Communities across the Finger Lakes are wrestling with math that just doesn’t work anymore. In Auburn, officials are weighing cuts to police and fire while residents brace for the possibility of a massive tax increase. In Geneva, a significant projected budget gap is forcing a hard look at services, staffing, and long-term sustainability. Even school districts across the region, like Canandaigua, are seeing budgets climb year after year, with steady increases that feel manageable — until they don’t anymore.
These aren’t isolated situations. And they’re not the result of one bad decision or one difficult year. This is what the system in place for the last couple decades produces.
There’s a persistent belief that budget problems come down to overspending or mismanagement. That’s too simple. And it badly misses what’s actually happening. Local government budgets are built on a structure where costs rise automatically, but revenue doesn’t.
Start with the biggest driver: People.
In most municipalities, more than half of all spending is tied to salaries, healthcare, and pensions. Those costs don’t sit still. They rise every year through negotiated contracts, state-controlled retirement systems, and healthcare markets that local leaders have little control over. Even if a community does nothing — no new programs, no expansion — costs still climb.
On the other side, revenue growth is limited or nonexistent.
Property taxes are capped. Politically, there’s little appetite to push beyond those limits. So you end up with a system where costs increase automatically, revenue is constrained, and service expectations stay the same.
The big gap communities end up wrestling with doesn’t appear overnight. It’s built quietly over many years. And when it finally shows up, it looks like a crisis.
The structure in place created the problem and decisions along the way made the problem harder to solve. Some of those failures are policy-driven and well-outside local control. New York’s property tax cap limits revenue growth, but it doesn’t come with a corresponding mechanism to control the biggest cost drivers. Local governments are left managing a mismatch they don’t fully control.
Other failures are local and a lot tougher to square. For years, communities have relied on short-term fixes to avoid long-term decisions. Kicking the can down the road, so to speak. Using fund balances to plug operating gaps. Pushing off difficult conversations about staffing levels or service priorities. Treating every program as essential, even when the math stopped working for it years before.
The broader failure here is lack of growth.
In places where homeownership declines, property values stagnate, or new housing isn’t built, the tax base weakens. That shifts the burden onto fewer taxpayers and limits future revenue growth. It’s not just a housing issue. It’s a fiscal one.
And to be clear that’s a policy shortcoming, too. Just a different flavor. I’ve written about it before here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and most recently, here.
Put all of that together, and you get exactly what we’re seeing now — budgets where there are no easy options left.
Once a structural gap becomes visible, the ways to respond narrow. You can cut services. You can cut staff. You can raise taxes. Or you can do some combination of all three. What you can’t do is solve a long-term imbalance with small, incremental changes.
A two percent tax increase doesn’t fix a system where costs rise at two or three times that rate. Minor cuts don’t close multi-million dollar gaps. And one-time fixes don’t solve recurring problems. That’s why the conversations happening now feel stark. Because they are.
There’s a path forward, but it requires a shift in how these budgets are built and how communities think about them.
First, costs have to match the actual revenues generated by the community. If something needs to be funded every year, it has to be supported by revenue that shows up every year. Temporary fixes are just that. Population is declining in nearly every zip code. The fiscal ship is sinking. And the fix communities have committed to looks a lot like using the Flex Seal guy’s screen door boat as a life raft.
Second, communities have to redefine what “core services” actually are. Public safety, infrastructure, basic operations — those are the foundation. Everything else, no matter how valued, has to be evaluated against what those aforementioned actual revenues can support. That’s an extremely unpopular conversation to have, but avoiding it is what created the present day.
Third, cost drivers need to be addressed wherever possible. There aren’t any easy wins, but shared services need to be taken seriously. Communities need to take a hard look at workforce structures over time — not just year to year. This is one of the hardest things for electeds to pull off, because it comes with real political risk.
Fourth, and most important, the tax base has to grow. There’s no version of long-term stability that doesn’t involve more people, more housing, and more economic activity contributing to the system. There’s going to be a fair number of people who don’t want to see it. That will have to be O-K. Because without it, the burden keeps shifting onto a smaller-and-smaller group of taxpayers, and the math keeps getting tighter.
If the current moment feels like a turning point that’s because it is. For years, the system allowed problems to build without forcing immediate consequences. That’s no longer the case. The choices are here now and they’re unavoidable.
The risk isn’t that leaders don’t understand the problem. It’s that there’s still a tendency to look for a version of the solution that doesn’t require real trade-offs. That version doesn’t exist.
The way out isn’t easy. But it is clear. What’s been missing isn’t a roadmap. It’s the willingness to follow it.
Thanks for reading In Focus! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
