Jan. 19, 2011 -- In a formal legal opinion released Tuesday, County Attorney Robert Meehan concluded that the county's 2011 tax levy currently stands at $555 million. This represents a 1 percent decrease from the 2010 levy and is the amount proposed by County Executive Robert P. Astorino and approved by the Board of Legislators on Dec. 10.
In his five-page opinion given to Astorino and Board Chairman Ken Jenkins, Meehan said that for the board's subsequent proposed levy to go into effect, which amounted to $548 million or a 2 percent cut, the legislature would have to first override Astorino's veto of it.
"Absent an override of the county executive's veto, the amount of the tax warrants to be issued to municipalities by March 1, 2011 based upon the Westchester County Charter must be based upon the adopted tax levy in the amount of $555,053,491," Meehan wrote.
The tax levy is the amount the county government collects in property taxes by sending tax warrants in March to local towns and cities, which in turn send tax bills to their residents.
In vetoing the second tax levy on Jan. 11, Astorino said that the board continued to support runaway spending and was relying on phony revenues and risky one shots, such as spending money put away to settle labor contracts, to balance the budget.
For its part, the board has chosen not to respond to the veto, claiming that the budget was "finally adopted" on Dec. 23 and that the County Charter does not require the county executive to approve the tax levy.
Responding to the board's contention, Meehan wrote, "There are numerous fatal flaws in these arguments."
The county attorney said that because the tax levy must be set by an act of the legislature, the county executive has the power to veto it just like every other act. He added that the legislature has no authority to take away from the county executive this right to veto the tax levy.
"The veto authority cannot be taken away by changing the amount of the tax levy by a later amendment and claiming that the county executive has no authority to exercise a veto with respect to that change or amendment," the opinion states.
The county executive said the detailed legal analysis by the county attorney showed that his office had correctly followed the County Charter. "There's a legal process to be followed and the county attorney's opinion shows my office followed it," said Astorino. "The board has every right to disagree with me, but it can't make up its own rules."
It takes 12 votes of the 17-member board to override a veto.