Are Capraro and Augustine Good for Geneva? Have a Listen

In our monthly WGVA radio interviews, we field questions from host Ted Baker about Geneva City Council business and other government issues. We also discuss stories posted here on the blog. Our year-end interview (December 21, 2007) concluded with some reflections from Ted on our appearances. He said that we brought listeners a diversity of opinion, not only our own, but those of community members who came on to-air to respond to us. There hadn’t been such in depth radio coverage of city issues before we stepped forward and Ted said “the city is better for it.” Click here to listen.

We consider this high praise and appreciate Ted’s perspective. The appearances will continue through 2008, even though Capraro indicated that he will likely be filling a different role in commenting on city issues.

There was a lot of ground covered in the December 21 interview, including Unshackle Upstate’s proposal to improve the state’s business environment by using state tax dollars to reimburse businesses for the local property taxes they pay. The discussion went far beyond our post on the topic. In exploring connections between property tax reform and economic development, we advocate for the reduction of property taxes across the board, rather than deals for special interests, so that all tax payers benefit and the overall tax climate is improved.

There is also an update on the follow up to the November 6 election, which, as things stand, has Capraro behind by nine votes. (Click here to listen) To date, Ontario County Election Commissioners have refused to respond to three key requests: (1) to allow the malfunctioning machine that was taken out of service by a custodian to be inspected and tested by an expert in lever machine mechanics; (2) to explain the discrepancies in reported election results on the Board website and in the newspaper; (3) to explain the circumstances that prevented election officials from offering emergency ballots to voters on the malfunctioning machine, even after it was taken out of service. Capraro notes the irony that an election fought on the issue of open government might be lost based on issues of oversight and ‘closing of ranks.’

When you listen to the interview, you will also hear discussion of the City Manager search and the state of open government in the City. We ask that Mayor-elect Einstein’s call for community based participation in the search will be respected. We are cautiously optimistic about the new Council taking office on January 1, 2008. We note the many strengths of Mayor-elect Einstein, but express concern about voting patterns on council that might hinder his attempts to make city government truly open and honest.

We’ve enjoyed these appearances and thank Ted Baker and WGVA for allowing us the opportunity to share our fact-based point of view. As we point out, our goal is not to get everyone to agree, it’s to get everyone talking seriously and honestly about city government--no hiding, no double speak. That’s what accountability is all about.

"City Attorney" is a Lucrative Post

For years, Geneva operated much the way most other cities our size did-- with a part-time city attorney. The City Charter states the City Attorney is “attorney and counsel” for the City Council, the Mayor, the City Manager, and all departments, officers, boards, commissions, and agencies of the City. The principal role of the City Attorney is to represent and defend the interests of the City and to “upon request, furnish them [the above mentioned municipal entities] with a written opinion on any question of law involving their respective powers and duties.” For better or for worse, the capacity to issue legal opinion on all matters and situations, large and small, gives the City Attorney enormous power to shape policy and actions of the City.

Back in January, 2004, when the current council began its just ending four-year term, they quickly rewarded their key administrators, vesting the City Manager into the retiree health insurance system, and making the City Attorney position full-time, or, more importantly, granting him a full-time salary. For the City Manager and City Attorney votes, Augustine dissented and was the only member of Council to vote against them both. Capraro was not yet on Council.

At the time, a survey of other communities revealed most cities followed one of two arrangements: either the city had a part-time attorney (not benefits eligible) who retained a private practice and used an outside legal firm for specialized work; or the city had a full time attorney (or more than one) who had a ‘sole client’ relationship with the municipality. That means that the city supplied the office, secretary, salary, and benefits in exchange for the exclusive services of the attorney. In other words, if you were full-time for your city, you could not maintain a private practice.

Like many other back room deals made under the previous administration, the Geneva City Council ignored the best practices of other communities and created a hybrid position for the sitting attorney. They decided that the attorney would be considered full-time, would receive full- benefits, a secretary, and some office expenses, but would not be required to give up private practice or move his offices into city hall. While this may be the ‘best of both worlds’ for whomever occupies the full time post, it’s the worst of both worlds for city government.

The City Attorney position is extremely well paid for the level of service rendered. For 2008, the City Attorney’s office is budgeted for a total of $148,950, broken down as follows:

Attorney salary: $82, 807
Secretary salary: 22, 412
Unallocated
2008 salary? 5,318
Retirement: 10,191
Health insurance: 14,323
Social security: 8,478
Phone, office,
travel, etc. 4,309
TOTAL $148,950

And buried somewhere else in the budget, there are still other moneys set aside for fees paid for ‘outside attorneys’ who are used for special projects or, perhaps, in theory, when there is a conflict of interest between the city attorney’s public client (the City) and private clients.

So, even though the position was made full time (in another late-night, post-back-room vote with hardly a word of public discussion) City Council allowed the City Attorney to maintain a private practice. If the City Attorney is a full-time position, how can there be any time in the work day for private practice? In addition, the City Attorney is the attorney for the City of Geneva Industrial Development Agency (IDA), which is a separate entity from the City of Geneva. Again, if the City Attorney is full-time, how can there be any time in the work day for the IDA? And if the City Attorney is representing both the City and the IDA, how are the conflicts of interest resolved? It is not clear if and how the City Attorney is compensated for work performed for the IDA. The City receives money from the IDA, but it is not earmarked for legal services. And council is only occasionally informed if and when outside counsel is retained for particular matters (such as the IDA truck deal--click here to read our post on that issue).

By comparison, the City of Canandaigua Attorney’s office (corporation counsel) is budgeted for $94, 220, broken down as follows:

Salaries $69, 020
Social Security 5,280
Supplies 500
Professional
Services:
Labor attorney 5,000
Special 10,000
Other 4,420
TOTAL $94,220
[This information is taken from the Canandaigua budget, available for your review here]

Canandaigua doesn’t pay for the attorney’s secretary or law office. There is a clear policy for avoiding conflict of interest in client representation.

Looking to our east, Auburn retains two full time attorneys, one full time confidential secretary for those attorneys and a part time office worker. Their total ‘corporation counsel’ budget is $243,224. For $100,000 more than Geneva, they have two additional staff people and again, no conflicts of interest!

So what should Geneva do? We believe that Geneva should clean up its act. Good government requires that conflicts of interest be avoided. What we have is an institutionalized tension. Either the attorney post should be legitimately full-time, and the City of Geneva should be the attorney’s sole client, or the post should be returned to part-time and all private clients should be disclosed to Council.

"Unshackle Upstate": A Petition to the Local Warden Might Be More Effective

"Unshackle Upstate” is a coalition of business groups that are interested in changing the business climate of Upstate New York, specifically in lowering the cost of doing business. Their motto, “we want our economy moving; not our people,” is a message we can all agree with.

But their most recent lobbying effort, in favor of a property tax rebate for businesses, might not achieve the reform they seek. Similar to New York State’s school tax rebate program, known as STAR (read more about it here), the Unshackle Upstate plan would partially reimburse businesses for their property taxes.

That would simply shift the burden from local taxpayers to state tax payers. It uses state funds, derived from state tax dollars, to offset a portion of local tax dollars. It’s all tax money. As we have said in previous posts, these abatement or refund programs are okay, but the real break will come from lower tax rates in the first place! (See "Not All Property Tax Relief is Created Equal" and "A Tax Exemption Would Be Good, but a Lower Tax Rate Would be Better").

According to a recent Rochester Business Journal article (read it here), the coalition is looking to reduce energy prices and eliminate franchise taxes. They are also looking for better economic development policies related to brown fields redevelopment and workforce investment efforts. These are all laudable goals. However, if you remember the economic development discussion hosted by Dan Gundersen on public television stations across the state (read "Does Gundersen Have the Prescription for Geneva?") members of Unshackle Upstate and related groups all spoke first and foremost about the chilling effect of high property taxes on growth of existing businesses and attraction of new ones.

