their l imits. In 2005, five counties exceededthis 80 percent threshold, including threecounties (Fulton, Cortland and Montgomery)that exhausted more than 90 percent of theirlimits. Towns are not subject to tax limits.

$0.00

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00

$30.00

$35.00

$40.00

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Downstate Upstate

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

Cities Counties Villages

1 99 9 2 00 1 2 00 3 2 00 5 2 00 6

Trends in Full Value Tax Rate,

Upstate vs. Downstate2000-2005

Municipalities Exceeding 80% of their

Constitutional Tax Limits

(As a Percentage of Class)

0.2%0.7%

1.4%

2.3% 2.3%

0.0%0.0%

3.5%

8.8%

1.8%

4.8%

9.7%

12.9%

14.5%




• Big Four – Of the Big Four cities, Rochesterand Buffalo continue to exhaust their taxing capacity. In 2006, Rochester exhausted 87percent of its tax limit, up from 84 percentin 2005. Buffalo exhausted 92 percent of itslimit in 2006, an increase of 4 percent over2005. To a great extent, this upward trendtoward tax limits in Buffalo and Rochesteris attributable to stagnant tax bases andincreased levies for the operations of theirdependent school districts.

• Debt Thresholds – According to data fromthe 2004 fiscal year, most local governments

are not in danger of exceeding their debt limits.However, eight villages and threeof the Big Four cities have surpassed70 percent of their constitutionaldebt limits. No counties or townsare near their debt limits.

Deficit Financing

Local governments may issue debt to

fund operating deficits only after the StateLegislature grants the legal authority to doso. Although deficit financing is a relatively infrequent practice, it has become more common inrecent years – another sign of growing fiscal stress.

• Amounts Authorized – Since 1994, 34 bondissuances totaling $279.4 million have beenlegislatively authorized to finance localgovernment operating deficits.

• School Districts – From 1994 to 2006, deficitfinancing was most prevalent for schooldistricts, representing 58 percent of the totalnumber of bond authorizations to financelocal government operating deficits.

• Fiscal Control Boards – Deficit financing hasbeen authorized for local governments viafinancial control boards in the cities of Buffalo

and Troy and in Nassau and Erie counties.

City Deficit Projections

In the 2005-06 State budget, all cities wererequired to create multiyear financial plans thatproject major revenues and expenditures for atleast the next three years. This requirement istied to the increased revenue sharing providedby the Aid and Incentives to Municipalities

(AIM) program. To assist cities in meeting thisnew requirement, the Division developed both aguide and a template to help cities prepare theirplans. By spring 2006, all cities had certified they had such plans in place, and 50 cities submittedinformational copies of these plans to the State.Many of the plans used the Division’s template, which included all elements required by law.

11

5

7

11

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1994-1997 1998-2000 2001-2003 2004-2006

Class

# of Debt Issuances

Authorized Total Amount Authorized

Cities 5 $57,240,000

Counties 3 $126,500,000Towns 4 $5,575,000Villages 4 $13,875,000

School Districts 18 $76,175,651

Total 34 $279,365,651

Authorizations for Bonding Local Government

Operating Deficits by Class (1994-2006)

Number of Authorizations for Bonding

Local Government Operating Deficits




• Growing Gaps – Most city f inancial plansprojected their finances through 2009,allowing comparisons of surpluses or deficitsas a percent of total revenue in each year.Although a few cities projected surplusesfor at least some years, most cities projectedbudgetary gaps which grew in the outyearsof their respective plans. For those citieswhich projected gaps, the average gap(measured as a percent of revenues) was 5.2percent in 2007 growing to 9.8 percent in2009. Analysis shows that the projectedgaps widen to serious levels in several citiesin future years. For 2007, 6 cities projected

deficits of more than 10 percent of revenues.For 2009, 10 cities projected gaps of morethan 10 percent of revenues. Projected gapsexceeding 10 percent of revenues are indicativeof severe fiscal stress.

• Assumptions – The underlying assumptionsand quality of these plans vary widely,indicating that it is best to draw general

observations from the trends evident inthe plans, rather than precise analyticalcalculations.

The Division will continue to review and analyzethese plans as part of its fiscal monitoring activities. It may be advisable for the State torequire more consistently structured plans inthe future.

Sales Tax

Sales tax revenues are a significant component

of revenue for local governments. In 2004, they represented 8.6 percent of total local revenues. Although only counties and cities are allowed tolevy a sales tax, other municipalities may receivesales tax revenues as part of sharing agreements with their respective counties. Local governmentshave become more reliant on the sales tax.

Sales tax revenues are sensitive to changes inthe economy. This makes estimating future

revenues difficult and makes local governmentsparticularly vulnerable to negative changes oreconomic slowdowns.

• Share of Total Revenue – As a class, county reliance on the sales tax is about the same asits reliance on the property tax (about 25percent). Many counties are relying on thesales tax as the primary revenue source. In1994, 12 of 57 counties raised the majority of their revenue from the sales tax. In 2004, 18

of 57 counties raised the majority of theirrevenue from the sales tax.

• Regional Trends – Sales tax revenue trendsvary by region. The Mid-Hudson Valley hasexperienced the most signif icant growth inrecent years, with average annual increasesof 9.2 percent, while the Finger Lakes Regionhas experienced average growth rates of only 3.1 percent per year.

5.4%

4.4%

5.0%

4.1%

2.3%

4.9%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

Counties Cities Towns Villages School Districts New York City

-5.2%

-7.1%

-9.8%

-13.0%

-8.0%

-3.0%

2.0%

7.0%

12.0%

2007 2008 2009

Average Annual Increase in Sales Tax Revenue

(1994-2004)

Size of Reported Gaps

(as a percent of revenues)




• Tax Rates – Most of the growth in salestax revenue is explained by local rate increases.While general State statute allows local salestax rates up to 3 percent, only five countiescurrently impose this base rate. The other52 counties have received specific Stateapproval for rates above the 3 percent statutory limit. Today, approximately 85 percent of theState’s population reside in areas where thecombined State and local sales tax rate is 8percent or higher.

• Sharing Agreements – The majority of counties(43 of 57) have some form of sales tax sharing agreements with other local governments withintheir boundaries. Sharing agreements are basedon a variety of measures, including population,property value and/or average daily attendance(in the case of school districts).

Medicaid

With passage of the local Medicaid cap in the

2005-06 State budget, counties are afforded a new level of predictability as their officials formulateannual budgets. There is evidence this change didmoderate property tax increases in 2006.

• Impact on Levies – A study by the Divisionshows that, while county property tax leviesare still increasing, the rate of increase hasmoderated. From 2001 to 2005, the averageannual increase in county property tax levieswas 7 percent. From 2005 to 2006 that rate of

growth was reduced to 3.3 percent.

• Sustainability – Although this change is apositive one for local governments, continuedfocus on the cost of the Medicaid program isessential. This is especially important in termsof future sustainability. Counties recognizethis and are shifting their focus towardissues of Medicaid cost containment andfraud detection and prevention.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Counties Cities Towns Villages SchoolDistricts

NYC Total

1994 2004

3.1% 3.1%

3.9%

5.4%5.8%

6.8%7.1% 7.3%

8.0%

9.2%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

10.0%

F i n g e r L a k e s

C a p i t a l D i s t r i c t

W e s t e r

n N e w

Y o r k

S o u t h e r n T i e

r

L o n g I s l a n d

N o r t h

C o u n t r y

C e n t r a l N e

w Y o

r k

L o w e r H u d s o n V

a l l e y

M o h a w k V a l l e y

M i d - H

u d s o n

Sales Tax as a Share of Total Revenue

(1994 and 2004)

Average Annual Increase in Sales Tax Distributions

by Region

(1999-2005)




Revenue Sharing

Unrestricted aid to local governments – known

as revenue sharing – is State aid that can be usedfor any local government general purpose. Theintended goal of this program is to redistributetax dollars broadly to municipalities lacking the tax base or taxing authority to generate thisrevenue on their own.

The Legislature recently restructured theprogram, significantly increased the level of aidthat municipalities receive and introduced new accountability requirements. The revenue sharing

program is now referred to as Aid and Incentivesto Municipalities (AIM). Local governments wil lreceive almost $977 mill ion in AIM funding in2006-07.

• Cities – The vast majority of revenue sharing funds go to cities – with other municipalitiesreceiving less than 10 percent of the aid. Citieshave historically been more dependent on

unrestricted aid than other classes of localgovernment and, as a result, have been moreaffected by changes to revenue sharing.A sizable portion of increased aid to citiesis conditioned on cities developing multiyearfinancial plans.

