Log in Subscribe

Mamakating opposes county's decision not to share sales tax revenue

Rebeca C. Rivera - Reporter/Photographer
Posted 3/19/19

District 2 Legislator Nadia Rajsz spoke before residents and the town board of Mamakating last week regarding the county's decision to oppose sales-tax revenue sharing.

In a letter sent out by …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Mamakating opposes county's decision not to share sales tax revenue

Posted

District 2 Legislator Nadia Rajsz spoke before residents and the town board of Mamakating last week regarding the county's decision to oppose sales-tax revenue sharing.

In a letter sent out by Sullivan County Chairman Luis Alvarez earlier this month, he laid out a lengthy list of reasons as to why not sharing sales tax and other revenues would ultimately benefit county tax payers.

Rajsz reiterated those reasons. She explained that the county is dealing with a fragile budget that has been compounded by the financial “baggage from former years.”

Initially, Rajsz was a proponent of this plan, which several town supervisors have been advocating for nearly three years. However, according to her, “giving money to towns will not resolve [the town's] tax issues.” Additionally, she asked residents and towns “to wait and be patient” while the county deals with old debt. Rajsz also added that the casino's forecasted revenue fell short of the county's expectations and that they are hopeful that things will get better over the next year.

Nevertheless, some board members questioned the validity of the county's reasons for declining this plan.

Councilman Graham Vest examined the county's claim that they are responsible for the upkeep and expense of several of the county's bridges. According to Vest, many of these bridges receive grants to help offset such expenses; therefore, the county would be responsible for covering a nominal fee.

Several board members spoke out against the decision and offered some possible solutions that would allow townships to receive funding without putting a significant strain on the county. Vest recommended that the county consider providing towns with a small amount of funding. “A trickle [of funding] would

send a very different message,” he stated.

Town Supervisor Bill Herrmann also expressed his disagreement with the decision and stated that it appeared that the focus was being placed on Liberty and Thompson.

“We've all supported the casino, and we're supportive of Woodstock and tourism… But what do we get out of it?” he commented.

Deputy Supervisor Brenda Giraldi remarked that this decision was “kinda of a hard pill to swallow.” She added, “It's not okay with supervisors, and it's not okay with me that this is not shared because there's a standard of living that all residents should have and if we had a little bit of extra money [to help residents].” Also, she expressed that “It was short-sighted to write a letter… I think it's very insulting to all of us.”

Giraldi also questioned the means to which the legislature arrived at this decision and asked to be provided with the vote count.

According to District 4 Legislator Catherine Owens, no vote is required when no action is taken.

“However, every Legislator has to speak for herself or himself,” Owens stated.

Rajsz ended her remarks by imploring that residents and board member allow for the “dust to settle” with the casino and attempted to reassure them that this matter is an active conversation amongst the legislature.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here