So that makes us ask, if Unshackle Upstate is looking for state government to fix the problem, and if the biggest part of that problem is local property taxes, couldn’t state and local government work together on significant and sustainable property tax reform?

For instance, the largest expenditures in city budgets across upstate New York are for road work, public safety, and personnel expenses. Take the Rte. 14 road reconstruction projects as local examples of these costs. Both the South end (South Main Street) and the about-to-be-completed North end (North Exchange Street) are designated NYS truck routes. Wear and tear on the road is, arguably, due more to thru-traffic than to local travel. However, while the City of Geneva is required to bring them up to State standards, the City is not reimbursed 100% for the costs of upgrading those roads. It’s a classic unfunded mandate: they say do it and make us pay for it. They even require State DOT engineers to design the project for us.

Instead of tax abatement programs that benefit only a few businesses, lobbying efforts should focus on higher state reimbursement for State road work, the arteries that move commerce (literally). By reducing those costs for local municipalities, the State would be reducing the amount needed to be raised through local property tax, again benefitting businesses and residents alike.

We believe that the NYS Commission on Local Governments has done a lot of good work in identifying the factors that contribute to high property taxes in Upstate cities. Efforts to lower taxes would not only lower the cost of doing business but it would also build more consumer wealth, as residents would also feel relief and hopefully increase their disposable income. Making cities viable places to work and live is a long term strategy for reinvigorating the upstate economy

Lakefront Consultants Stage 'Community Input Theater' at Smith

Last Tuesday’s public meeting on Downtown Geneva and the Lakefront, held at the Smith Opera House, was billed as “A discussion about downtown, the lakefront, how to connect the two, and more! Your input is needed!” But what the 150 people who attended got was a staged production, with severely curtailed community input. For those paying attention, there was also a foreshadowing of what the outcome of the planning process was likely to be.

Members of the audience heard a great deal about the commitment of planners to public participation. They also heard an announcement that “there would be 20 minutes” for questions. When approached afterward about the limited opportunity for audience participation at the meeting, Bergmann Associates told Capraro, “It wasn’t our meeting.” When asked why they ended the meeting abruptly, with a member of the public still standing at a microphone ready to speak, they said, “You’d have to talk to our clients about that [i.e., the Quality Communities Committee].”

On the whole, it was a tightly controlled affair. The public was allowed to speak, but, despite the steady steam of lively and engaged questions, comments and concerns from members of the audience, the meeting ended abruptly. One community member who was politely approaching the microphone to speak was told, sorry, the meeting was over, just over an hour after it began.

Too bad, because the planners missed a great opportunity to hear from the people. Too bad, because the project timetable says there will not be another meeting of this sort until April, 2008-- well down the road in the planning process. Just days before the plan is supposed to be delivered to City Council. The public was told that they could attend steering committee meetings, held on weekday mornings.

Meetings allow for public input, but they also allow for direct communication of information, and an opportunity for clarification about critical issues. For example, there was a great deal of confusion about the forever green designation for some sections of the lakefront site. Presenters discussed this existing designation, but there was no slide with forever green spaces clearly delineated. It would have been easy to show a map with the forever green area clearly designated so that everyone knew exactly what areas were being discussed.

Planners also expressed the idea that Geneva ought to become a lakefront city and not merely a city with a lakefront. Essentially, a lakefront city has its downtown integrated with its lakefront, while a city with a lakefront has a downtown and a lakefront that are disconnected. Fair enough.

That’s a nice concept, one that most people can agree on, but the real question is ‘how do we get there?’ Their answer was for private developers to start building. That’s not such a nice concept. It is disconnected from Geneva’s reality. New construction, even if it were something people wanted, is financially questionable given building conditions on the lakefront. There was no way a private developer could have built the Ramada and turned a profit on it without substantial public assistance. Remember all those pilings that had to be driven before they could construct the hotel? The private sector is not likely to sign on to that kind of development in the immediate future, and so they’ll be asking for more tax payer contributions.

Are there other factors that the public is unaware of? The meeting seemed like an effort to ‘prime the pump’ for some kind of development. But what development is in the offing and where is it going to go? This is the public discussion that we think people were looking for that night. There must be ideas for using our existing resources to make Geneva a lakefront city. We bet a lot of people had some great insights to share at the Smith. But, alas, the conversation is back with the steering committee to have amongst its members.

When the Quality Communities Committee was first formed, we expressed concern that the public wouldn’t be fully involved, asking “Can We Expect Different Results from the Same Old Efforts?" The Mayor himself posted a response, indicating that there would be “many, many public forums where our residents can make their voices heard.” He made the following pledge: “Every voice that wants to be heard, will be heard.” Well, tell that to the guy turned away at the mic, and other members of the audience, on Tuesday night. That’s when the comment and question window was closed for the season.

Will Candidates Get Answers Before Election is Certified?

On election night, five votes separated Ron Alcock and Chip Capraro on the machine counts. That result was affirmed by Republican Commissioner Mike Northrup after the post-election machine recanvassing. Those results are still posted on the Election Commission's website.


On Wednesday, November 14th, absentee and affidavit ballots were unsealed and counted. Capraro won that count by a large enough margin to swing the results in his favor, but Northrup emerged from a side room to announce that a 'clerical error' had widened the margin between the candidates and Capraro was actually down nine votes.

In other races in our area, where margins were even wider, candidates have initiated the process of serving papers to impound the machines, recount the ballots, and have a clear explanation of the outcome to be certified by the Board. In keeping with that standard procedure, Democratic Election Commissioner Mary Salotti and her Republican counterpart, Mike Northrup, were served with papers, Wednesday, November 28th.


The documents, prepared by local attorney Sam Bonney, petition that the commissioners not certify the election "until machines used in Ward 4 District 1 are tested and examined per Election Law 9-208 and an explanation in writing is made about the discrepancies in the machine vote."

The petition is supported by three affidavits submitted by voters who describe difficulties in pulling the levers on Row A on a malfunctioning machine that was eventually taken out of service. Complaints were made to poll workers on election day, by two voters over three hours apart. At least 50 voters used that machine between the first and second complaints.

In addition to clarification on the nature of the clerical errors, the petition proposes that there be "both statutory and diagnostic testing, to determine the specific malfunction of the machines."

In previous statements, Northrup said the election would be certified by Monday, December 3rd. Does this mean that these questions will be left unanswered?

Public Involvement in Choosing a Public Leader? This Novel Concept is Stranger than Fiction

Springfield, Missouri finds itself in a situation similar to ours. Their city manager has given notice that he will be leaving in 2008. But, in a strange twist, their outgoing mayor is not rushing to appoint a committee of political insiders, but is instead inviting the public to sign up to serve. Say what?

Eight years ago Geneva had its own citizen’s committee to select a city manager. Twenty four residents from across the community spent countless hours reading, evaluating, and discussing resumes from candidates coming from all over the United States. The committee, which Capraro served on, conducted phone interviews to narrow down the candidates to three top finalists. Every member of the committee agreed that the three finalists brought the experience, expertise, and commitment to become part of the community that we need in a city manager.

City council took the three names, thanked the committee for their work, and then proceeded to hire Rich Rising, who was not amongst the committee’s finalists. So much for valuing the input of the community.

With his term rapidly drawing to a close, we suspect that Mayor Cass might want to repeat this process as his last official action. Hopefully, that will not happen.

The people of Geneva have the talent, the energy, and the time to make this selection the right way. And they should not feel rushed to do so. The City Manager is the Chief Administrative Officer for the city. That means he oversees the day to day tasks that support City Council’s established policies. But that does not mean that the city will perish if the post sits vacant for a few months. We have skilled department heads who are fully capable of managing operations for a short transition period. What is most important in the selection of a new manager is that we get a candidate with the skills, integrity, and vision to build upon Geneva’s strengths and to tackle our challenges head on.