• Comparison to Inflation and Other Measures –

Despite these significant increases, thereremains a considerable disparity betweencurrent funding levels and what municipalitieswould be receiving if funding had kept pacewith inf lation or growth in the State budgetover the last two decades. Although the currentlevel of funding is nearly as high as it was whenfunding for the program peaked in SFY 198889 at almost $1.1 billion, if this funding hadkept pace with inflation, the 2006-07 funding level would have nearly doubled to $1.9

bill ion, more than $900 million over thecurrent appropriation. Furthermore, 1988-89revenue sharing represented about 3 percentof the State budget; in 2006-07, only 1 percentof the budget is devoted to this purpose.$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

1996-97

1997-98

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

M i l l i o n s

New York City

Cities

Counties, Towns and Villages

77.3%

131.5%

-9.3%

-100%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

1 9 8 8

- 8 9

1 9 9 0

- 9 1

1 9 9 2

- 9 3

1 9 9 4

- 9 5

1 9 9 6

- 9 7

1 9 9 8

- 9 9

2 0 0 0

- 0 1

2 0 0 2

- 0 3

2 0 0 4

- 0 5

2 0 0 6

- 0 7

Unrestr icted Aid Inf lat ion Sta te Funds

3.2%

1.3%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

1 9 8 8

- 8 9

1 9 9 0

- 9 1

1 9 9 2

- 9 3

1 9 9 4

- 9 5

1 9 9 6

- 9 7

1 9 9 8

- 9 9

2 0 0 0

- 0 1

2 0 0 2

- 0 3

2 0 0 4

- 0 5

2 0 0 6

- 0 7

Unrestricted Aid to Local Governments by Class

Unrestricted Aid as a Percentage of State Funds

Cumulative Percent Change

in Unrestricted Aid




• Incentive Grants – As part of an overallState initiative to reduce the local property tax burden, the Legislature also created theShared Municipal Services Incentive (SMSI)program. The program funds cooperativeefforts by two or more municipalities to achievesavings through eligible activities ranging fromshared services to consolidations or mergers.This program was introduced in the 2005–06State budget with funding of $2.75 million; the2006-07 State budget substantially increasedSMSI funding to $25 mill ion.

Health Insurance The cost of employee health care for localgovernments, which has been increasing at severaltimes the rate of inflation over the last decade,is expected to continue rising. According to theHenry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, while the rateof growth in health care premiums has moderatedsomewhat recently, it is expected to continueincreasing at near double-digit rates.

• Growth in Premiums – The Foundation’sannual survey on employer health care benefitsindicates that in 2005 the cost of employeehealth care premiums increased 9.2 percent,slightly less than the 2004 increase of 11.2percent.

• Inflation and Wage Growth Comparison – The Kaiser Foundation also notes thatpremiums for family coverage have increasedby 59 percent from 2000 to 2004, remarkably high in comparison to inflation and wagegrowth of 9.7 percent and 12.3 percent,respectively, during that same period.

• Local Government Growth – This trendhas also been experienced by New York State’s local governments, which increasedexpenditures on employee health careinsurance by more than 52 percent between2000 and 2004, an average annual increase

of more than 11 percent.

Local Government Pensions

During the 1990s, local governmentsbenefited from the strong economy androbust stock market, resulting in extremely low pension contribution rates for nearly adecade. However, with the end of the “boom”market period, employer contribution rates have

returned to historic norms. Today’s rates remain well below those of the 1970s. In 1972, ERScontribution rates reached 21.9 percent of payroll and, in 1979, PFRS rates reached 35.1percent of payroll.

49%

57%58%

52%

58%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

County City Town Village Total

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

1 9 7 0

1 9 7 2

1 9 7 4

1 9 7 6

1 9 7 8

1 9 8 0

1 9 8 2

1 9 8 4

1 9 8 6

1 9 8 8

1 9 9 0

1 9 9 2

1 9 9 4

1 9 9 6

1 9 9 8

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 4

2 0 0 6

2 0 0 8

Police and Fire RetirementSystem

Employees'Retirement System

Percent Change in Local Government Expenditures

on Employee Health Insurance

(2000-2004)

Retirement System Payment Rates: 1970 to 2008

(as a Percent of Salary)




Although some local officials continue to notepension costs as a major strain on their budgets,the recent rise in pension contributions has now leveled off and even begun to decline. Rates for2008 will be 9.6 percent of payroll (down from12.9 percent in 2005) for the Employee RetirementSystem and 16.6 percent (down from 17.6 percentin 2005) for the Police and Fire Retirement System.

Local Government Debt

Debt is becoming an increasingly onerousfinancial burden for local governments. As local

governments issue more debt, increased debtservice payments may constrict their capacity tocope with economic downturns or unforeseenfinancial responsibilities. From 1994 to 2004, every class of local government experienced an increasein total outstanding debt that outpaced the risein the total full value of real property. Since localgovernments rely on property taxes as a primary source of revenue, this trend may indicate a gradualerosion of local governments’ abilities to manageincreasing debt burdens or necessary capital

expenditures.

• Trends – Between 1994 and 2004, increasedreliance on debt resulted in the doubling of total outstanding debt for all classes of localgovernment, from $16.6 billion to $31.3 billion(an average annual increase of 6.5 percent).

• School District and Village Debt – The mostdramatic increases in outstanding debtoccurred in school districts and vil lages.For villages, total outstanding debt more thandoubled from $772 million to $1.6 billion; forschool districts, it more than tripled from$4.1 billion to $14.9 billion (an average annualincrease of 13.8 percent). This dramaticincrease for school districts was likely relatedto favorable State reimbursement formulasthat encourage school capital projects.Consequently, for the 2004 fiscal year, 46percent of total outstanding debt for all classesof government was issued by school districts.

• City and Town Debt – Other classes of localgovernments that have experienced notableincreases in total outstanding debt are towns,cities and fire districts. Total outstanding debtfor both cities and towns increased about 40percent from 1994 to 2004. These increasescan likely be attributed to capital investmentfor the improvement and replacement of aging facilities and infrastructures.

• Fire District Debt – Within the same periodof time, total outstanding debt for fire districtsincreased from $125 million to $233 million(an average annual increase of 6.4 percent).However, outstanding debt associated withfire districts comprised the smallest percentageof the total outstanding debt for all classes of local government (1 percent in 2004).

88%

17%

40% 38%

105%

265%

87%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

All Classes ofLocal

Government

Count ies C it ies Towns V il lages SchoolDistricts

Fire Districts

Villages5%Towns

13%

Cities10%

Counties25% Fire Districts

1%

School Districts46%

Share of Total Outstanding Debt by Class

(2004)

Percentage Change in Outstanding Debt

1994-2004

(Excluding New York City)




Several bills were enacted during the 2006 Statelegislative session that affect New York State’s localgovernments. Some of these measures have thepotential to greatly inf luence the fiscal operationsof the State’s municipalities.

• Fire Districts – Several laws enacted in2006 provide increased accountability andtransparency to the management of fire

districts and companies in New York State.The new laws focus on training, travel,financial audits, public budget hearings,special elections, ethics, establishment of capital reserve funds and administrationof service award programs. (Chapters 234through 243)

• Electronic Filing/Annual Update Document – Legislation enacted this year extends the t imeperiod to 120 days for counties and cities

to file annual financial information withOSC (as well as towns and villages withpopulations of 20,000 or more). Thislegislation also encourages local governmentsto file electronically. (Chapter 710)

• Planning Board Training – Effective January 1, 2008 members of county, city (except New York City), town and village planning boards,and members of city (except New York City),town and village boards of appeals must

annually complete a minimum of four hoursof training designed to enable them to servemore effectively. (Chapter 662)

• Shared Municipal Services Incentive (SMSI) – This grant program funds cooperative effortsby two or more municipalities to achievesavings through eligible activities ranging from shared services to consolidation ormerger. SMSI was introduced in the 2005–06State budget with $2.75 million in funding and was expanded in the 2006-07 State budgetwith funding of $25 million. SMSI grants

are distributed through five different programareas, including highway services, localemployee health insurance, county-initiatedprograms, and consolidations and mergersof municipalities. (Chapter 50, Laws of 2005and Chapter 50, Laws of 2006)

• Financing of Flood Relief Expenses – Amends existing provisions of law to enablemunicipalities to issue serial bonds to berepaid over five years for extraordinary flood

expenses. In particular, this bill changesthe dates set forth in existing statute tomake the law applicable to the storm andfloods which severely affected 19 countiesin 2005. (Chapter 157)

• Selection of Assessors – Authorizes citiesand towns to convert from multiple electedassessors to one elected assessor, or froman elected assessor to a single appointedassessor without a referendum. Expressly

allows local legislative bodies to determinewhether their local laws are subject tomandatory or permissive referendums ornone at all. (Chapter 521)

2006 State LegislationAffecting Local Governments




Audits and Oversight

OSC has the constitutional and statutory

responsibility to oversee the fiscal affairs of more than 4,200 government entities in New York State. OSC’s Division of Local GovernmentServices and Economic Development worksclosely with local governments and performsperiodic audits on municipalities throughoutthe State.

Accountability Audits

The Division’s accountability audits ensurethat control systems are in place to safeguardthe assets of local governments. A subset of accountability audits – fraud audits – reveals how the lack of adequate controls can lead to criminalabuse of local government assets. In 2005, theDivision found more than $11 million in localgovernment assets that were misappropriatedthrough fraud.

• Roslyn Union Free School District –

OSC found that more than $11 millionof district funds were used for personalexpenses. This misappropriation occuredbecause top-level managers could overridethe system and process payments outsidethe normal flow of most transactions. Theacts of fraud were complete violations of public trust on the part of district officials.

• Public Authorities – To support theComptroller’s goal of making public

authorities more accountable, the Divisionincreased its audit oversight of local publicauthorities. For example, an audit of theOneida-Herkimer Solid Waste ManagementAuthority found the methodology used todevelop projections for disposal costs ata new landfill were well documented andthe underlying assumptions and estimationmethods were objective and reasonable.

An audit of the Western Regional Off-Track Betting Corporation found that officialshad not developed an overall business planthat adequately addresses all potentialrisks and contingencies of buying andoperating the Batavia Downs harness track.In addition, the audit found that revenueprojections for video lottery terminals atthe harness track were very optimisticand not likely to occur. Working in concertwith other branches of the Comptroller’sOffice, the Division is developing an overallstrategy to strengthen oversight of morethan 400 public authorities operated at the

local level.

