Our post “Tax Exempt vs. Tax Exemptions” mentioned a memo that the City Manager prepared for Councilor Greco, discussing the assessed value of certain tax exempt properties. We promised to obtain a copy of that memo, and we have. It is in the No Strings Document Library, you can view it here.
You might be surprised by the results. Here are the four properties the memo. discusses along with their percentage of the City’s total property assessment:
Hobart and William Smith Colleges 9.3%
Finger Lakes Health 6.1%
NYS Experiment Station/Cornell University 5.5%
Geneva Housing Authority 1.5%
Total percent of City assessment: 22.4%
Perhaps you remember, from that previous post, that almost 60% of the City’s property is off the tax rolls. But these organizations represent less than half of the untaxed assessments in the City. To put it in perspective, the Chamber of Commerce and City Economic Development Department list three of those organizations as Geneva’s top employers. Here’s their list of full time employees*:
Finger Lakes Health (the top employer) 1007
Hobart and William Smith Colleges 528
NYS Experiment Station 300
*the Geneva Housing Authority does not appear on the list
These three organizations also fall into the category of properties that are tax exempt by law, meaning that the City has no choice, no power to compel payments of any kind from them. Churches and schools also fall into this category and represent another 10% of the city’s tax exempt property. But, as our post detailed, the rest of the City’s tax exempt properties got that way by approval of the City. We clearly need more discussion about that half of the equation!
[Councilor Capraro is one of Hobart and William Smith Colleges’ full time employees. He does not vote on matters directly pertaining to the Colleges.]
Monday, April 30
Memo on Tax Exempts Now Available
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Thank you for posting this information! We often hear the high proprotion of tax-exempt property cited as an excuse for our exorbitant tax rate, so better data is critical if we are to address the situation. Your analysis correctly points out the very important difference between mandatory and negotiated exemptions. There still seems to be considerable information missing from Rich Rising's memo though (presumably because this is all he was asked to produce). If the four listed nonprofits account for 22.4% of exempt property, should we assume the remaining 30+ percent is from negotiated abatements? Or do other nonprofits also account for a sizable chunk?
It's time for Geneva city government to realize that negotiated tax abatements are an ineffective, inefficient and inequitable way to promote economic development. Lower taxes across the board can produce better, more equitable results. Negotitated abatements simply perpetuate a vicious cycle of high taxes for the majority to fund sweet deals for a few. Geneva needs a new mind-set that recognizes the City's incredible natural resources and potential for tourism and development. We do not need to give tax abatements to every proposed new development! Lowering taxes across the board will spur economic development and eliminate the need for these negotiated deals. We have too much going for us to be desperate.
It seems that the tax burden needs to be distributed more equitably (that may be the understatement of the year)! Geneva has the potential to be a prime tourist destination and that should be incentive enough for businesses to open here without outrageous tax breaks. Having businesses pick up some of the burden means that homeowners in the City would be able to put more money into equity, savings, and retirement. Secondly, homeowners and businesses in the Town of Geneva should be pay more for the services they use. For instance, as far as I can tell, the Town gets free policing (the pay $0.65 per $1000 assessed value for the Fire Dept. but nothing for GPD). The relationship seems quite parasitic to say the least! It also means that businesses will opt to open in the Town instead of the City because of the discrepant taxes thereby further depleting the City's resources. Can't anything be done to hold the Town accountable for their use of the City's services?
Thanks for enlightening the community on some of these very important issues. I would suggest that since some on the council and some in the administration have elected to open up Pandora's Box, all of the tax exempt proretities should be made public. For years citizens have been spoon fed the notion that those 4 highly publicized properties have been at the root of much of the city's financial difficulties. It is time to clear the air so an honest discussion can be had on tax exempt properties and how they impact Geneva's financial heallth.
Because taxes and economic development are such pressing,
inter-related issues, we will be spending more time addressing
these topics in detail as the blog progresses. However, we wanted
to just quickly reply and let you know that the Town receives its
public safety services from the Ontario County Sheriff, not from
The City police. And their fire district levy is for their volunteer units, not for the City’s Fire Department. The City receives no money from the Town for any police or fire services.
Thanks for the clarifying information regarding the Town of Geneva's fire and police coverage. I would love to receive more information about the tax discrepancy between the Town and City. It has puzzled me for years!
I would very much like to ask the councilors to please request that Rich Rising request that Pat Grimaldi, the City Assessor revise his tax memo to be complete. Based on the information that your blog has presented, i think it is appropriate that the memo account for 58% minus the 22.4 for the colleges,hospital, Ag station minus the 10% for churches and schools leaving th 25.6% that is unaccounted for.
To go even further, i think the memo should account for the organizations that make up this 25.6%, if they were IDA or not, what were the tax consequences of them receiving exemptions, what amount they generated in PILOT fees, how much the IDA took of that for admin fees, how many jobs were created, how many loans were given and the amounts of each, and how many are indefault on job and loan agreements... etc...
In other words, the City/IDA/Dept. of Economic Development should completely level with us the taxpayers about what was negociated by the IDA, and what the impact was on our tax base, on the revolving loan fund, and actual jobs created.
Post a Comment