Manufacturing is not a silver bullet for Upstate New York anymore. So those who said we need a manager who can “get another Guardian” are, in our opinion, a bit misguided. We need to reverse our population decline, boost our tourism appeal, and provide better, more targeted city services to residents as a return on their tax investment. Speaking of taxes, we need a manager who understands that the average homeowner is having trouble keeping up with the tax bill.

The best way to get a Manager that can connect with the needs and interests of the people is to have the people involved in selecting the Manager.

Enter Springfield. Because their Mayor is at the end of his term, a current councilor (Gary Deaver) is chairing the search committee, but there is no indication that he is trying to impose his own views on the community. Instead, he tells a local newspaper:

“This will be one of the most important decisions the council makes in quite some time.. It’s my goal to create a process that is totally transparent and inclusive.”

That process begins with a new Web site– which the city planned to unveil last week – where citizens can fill out a questionnaire and offer comments about what characteristics are most important for a city manager. Linked to the city’s home page, www.springfieldmo.gov, citizens also will be able to fill out a volunteer application if they are interested in serving on the search committee.

The voters brought Stu Einstein into city hall because they responded to his promise of a new way of doing business. The search for a new city administrator is the best way to show a commitment to bringing new people, new faces, new voices to the table. We hope that outgoing Mayor Cass will not take advantage of incoming Mayor Einstein's good nature and stick him with the dilemma of either accepting an aggressive move to control the City Manager search process as a lame duck or protesting it and risking being labeled vindictive. The new mayor should get the same break as the old mayor: a fresh start with a new city manager.

Does Gundersen Have the Prescription for Geneva?

We hope you were able to watch the unprecedented statewide interactive forum with Economic Development czar Dan Gundersen that we posted an alert about. The show, aired on PBS stations was called “Upstate: Getting Down to Business.”

It was an incredibly informative discussion of the challenges and opportunities present throughout upstate communities and it resonated with several local issues we’ve been discussing here. You may remember when we first discussed Governor Spitzer’s appointment of Gundersen as the point person for upstate economic development (read it here). Well, he has gotten right to work developing ‘targeted economic development plans’ for several communities, from Buffalo to Rochester to Syracuse to Binghamton. While the show discussed these a bit, the majority of time was spent focusing on the shared concerns of municipalities struggling to retain existing businesses, attract new businesses and residents and generally revive their economies.

Gundersen and his Acting Regional Director, Kevin Hurley, outlined three “barriers to development” that need to be the focus of local, state, and federal economic development efforts. The three are:

1. High Taxes. As Peter Alan Weinman stated, in his opening comments to Gundersen on behalf of the City of Buffalo, “property taxes are growing at an alarming pace” and Buffalo has one of the highest rates in Western NY (you can compare their rate of $37.41/ $1000 assessed value to our rate by clicking here). Gundersen spoke frequently of the Commission on Local Government Efficiency as an agency that is examining this issue in close detail. You can visit the Commission here and see how ideas like shared services (that we discuss in relation to Geneva here) and parity in compensation (that we discuss in relation to sewer services here) are key to alleviating the tax burden that scares away businesses and residents.
2. A Lack of Young Professionals. Maybe you’ve heard it referred to as the “brain drain” but that might not exactly capture it. Recent college graduates and other young professionals are not only looking for employment opportunities, but for a certain community or social dynamic. Better collaboration between area employers, colleges, and government leaders might enhance those offerings in Geneva. For our take on attracting young families to the area, see “Rethinking City Living."
3. Dwindling Downtowns. It’s not just young professionals, but many potential new residents that are looking for vibrant downtowns. The work-downstairs, live-upstairs model is once again gaining ground and communities that want to revitalize need to focus on repopulating their downtown areas with shops, restaurants, and cultural offerings and housing for the people who can frequent these establishments. This is the focus of the recent RESTORE NY application submitted by the city.

Gundersen said that a focus on “intellectual capital as well as infrastructure” will be the backbone of each region’s “economic blueprint.” Efforts to encourage venture capital, “career laddermaps,” revitalization of historic downtown structures, and a critical mass of new people and ideas should be the focus. We think this makes great sense, and we hope the next City Manager and the city's economic development team will connect with Gundersen sooner rather than later..

If the Machine is Broken, Fix It

By any count, nearly 1,350 City voters voted for incumbent Councilor At Large Chip Capraro on Election Day. With results still unofficial and still uncertified by the Ontario County Board of Elections, a difference of less than 4/10th of one percent separates Capraro from his opponent. Signed and notarized affidavits from four voters (Sue Kichhausen, Doung Knipple, Kris Whiteleather, Jim DaDaddona) at two polling locations have been filed. They document problems pulling the lever for Capraro on Row A. Machine malfunction is a factor in the outcome of this local race. It’s also been a statewide and national concern.

The U.S. Department of Justice is suing the State of New York (read it here) because New York has not complied with an order to replace its lever voting machines. According to the Justice Department filing, the machines need replacing because they are not handicapped accessible and they are not auditable.

Not auditable means there is no way of verifying if a vote attempted to be cast on the machine was actually recorded in the machine tally of all votes. If you were buying a used car and wanted to know how many miles it had been driven, you would want to check the odometer; but if the odometer were known to have been malfunctioning, you’d never know for sure what the actual mileages was— and reading it and re-reading it wouldn’t help.

New Yorkers for Verified Voting, a not-for-profit ballot reform organization with the “goal to ensure that all eligible citizens can vote, and that their votes will be accurately counted,” says lever machines are not reliable and their malfunction is widespread across New York State.

According to Voting Verification board member, William Edelstein, in his article, “New York State Law and Lever Voting Machines,” lever machines frequently malfunction because they are old, improperly maintained, and in need of spare parts that are hard to come by because manufacturers don’t make them. In the City of Geneva, voting machines sit idle in the city garage, along with vehicles and tools, between elections.

Edelstein explains, “With a lever voting machine, the voter flips levers and trusts that the counters corresponding candidates are properly incremented,” but, “there is no way to verify a vote once it is cast; the voter cannot look at the counters and see if the machine has correctly counter their vote. There is no way to audit votes or recount them later."

When it comes to the numbers on a lever voting machine, demanding a recount doesn’t mean very much. All anyone can do is open the machine and keep eyeballing the same numbers on the same counters. For lever machine votes, there is no trail of any kind, such as a hard copy, paper ballot or a receipt of the voting transaction.

Douglas W. Jones says the first lever voting machine was put in service in 1892, in Lockport, New York. The last lever machine was manufactured in 1982. In its day, the lever machine was regarded as an improvement over the paper ballot. There was nothing to “interpret”; the voter’s vote was directly recorded when pulling the lever advanced the counter for their chosen candidate. The booth assured privacy and the secrecy of the ballot.

"Unfortunately,” says Jones, “the mechanism of a lever voting machine maintains no independent record of each voter's ballot. Instead, the only record of a vote is the count maintained on the mechanical register behind each voting lever, where each register has a mechanism comparable to the odometer in a car. Not only is this vulnerable to tampering by the technicians who maintain the machine, but it means that the machine has an immense number of moving parts that are subject to wear and very difficult to completely test."

Testifying before the U.S. Senate on voting system reform, Dan S. Wallach, associate director of ACCURATE (A Center for Correct, Usable, Reliable, Auditable, and Transparent Elections) and Rice University professor summarizes a reform minded point of view on ballot reform (read the full transcript here):

It’s important to understand just how much we ask from our voting systems. We certainly want accuracy, both in the ability to correctly record the voter’s intent and in the final tally of the votes. We also want efficiency, in terms of the time it takes a voter to operate the system. We need accessibility, to enable voters from all walks of life. We need tamper-resistance, to defeat attempts to corrupt the election results, whether from within or without. Problems of one sort or another will always occur, so we need recoverability to mitigate against such problems. We need anonymity, so voters may freely express their opinions without fear of bribery or coercion. Most important, we need transparency, such that voters, observers, and the candidates themselves can convince themselves of the correctness of the election outcome.