• Acquisition of Athletic Fields – OSC foundthat, in an attempt to acquire athletic fieldsat no cost, three school districts and a townallowed dirt haulers to dump constructiondebris on their properties in exchange for thedirt haulers renovating their athletic f ields.It appears that the only parties to profit fromthis scheme were the dirt haulers who receivedcost savings of between $7.4 million and

$19.4 million for dumping the debris. The construction debris was found to becontaminated and the athletic f ields couldnot be used. The school districts and townface costly remediation work as well as legaland engineering fees.

Internal Control Audits

Government officials entrusted with public

resources are responsible for complying with lawsand regulations, meeting goals and objectives,and safeguarding assets. A good internal controlsystem is an important element of a localgovernment’s f inancial and operating structureand is intended to assist local officials in meeting these responsibilities. In 2005, the Divisionidentified a number of opportunities to improveinternal control systems.




• City of Rensselaer – The Division’s auditdisclosed that personnel charged withoverseeing the treasurer’s office failed toensure that internal controls were operationalor even in existence. Computer security wasso poor that virtually anyone had access tothe system server, program software anddata. Accounting records and supportdocumentation were so poor that the city’sindependent auditor could not render anopinion on certain aspects of the city’sfinancial statements.

• Internal Controls Over Fire District Travel

and Administrative Controls– The Division’saudit of 21 fire districts in western New

York disclosed that many Boards of FireCommissioners failed to provide adequatepolicy guidance over travel and administrativeexpenses and/or they neglected to monitorwhether officials complied with existing policies. Staff also found that officials incurredunnecessary travel costs and that internalcontrol deficiencies existed regarding todistrict owned vehicles, cell phones and

inspection dinners.

Efficiency Audits

As local governments continue to face growing fiscal pressures, the ability to save taxpayer dollarsthrough efficiency improvements is critical.In 2005, Division audits of individual units of government contained myriad recommendationsfor cost savings and/or revenue enhancements.

If followed, these recommendations could savemore than $25 million for the local governmentsstudied.

• Statewide Efficiencies – The Division alsoissued nine audits covering multiple units of government during 2005. These performanceaudits involved working with several localgovernments or agencies in a particular regionor across the State to look at issues or

programs and determine if there are ways toimprove their efficiency and effectiveness.These audits allow us to highlight importantoperational issues and opportunities forimprovement to local governments.

• Buffalo City School District – The Division’saudit found the District did not accurately verify or report data related to its participationin the National School Lunch Program to theState Education Department (SED). Thisresulted in the District receiving approximately $780,000 less in Extraordinary Needs Aid(ENA) from the State than it should have

during the 2003-04 and 2004-05 fiscal years.Furthermore, if District officials fail to takecorrective action, it could result in the Districtnot receiving approximately $2.2 million inENA for the 2005-06 fiscal year.

• School District Medicaid Reimbursements – The Division’s regional audit disclosedthat eight audited school districts failedto claim at least $2.8 mill ion of Medicaidreimbursement. As a result, the school

districts did not receive at least $700,000in Medicaid reimbursement revenues.

Budget Reviews

OSC budget reviews help local governmentsmonitor structural balances in their budgets by evaluating the consistency and appropriatenessof estimated revenues, appropriations andappropriated fund balances. In 2005, Division

staff performed 22 budget reviews for localgovernments, 13 of which were mandated by special deficit financing legislation.

• Deficit Financing Reviews – Budget reviewsmandated under deficit financing legislationincluded the cities of Rome and Troy; thevillages of Freeport and Endicott; the townsof Stony Point and Babylon; and the GreaterAmsterdam, Roosevelt, Schenectady, Troy,




Monroe-Woodbury, Liberty and Fabius– Pompey school districts. The Division alsoperformed budget reviews for nine otherlocal governments.

• Erie County – In 2005, at the request of the Erie County Legislature and in the wake of a mounting fiscal crisis, theDivision conducted a budget review of Erie County. In so doing, staff identifiedsignif icant budget gaps through 2009.Consequently, the Comptroller recommendedthat the County be subject to control boardoversight. In July 2005, the Erie County

Fiscal Stability Authority was created. The County was required to submit afour–year financial plan to address thegaps and has since submitted variousrevisions to that plan. OSC continuesto monitor this situation closely.

• Rochester City School District – A specialbudget review prepared for the RochesterCity School District in March 2005 foundthe District’s budget stil l requires additional

State or city assistance to be balanced. Though the District had a stated fundbalance of over $50 million, the Districtdid not have enough cash resources tooperate and relied on short-term borrowing to provide enough cash to pay bills.

Policy Reports

Property Taxes

The Division released Property Taxes in New York

State , a report on property tax burdens in New York State that highlights several major issues with New York’s largest tax – by far the largestsource of local government revenue and a largerrevenue source than even the State’s personalincome tax. New York’s local property taxesranked third–highest per capita in the nation

in 2004, contributing heavily to New York’sfirst place ranking in both local and state taxesper capita.

Real property taxes have also been the fastest-growing revenue source in recent years, rising 6.4percent from 2000 to 2004, compared with 5.3percent for sales and other nonproperty taxes,4.3 percent for State aid and 1 percent for othernontax revenues. Much of this growth is due tofactors such as slowing sales tax revenues andincreasing costs.

The magnitude of the property tax, its visibility

and recent growth have brought considerablepressure to bear on State policymakers to providerelief. The State’s largest property tax relief plan – STAR – was implemented in 1997 and recently augmented with an additional rebate.

Sales Tax in New York State

Given the importance of the sales tax to localgovernments, OSC released Local Sales Taxes

in New York State: Description, Trends and Issues ,a report which examines current revenuetrends, local rate trends and municipal sharing agreements. The report finds that communitiesin New York State have some of the highest salestax rates relative to the rest of the nation. It alsoshows that, in the wake of a declining economy,many counties sought or extended temporary rateincreases above their statutory limit of 3 percent. As of August 2006, 52 counties have local salestax rates above 3 percent – 41 of these are at or

above 4 percent. Today, approximately 85 percentof the State’s population reside in areas wherethe combined State and local sales tax rate is 8percent or higher.

Additionally, the Division’s research finds thatsales tax sharing agreements are in place formost counties in the State. The formulas on which these agreements are based vary fromcounty to county.




consistently used electronic filing, maintaining usage percentages between 96 percent and 100percent during this period.

Legislation was enacted this year extending thetime period to 120 days for counties and cities tofile annual financial information with OSC (as well as towns and vil lages with populations of 20,000 or more). This legislation also encourageslocal governments to file electronically.

Local Government Financial DataAdvisory Group

The Office of the State Comptroller collects a wide variety of data through annual financialreports, resulting in an information repository that is an essential resource for a broad spectrumof users interested in local government issues. This f inancial data is collected under systemsof accounting and reporting prescribed by the Comptroller.

Current accounting and reporting systems

provide considerable flexibility in recording and reporting local government financialactivity. While this flexibility is valued by somelocal governments, it is also often a source of frustration for users of the local government dataset because different reporting practices can limitthe analytical uti lity of certain data elements.

OSC has organized a Local GovernmentFinancial Data Advisory Group to review thestructure of our local government financial data

set and the underlying systems for recording andreporting that data. The purpose of this review is to determine if reporting can be made lesscomplicated or otherwise improved to providemore consistent data. Ideally, this would improvethe usefulness of the data for all users and couldalso simplify reporting. This evaluation is being pursued in partnership with local governmentofficials and associations representing them, as well as other users of the data.

Training

During 2005, Division staff conducted training

at more than 30 statewide and regional events,including conferences, training schools,accounting schools, teleconferences and regionalforums. Through these instructional outlets, theDivision trained more than 13,000 local officials. These programs included three key initiativesspearheaded by the Comptroller:

• Schools Accountability - In alignment with the Comptroller’s School DistrictAccountability Initiative, the Division

collaborated with a coalition of schooldistrict organizations to develop a formaldocument to guide school district auditing practices. Additionally, the Division trainedmore than 500 school district officials andbegan collaboration on an online training program designed to promote financialaccountability.

• Fire Districts - During 2005 and 2006,Comptroller Hevesi also focused on improving

financial accountability in fire districts.These efforts resulted in a series of new lawsto improve and strengthen fiscal accountability in fire districts. OSC is the lead agency in implementing these changes, including establishment of minimum training requirements and curriculum for firecommissioners. To this end, the Divisioncollaborated with the Association of FireDistricts of the State of New York to producetwo teleconferences and conducted training

at the Association’s major conferences.

• Justice Courts - Patterns in our audit reportsindicated a need for additional emphasison fiscal responsibility in Justice Courts. The Division took proactive measures toaddress these issues by developing a training video that the Office of Court Administrationused as a part of regional training formagistrates and court clerks. The Division




provided training workshops on topicsaddressing reporting and accountability formore than 1,260 magistrates and court clerks.

Justice Court Fund

The Division is custodian of the Justice CourtFund (JCF), established to account for therevenues from fines and penalties collectedby the State’s 1,270 town and village justicecourts; the Department of Motor Vehicles’ Administrative Adjudication Program; theNassau County Traffic and Parking Violations

Agency; and parking surcharges collected by the cities of New York, Buffalo, Rochester, Yonkers, Syracuse and Albany. In particular,the Division collects the State portion of thesefines and penalties, and accounts for the localshares that are either retained by or refundedto the municipalities.

