County Vacant Positions Are Not Funded

[DispellingMyths]

The person who started this blog is incredibly uninformed. He states that the vacancies in the county budget are funded by the taxpayers. That is inaccurate. There have always been vacancies in the budget dating back to the Peter Cohalan years. The percentage of vacancies is not much different between Levy and his predecessors. In fact, up until the fiscal crisis of this year, the vacancy rate was lower under Levy's watch.

In any event, taxpayers do not fund these "paper positions" in the budget. Vacancies are being abolished in the layoff bill because county law requires that before a live body is laid off, all the vacancies in that job classification must first be eliminated. It is not a case of collecting money for these vacancies and then stuffing it into the stabilization fund. Monies for the stabilization fund come from extra sales tax and unanticipated revenue coming from the state and federal governments above that which was budgeted. The county charter calls for any monies above the amount budgeted to be reserved in the fund--that's why it has grown to $130 million.

You can't go to the well of the stabilization fund too much because for one, the bond rating will be destroyed and two, you'd be relying on a one-shot that would put you in quite a predicament the following year.

[Unregistered5555778]

are you for real????? vacant positions are not filled but they are funded by the taxpayers. Thats how stevie leavy built a 131 million surplus. taxing the residents for positions he plans to leave vacant. in my book thats taxiation without representation.

[annie]

Wanna Buy A Bridge?

[Unregistered..]

i do, but when i cant make payments , do i get to take part in the bail out?

[WTF2]

The person who started this blog is incredibly uninformed. He states that the vacancies in the county budget are funded by the taxpayers. That is inaccurate. There have always been vacancies in the budget dating back to the Peter Cohalan years. The percentage of vacancies is not much different between Levy and his predecessors. In fact, up until the fiscal crisis of this year, the vacancy rate was lower under Levy's watch.

In any event, taxpayers do not fund these "paper positions" in the budget. Vacancies are being abolished in the layoff bill because county law requires that before a live body is laid off, all the vacancies in that job classification must first be eliminated. It is not a case of collecting money for these vacancies and then stuffing it into the stabilization fund. Monies for the stabilization fund come from extra sales tax and unanticipated revenue coming from the state and federal governments above that which was budgeted. The county charter calls for any monies above the amount budgeted to be reserved in the fund--that's why it has grown to $130 million.

You can't go to the well of the stabilization fund too much because for one, the bond rating will be destroyed and two, you'd be relying on a one-shot that would put you in quite a predicament the following year.

I don't know if you are new to the planet but if the positions are available than they are in the budget and money has been allocated for the salaries.
When the positions are not filled the money is rolled into another fund. What don't you understand? It is common practice in government. Levy has just continued to use the rerouted monies to make it look like he is saving the taxpayers money. When in actuality he continues to raise the Police portion of the county tax. All the while stating he has not raised taxes in 6 years.
And by not filling the vacant positions with qualified people he is doing the tax payer a disservice. Those positions are there to provide programs and services to the taxpaying public. Less staff less services. But the taxpayer is still paying for it.

[Unregisteredone]

So if Levy collected too much money in the form of taxes just to fund the REAL employees and NOT the unfilled positions... why didn't he return it to the taxpayers? And why did he collect it in the first place?

Seems $130 million is a whole lots of screwed up budgeting if he was only working with "real" numbers....

[Unregistered34]

Some of the posters here are failing to distinguish between a vacancy that is carried over in the budget every single year, which is not funded, and a vacancy that is created in the middle of the year when an individual retires. As to the latter, those positions are funded because there was a live body on the payroll at the start of the year. It is not a vacant position that is paid for when the budget is established. When a person retires in May, there is a savings from when retirement date until the new person comes on board--that money does roll into turnover savings, which help pay for all the increases in health care costs, heat, lighting, and other essentials to keep the government going.

But, that is a small amount of the vacancies when compared to the thousands of paper, unfunded positions that exist every year. If you cut these thousand-plus vacancies, not a single dime is saved. Certainly, if you cut a vacancy in August after a person has left in May, it can save you a couple of months' worth of salary, but that means the position cannot be filled in the future. That's the exact way that millions were saved in the early retirement program. A person retired and the position was abolished. But you're wrong if you think the county can just cut the thousand plus vacancies in the budget and save a great deal of money through that. You're simply wrong. It would have been done a long time ago by the Legislature or Levy himself.

And, how you can say that Levy collected too much in taxes is mind blowing. The 09 budget is actually $95 million lower than the previous year's budget.

[Unregistered35]

Actually the vacant positions are funded. Here is the county talking about these funded empty positions in a Legislative bill. Read on and pass along to Joe Taxpayer who has been getting the wool pulled over his eyes by THE BEST CE EVER

http://www.co.suffolk.ny.us/legis/clerk/Agenda/CN/2009/cn042809.pdf