Jones recommends logic and accuracy testing (L & A testing) before a machine is put in service for any election. In Geneva, the Board of Elections conducts an inspection of the machines, but not a test per se. Malfunctioning machines should be taken out of service and repaired. One person, one vote is the law of the land. We should be able to count on it!

Margin of Error May Be Larger Than Margin of Victory: Do You Know Your Voter Rights?

Four candidates ran for two at large seats on Geneva’s City Council, and the two top vote getters will be seated in January. Steve O’Malley received the most votes by a substantial margin. Either the incumbent, Chip Capraro, or the newcomer, Ron Alcock, will occupy the other seat, depending on which one receives the second highest tally. Capraro trails Alcock by five votes. There are nearly 150 absentee and affidavit ballots still to be counted. In addition, alleged malfunctions in the Row A- Democratic ballot line on two voting machines throw the outcome into question.

At the District 4-1 polling location, Geneva High School, voter #65 alerted election officials that the Row A (Democrat) levers for were not working properly. She was told that a vote for Capraro could be cast on Row E (Working Families), and a vote for Stu Einstein and Steve O’Malley cast on Row F (Good Government for Geneva) and that “the man” would be called to repair the machine. Hours later, voter #115 reported the same problem and the malfunctioning machine was eventually taken out of service. According to the election machine custodian, John Ruggieri, there was a similar complaint about the Row A lever at the District 3-2 polling location, North Street School. Ruggieri said he responded after voter #130 had cast her ballot.

Republican Election Commissioner Michael Northrup said that in response to a complaint he had a machine immediately taken out of service and emergency ballots issued. That is not what happened at either location. If Northrup was referring to the alleged complaint of voter #130 at North Street, we know that machine was never taken out of service. If it was voter #65 at the High School, we know voting continued on the machine for another 50 voters, and was taken out of service after a second complaint at that location. In both locations, no emergency ballots were offered. According to voter #115, some voters at Geneva High School were told to come back later.

Were numerous District 4-1 voters disenfranchised by the ineffective response of election officials? What was wrong with the machine at North Street School? How did this situation effect the votes people tried to cast on Row A?

This whole affair should not a concern of just the candidates. What about your rights as a voter in New York State? There is a Voters Bill of Rights (view it here) which states that, in case of a machine malfunction, you have the right to “vote by paper emergency ballot.” Poll workers receive training on these laws, but if you ever find yourself in the voting booth and the machine is not cooperating with your intentions, or if you get to the polling place and are told “the machine is down” make sure your vote counts by requesting a paper ballot! Then, call the Ontario County Board of Elections to alert them to the problem. If you, or someone you know, experienced any problems with the voting machines on Tuesday, please call the County Board of Elections at 585-396-4005. Stand up and be counted!

Augustine's Open Letter to the Times' Editorial Board

Dear Anne,

When I opened the newspaper and read the introduction to the endorsements, I was overjoyed. I believe (to echo the comments of Paul Kirsch) that the editorial board laid out rational criteria by which to choose candidates for endorsements. The quest for a collaborative group (as opposed to a ‘team’ marching in lockstep) is, in my opinion as well, the main objective.

But key to collaboration is, I believe, the presence of elected representatives who hold themselves to that same rational approach to city deliberations. In order to achieve that, people must have three fundamental traits: 1. A sense of fair play in sharing and receiving opinions; 2. An understanding of the gravity of the position with regard to stewardship of the public trust and the public purse; and 3. A commitment to open and honest governing (meaning integrity in the making and following of the public laws).

I suppose that I should be happy that you attributed those qualities to me, and to some extent I am. However, there are three glaring errors in your endorsements that not only make me concerned for the potential struggles of the next four years, but point to a more systemic barrier to moving Geneva forward in the best way possible. So I am writing not out of an immediate emotional reaction to certain persons, but out of a genuine and, I believe, well-founded concern about standards, integrity, and accountability in the long term. I hope you will consider my comments in that light and share them with the editorial board.

1. The non-endorsement of Chip Capraro. What you say about Chip is true until you state that “along the way Capraro’s demeanor has worked against him. It puts people on the defensive and inhibits collaboration.” What has put people on the defensive is Chip’s commitment to telling the truth. He is not contented to just ‘let it go’ when it comes to critical matters of city government. He also doesn’t give into the “why bother” attitude that has hobbled even the best councilors before him. When he joined council last year, things were very bad. The ‘back room’ was a place of bullying and dirty deals. Those are not baseless accusations, it is the truth! Until Councilor Nyrop was elected four years ago, I had been totally isolated in the back room. If you ask Jan what he regrets most about council he will tell you, as he told me, that it was compromising on issues that were wrong, but seemed small at the time. What seemed small then was the snowball of bad government that was rolling down Castle Street. This is, in my view, Chip’s greatest strength. He understands that tolerating the things that seem small in the short term is simply priming the pump for the long term exclusion of principles and, by extension, the people’s interests. Chip understands that good government doesn’t admit of degrees. It’s an all or nothing proposition. This doesn’t mean that in the practice of good government nothing can ever go wrong, it simply means that in the practice of good government, the intention to practice good government must be ever-present. When he points out its absence, people get defensive. But they get that way because they know they have done something wrong, not because he has done something wrong. If I look in the mirror and don’t like what I see, should I break the mirror? You rightly point out that Chip has been “the point man for ‘accountability’” but then dump him for doing exactly what being the point man for accountability requires. If it had been the case that an equally capable ‘point man’ was running and you simply chose one over the other, I could accept that. But you chose, instead, to endorse Ron Alcock, pointing to his experience with the OZAC. But therein lies the rub: Ron Alcock barely participated in that committee and, when he did attend the meetings, he was unprepared and hardly spoke. Those are not the actions of a point man for accountability. Not endorsing Chip is, in effect, trading good government for feel-good government, and I believe that is a serious disservice to all who are impacted by Council decision-making (not limited to city residents, but our regional partners as well).
2. The endorsement of Paul D’Amico. Returning to the three criteria discussed above, D’Amico does not play fair. He believes in belittling and marginalizing people as a way of deflecting attention from legitimate policy discussions. I have not been the only recipient of his bullying tactics. He also does not take the role of a city councilor seriously. During budget discussions he said that we should not be giving the city manager direction on the budget because “we are just part time volunteers” and we have to trust “the experts.” Setting and overseeing fiscal policy for the city is one of council’s most important duties. Another important duty is following the proper procedures and safeguards for the expenditures of public funds. One of D’Amico’s first acts on council was accepting the role of ‘swing voter’ in deciding to grant a raise to our city manager without first completing the evaluation process. Despite the urging of myself, Jan Nyrop, Alaine Espenscheid, and Chip Capraro to abstain from the vote or to oppose it because it contained several false statements, D’Amico went along stating that he has “known Rich for a long time” and “it would be hard” not to go along with the raise. Well, doing the right thing is often difficult, but that doesn’t relieve one’s obligation. Lastly (and related to the former points), D’Amico has not been committed to open government. I have received several nasty e-mails from him, but chose not to turn the election into a game of ‘gotcha.’ But I will share an excerpt of an exchange about the open meetings law that took place on June 6, 2007: I wrote “the sale & lease of city property is only proper in executive session where there's some issue that could substantially *negatively* effect the value of the property. Unless that's the case on Sweeney, I think item #2 should be brought up in public.” D’Amico responded, “I hope I never get to the point where I question the City Manager OR the City Attorney on what is appropriate conversation/topic for executive session. I wish to go on record that I trust the people I sit with and guarantee to you all that I will never go to an outside source to question the validity of our planned agenda/proceedings.” Not only was he saying that he would ‘go along to get along,’ he was openly criticizing me for bringing the NYS Open Meetings Law to bear on our proceedings. His treatment of City Council as a fraternity rather than a fact-based public body is an attitude that is toxic to government, regardless of the particular make up of council.
3. The endorsement of Lou Cosentino. You rightly pointed out Lou’s tendency to ‘shoot the messenger.’ And I agree with you that his attitude alone is not enough to deny him the endorsement. But the legitimate grounds for denying him the endorsement are that he does not want to do what’s best for the city and its residents. I would argue that councilors must lead by example. My husband and I are landlords, we take code enforcement seriously. We understand the role fair and firm code enforcement plays not only in safety for renting families but in stabilizing neighborhoods. My husband and I are also taxpayers, and we take our need to pay our fair share seriously. Lou Cosentino has held himself above the very policies he votes in favor of, and your paper has known it, has reported on it, and has apparently chosen to forget it.
   