• In the 2005-06 State fiscal year, JCFdistributed $462.7 million in fines, feesand forfeitures derived from the adjudication

of motor vehicle, criminal, civil and othercases at the local government level. Localgovernments received 46 percent of thisdistribution, or $214.8 million, and the Statereceived 54 percent, or $248.6 million.

• The JCF also received and distributed almost$689,000 from cities, towns and villages forthe State’s portion of license fees from bingoand games of chance.




• Villages – Vil lages have experienced marginalpopulation growth of 1 percent from 1970to 2000, and just 0.2 percent in the past fiveyears. However, the trends are quite differentin upstate villages compared to downstatevillages. Upstate vil lages have lost 8.5percent of their populations over the 30–year

period, while downstate villages have grownby 10.6 percent. This trend continues basedon 2005 Census estimates which show downstate villages gained 1.7 percent andupstate villages lost 1.5 percent.

• Implications – Stagnant growth andpopulation losses are troublesome for many reasons. In the case of large upstate cities,loss of population has negative impacts onlocal tax bases which, in turn, drive local tax

bills up for remaining residents. Higher taxesare a deterrent to new businesses and oftendrive existing business out. Such a scenariodoes not bode well for job growth, particularly in higher paying employment sectors. Aspopulation, business investment, job opportunity and tax base diminish, so does the fiscal healthof the sponsoring local government.

Population Trends

From 1970 to 2000, New York State’s populationgrew by 4 percent. The State’s populationincreased by another 1.5 percent between 2000and 2005.

• Cities – As a class, cities (outside NYC) havesuffered the greatest share of population loss– 19.5 percent between 1970 and 2000. Over

the past five years, city populations continuedto decline by 1.7 percent.

• Big Four – The Big Four cities of Buffalo,Rochester, Syracuse and Yonkers have beenhit particularly hard by population decreases.From 1970 to 2000, Buffalo lost 36.8 percentof its population, while Rochester andSyracuse lost 25.8 percent and 25.3 percent,respectively. Yonkers lost 4 percent. UpdatedCensus estimates show that the trend

continues, with the exception of Yonkers,which shows a slight increase over the pastfive years (0.2 percent). From 2000-2005,Buffalo lost another 4.4 percent of itspopulation, Rochester 4 percent andSyracuse 3.8 percent.

• New York City – The State’s net gain inpopulation is largely explained by gains inNew York City, which increased in populationby 1.4 percent during the 30–year period

(1970-2000). In the last five years, New York City’s population increased by 1.7 percent.

• Towns – To a large extent, losses in city population represent shifts to surrounding towns. As a class, towns saw the greatestgrowth from 1970 to 2000 (15.5 percent)as well as from 2000 to 2005 (2.1 percent).

5.50%

-20.9%

3.1%

17.9%

1.2%

-30.0%

-20.0%

-10.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

New YorkState

Cities(excluding

NYC)

New York Ci ty All Towns All Vi llages

Demographic and Fiscal Overview ofLocal Governments in New York State

Population Trends in Cities, Towns and Villages

(1970-2005)




• Flight of Young Adults – One of the moretroubling developments is the flight of young adults from the State—often after they havebeen educated here. Between 1990 and 2004,the number of residents 25–34 years of agein the 52 counties north of Rockland andPutnam counties declined by more than 25percent. In 13 counties that include citieslike Buffalo, Syracuse and Binghamton,the population of young adults fell by morethan 30 percent.2

This trend also has negative implications forjob growth. Without a vibrant, educated and

available work force, businesses are far lesslikely to relocate to or stay in New York.

Revenue Trends:“Where the Money Comes From”

Local governments raise revenue through a variety of sources to provide the services thatresidents demand. The degree to which a localgovernment depends on one type of revenue

versus another varies. Therefore, the exactnature of the local revenue mix depends on theclass of local government and often reflects thelevel of flexibility that a local government has inconstructing its budget.

Sales Tax9%

State Aid21%

Federal Aid10%

Other Revenues19%

Real Property

Taxes31%

OtherNonproperty

Taxes10%

• Revenue Mix — Revenue for all localgovernments in New York State totaled$115 billion in 2004, which reflects a 28percent increase since 1999. Of this amount,31 percent was raised through property taxes. Overall, State aid is the second–mostsignificant source of local revenue, comprising 21 percent of the total. Federal aid andnon-property taxes (excluding sales tax)each account for 10 percent of the total.Sales tax revenues account for 9 percent of the revenue mix.

• Growth Trends — Property taxes and federalaid were the two fastest–growing revenuecategories between 1999 and 2004 — eachincreasing about 38 percent over the five-yearperiod — followed by State aid andnonproperty taxes, which grew by 25 and22 percent, respectively.

Fire Districts0.4%

Villages2%

Towns5%

Cities (excl NYC)

3% SchoolDistricts

23%

Counties15%

Other48%

NYC52%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Counties Cities (exclNYC)

NYC T owns V il lages S choo l D is tr ic ts F ir e D is tr ic ts

Real Property Taxes Nonproperty Taxes State Aid Federal Aid Other Revenues

Revenue Components by Local Government Class

2004

Share of Revenue Attributable to

Each Type of Local Government, 2004

2004 Total Revenue

$115 Billion

(all major classes of local government including NYC)




• Overall - In 2004, New York’s counties,cities (other than NYC), towns, villages,school districts and fire districts spent atotal of $59 billion. Most of that amount(48 percent, or $29 billion) was expendedby public school districts. Counties, whichfinance a share of local Medicaid and incomeassistance programs, spent 31 percent of thetotal, or more than $18 billion. Cities, townsand villages together comprised another

20 percent of local government spending ($3.7 bill ion, $6 billion and $2.2 bill ion,respectively). Separately reporting firedistricts spent about half a bil lion dollars.

• Revenues by Class — About 52 percentof all local government revenue generatedin the State is raised by New York City. Of the revenues attributable to all other localgovernments, school district revenues accountfor 23 percent while county revenues accountfor nearly 15 percent of the total. Fire districtsrepresent the smallest share of total revenuesat less than 1 percent.

• Outside of New York City — When New York City is excluded, the revenue picture changes.Revenues excluding New York City total $55billion. Notably, school districts accountfor nearly half of all revenues raised whilecounties account for nearly a third.

Expenditure Trends:“Where the Money Goes”

Just as local revenue sources vary according togovernment class, so do local expenditures. The degree of local budgetary f lexibility is notalways controlled by local governments sincemany costs are often mandated by the Stateor federal government. This is an importantdistinction given the increasing budgetary pressures at the local level.

Counties31%

Cities6%

Towns10%Villages

4%

School Districts48%

Fire Districts

1%

Equipment andCapital Outlay

9%

Debt Service7%

CurrentOperations

84%

SchoolDistricts

48%

Fire Districts1%

Counties

31%

Cities6%

Towns10%Villages

4%

Share of Total Revenue by Class

2004

(excluding NYC)

Share of Total Expenditures by Class

2004

(excluding NYC)

2004 Total Expenditures

$122.8 Billion

(all major classes of local government including NYC)




• Spending by Object - Overall, 84 percent of local government expenditures were made oncurrent operations, with the remainderfunding capital investments – 9 percent onequipment and capital outlay and 7 percenton debt service. This distribution is similaracross all classes.

• Current Operations - Counties, cities, towns,villages and school districts spent 47 percent

of current operations for salary expenses(personal services), 37 percent for contractualexpenses (including both basic suppliesand contracted services) and 17 percent foremployee benefits. The division among personal

services, benefits and contractual expensesvaries considerably according to type of government. Counties, for instance, spendsignificant amounts on social service programexpenditures (most mandated by the State),so their contractual expenses share is high(60 percent), while school districts spendmoney primarily on teachers and administratorsalaries, so personal service expenditures arethe largest share (63 percent).

• Spending by Function - Looking atexpenditures by function gives an overallsense of the mix of services New Yorkers

receive from their local governments. Notsurprisingly, half of all expenditures by localgovernments outside New York City supporteducation provided by public school districtsand community colleges. Public safety (policeand fire) accounts for 11 percent of all localspending. Another 11 percent goes towardeconomic assistance, a category that includessocial services (such as the local share of Medicaid and income assistance programs)as well as economic development activities.

The other major local expenses are home andcommunity services (7 percent of expenditures,mainly for sewer, water and refuse collection)and transportation (6 percent mostly forhighways, transit systems and airports).

ContractualExpenditures

37%

EmployeeBenefits

17%

Personal

Services47%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Counties Cities Towns Villages SchoolDistricts

Personal Services Employee Benefits Contractual Expenditures

General Government 8%

Education50%

Home and CommunityServices

7%

Culture-Recreation2%

Economic Assistance11%

Transportation6%

Health4%

Public Safety11%

Total Expenditures by Function, 2004

All Major Classes of Government

(excluding NYC)

2004 Current Operations Expenditure Mix by Class

2004 Current Operations Expenditure Breakout

Counties, Cities, Towns, Villages and School Districts

(excluding NYC)

12.5%

27.6%

59.8%

48.1%

21.9%

30.0%

38.7%

16.5%

44.8%

40.8%

16.2%

43.0%

62.5%

18.9% 18.6%




• Counties - Counties spend over one-third

of their budgets on economic assistance,a category almost entirely comprised of thelocal portion of Medicaid and temporary income assistance payment programs whichare also supported by State and federal funds.Public safety accounts for 18 percent of expenditures while health care expendituresaccount for 12 percent. Counties sometimesoperate public hospitals, the main itemincluded in the health care category, but thiscategory of expense has been declining as

counties have altered the funding structuresof their county hospitals in recent years (forexample, the Erie County Medical Center).

