As an elected county legislator, I believe that our most important responsibility is deciding how to use taxpayer money. Adopting a county budget is the most important thing we do. We are deep in our deliberations for the 2010 budget, trying to find ways to provide the programs and services we all need, consistent with our ability to pay for them.

Taxes are what enable Tompkins County to have a Health Department and Emergency Response, the library and TC3, a district attorney and sheriff, a DMV and Public Works (roads and bridges), Office for the Aging and Board of Elections, departments of Probation, Mental Health, Social Services and Youth Services and to contract with local human services agencies.

Because of the economic freefall, we are seeing major cuts in state aid (nearly $1 million) and experiencing about $1 million less in sales tax revenue than budgeted in 2009. Meanwhile, mandated programs and services are increasing by about $1 million, as are mandated pension payments (about $1.5 million). Because counties provide social safety-net services, we also are seeing increased caseloads and assistance requests.

Although last spring the county legislature gave the county administrator a goal of increasing the tax levy by no more than 3 percent - and he and county departments have complied with the nearly $4.8 million cut that goal required - the target clearly needs to be adjusted.

Here are some more facts. The county would need a nearly 15 percent increase in the tax levy to stay even with last year. County taxes account for about 18 percent of your total property taxes. The rest is school (almost 50 percent), town, city and village taxes, and other special taxes (e.g., fire district). So a 15 percent increase is really 15 percent of 18 percent, or 2.7 percent of your total taxes. A 15 percent increase in the county tax levy would add $67 on a $100,000 house. Put in dollar terms, that doesn't sound so bad.

But that assumes all increased needs would be covered by raising taxes. In the administrator's recommended budget, the $5 million shortfall is met by cuts of $2.4 million and increased revenues of $2.4 million. On the revenue side, his 3 percent levy increase generated $1.1 million. Two new revenue sources - a recommended 65-cent increase in the monthly emergency communications land-line telephone surcharge and a 0.25 percent increase in the mortgage recording tax - would bring in nearly $1.3 million in recurring revenue.

The $2.4 million in cuts could be met either by raising the tax levy another 7.4 percent ($34 per $100,000), or some smaller increase combined with some cuts.

But here is another fact: Our largest costs are in salaries, and in anticipation of the difficulties ahead, during 2009 the number of county employees has already been reduced from 779 to 753 full-time equivalents.

At our Sept. 21 budget forum, 22 people offered their ideas on our budget. No one asked for taxes to be cut; most spoke of the value of various safety-net and educational programs. The county administrator's recommended budget, with its 3 percent tax levy increase, increases the tax rate (the amount property owners pay per thousand dollars assessed value) by 1 cent, to $5.94. A tax-levy increase of 10 percent would change the tax rate from $5.94 to $6.24. A tax-levy increase of 5 percent would change the tax rate from $5.94 to $6.14.

Unless the federal and state governments reverse their years of income-tax cutting and restore income-tax-based revenue sharing to state and local government, we have no choice but to rely on property taxes.

The cuts to meet the 3 percent tax-levy goal revealed how much would be lost. On Oct. 28, the legislature accepted the expanded budget committee's recommendation of a 3.97 percent tax levy increase. In this recommendation, we have restored some of the most egregious cuts. However, I could support up to a 7 percent increase, which amounts to only $23.58 on $100,000.