That last point brings me to the overarching message I’d like to leave you with. The real collaboration that will improve Geneva, is better collaboration between the public servants on council and the press in serving the watchdog function of government. What we have right now is an over-reliance on government self-reporting as “news.” Using the city manager’s raise as an example, council narrowly passes a resolution stating that an evaluation has been completed and that after ‘due deliberation’ a contract modification was deemed necessary. Imagine that none of us in the minority had given public reasons for our dissent. How would the story have read? Would the Mayor have followed up with a patently false letter to the editor? Would Lou Cosentino still have submitted a letter of his own, confirming the contradiction? Unlikely. If Councilor Capraro and I didn’t start the blog and the radio appearances, would we have moved as much information out of the back room? Unlikely.

What is dysfunctional on council is not the communication style of particular councilors and therefore the remedy is not simply to find people who will ‘hear each other out.’ The problem is bad government and the only solution is good government! It’s not a question of style, it’s a question of substance and I believe the endorsements punted on that. The endorsements assume that everyone is telling the truth, but that is not the case! Chip and I have both been point people for accountability by demanding that the facts be aired publicly. Does that mean that people might be uncomfortable as we call them out for violating the public trust? Sure. But is that our fault? Not at all!


What Chip and I have done on council is not offensive and does not inhibit collaboration. It inhibits dirty politics! We are not content to participate in good government only “when asked,” we are doing it every day, with every statement. I happen to believe we do more than we should--not because what we do is not necessary, but because we are filling the void left by the absence of a watchdog press. We are left to do the governing and the reporting and analysis of the governing. That is too much, but the answer is not to purge us, it is to infuse city politics with accountability from a new source, namely your paper. Consider this quote from George Krimsky, former head of the AP news “There is still a need today -- perhaps more than ever -- for identifying sense amidst the nonsense, for sifting the important from the trivial, and, yes, for telling the truth. Those goals still constitute the best mandate for a free press in a democracy.”


So, to be consistent with your own guidelines, you should have endorsed both of us or neither of us. We both have the best intentions, and have committed to the necessary actions. We have been bold, and it has come at a cost. To negate Chip’s extensive contributions due to a perceived issue of style while endorsing me for those same commitments and endorsing people who actively look to suppress those concerns (and suffer real issues of style) is not rational and not in the best interest of Geneva. Therefore, I cannot in good conscience accept your endorsement.

I do hope that the editorial board will, regardless of the outcome of this election, take seriously the charge to improve the level of accountability that you bring to bear on city government. You, too, are stewards of the public trust.


Sincerely,
JAckie Augustine

Danny Boy, The Pipes Are Really Calling: Time to Stop City Subsidies for Town Water and Sewer Usage

Like our outrageously high City property taxes, our City water and sewer charges are way out of line with our regional counterparts. Why is that? And what could we do about it? There’s a long answer, that is really long. Here’s the short answer, that gets right to the point: Stop Geneva City subsidies for Geneva Town water and sewer use and make Geneva Town users pay their fair share of the total cost of the operation!

The City pipes water out to customers in water districts outside of the City limit. We also pipe in and treat sewage from non-residents. We charge them, but the rates they pay don’t cover our total costs, the infrastructure. Geneva City users pay for that. Geneva Town users just pay as they go for what they use. It’s like letting your kids borrow the car. They might pay for some gas, but you’re still stuck with all the repair bills.

When it comes to the specific issue of sewage, the City maintains a well-run wastewater treatment plan with high standards for purifying the ‘effluent’ that gets discharged back into Seneca Lake. More and more outlying areas desire to move from wells to sanitary sewers. More and more development in the town has meant more ties into the existing treatment system.

As a consequence, the City has been required to upgrade and expand our infrastructure. That’s what that “DEC Consent Order” is all about. New York State told the City of Geneva, “You MUST need upgrade your facilities to deal with all the demand on your system., and we don’t care what it costs, just get it done.” That’s what all those pipes lying around last summer were for. In short, the government ordered us to upgrade our facilities to handle town users Our rates for Town users should reflect our total costs. Right now, they don’t.

The reality of the situation couldn’t be clearer: Town users of City services are getting them at below-market rates. That’s because they are subsidized by City users. It’s time to do what every surrounding community in this situation does: Charge the town at least what city residents have to bear. Better yet, add a premium, like many communities do!

This is not to say that Town residents have refused to pay. We. the City have just failed to adequately bill. At the risk of some technicalities, here’s why:

1. Town users have two meter systems: one for water taken out of the system and one for sewage put back in. The town bill is calculated based on that actual usage. By contrast, city residents have one meter. It is assumed that whatever water is taken into the building equals the sewage put back out. But think about the way you use water, not every drop goes back down the drain. What about filling a pool, watering the lawn, running a boiler? We actually believe that having only one meter makes sense, because the cost of installing and monitoring separate meters for every property is simply not feasible. But, this is one example of the way town residents get discounted services.
2. The water and sewer rates are calculated based on expenses and debt services paid by city residents. Right now, non-city users pay a slight premium on both water and sewer rates. But while it covers the ongoing treatment costs for their usage, it is in no way proportional to the cost and debt service for the facility upgrades that are required to continue providing the quality service. This is a major failing of the previous sewer agreement that expired four years ago. And it needs to be remedied immediately!
3. About that sewer agreement, the city and town operated for 20 years under an agreement that locked town rates in at unacceptably low levels. Since the contract lapsed, four years ago, there has been a reluctance on the part of the Town to accept its role as a partner in providing this essential service. If it did so, it would enter into a contract that shared the real costs proportionally with city residents. However, the city administration has been all too content to have city residents continue to subsidize town users by not being more forceful in the negotiations.

There’s another plus if we pursue this action. If town users paid their fair share, we could offer additional relief for own low income senior citizens in the City by decreasing their water and sewer bills. It’s a good idea, and we support it. But in much the same way we felt about a property tax break for that same group, we think “A senior citizen discount for water and sewer would be nice, but lower rates for everyone in the City would be better."

0% ? How About Less Than 0% ? Five Steps to Lowering the Tax Rate, Increasing Services and Helping Seniors

For anyone paying attention, all the hoopla over the 0% increase in the tax rate for the proposed 2008 budget is really much ado about nothing. That’s because the City administration has already banked an increase of 7.5% in the average tax bill, thanks to an average property tax assessment increase of 7.5% across the City. Citizen budget watchdog, Peter Lisi, made that painfully clear in his powerful blast against high taxes and the proposed budget at last week’s budget hearing.