• Cities - Cities spend 41 percent of theirbudgets on public safety, 22 percent onpolice services, 16 percent on fire protection

and 3 percent on other public safety activities.Cities are also generally responsible forproviding such home and community servicesas water, sewers and – more rarely – electricity and refuse collection. Together, these servicesmake up 23 percent of city budgets. Cities alsomaintain roads and bridges, and are sometimesresponsible for other transportation costs suchas transit systems and airports (12 percent).

• Towns - Towns were initially establishedto maintain roads and bridges and to providegeneral government services to New York

residents living in rural areas outside of citiesand villages. Transportation still accounts fora quarter of all town expenditures, but now that towns are more populated, they tend toprovide more urban services, often throughspecial districts that cover more densely populated portions of towns. Utilitiesand other home and community services(including water, sewer and refuse collection)account for 28 percent of town expenditures.Many suburban towns provide police and

fire protection services, so public safety accounts for another 15 percent of thebudget. Fire safety may also be providedby separate fire districts, as mentionedabove. Parks are another common townexpense, bringing culture and recreationto 11 percent of total expenses.

Public Safety18%

Health12%

EconomicAssistance

36%

Education5%

GeneralGovernment

14%Culture-Recreation

2%

CommunityServices

6%

Transportation7%

Fire16%

Culture-Recreation

6%

Utilities10%

Other CommunityServices

13%

EconomicAssistance

1% Transportation12%

Other PublicSafety

3%

Police22%

GeneralGovernment

17%

Transportation24%

Utilities11%

Public Safety15%

GeneralGovernment

19%

Health2%

CommunityServices

17%

EconomicAssistance

1%


2004 County Expenditures by Function

2004 Town Expenditures by Function

2004 City Expenditures by Function




• Villages - Before towns became suburbanized,

the best way to provide services to a smallconcentration of population was to create avillage. Like cities, villages provide mainly water, sewer and refuse collection (33 percent)and police and fire protection services (26percent). They also maintain roads and bridges(14 percent of expenditures) and parks andcultural attractions (8 percent), as well asprovide general government services (18 percent).

• School Districts - School districts, notsurprisingly, spend most of their budgetson instruction (57 percent), and 8 percenton administration. They also operate andmaintain school facil ities, which accountfor 16 percent of expenditures in 2004.

• New York City – Because New York City provides a range of services typically providedby several classes of local government (county,city and school district), the expenditurebreakout for the City is more similar to an

“all local government” spending comparisonthan any indivdual class of local government.In New York City, education (31 percent) andsocial services (20 percent) account for abouthalf of the City’s total expenditures. Publicsafety is the next highest category of spending at 13 percent. Benefits and pensions accountfor 10 percent of total spending.

Public Safety26%

Home and Community

Services33%

General Government

18%

Transportation

14%


Other1%

Instruction57%

Other14%

GeneralSupport

5%

Maintenanceand Operation

16%

Administration8%

General Government4%

Social Services20%

Environmental

Protection7%

TransportationServices

4%

Public Safety13%

Other5%Health

5%Culture andRecreation

1%

Education31%

Benefits and Pensions10%

Notes

1 This number includes five counties at or above 80 percent for fiscal year ended 2005. Simila r information on 2006 county t ax limits is not yet available.2Roberts, Sam (2006, June 13). Flight of Young Adults is Causing Alarm Upstate . The New York Times.

2004 Village Expenditures by Function

2004 School District Expenditures by Function

New York City Expenditures

All Major Funds - FY 2004




General Purpose

Counties 57

Cities 62

Towns 932Villages* 554 1,605

Special Purpose

School Districts 701

Fire Districts 871 1,572

Total Local Government Entities 3,177

Public Authorities 329

Other Special Purpose 727

Total Special Purpose Entities 1,056

Total Governmental Entities 4,233

Local Government Entities

Special Purpose Entities

SUMMARY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITIES(FOR FISCAL Y EARS ENDING 2004)

Notes

*Since 2004, th ree additional villages have been incorporated: Sagaponack, South Blooming Grove and Woodbury.




C O U N T I E S ( 1 )

C I T I E S

E X C . N Y C

N E W

Y O R K

C

I T Y ( 2 )

T O W N S

V I L L A G E S

S C H O O L

D I S T R I C T S

E X C . N Y C

D I S T R I C T S

F I R E

D I S T R I C T S

T O T A L ( 3 )

N U M B E R O F U N I T S

5 7

6 1

1

9 3 2

5 5 4

7 0 1

8 7 1

3 , 1 7 7

P O P U L A T I O N - 2 0 0 0 C E N S U S

( a ) 1 0 , 9 6 8 , 1 7 9

2 , 2 6 5 , 8 9 7

8 , 0 0 8 , 2 7 8

8 , 6 9 2 , 1 3 2

1

, 8 7 1 , 9 4 7

- - -

- - -

1 8 , 9 7 6 , 4 5 7

L A N D A R E A ( S Q U A R E M I L E S )

4 6 , 9 1 0 . 2

5 7 2 . 7

3 0 3 . 3

4 6 , 2 1 4 . 9

9 4 1 . 6

- - -

- - -

4 7 , 2 1 3 . 5

T A X A B L E V A L U A T I O N

O F R E A L

P R O P E R T Y

A M O U N T S B E L O W

I N M I L L I O N S O F D O L

L A R S

A S S E S S E D V A L U E ( M U N I C I P A L )

$ 2 8 3 , 3 4 5 . 5

$ 4 2 , 9 7 2 . 5

$ 9 9 , 6 0 1 . 7

$ 2 4 4 , 2 6 6 . 7

$

3 3 , 0 4 8 . 4

- - -

- - -

$ 3 8 2 , 9 4 7 . 2

A S S E S S E D V A L U E ( S C H O O L )

- - -

- - -

9 9 , 8 5 4 . 1

- - -

- - -

$ 2 9 2 , 7 6 9 . 7

- - -

3 9 2 , 6 2 3 . 8

F U L L V A L U E ( M U N I C I P A L )

8 6 3 , 6 9 7 . 8

9 0 , 6 8 4 . 8

4 2 7 , 2 9 1 . 6

7 7 5 , 4 8 3 . 5

1

7 1 , 5 6 3 . 5

- - -

- - -

$ 1 , 2 9 0 , 9 8 9 . 4

D E B T I S S U E D :

B O N D S

$ 1 , 9 6 1 . 0

$ 5 0 7 . 8

$ 6 , 4 6 1 . 3

$ 7 8 4 . 9

$ 2 5 3 . 7

$ 2 , 5 6 1 . 0

$ 3 6 . 5

$ 1 2 , 4 6 1 . 9

N O T E S

5 4 0 . 4

4 3 2 . 7

1 , 5 0 0 . 0

3 4 0 . 4

1 4 4 . 5

3 , 0 3 4 . 4

2 1 . 2

5 , 9 3 2 . 1

O U T S T A N D I N G D E B T :

B O N D S ( G R O S S )

$ 7 , 0 4 2 . 2

$ 2 , 6 3 3 . 2

$ 3 1 , 3 7 8 . 4

$ 3 , 4 3 1 . 8

$ 1 , 2 9 0 . 6

$ 1 2 , 5 8 3 . 2

$ 2 0 6 . 7

$ 5 7 , 9 9 6 . 2

N O T E S

7 8 7 . 6

6 4 0 . 3

0 . 0

6 5 0 . 7

2 9 0 . 3

2 , 3 3 1 . 0

2 5 . 9

4 , 6 5 7 . 6

T O T A L O U T S T A N D I N G D E B T

$ 7 , 8 2 9 . 7

$ 3 , 2 7 3 . 5

$ 3 1 , 3 7 8 . 4

$ 4 , 0 8 2 . 5

$ 1 , 5 8 0 . 9

$ 1 4 , 9 1 4 . 1

$ 2 3 2 . 6

$ 6 2 , 6 5 3 . 6

R E V E N U E S :

R E A L P R O P E R T Y T A X E S A N D

A S S E S S M E N T S

$ 4 , 2 2 9 . 7

$ 9 1 6 . 0

$ 1 1 , 8 8 9 . 0

$ 2 , 7 1 6 . 4

$ 9 0 5 . 5

$ 1 4 , 3 8 7 . 2

$ 4 5 3 . 1

$ 3 5 , 4 9 6 . 9

N O N P R O P E R T Y T A X E S

4 , 6 3 8 . 8

6 9 7 . 4

1 5 , 4 9 3 . 6

6 0 3 . 8

1 4 8 . 5

2 5 4 . 8

0 . 0

2 1 , 8 3 6 . 9

S T A T E A I D

2 , 7 5 0 . 8

5 9 8 . 9

1 0 , 1 9 8 . 9

6 4 0 . 1

1 3 8 . 6

9 , 3 5 7 . 8

0 . 0

2 3 , 6 8 5 . 1

F E D E R A L A I D

2 , 0 1 7 . 1

2 7 1 . 4

7 , 7 8 5 . 5

1 7 1 . 7

7 9 . 6

1 , 4 0 8 . 0

0 . 0

1 1 , 7 3 3 . 3

O T H E R R E V E N U E S

3 , 3 2 6 . 4

9 3 5 . 5

1 4 , 8 7 2 . 4

1 , 2 6 4 . 3

7 3 7 . 2

1 , 1 1 0 . 4

3 9 . 2

2 2 , 2 8 5 . 4

T O T A L R E V E N U E S

$ 1 6 , 9 6 2 . 7

$ 3 , 4 1 9 . 3

$ 6 0 , 2 3 9 . 4

$ 5 , 3 9 6 . 3

$ 2 , 0 0 9 . 4

$ 2 6 , 5 1 8 . 1

$ 4 9 2 . 4

$ 1 1 5 , 0 3 7 . 6

E X P E N D I T U R E S :

