Despite the negotiating efforts of village mayors from throughout Nassau County, the Nassau County Legislature opted not to share sales tax revenues with the 64 villages when it adopted its 1999 budget recently.

Although County Executive Thomas Gulotta recommended a $9 million give-back to the villages in his proposed budget, the Legislature rejected his proposal, deciding instead to hold off on the revenue sharing initiative for at least one more year.

Massapequa Park Mayor George Nussbaum is one of many mayors disappointed by the Legislature's decision. Nussbaum, who circulated a letter last month to village residents urging them to apply pressure to local legislators on the issue prior to the Oct. 30 budget deadline, said he would have liked to use the revenue give-back on improving infrastructure and additional village services. The mayor also said in his letter that this would have been the first time the county would have been sharing revenues with the villages, although, towns, cities, counties and upstate villages already reap the benefits of such programs. According to Nussbaum, Massapequa Park's share would have been almost $360,000.

Meanwhile, Legislator Peter Schmitt said Gulotta's budget proposal including the recommended $9 million revenue share "was structurally out of balance."

According to Schmitt, the budget adopted by the Legislature cut spending in several areas, while modestly increasing taxes to fill deficits. Considering the sacrifices being made, he said, this would not be a good time to give back revenue to the villages.

"We had the recommendation of the county comptroller and our own fiscal experts that the county was not in the fiscal shape to take on new fiscal initiatives at this time," Schmitt said.

Still, others question the validity of legislators' reasoning for their decision. Hempstead Mayor James Garner, president of the Nassau County Village Officials Association, said he doesn't accept the Legislature's explanation and called it "hogwash."

"First of all, I think it's absolutely wrong that we don't get something back for the money that we put into the system," he said. "We put an enormous amount of money in to sales taxes in this county and we don't get anything out of it."

Garner added that considering that the population of the 64 villages, he estimates, is about one-third of the county's population, he thinks it's ridiculous that the Legislature couldn't find $9 million out of a $2 billion budget.

"At least they could've proposed some of the $9 million dollars; everything was wiped out," he said. "But nothing was wiped out from the towns or the cities."

Nussbaum agreed with Garner. "I wouldn't give you a number, but I think it should've been initiated at some level," he said. "We're talking about a sizable block of people being affected."

Still, Schmitt along with other county legislators are standing behind the budget.

"It's not a matter of a dollar amount," said Schmitt. "It's a matter of how do you dare give away money when you are increasing taxes, even though it's a very small increase. It's a shell game. You can't do that. It's not fiscally responsible."

The 1999 budget eliminates subsidies from the general fund to police and fire headquarters and parks and recreation which are separate taxing jurisdictions on their own, said Schmitt.

"In an effort to present an illusion of holding the line on taxes, Gulotta was recommending that we heavily subsidize those funds out of the general fund. We declined to do that," he said, adding that it was cutbacks like these that resulted in the approximately 4 percent increase in property taxes.

According to Schmitt, there was another reason to be leery of the revenue sharing initiative. Villages like Massapequa Park and Lynbrook, he said, have business districts and incur costs associated with maintaining business districts such as street maintenance and garbage disposal.

"Gulotta trying to be all things to all people proposed giving revenue on a per capita basis which means that villages such as Hewlett Harbor or Saddle Rock, which are among the richest places in the United States and will not permit a business district to operate would also share in sales tax revenue they do not generate," Schmitt said. "I have a problem with that aspect of the deal."

On the other hand, the legislator said he hopes to come up with alternative ways of helping out the county's villages. He said although there will be no cash available to the villages, he's exploring other avenues. For example, he said maybe it would be possible to work on joint projects such as road maintenance or maybe the county could buy street sweepers for the villages. But he added that he had not discussed the idea with anyone and did not know the legal implications of it.

Nussbaun, however, didn't see this as a particularly attractive solution. "We really need revenue so we can allocate it as needed," he said. "I don't think the county is coming out to pave some of our roads and I don't think they're coming out to plow some of our streets . . .I know it's a nice gesture but it's not that practical."

Garner said, "We're optimistic about sitting down with them again to see what we can come up with." He added that although he is not too sure what could be done, they can try.

Meanwhile, Garner said county village officials said that although state officials including Governor George Pataki have done a great job in sharing revenues with the villages, there is still room for improvement. He added that the villages will be negotiating to get a higher percentage of revenue sharing from the state.