With a 7.5% increase already lined up, and a shower of new revenue from a variety of new revenue streams, we owe tax payers a reduction in their tax rate. Here’s how to do it, in 5 easy steps:

1. Begin "Tax stabilization" right now. There’s already $100,000 in the Tax Stabilization Fund. Instead of adding all $160,000 of the anticipated new revenue from the hotel tax to the tax stabilization fund, let's split the difference and put half ($80,000) in the fund and the remainder ($80,000) into this year's general fund for 2008. After all, money already earmarked for tax stabilization would be put to even better use for tax reduction. [Increased Revenue = +80,000 for 2008 bottom line]
   
2. Add a new entry level police officer instead of a “community aide.” That would put an additional real police officer on the force and still accomplish all of Council’s goals for public services. [Increase in spending = -$5,000 for 2008 bottom line]
3. Help low-income seniors pay their water bill with an “actual use” charge. Senior citizens on low fixed incomes could use some special consideration for their high water bills. No matter how little water they actually use, they all have to pay a “minimum use” charge. A better approach would be to ask them to pay for only the water they actually use-- an “actual usage” charge-- and let them forego the minimum. [This affects the water and sewer budgets, which are not directly tied to the tax rate. The program costs would be offset by increased rates for non-city users*].
4. Fund arts-based tourism with tourism dollars, rather than tax dollars. It was recently announced that the Geneva Arts Development Council and Finger Lakes Regional Arts Council are merging and re-structuring their boards. GADC works to promote arts-based tourism and the city has a $400,000 tourism reserve fund to draw on in funding these initiatives. So, why add this to the tax levy when you can draw from existing monies intended for that purpose?* [Decreased tax levy = +10,000 for 2008 bottom line]
5. Use in-house staff and shared services instead of high priced consultants for the Public Safety Engineering Study. With our new, in-house engineer on City staff working with Ontario County engineering staff, we could forego an outsourced consultant for the Public Safety Engineering Study and save tax dollars. [Decreased spending = +$20,000 for 2008 bottom line]

So, let's do the math: Action # 1 yields a net revenue increase of $80,000. Efforts 2, 4 and 5 yield a net spending decrease of $25,000. In total, that's a $105,000 net reduction for the 2008 general fund bottom line. That means $105,000 less property tax dollars needed than what the city manager has proposed.

The $105,000 net savings outlined here would mean a reduction of 1.75% on the tax rate, bringing it DOWN to just under $18.00/1000.

That's no small change!

*the two items indicated here represent modifications of an earlier proposal that did not clearly distinguish between the general, water, and sewer funds, nor did it indicate the difference between the tax levy and the tourism reserve fund.

Augustine Needs to "Man Up" About Community Aide Position

At the first work session to discuss City Manager Rich Rising’s budget proposal, held October 4th, the big talking point was Rising’s surprise addition of a new position, something called a “Community Aide,” for the police department. In his budget message, Rising states that the Community Aide “will assume many civilian responsibilities in the department. This will allow uniformed officers to spend more time on direct police matters [and] will also give the department the opportunity to increase the diversity of the staff.”

Let’s think about what Rising is actually saying. First, the diversity issue. He says the position will allow him to diversify the department. Interesting. Would he, otherwise, not diversify the department? Must we create a non-police position in order to diversify our police force? If so, would that still be diversifying the police force? We thought the point of diversifying the police force was to diversify the police force itself!

Rising and Police Chief Pane have told Council that diversifying the police force is difficult because women, people of color, and Spanish-speaking candidates are simply not taking the civil service exam. But this non-uniformed ‘officer’ would still be a civil service position. That position would still require a test. That position would still belong to the union. If the test has been barrier, how is this position an improvement when it requires a test?

Second, what’s this about “civilian responsibilities”? Augustine questioned Rising about the specific components of the new position. What would this person actually do? She asked what specific “civilian responsibilities” would be performed by this new person that aren’t being performed by now by the existing administrative (non-uniformed) staff. Rising responded that the job description has not yet been determined. Huh? How do we get to the point of adding a position without knowing what purpose the position will serve?

Chief Pane said that duties might include:
Fingerprinting
Logging Evidence
Monitoring Special Events
“Public Information Officer”
Assisting School Resource officers
Grant writing
Serving as a Court Officer
Checking in on Sex Offenders
Filing Paperwork related to Accreditation
Attending Neighborhood Watch Meetings.

Rising emphasized the last item, that this ‘officer’ would be a consistent link between Neighborhood Watch groups and the police department. Councilor Paul D’Amico, who chaired the Safety Task Force and seemed to have information about the position not given to other Councilors, said that this position was important to get the police and the community working together more closely. Augustine responded that the way to get the police and the community working together is to get the police and the community working together! Creating a new position as a ‘go-between’ doesn’t seem like the right answer.

There’s additional background to this discussion, going back to this past summer when City Council requested a memo from the police department with suggestions from the officers on the street for ways improve public safety. Another youth officer was one of the suggestions coming directly from the officers themselves. That shows up in the budget proposal. Filling of existing vacancies in a more timely manner was another suggestions made by officers. That’s being done. Nowhere in the police department’s own report does it suggest a ‘community aide.'

So, as Augustine made clear at the meeting, she’s “not sold on the idea.” She also asked why another police officer wasn’t being added. After all, the salary for the aide is close to the starting salary for a uniformed officer. As for benefits, Rising said that the aide would be a bargaining unit position, so benefits would have to be factored into the equation, and there’s still that civil service test to be passed.

Augustine said that she couldn’t support a position that doesn’t even have job description. Curiously, D’Amico said Augustine should come up with one herself. Let’s see. A position is proposed, without a job description. When that’s questioned, he says why don’t you come up with your own description? We call that going in circles. Augustine, who is constantly trying to bring more accountability to city government, could not bring herself to approve a new position without the necessary details, without the input of the department, and without a clear purpose. Do you blame her? Besides, for close to the same money, we could add another police officer and we know exactly what that means for public safety. That’s what Capraro and Augustine would agree to.

Rich Rising's Rising Riches Part II: Let's Be Responsible and Fair

The performance evaluation and compensation review of the City Manager by the City Council is critical to good government in Geneva. After all, the City Manager reports to the Council. He ought to receive periodic feedback from Council on how he is doing. He also ought to have the opportunity to dialogue with Council about his concerns and goals.

In Part I, we discussed the evaluation/salary setting procedure that has dragged on for months. In this part, we look at Rising’s actual salary. How do his salary increases figure into his total compensation package? What is their impact on the City’s bottom line?

The compensation information we present here, as the fact portion of our fact-based point of view, was provided to Council by the City Comptroller after receiving a direct request from Capraro for that information. It took quite a bit of effort and persistence for the records to be made available. We discussed his request in one of our first posts.

As with the compensation review of any highly paid professional, such information should be routinely provided to Council in the initial stages of the review of Rising. We dare say that prior to Capraro’s request, no one on Council was fully aware of the numbers. That’s odd. As a public official, Rising’s total compensation is even available to the general public, upon request. The Finger Lakes Times could have asked for it. Why is it such a secret?

Let’s take a look.

The 2006 City budget lists the City Manager’s salary as $85,722. But his actual compensation received for 2006 was 11% more than that-- a total of $96, 027, and that does not include a City owned car for all his personal and business travel. (The costs associated with the City Manager’s use of the car for business and personal travel have not been provided to us.) That’s BEFORE he got the retroactive raise we wrote about in Part I. For 2007, he will receive even more—a whopping 27% more than his posted 2006 salary, a total of $108,886!

Check out the details for 2006—the most recent set of complete financial records:

• Salary $85, 722
• Longevity 500.
• Education 1, 250.
• Sick incentive 500.
• Buy-Out: Vacation 3,297.
• Buy-Out: Health insurance 4,758.
  
• TOTAL PAY $96, 027 [Plus the use of the City Car]
  

That’s total compensation of $10,295 more (11%) than what appears as the salary in the budget or what the press ever reports.

Now let’s look at 2007. In February 2007, Council narrowly passed a retroactive 5% salary increase for Mr. Rising. He will therefore receive an additional $4286 this year, as ‘retroactive pay’. He will also receive approximately $714 for the beginning of 2007 and for the balance of 2007, he will be paid at the newly approved salary of $90,008.

If we assume all other compensation will remain steady at the 2006 rate, we project Mr. Rising will receive the following pay for 2007:

• 2007 Salary $90, 008.
• 2006 Retro. $4, 286.
• Longevity 500.
• Education 1,250.
• Sick incentive 500.
• Buy-Out: Vacation 3,297.
• Buy-Out: Health Insurance 4,758.
• TOTAL PAY $104,599. [Projected for 2007, not including his use of the City Car].
  