C U R R E N T O P E R A T I O N S

$ 1 6 , 3 1 9 . 8

$ 2 , 9 3 0 . 1

$ 5 2 , 7 5 3 . 9

$ 4 , 4 9 4 . 2

$ 1 , 6 6 7 . 9

$ 2 4 , 4 5 2 . 8

$ 3 1 8 . 5

$ 1 0 2 , 9 3 7 . 2

E Q U I P M E N T A N D C A P I T A L O U T L A Y

1 , 1 5 2 . 9

4 4 7 . 8

( b ) 5 , 7 7 0 . 0

9 6 6 . 8

3 5 8 . 8

2 , 6 2 5 . 0

1 6 9 . 7

1 1 , 4 9 1 . 0

D E B T S E R V I C E :

P R I N C I P A L

6 0 3 . 6

1 8 8 . 3

2 , 0 4 7 . 6

3 8 8 . 1

1 2 0 . 7

8 4 3 . 6

2 9 . 8

4 , 2 2 1 . 7

I N T E R E S T

3 5 1 . 4

9 8 . 4

2 , 9 2 2 . 0

1 4 5 . 1

5 2 . 8

5 8 0 . 6

1 0 . 0

4 , 1 6 0 . 3

T O T A L D E B T S E R V I C E

9 5 5 . 0

2 8 6 . 7

4 , 9 6 9 . 6

5 3 3 . 2

1 7 3 . 5

1 , 4 2 4 . 2

3 9 . 8

8 , 3 8 2 . 0

T O T A L E X P E N D I T U R E S

$ 1 8 , 4 2 7 . 7

$ 3 , 6 6 4 . 7

$ 6 3 , 4 9 3 . 5

$ 5 , 9 9 4 . 2

$ 2 , 2 0 0 . 1

$ 2 8 , 5 0 1 . 9

$ 5 2 8 . 0

$ 1 2 2 , 8 1 0 . 1

S U M M A

R Y O F F I N A N C E S F O R M

A J O R C L A S S E S O F L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T

F I S C

A L Y E A R S E N D E D I N 2 0 0 4




F o r h i s t o r i c a l t r e n d s o f a l l m

a j o r u n i t s o f g o v e r n m e n t ( c o m p a r a b l e t o d

a t a l i s t e d u n d e r t h e “ T o t a l ” c o l u m n o f t h i s t a b l e ) p l e a s e r e f e r t o t h e t a b l e e n t i t l e d “ C o

m b i n e d

S u m m a r y o f F i n a n c e s f o r A

l l M a j o r C l a s s e s o f L o c a l G o v e r n m e n t , ” t h

a t f o l l o w s . N e w Y o r k C i t y d a t a o n t h i s t a b l e i n c l u d e s fi n a n c i a l d a t a r e l a t i n g t o t h e N e w Y o r k

C i t y S c h o o l D i s t r i c t a n d t h e C i t y U n i v e r s i t y o f N e w Y o r k .

( 1 )

I n c l u d e s c o u n t i e s o t h e

r t h a n t h e fi v e c o m p r i s i n g N e w Y o r k C i t y .

( 2 )

A l s o i n c l u d e s fi s c a l d a t a r e l a t i n g t o t h e N e w Y o r k C i t y S c h o o l D i s t r i c t a n d t h e C i t y U n i v e r s i t y o f N e w Y o r k . F i n a n c i a l d a t a r e fl e c t a l l d i s c r e t e l y p r e s e n t e d

c o m p o n e n t u n i t s a s r e p o r t e d i n t h e C i t y o f N e w Y o r k C A F R ; c e r t a i n c a t e g o r i e s w i l l n o t b e c o m p a r a b l e w i t h

d a t a p u b l i s h e d p r i o r t o 1 9 9 2 . D e b t i s s u e d a n d

o u t s t a n d i n g d e b t c a t e g

o r i e s e x c l u d e d a t a o f t h e M u n i c i p a l A s s i s t a

n c e C o r p o r a t i o n , t h e T r a n s i t i o n a l F i n a n c e

A u t h o r i t y , t h e E d u c a t i o n a l C o n s t r u c t i o n F

u n d , t h e

T S A S C I n c . a n d d i s c r e t e l y p r e s e n t e d c o m p o n e n t u n i t s .

( 3 )

T o t a l s a r e a d j u s t e d t o e l i m i n a t e i n s t a n c e s o f d u p l i c a t i o n . F o r e x a m

p l e , t h e p o p u l a t i o n o f t h e a r e a o f v i l l a g e s a r e a l s o c o n t a i n e d i n “ T o w n ” d a t a . A n o t h e

r e x a m p l e ,

b o t h t h e c a t e g o r i e s “ C

i t i e s - E x c l u d i n g N Y C ” a n d “ S c h o o l D i s t r i c t s - E x c l u d i n g N Y C ” i n c l u d e d e b t o u t s t a n

d i n g a n d d e b t i s s u e d o f t h e fi s c a l l y d e p e n d

e n t s c h o o l

d i s t r i c t s i n t h e c i t i e s o f B u f f a l o , R o c h e s t e r , S y r a c u s e a n d Y o n k e r s

.

( a )

C o u n t y t o t a l s a l s o i n c l u d e d a t a f o r N a t i v e A m e r i c a n r e s e r v a t i o n s

w h i c h i s n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e C i t y o r T o w n t o t a l s .

( b )

I n c l u d e s o n l y d i r e c t c h

a r g e s t o t h e C a p i t a l P r o j e c t s F u n d . E q u i p m

e n t i s i n c l u d e d i n C u r r e n t O p e r a t i o n s .

N o t e : D e t a i l m a y n o t a d d d u e t o r o u n d i n g .




P E R C E N T C H A N G E

O V E R A L L

A V E R

A G E A N N U A L

1 9 9 4

1 9 9 9

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 1

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 3

2 0 0 4

1 9 9 9 - 2 0 0 4

1 9 9 4 - 2 0 0 4

1 9 9 9 - 2 0 0 4

1 9 9 4 - 2 0 0 4

P O P U L A T I O N

( 1 )

1 0 , 6

6 8 , 2

1 4

1 0 , 6

6 8 , 2

1 4

1 0 , 9

6 8 , 1

7 9

1 0 , 9

6 8 , 1

7 9

1 0 , 9

6 8 , 1

7 9

1 0 , 9

6 8 , 1

7 9

1 0 , 9 6 8 , 1

7 9

2 . 8

%

2 . 8

%

0 . 6 %

0 . 3

%

T A X A B L E V A L U A T I O N

O F R E A L P R O P E R T Y

A M O U N T S B E L O

W

I N

M I L L I O N S O F D O L L A R S

A S S E S S E D V A L U E

$ 1 7 7 , 0

6 7 . 5

$ 2 4 2 , 5

0 8 . 3

$ 2 4 4 , 4

6 4 . 3

$ 2 5 5 , 2

9 6 . 8

$ 2 6 2 , 4

7 7 . 0

$ 2 7 5 , 7

5 6 . 1

$ 2 8 3

, 3 4 5 . 5

1 6 . 8

%

6 0 . 0

%

3 . 2 %

4 . 8

%

F U L L V A L U E

5 2 5 , 3

2 0 . 2

5 5 4 , 8

7 0 . 1

5 9 4 , 3

0 7 . 2

6 3 5 , 0

7 5 . 6

6 8 8 , 9

9 6 . 4

7 8 7 , 0

4 8 . 5

8 6 3

, 6 9 7 . 8

5 5 . 7

%

6 4 . 4

%

9 . 3 %

5 . 1

%

I N D E B T E D N E S S D A T A :

D E B T I S S U E D :

B O N D S

$ 2 , 1

1 4 . 6

$ 2 , 0

9 7 . 5

$ 1 , 2

2 5 . 8

$ 1 , 4

7 5 . 4

$ 1 , 6

4 5 . 9

$ 2 , 3

0 9 . 6

$ 3

, 5 0 7 . 4

6 7 . 2

%

6 5 . 9

%

1 0 . 8 %

5 . 2

%

N O T E S

2 , 0

0 8 . 9

2 , 0

8 0 . 2

1 , 4

7 0 . 9

1 , 7

6 7 . 0

1 , 8

0 8 . 0

1 , 7

6 3 . 1

1

, 4 5 8 . 0

- 2 9 . 9

%

- 2 7 . 4

%

- 6 . 9 %

- 3 . 2

%

O U T S T A N D I N G D E B T :

