Former county exec Steve Levy joins Bellone in push-back on quarter-percent sales tax ‘misinformation’

County Executive Steve Bellone and his immediate predecessor Steve Levy don’t usually see eye to eye on many issues, but they’re in lock-step on this one.

Both Bellone and Levy say it’s unfair and inaccurate to characterize the quarter-penny sales tax as an environmental protection fund.

In separate interviews last week, both the current and former county executive argued that Amper and other advocates have sought to cast the sales tax authorization as a measure to generate funds solely for the environment.

“There’s a lot of misinformation out there, spread by advocates then by reporters,” Levy said.

“Back at the beginning, in 1987, when [then-County Executive Michael] LoGrande floated the quarter-penny sales tax, only a third went to environmental protection. A chunk went to property tax reduction and a chunk went to sewer tax stabilization,” Levy said.

“It became known as the Drinking Water Protection Program,” he said, “because that was the name put on the law. Maybe that was done to make it more appealing to voters,” he said, “but it was kind of a misnomer.”

Bellone agrees. The success of Amper’s arguments rely on the fact that “nobody really understands the history of the program.”

Bellone has proposed allocating a greater proportion of that sales tax revenue to the general fund for the next three years to help address a “fiscal emergency” in Suffolk resulting from the COVID-19 crisis. The county executive has two resolutions pending before the county legislature that would put his plan before voters in November.

Long Island Pine Barrens Society executive director Richard Amper has led the charge in opposition to Bellone’s proposal, which Amper characterizes as an attempt to “steal money intended for clean water an open space to plug holes in a budget they can’t balance.”

That’s what has both Bellone and Levy crying foul.

Under the charter law establishing Suffolk’s quarter-penny sales tax — first approved by voters in 1987 and extended in 2007 to 2030 — just over 31% of the quarter-percent sales tax revenue generated each calendar year goes to the environmental trust fund.

A little over 32% is required to be paid into a Suffolk County Taxpayers Trust Fund and is transferred to the general fund, which lessens the burden on taxpayers.

Twenty-five percent of the sales tax revenue is allocated to the sewer tax stabilization fund.

Another 11.75% of the revenue is allocated to stormwater management and pollution prevention.

The two resolutions Bellone sent to the legislature in April would amend the charter to temporarily change the allocation of monies generated by the quarter-percent sales tax.

One measure would authorize the transfer of $15 million from the sewer tax stabilization fund to the general fund, cancel the repayment of $29.4 million to the fund, as required by court order, and repeal county charter provisions requiring the scheduled repayment to the sewer fund, pursuant to the settlement of additional litigation, of an estimated $145 million between 2021 and 2029.

The other measure would reduce to 11% per year for the next three years the sales tax revenues set aside for property acquisition and other environmental protection projects. The bill requires the county to borrow money, if needed, to replace the sales tax revenues diverted to property tax stabilization. Debt service would be paid out of the general fund.

The sewer stabilization fund measure (I.R. 1414) has advanced through the legislative process and is ready to be called for a vote of the full legislature.

A public hearing remains open on the more controversial reallocation measure (I.R. 1413). It is on the legislature’s agenda at tomorrow’s general meeting.

The revenues would generate about “$50 million in budget mitigation and tax stabilization,” according to Bellone. In the alternative, he said, “you can raise the sales tax, you can raise the energy tax, you can lay people off, you can do lag payrolls and take money out of people’s paychecks.”

Bellone said his proposals are “common sense measures that minimize impacts on taxpayers, employees and first responders” that are needed in addition to the federal aid Suffolk and counties across the nation have been pushing for.

He insists that “not one dime less will be spent on environmental preservation,” because the proposed law requires the county to spend capital budget funds on the preservation and to borrow the money if necessary to accomplish it. A majority of the legislature is required to authorize new borrowing and some county lawmakers, including First District Legislator Al Krupski of Cutchogue, have already expressed skepticism about the likelihood of that happening.

The Long Island Pine Barrens Society, Group for the East End, North Fork Environmental Council, Citizens Campaign for the Environment and other environmental advocates strongly oppose both of Bellone’s proposals. They argue that the county’s fiscal distress predates the pandemic and they object to using any portion of either the environmental trust fund or the sewer stabilization fund to plug the county’s budget gap.

The war of words between Bellone and Amper ramped up in the past few weeks, with Amper accusing Bellone of looking to “steal money intended for clean water an open space” to plug a budget gap of his own making and Bellone accusing Amper of continuing “to lie to the public“ when he says the county is “trying to steal money” from open space and water protection.

Bellone last week accused Amper of “trying to block the public from being able to vote after running around for years calling for votes,” which he said is “shameful and outrageous.”

In a letter to Bellone last week, Amper slammed the county executive for “name calling and misrepresentations” and told him, “You ought to be ashamed of yourself.”

Editor’s note: This story has been amended to clarify the language describing IR 1414, pertaining to the sewer assessment stabilization fund.