Fiscal stress scores of municipalities reported by New York State's Comptroller

On September 22, 2021, New York State's Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli reported that thirty local governments in New York State ended 2020 in some form of fiscal stress. 

[Click on the text highlighted inBLUE below to access the full reports.]

The communities were identified by the Comptroller’s Fiscal Stress Monitoring System (FSMS). [In January 2021 the Comptroller issued fiscal stress scores for school districts and found 31 school districts in some level of fiscal stress.] .

The Comptroller releases fiscal stress scores on municipalities (excluding New York City) twice a year. The latest round of scores announced in September 22, 2021, identified 19 local governments  designated in fiscal stress, including six counties, four cities, and nine towns. This release is based on financial information of local governments operating on a calendar year basis (Jan. 1 – Dec. 31) for 2020 and covers all counties and towns, 44 cities, and 10 villages. In April 2021 DiNapoli announced that 11 local governments with non-calendar fiscal yearswere in stress.

“New York’s local governments have overcome some major fiscal hurdles during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Comptroller DiNapoli said, explaining that "Federal assistance, the restoration of state aid and resurging revenue have provided them much needed relief." However, cautioned the Comptroller, those designated as stressed are less likely to have the flexibility to adapt to fiscal challenges long term, noting that "local officials must budget and plan carefully to avoid fiscal stress and manage their communities through the uncertainties created by the pandemic.” 

In this latest round, the city of Poughkeepsie (fiscal stress score of 78.3), the city of Niagara Falls (72.1), and the town of Caneadea (65.4) are in the highest-ranking designation of “significant stress.”  The counties of Suffolk and Westchester, the city of Glen Cove and the town of Yates were in “moderate stress.”

Those designated as being “susceptible to fiscal stress” are the counties of Broome, Monroe, Nassau and Oneida, the towns of Centerville, Clarkstown, Colonie, Fort Covington, Pulteney, Sherman and Southport, and the city of Albany.

Of the 30 total governments in a fiscal stress designation for 2020, 17 were also in some form of fiscal stress in 2019. Four cities that were in “significant fiscal stress” in both years are Niagara Falls, Poughkeepsie, Amsterdam and Long Beach.

The Comptroller’s Fiscal Stress Monitoring System was implemented in 2013 to keep the public informed about the factors impacting local governments’ financial health. The system evaluates local governments on financial indicators including year-end fund balance, cash-on-hand, short-term borrowing, fixed costs and patterns of operating deficits and creates fiscal stress scores.

The system also evaluates information such as population trends, poverty and unemployment in order to establish a separate “environmental” score for each municipality which can be used to help describe the context in which these local governments operate.

The Comptroller’s report also found:

• In response to COVID-19, many local officials made difficult mid-year 2020 budget decisions about how best to meet their community’s service needs with reduced or less predictable revenues, while protecting public health and minimizing cuts to their own workforce.
• Rebounding monthly sales tax collections in much of the state supported local governments’ bottom lines, with many counties outside of New York City seeing only slight losses for 2020 overall compared with 2019, and collections in some counties even growing for the year.
• 173 local governments did not receive a fiscal stress score for fiscal year ending 2020. The vast majority of these (169) did not file in time to be scored, including the cities of Beacon, Dunkirk, Ithaca, Johnstown, Little Falls, Mechanicville, Mount Vernon, Rensselaer and Salamanca; and Greene and Ontario counties.

Lists

Municipalities in Stress for Fiscal Year Ending 2020

Municipalities Who Did Not File or Designated Inconclusive

Excel Spreadsheet

Detailed List of All Municipalities in State and Fiscal Stress Scores

Report

Fiscal Stress Monitoring System Municipalities: Fiscal Year 2020 Results

School district directed to resume reimbursing its retirees' Medicare Part B surcharges

Pursuant to collective bargaining agreements [CBAs] between the School District [District] and the Congress of Teacher [Congress], an association representing district employees, the District agreed to provide health care benefits for active and retired employees and their spouses and dependents. 

Retired employees over age 65, however, were required to enroll in a Medicare Part B program [Part B] and the district reimbursed retirees the cost of Part B coverage.