B O N D S

$ 1 0 , 8

4 3 . 2

$ 1 2 , 7

5 4 . 1

$ 1 2 , 3

4 1 . 5

$ 1 2 , 2

5 2 . 3

$ 1 2 , 5

0 5 . 3

$ 1 3 , 3

7 8 . 6

$ 1 4

, 3 9 7 . 8

1 2 . 9

%

3 2 . 8

%

2 . 5 %

2 . 9

%

N O T E S

1 , 9

0 6 . 0

2 , 2

2 5 . 4

2 , 0

5 6 . 3

2 , 2

6 8 . 7

2 , 1

3 8 . 2

2 , 5

8 4 . 6

2

, 3 6 8 . 9

6 . 4

%

2 4 . 3

%

1 . 3 %

2 . 2

%

T O T A L O U T S T A N D I N G D E B T

$ 1 2 , 7

4 9 . 1

$ 1 4 , 9

7 9 . 6

$ 1 4 , 3

9 7 . 6

$ 1 4 , 5

2 0 . 9

$ 1 4 , 6

4 3 . 4

$ 1 5 , 9

6 3 . 3

$ 1 6

, 7 6 6 . 6

1 1 . 9

%

3 1 . 5

%

2 . 3 %

2 . 8

%

R E V E N U E S :

R E A L P R O P E R T Y T A X E S A N D A S S E S S M E N T

S

$ 6 , 5

9 1 . 3

$ 6 , 9

9 2 . 0

$ 7 , 1

1 5 . 2

$ 7 , 2

5 1 . 7

$ 7 , 6

0 4 . 7

$ 8 , 2

3 0 . 3

$ 8

, 7 6 7 . 6

2 5 . 4

%

3 3 . 0

%

4 . 6 %

2 . 9

%

N O N P R O P E R T Y T A X E S

3 , 6

9 1 . 7

4 , 5

7 3 . 6

4 , 8

8 6 . 3

4 , 9

8 2 . 3

5 , 2

8 8 . 6

5 , 6

2 2 . 8

6

, 0 8 8 . 5

3 3 . 1

%

6 4 . 9

%

5 . 9 %

5 . 1

%

S T A T E A I D

2 , 6

5 3 . 7

3 , 1

7 9 . 8

3 , 2

4 9 . 4

3 , 5

1 8 . 9

3 , 6

6 5 . 1

3 , 9

4 9 . 3

4

, 1 2 8 . 4

2 9 . 8

%

5 5 . 6

%

5 . 4 %

4 . 5

%

F E D E R A L A I D

1 , 8

1 1 . 9

1 , 9

6 8 . 0

2 , 0

8 3 . 7

2 , 2

9 1 . 7

2 , 5

2 1 . 7

2 , 5

2 7 . 1

2

, 5 3 9 . 8

2 9 . 1

%

4 0 . 2

%

5 . 2 %

3 . 4

%

O T H E R R E V E N U E S

5 , 0

3 9 . 6

6 , 4

2 7 . 9

6 , 7

0 5 . 0

6 , 3

8 1 . 6

6 , 2

6 2 . 7

6 , 3

7 1 . 1

6

, 2 6 3 . 4

- 2 . 6

%

2 4 . 3

%

- 0 . 5 %

2 . 2

%

T O T A L R E V E N U E S

$ 1 9 , 7

8 8 . 4

$ 2 3 , 1

4 1 . 1

$ 2 4 , 0

3 9 . 5

$ 2 4 , 4

2 6 . 1

$ 2 5 , 3

4 2 . 7

$ 2 6 , 7

0 0 . 4

$ 2 7

, 7 8 7 . 7

2 0 . 1

%

4 0 . 4

%

3 . 7 %

3 . 5

%

E X P E N D I T U R E S :

C U R R E N T O P E R A T I O N S

$ 1 7 , 8

8 0 . 7

$ 2 0 , 0

7 1 . 3

$ 2 0 , 6

2 6 . 0

$ 2 1 , 9

2 5 . 7

$ 2 2 , 8

3 3 . 0

$ 2 3 , 9

7 5 . 5

$ 2 5

, 4 1 2 . 0

2 6 . 6

%

4 2 . 1

%

4 . 8 %

3 . 6

%

E Q U I P M E N T A N D C A P I T A L O U T L A Y

1 , 7

1 2 . 8

2 , 4

1 9 . 9

2 , 3

2 6 . 8

2 , 7

7 1 . 1

2 , 7

7 9 . 6

2 , 8

3 2 . 9

2

, 9 2 6 . 3

2 0 . 9

%

7 0 . 8

%

3 . 9 %

5 . 5

%

D E B T S E R V I C E :

P R I N C I P A L

9 9 0 . 8

1 , 3

3 1 . 8

1 , 4

0 7 . 6

1 , 3

9 5 . 7

1 , 2

2 7 . 6

1 , 3

1 5 . 4

1

, 3 0 0 . 7

- 2 . 3

%

3 1 . 3

%

- 0 . 5 %

2 . 8

%

I N T E R E S T

6 2 9 . 4

6 8 5 . 1

6 8 4 . 1

6 9 8 . 4

6 7 1 . 5

6 9 2 . 8

6 4 7 . 7

- 5 . 5

%

2 . 9

%

- 1 . 1 %

0 . 3

%

T O T A L D E B T S E R V I C E

1 , 6

2 0 . 2

2 , 0

1 6 . 9

2 , 0

9 1 . 7

2 , 0

9 4 . 1

1 , 8

9 9 . 1

2 , 0

0 8 . 2

1

, 9 4 8 . 4

3 . 5

%

1 6 . 8

%

0 . 7 %

1 . 9

%

T O T A L E X P E N D I T U R E S

$ 2 1 , 2 1 3 . 6

$ 2 4 , 5 0 8 . 2

$ 2 5 , 0 4 4 . 5

$ 2 6 , 7 9 0 . 9

$ 2 7 , 5 1 1 . 9

$ 2 8 , 8 1 6 . 6

$ 3 0 , 2 8 6 . 7

2 3 . 6 %

4 2 . 8 %

4 . 3 %

3 . 6 %

C O M B I N E D S U M M A R Y O F F I N A N C E S F O R C O U N

T I E S , C I T I E S ,

T O W N S A N D V I L L A G E

S ( E X C L U D I N G N E W Y

O R K C I T Y )

F I S C A L Y E A

R S E N D E D I N 1 9 9 4 A N D 1 9 9 9 - 2 0 0 4

( 1 ) 1 9 9 0 F e d e r a l C e n s u s P o p u l a t i o n fi g u r e s a r e u s e d f o r 1 9 9 4 t h r o u g h 1 9 9 9

. 2 0 0 0 F e d e r a l C e n s u s P o p u l a t i o n fi g u r e s a r e u s e d s t a r t i n g i n 2 0 0 0 .

N o t e : D e t a i l m a y n o t a d d d u e t o r o u n d i n g .




DIVISION SERVICES/RESOURCES

Audits of Local Governments – The Divisioncompletes audits of individual local governmentsas well as groups of local governments.Performance audits provide an independentassessment of the performance of one or morelocal governments. Economy and efficiency

audits are used to determine whether a locality is operating efficiently, the causes of any inefficiencies or uneconomical practices and whether the entity has complied with pertinentlaws and regulations. Program audits are usedto evaluate whether desired results or benefitsare being achieved and whether the locality hascomplied with significant laws and regulationsapplicable to the program. The Division’s websiteincludes audits released from 2000 to the present.

Cost-Saving Ideas – Various Divisionpublications provide advice and assistance oncost-saving ideas local governments can use asthey examine their operations. In particular,there is information on cooperation andconsolidation, the Local Government Financial Toolbox (a series of fiscal “how-to” guidesfor local governments) and a model custodialagreement for use with collateral pools.

Data and Statistics – Data and statisticsregarding the State’s local governments,including those used in many of the Division’spublications, is available in multiple formatson the Division’s website and by request. Thisincludes information related to individual

classes of local government such as villages,special district thresholds, the Aid andIncentives to Municipalities (AIM) program,revenues collected by justice courts andoverlapping real property tax rates and levies.Financial data from 1998 to 2004 for counties,cities, towns, villages, school districts, firedistricts, special purpose units, joint activitiesand industrial development agencies is alsoavailable.

Financial Reporting – Information and formscan be downloaded from the Division’s websitein a variety of formats.

• Local Government Electronic Filing – The Division provides local governments with a free, easy-to-use software program they can utilize to prepare and file their annualfinancial reports.

DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICESAND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

RESOURCES AND PUBLICATIONS

Website: www.osc.state.ny/localgov • Email: [email protected]

In addition to audits, the Division of Local Government Services and Economic Development providesan extensive range of services to help local governments operate more efficiently and effectively. Theseservices include accounting, management and self-help manuals; technical assistance publications andbulletins; a variety of training opportunities and special consultative services. Moreover, the Divisionactively promotes government reform by providing State leaders, local government officials and thepublic with audits, research reports and information about critical local government policy issues. Most

of the Division’s publications, including all those listed below, can be accessed online at www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/index.htm Printed copies of these publications can be obtained by call ing (518) 474-6975or emailing us at [email protected].




DIVISION SERVICES/RESOURCES

• Justice Court Report Filing – Informationrelated to the case disposition and receipt datathat all town and vil lage justice courts arerequired to submit to OSC each month is available.

• Indigent Legal Services Fund – Informationconcerning the annual reporting of expenditures on indigent legal servicesby counties and New York City and estimatesof future distributions to these entitiesfrom the Indigent Legal Services Fundcan be obtained.

• Constitutional Debt Limits – Information

is available about the debt limits imposedby the State Constitution, which constrainthe amount of debt that certain municipalitiescan incur, and the method for applying forexclusions from these limits for certain typesof self-liquidating debt.

• Constitutional Tax Limits – Information isavailable about the provisions of the StateConstitution that constrain the amount of taxesthat a local government can levy and the tax l imit

form that local governments must file with OSC.

• BOCES Annual Financial Report Certification

Form – The form for the fi ling of BOCESannual f inancial reports can be downloadedfrom the Division’s website.