If another 5% raise were to be awarded (retroactive to 1/1/07), the City Manager would receive an additional $4500. That would bring his 2007 compensation to a grand total of approximately $110,000. The evaluation process is not yet complete. Council must deal with economic realities. Another 5% raise would not be responsible, and because it’s a much greater percentage increase than other city employees, it isn’t fair either.

Attack the Messengers, Then Steal Their Message? Critics Want Readers to Focus on Us, Rather Than on Our Efforts

Our radio appearances, like our blog, are efforts to bring real accountability to city government. No one is going to agree with us 100% of the time, sometimes we disagree with each other, but the point is to be public with those ideas and discussions. Ted Baker, the WGVA host, makes copies of our interviews available to us digitally, so that we can include the sessions in our Radio Archive. They are totally unedited and unscripted. In listening to these recordings, we’re struck by how many of the ideas we’ve brought forward on air, in our blog, or from our Council seats find their way into other agendas across the City.

Yes, the very people who take pleasure in denouncing us publicly, in personally attacking us, seem to like our ideas and want to attach themselves to them. The irony! First they attack the messengers, then they steal the message. The Republican platform about a new way of doing business in Geneva? More council control, less city manager interference? Sounds like ‘the blog way’. Council taking charge of local safety issues and getting people together to brainstorm solutions? Great idea! Public disclosure of executive session topics, applying for a grant for shared services, acknowledging that the tax rate is a disincentive for business and trying to get a handle on it? All sounds familiar, from our posts.

To be clear, we’re not interested in taking credit for the good things that have happened in the past few months. The very point of this blog is that no one person (or even two people) can do everything. This city needs collaborative, creative leadership to move along! We just find it funny that those who object to the blog most, want to take credit for the “offensive” ideas they find on it!

So, take a listen to our latest WGVA interviews (August and September) and see what else might be in store!

A Tax Decrease in 2008 Is Possible! Here's How:

At the August 14th City Council meeting, City Manager Rich Rising said a 0% tax increase “is doable.” That was in response to Augustine’s request for a stable tax rate (see the council meeting minutes). Earlier in the meeting, Rising had indicated there’d be a $215,000 savings in health insurance spending as a consequence of the restructuring of plans and premiums at Blue Cross/Blue Shield. (That will make 2008 the first year we’ve avoided double digit increases to premiums.) This brief exchange highlights the two principal considerations in any budget. What we take in, What we spend.

Before we get back to property taxes, let’s take a look at all of the new revenue the City will receive in 2008. Sales tax revenue is projected to dramatically increase. We’ll likely see an additional $200,000 in 2008. That’s on top of last year’s increase, so we’ll be taking in $360,000 more than in sales tax revenue in 2008 than we did in 2006. The hotel occupancy tax takes effect in 2008 as well. That is supposed to haul in another $160,000 in new revenue. Governor Spitzer has been very responsive to the economic woes of Upstate cities and has aggressively increased municipal aid. Geneva will likely receive $125,000 in additional state aid to cities. Do the math-- that’s already $385,000 in new revenue for 2008, compared to 2007.

Now let’s examine expenses. According to Rising, two areas of the budget will see a substantial increase: salaries and equipment. Last year, he recommended (and Council approved) a complete reassessment of the city’s equipment purchases. The city hired a consultant to analyze our current fleet of vehicles and to draft a purchasing schedule that meets our needs and spends money wisely. We’ll set aside $200,000 for new vehicles in 2008. Salary increases average 2.5%, adding about $250,000 to the budget. Overall, expenses should be up $450,000 in 2008.

Do some more math: $450,000 (new expenses) - $385,000 (new revenue) = $65,000 (budget shortfall). Normally, that means the tax levy would have to increase $65,000 over 2007. But there’s more. We have requested some additional expenditures in the 2008 budget: Filling of vacancies in the police department and adding another full time youth officer will likely increase the police department budget $65,000. Support for Neighborhood Watch groups and Little League will likely total $10,000. That’s another $75,000 in additional expenses for 2008.

It seems reasonable to assume the amount would be covered with a property tax increase, so that the total tax levy (total dollars taken in by the City from taxes) would have to increase by $140,000 ($65,000 + $75,000) from 2007 to 2008. That represents a 2.5% increase in the levy, similar to the current rate of inflation.

Now it’s time to talk about the tax rate. Council voted to earmark the new revenue from the hotel occupancy tax for the City’s ‘tax stabilization fund.’ That means that the $160,000 to be collected in 2008 won’t be used to offset increased expenses. So we have to subtract that from what we called ‘new revenues’ above. The amount to be raised from property taxes in 2008 would then be $140,000 + $160,000, or a total of $300,000.

But does that mean the rate has to increase to raise the total tax levy to cover the total additional $300,000 in spending (for equipment, salaries, additional police, and community services)?

No way! And here's why:

The formula for the tax rate is simple:

Tax levy (amount to be raised) / Tax base (taxable property values) = Tax rate

In 2007, the levy was just under $6 million, the tax base was about $324 million, so the tax rate was $18.26/$1000 of assessed value:
$6,000,000 (levy) / $324,000,000 (property values) = $18.26/$1,000 (tax rate)

We’ve already posted on the fact that, as a result of a 7.5% increase in assessed values of property, the tax levy would be increasing by 7.5%. That is the equivalent of a 7.5% tax rate increase already in the bank. So, if the 2008 levy is $6.2 million, and the tax base increases 7.5% to $345 million, the tax rate would be about $18.00/$1000 of assessed value.

Get this! The tax rate could decrease. That’s right. City services could increase, new employees could be hired, and the tax rate could still decrease. We knew it was possible. The key is new revenue. Now that we have it, it’s time to truly give the taxpayers a break. Let’s give them a decrease!

Rethinking City Living: Efforts to Reinvigorate Our Neighborhoods

The Rochester Business Journal just issued a special report on city living. Of course, the city they are speaking of is not Geneva, but there are parallel issues and opportunities that are worth considering.

The study shows that most of the people choosing to move in to the city are either young professionals or ‘empty nesters’ who like being within walking distance to downtown, who appreciate the architectural styles and historical landmarks within the city, and appreciate being part of a diverse community.

But a growing number of families are choosing urban living over suburban homesteads. The Journal reports that families like playgrounds, cultural offerings, restaurants, and close neighbors. One family profiled in the article said that they chose to live in the city “for philosophical reasons—to help keep it as a vibrant place to live. ‘Cities can only survive if people like us, families like us, stay in neighborhoods and take care of the homes...[and] there is diversity in the city that sometimes you don’t get in the suburbs.’”

We, as a small city with many of the same characteristics should pay close attention to this. We should encourage development of opportunities that appeal to the needs of residents, both existing Genevans and those who would potentially relocate here. This means a continued, or increased, investment in things that make our city a safe and friendly place to live.

City departments like code enforcement, police, and recreation make use of city resources in a way that make the community a desirable place for people to live and raise a family. For example, the personnel department is attempting to streamline the hiring process for police officers (without compromising any of the required steps) to respond to the request made in the Chief’s report to city council. Code efforts in high density neighborhoods are important not only to improve living conditions for Geneva’s renters, but to protect the property values of homeowners in those areas. City government also has a role to play in fostering positive neighborhood relations, in the form of encouraging neighborhood associations and assisting with community gatherings.

These increased efforts, coupled with the significant private investments proposed for downtown and the leveraging of State funds through the RESTORE NY program, will make Geneva a better place to live and raise a family.

Have We Made An Error?

Councilor Cosentino wrote in to us the other day to complain that he had been misquoted in our post on “Rich Rising’s Rising Riches.” First of all, Cosentino was never quoted. We opted, instead, to paraphrase what he had said, to give our readers the gist of his position on the Rising raise. Second of all, Cosentino never told us what he did say. If we had made an error, we would have gladly corrected it. Let’s take a closer look and see if our fact-based point of view is, in fact, fact based.