Some retirees, based upon their household income, were subject to a surcharge in addition to the standard Part B premium. This surcharge was an income-related monthly adjustment amount and referred to as the "IRMAA". Prior to August 2018, the district reimbursed retirees for IRMAA surcharges in addition to their standard Medicare premium payments.

In response to the District's informing retirees that it would no longer reimburse them for IRMAA surcharges, certain retirees [Plaintiffs] commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking [1] a court order annulling the District's decision, contending that the District's discontinuing such reimbursements violated Chapter 729 of the Laws of 1994 (as amended by Chapter 22 of the Laws of 2007), the State's Retiree Health Insurance Moratorium Act [Act]* and [2] a court order reinstating the reimbursements.

The Supreme Court agreed that the District's discontinuation of its reimbursements of IRMAA surcharges violated the Act, granted the Plaintiff's petition, and directed the District to reinstate providing the reimbursement, plus making appropriate retroactive reimbursements. The District appealed.

Explaining that Act sets "a minimum baseline or 'floor' for retiree health benefits" which is "measured by the health benefits being received by active employees," the Appellate Division sustained the lower court's ruling. In other words, the Act does not permit an employer to whom the statute applies to provide its retirees with lesser health insurance benefits than it provides its active employees.

Citing Matter of Baker v Board of Educ., 29 AD3d 574, the Appellate Division opined that a school district may not diminish retirees' health insurance benefits unless it makes "a corresponding diminution in the health insurance benefits or contributions of active employees." 

In the words of the court, the purpose of the Act was to protect the rights of retirees who "are not represented in the collective bargaining process, [and] are powerless to stop unilateral depreciation or even elimination of health insurance benefits once the contract under which they retired has expired"**

It was undisputed both that the CBAs between the District and the Association did not address Part B or IRMAA reimbursements and that the district provided such reimbursements, even if, as it claims, it made such reimbursements inconsistently. 

The parties, said the court, conceded that the reimbursements were "retiree health insurance benefits that were voluntarily conferred as a matter of school district policy." Accordingly, the Appellate Division held that Supreme Court "correctly concluded that the discontinuation of IRMAA reimbursements was a matter subject to the moratorium statute."

Additionally, the Appellate Division noted reimbursing retirees for Medicare Part B premiums is not an improper gift of public funds in violation of Article VIII, §1, of the New York State Constitution," citing Baker v Board of Education, 29 AD3d 574.

The Appellate Division sustained the Supreme Court ruling, finding it to have correctly determined that the District's discontinuation of IRMAA reimbursements violated the Act and thus had properly granted the Plaintiffs' petition.

* The purpose of the moratorium statute was to tie retiree benefits to active employee benefits so that retirees could benefit from the collective bargaining power of the active employees.

** See Matter of Bryant v Board of Educ., Chenango Forks Cent. School Dist., 21 AD3d 1134, quoting Assembly Memorandum in Support of Bill, 1996 McKinney's Session Laws of New York at 2050.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision.

Fraudulent letter scheme impersonating New York State's Secretary of State reported

On September 21, 2021, the New York State Department of State and the Division of Consumer Protection issued a press release warning of a fraudulent letter scheme claiming the recipient is entitled to receive a large payment being held by the Department of State to settle debts relating to the sale of timeshares.

The scheme, which uses a forged signature of New York Secretary of State Rossana Rosado and the New York State seal, has been referred to the New York State Attorney General for investigation. Anyone who has received this or a similar letter is asked to contact the New York State Attorney General’s Real Estate Enforcement Unit, New York State Office of the Attorney General, 28 Liberty Street, New York, NY 10005.

To help protect against these types of scams, the Division of Consumer Protection  recommends the following:

1. Exercise caution with all communications you receive, including those that appear to be from a trusted entity.

2. Inspect the sender’s information to confirm the message was generated from a legitimate source – be suspicious if the reply to address is different from the sending address.

3. Independently verify the entity’s contact information through an online search engine.

4. Consider calling the sender at a known good number, not listed within the communication, to confirm they sent the communication.

For more consumer protection information, call the Division of Consumer ProtectionHelpline at 800-697-1220, Monday through Friday, 8:30am-4:30pm or visit the Division of Consumer Protection website at https://dos.ny.gov/consumer-protection. 

The Division can also be reached via Twitter at @NYSConsumer or Facebook at www.facebook.com/nysconsumer