• Average Estimated Costs for County and

Town Special Improvement Districts – Information can be found on the averageestimated cost thresholds to be used in

determining whether the approval of theState Comptroller is necessary for certainspecial district actions.

• Multiyear Financial Plans – A guide, template,and sample plans that local governments canuse when developing their multiyear financialplans are available.

Publications – The Division’s website containsa wealth of documents of value to municipalofficials and others interested in local governmentissues and finance.

• Research Reports – The Division hasauthored several reports that address majorpolicy issues facing local governments andState policy-makers. Subjects addressedinclude intermunicipal cooperation andconsolidation, smart growth, sales taxes,industrial development agencies, outdatedmunicipal structures, property taxes, fiscalstress in cities, county Medicaid costs,

financing education in New York’s “Big Five” Cities, population trends in citiesand revenue sharing.

• Accounting and Financial Information – Numerous financial accounting, reporting and technical assistance documents areavailable for use by local governments.

• Audit Reports – The website includesa searchable database of audits of local

government entities released by theDivision from 2000 to the present.

• Local Government Connection Newsletter – The State Comptroller’s quarterly newsletterfor municipalities, school districts and otherlocal government-related entities is availableon the website.

• Local Government Management Guide – A series of modules that includes technical

information as well as suggested managementpractices for municipalities is available.Some of the topics covered in the guide arecapital assets, fiscal oversight responsibilities,intermunicipal cooperation, internal controls,multiyear capital plans, multiyear financialplanning, reserves and strategic planning.




• School Accountability Reform – Informationcan be found on the State Comptroller’s new audit and oversight program to review schooldistrict finances and operations and availableschool board training designed to increaseaccountability in school districts andstrengthen oversight of school finances.

Fire District Reform – Legislation enactedin 2006 institutes a number of significantchanges designed to strengthen fire districtand fire company accountability and oversight. The enacted legislation, a Frequently AskedQuestions (FAQ) document, an accounting

bulletin outlining new auditing requirementsand a document outlining the internal auditprocess for fire districts are available.

Training – The Division offers municipal officialsa comprehensive array of seminars, including teleconferences, designed to assist them inproviding government services as efficiently andeffectively as possible. This includes subjectssuch as accounting principles and procedures,governmental accounting and fiscal oversight

training for school board members. A scheduleof future classes and information about specifictraining sessions are also available on the website.




C h a u t a u q u a

C a t t a r a u g u s

A l l e g a n y

S t e u b e n

C h e m u n g

T i o

g a

B r o o m e C

h e n a n g o

M a d i s o n O

n e i d a

L e w i s

S t . L a w r e n c e

J e f f e r s o n

O s w e g o

O n o n d a g a

C o r t l a n d

T o m p k i n s

S c h u y l e r

Y a t e s

S e n e c a C a y u g a

W a y n e

O n t a r i o

L i v i n g s t o n

W

y o m i n g

E r i e

N i a g a r a

O

r l e a n s

G

e n e s e e

M o n r o e

F r a n k l i n

C l i n t o n

E s s e x

H a m i l t o n

H e r k i m e r

F u l t o

n

W a r r e n

W a s h i n g t o n

S a r a t o g a

M o n t g o m e r y

R e n s s e l a e r

S c h e n e c t a d y

A l b a n y

S c h o h a

r i e

O t s e g o

D e l a w a r e

G r e e n e

C o l u m b i a

S u l l i v a n

U l s t e r

D u t c h e s s

O r a n g e

P u t n a m

R o c k l a n d W

e s t c h e s t e r

S u f f o l k

N a s s a u

R i c h m o n d

K i n g s

Q u e e n s

B r o n x

N e w Y o r k

J a m e s t o w n

D u n k i r k

S a l a m a n c a

O l e a n

H o r n e l l

C a n a n d a i g u a

R o c h e s t e r

B a t a v i a

L o c k p o r t

N i a g a r a F a l l s

N o r t h T o n a w a n d a

T o n a w a n d a

B u f f a l o

L a c k a w a n n a

C o r n i n g

E l m i r a

B i n g h a m t o n

O n e o n t a

N o r w i c h

C o r t l a n d

I t h a c a

G e n e v a

A u b u r n

O s w e g o

F u l t o

n

S

y r a c u s e

W a t e r t o w n

O g d e n s b u r g

P l a t t s b u r g h

G l e n s F a l l s

S a r a t o g a

S p r i n g s

R o m e

O n e i d a

S h e r r i l l

U t i c a

L i t t l e F a l l s

G l o v e r s v i l l e

J o h n s t o w n A

m s t e r d a m

M e c h a n i c v i l l e

S c h e n e c t a d y

C o h o e s

T r o y

W a t e r v l i e t

R e n s s e l a e r

A l b a n y

H u d s o n

K i n g s t o n

P o u g h k e e p s i e

B e a c o n

N e w b u r g h

M i d d l e t o w n

P o r t J e r v i s

P e e k s k i l l

W h i t e P l a i n s

L o n g B e a c h

G l e n

C o v e

N e w Y o r k

R y e

N e w R o c h e l l e

M o u n t V e r n o n

Y o n k e r s

N e w Y o r k S t a t e

C o u n t i e s a n d C i t i e s

C i t i e s

H a u p p a u g e R e g i o n

A l b a n y R e g i o n

G l e n s F a l l s R e g i o n

B i n g h a m t o n R e g i o

n

S y r a c u s e R e g i o n

R o c h e s t e r R e g i o n

B u f f a l o R e g i o n

MAP OF NEW YORK STATECOUNTIES AND CITIES BY REGION




BUFFALO REGIONAL OFFICERobert Meller, Chief Examiner • Office of the State Comptroller295 Main Street, Room 1050 • Buffalo, New York 14203-2510Phone (716)847-3647 • Fax (716)847-3643 • E-MAIL: [email protected]: Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Erie, Genesee, Niagara, Orleans, Wyoming Counties

ROCHESTER REGIONAL OFFICEEdward V. Grant Jr., Chief Examiner • Office of the State ComptrollerThe Powers Building • 16 West Main Street – Suite 522 • Rochester, New York 14614Phone (585)454-2460 • Fax (585)454-3545 • E-MAIL: [email protected]: Cayuga, Chemung, Livingston, Monroe, Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben, Wayne, Yates Counties

SYRACUSE REGIONAL OFFICEEugene A. Camp, Chief Examiner • Office of the State ComptrollerState Office Building, Room 409 • 333 E. Washington Street • Syracuse, New York 13202-1428Phone (315)428-4192 • Fax (315)426-2119 • E-MAIL: [email protected]: Herkimer, Jefferson, Lewis, Madison, Oneida, Onondaga, Oswego, St. Lawrence Counties

BINGHAMTON REGIONAL OFFICEPatrick Carbone, Chief Examiner • Office of the State ComptrollerState Office Bldg., Room 1702 • 44 Hawley Street • Binghamton, New York 13901-4417Phone (607)721-8306 • Fax (607)721-8313 • E-MAIL: [email protected]: Broome, Chenango, Cortland, Delaware, Otsego, Schoharie, Sullivan, Tioga, Tompkins Counties

GLENS FALLS REGIONAL OFFICE

Karl Smoczynski, Chief Examiner • Office of the State ComptrollerOne Broad Street Plaza • Glens Falls, New York 12801Phone (518)793-0057 • Fax (518)793-5797 • E-MAIL: [email protected]: Clinton, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, Hamilton, Montgomery, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Warren,Washington Counties

ALBANY REGIONAL OFFICEChristopher J. Ellis, Chief Examiner • Office of the State Comptroller22 Computer Drive West • Albany, New York 12205Phone (518)438-0093 Fax (518)438-0367 • E-MAIL: [email protected]: Albany, Columbia, Dutchess, Greene, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Schenectady, Ulster,Westchester Counties

HAUPPAUGE REGIONAL OFFICERichard J. Rennard, Chief Examiner • Office of the State ComptrollerNYS Office Bldg., Room 3A10 • Veterans Memorial Highway • Hauppauge, New York 11788-5533Phone (631)952-6534 • Fax (631)952-6530 • E-MAIL: [email protected]: Nassau, Suffolk Counties

REGIONAL OFFICE DIRECTORY




Central Offi

ce ListingDivision of Local Government Services and Economic Development(518) Area Code unless otherwise specified

Executive

Mark P. Pattison, Deputy Comptroller ..................................................................474-4037

John Clarkson, Assistant Comptroller ..................................................................474-4037

Steven J. Hancox, Assistant Comptroller ............................................................. 474-4037

Email: [email protected]

Electronic Filing

Questions Regarding Electronic Filing of Annual Financial Reports .................... 474-4014

Questions Regarding Electronic Filing of Justice Court Reports..........................486-3166

Financial Reporting (Annual Financial Reports, Constitutional Limits,

Real Property Tax Levies, Local Government Approvals) .................................... 474-4014


Information Services (Request for Publications or Government Data) .............. 474-6975


Justice Court Fund ...........................................................................................473-6438

Local Government Services (Audits, Technical Assistance) .............................474-5404

Professional Standards (Auditing and Accounting) ..........................................474-5404

Research ............................................................................................................474-8456

Statewide and Regional Projects ............................................................(607) 721-8306

Training (Local Official Training, Teleconferences, Videotapes) ..........................473-0005


CENTRAL OFFICE DIRECTORY



New York State

Office of the State Comptroller

new york state 2006 report on local governments

Documents