To the Editor:

Thank you for the Dec. 4, 2025 coverage of the state comptroller’s audit of sales tax use and Guilderland Supervisor Peter Barber’s reaction to it (“Barber contests audit of sales-tax audit”). If it weren’t for the Enterprise coverage on this topic in recent issues, we would be less able to add perspectives that may ameliorate the inherent difficulties with the comptroller’s audit findings.

The Enterprise article stated that the comptroller found that the town in its yearly budget had not properly allocated sales-tax revenues that are annually distributed by Albany County. The article continues that Supervisor Barber claimed in the town’s response that the 1965 state law, on which the comptroller’s office relied its audit findings, is “grossly out of date.”

He strongly took exception with the comptroller’s directive and interpretation of the law to apply the county’s sales tax revenue in the fund account that provide services to the town only, which resulted in the town’s inability to allocate any remaining sales-tax funds in the budget account that includes the village and from which the town tax is calculated for village residents.

The outcome of this budgetary restriction is that the town’s taxes for village residents will increase on average by $250, an over 160-percent increase in the town tax for village residents.  

As a result of the village’s concern about the precipitous rise in town taxes for village residents, revealed in an earlier Enterprise article, the town supervisor, staff, and other town elected officials attended a special workshop at Village Hall on Dec. 3 at the Altamont Mayor Kerry Dineen’s invitation to explain the decision and discuss its ramifications to the village board and its residents.

The Dec. 3 workshop can be accessed on the village website video section. I appreciate the town supervisor’s gesture to come to Village Hall, albeit too late in the process, and to explain the complications of the budget and how the comptroller’s decision compelled the town to apply the increased tax.

 Supervisor Barber reiterated the facts within the comptroller’s audit, which were covered extensively in Enterprise’s Dec. 4 edition. Bottom line, in my opinion, the point of disagreement of the two sides’ arguments revolves around the interpretation of one word in the 1965 law, that is, the meaning of to “reduce” taxes in the allocation of county tax revenues in various sections of the town budget. 

The comptroller interprets “to reduce” taxes to mean “reduce to zero,” whereas the town believes to “reduce” means “to lessen” tax amounts, not eliminate taxes to zero as the comptroller contends.  

 In other words, requiring a reduction “to zero” first in the fund that does not include the village, but not allowing the town to use its local discretion in the allocation of county funds and application of the tax rate to the village and town across all funds. This is the method the Town has used for decades.

This questionable application of the English language by the comptroller’s mandate requires that county sales-tax distribution must be used solely to reduce the tax burden to zero in the fund that involves only town services rather than distribute county tax revenue across various funds as the town believes appropriate and is allowable under the 1965 law.

The comptroller’s mandate elevates the revenue needed in the fund that calculates village taxes, resulting in a large raise in the tax rate for village residents. Additional assumptions presented in the comptroller’s audit about village and town services demonstrate a key misunderstanding of the distribution of services supplied by the village to the town, as well as those supplied by the town to the village.

Putting aside the debate on the interpretation of a word, the outcome here, in my opinion, is simply unfair and inequitable. The interpretations by the comptroller to apply dubious criteria leave us with an unintended outcome that deserves fixing. 

If I understood correctly the conversation that took place at the Village Hall on Dec. 3, it appears that the town recognizes the misreading, unfairness, and incorrectness of the comptroller’s application of the law and will pursue this issue to set it right.

Both municipalities agreed to work together on this issue and establish regular meetings to discuss this and other mutual matters of concern to avoid misunderstandings going forward. It also appears that the comptroller’s audit findings have caught the attention of our district legislative leaders and steps are underway to look for legislative solutions to address the unfortunate outcomes of the comptroller’s audit in collaboration with both town and village leaders.

I recommend that we, as citizens of the village and the town, continue to follow this issue and encourage active pursuit of solutions by our elected officials. In my experience, by including the voice of the electorate, we will achieve the best outcomes on issues like this.  

Jim Gaughan

Altamont

Editor’s note: Jim Gaughan was Altamont’s mayor from 2005 to 2017.

See related story.