Here is what we wrote in the post:

"Cass continued to spread fiction in the City, with a letter to the editor indicating that the evaluation had been completed. Even the Finger Lakes Times, that usually bends over backwards to give Cass the benefit of the doubt, wrote an editorial about the problems with the vote. Councilor Cosentino confirmed it in his own letter to the editor. He stated that Rising’s evaluation hadn’t been completed, but that he didn’t care because everyone knows what a great job the Manager does. We think that’s debatable..."


Here is Cosentino's comment (which appears after the post):

"Have some integrity and try to make your point w/out lying!!!!"

Now here are the documents: Cosentino's comments about Rising's raise.


Please take a look. Cosentino, somebody, show us the lie.

Rich Rising's Rising Riches--Part 1: If Cass gets his way, the budget will include another increase for the city manager

At Council’s February 7th meeting, Mayor Cass rounded up the votes he needed to grant City Manager Rising a 5% salary increase, retroactive to January 2006. The resolution authorizing the raise wasn’t originally on the agenda, was presented after a lengthy executive session, late at night, and was false. You can read it here. Cass and his majority told the public that a performance evaluation had been completed and indicated that a 5% retroactive raise was warranted. That’s just false.

Councilors Capraro, Augustine, Espenscheid and Nyrop voted against the raise on the grounds that Rising’s performance evaluation had never been completed. Not only is a yearly performance evaluation the right thing to do for the public, and for Rising, but it is a contractual obligation (see our June 4th post on this issue).

But Cass continued to spread fiction in the City, with a letter to the editor indicating that the evaluation had been completed. Even the Finger Lakes Times, that usually bends over backwards to give Cass the benefit of the doubt, wrote an editorial about the problems with the vote. Councilor Cosentino confirmed it in his own letter to the editor. He stated that Rising’s evaluation hadn’t been completed, but that he didn’t care because everyone knows what a great job the Manager does. We think that’s debatable, but whether you like the job that’s being done or not, the evaluation matters.

Cass also allowed Councilor Paul D’Amico to vote for the raise, even though D’Amico had just joined council and therefore wasn’t able to comment on Rising’s 2005 job performance. We thought D’Amico should abstain, not only because he had no basis on which to vote, but because he could have avoided unnecessary political controversy. But D’Amico was all too eager to get on Rising’s good side, and cast the deciding vote for the raise.

Because that last raise covered Rising’s performance in 2005, Cass wanted to turn right around and ramp up for yet another raise covering Rising’s 2006 performance. At a special meeting of council held later in February, Cass pledged to follow a schedule for Rising’s next round of evaluation/raise. Council was supposed complete the evaluation in May at a special meeting devoted solely to discussion of the individual evaluations. Don’t take our word for it, read it for yourself here.

Well, it’s September and the evaluation has still not been completed. Individual evaluation forms have been completed (see the form we used), but we haven’t moved on to the second step. It was supposed to be discussed in June, then it was put off to July, then August. We aren’t on the bandwagon for another raise for Rising, but come on, Cass needs to get his Mayoral act together, for once, and get this done! Council has a meeting Wednesday, September 19^th. The day after the Mayoral primary. Perhaps then it will be ‘safe’ for the Mayor and his voting bloc to put forward their proposal for yet another raise?

Sorry, Scare Tactics Won't Work: Geneva is No Batavia

We were surprised when the presentation from Geneva’s outside auditor, Laura Landers, turned into a discussion of tax policy. The message that emerged from a series of Council questions is that we ought to continue with tax increases to avoid the fate of taxpayers in Batavia, New York. Landers is from Batavia, and she explained that those poor souls were hit with a double digit tax increase. It sounded like Batavia was an otherwise well run municipality, and if only their council hadn’t insisted on holding the tax rate steady, they could have avoided this year’s massive increase.

This seemed an interesting scenario, and it seemed to dazzle some councilors, but we wanted to run a fact check. We’ve looked into the Batavia budget (and you can, too, in the No Strings document library). There is a lesson to be learned from Batavia, and it is this: City Councilors need to be informed about budget issues and can’t be afraid to question the City Manager about critical budget components. Some councilors might want to use Batavia as a scare tactic to push through another tax increase, but the facts take the wind out of their sails.

Let’s back up. At City Council’s regular meeting, September 5, we received an executive summary of the City’s 2006 finances from the independent auditor (Freed, Maxick and Battaglia). It was business as usual. The 40+ page audit was on our desks waiting for us, an 8 page executive summary attached. We were expected to peruse this while Landers made her presentation and then we could ask questions. Not a lot of time to digest the complex material. We insisted that she return at a later date, when we’d had time to review the documents in full, but some councilors were prepared to pepper her with questions about our tax policy. They wanted her to say that we’d better keep raising taxes, and she warned us about Batavia.

Actually, her findings were fairly positive. We budget fairly conservatively, which meant we had a surplus of $183,00 for 2006. We took in more than projected and spent what we planned. That surplus went back into the fund balance, the city’s savings account, which Landers said is much healthier than almost any other city she deals with. There are a few areas in need of improvement, but it seems that last year’s hiring of an additional employee in the Comptroller’s office will take care of those things.

The audit discussion eventually turned from administrative oversight of the budget to policy-making when Councilors questioned the auditor about the tax rate. Councilors Cosentino and Schroeder asked her to comment on the negative impacts of tax cuts. Some people, they claim, want us to cut taxes, but isn’t that a recipe for disaster? Couldn’t we end up like—a hush falls over the room—Batavia?

She described Batavia’s situation as a desire to keep taxes low at all costs, resulting in the city draining its fund balance, running a deficit last year and facing a double digit tax increase this year. Right on cue, Cosentino followed up with another question; “Was fair to say,’ he asked, “that ‘everything goes up’?” Translation: spending more and taxing more are just a fact of life and shouldn’t we just get used to it and vote an increase? She agreed that unless something is done differently, you can’t pay for rising costs without raising taxes.

No kidding! So you can increase taxes or you can do things differently, like increase revenue from sources other than property taxes!

Long ago we joined with former Councilor Nyrop in arguing that City of Geneva taxes are too high (see our posts on this issue from March and April) and they are having a negative impact on economic development in Geneva. The cost of business in New York State is bad enough. We shouldn’t make it worse by continuing with a tax rate that is at least 3 times higher than our Ontario County counterparts. Our assessment has increased, but it doesn’t represent a lot of new taxable properties, just higher values on existing properties. So residents will feel the pinch of a higher assessment if the tax rate stays the same, and will get a double whammy if the rate increases.

But some councilors want us to believe that taxes must go up because they see only three options:

1. Raise taxes.
2. Reduce taxes by cutting services.
3. Reduce taxes by following Batavia’s lead into deficit-spending.

We say the correct answer is “D. None of the Above.” And we’ll even use the case of Batavia to show you why:

Here’s what really happened in Batavia. Just look at their 2007-2008 budget message announcing the double digit tax increase. Their tax rate will rise to $9.54 per $1000 assessed value. That’s just about half of Geneva’s rate! We are currently at $18.26 per $1000). Batavia’s new city manager reviewed Batavia’s mistakes of the past years and gave four reasons for the mess they are in:

1. Overestimating revenues for several years.
2. A city guarantee of school and county taxes (the City pays the taxes upfront for the entire assessment roll and then bills and collects residents. The city then absorbs the cost for people who do not pay).
3. Increases in operating expenses, specifically employee benefit premiums (retirement and health care) as well as utility bills and debt service payments.
4. A potential retroactive raise for staff that was not budgeted for.

No where does he mention that the taxes are too low!!
A NYS Comptroller’s review of Batavia’s budget drew attention to another fact: their ambulance service is a cause of their budget trouble because it operates at a deficit.

Clearly, Geneva and Batavia are two very different communities. Our revenue estimates are always conservative, as reported in our most recent audit. In 2006, our actual revenues exceeded the budget projections by nearly $1 million. Although we provide billing services for the county, we do not guarantee the funds in the way Batavia does. We have seen cost increases in all of the areas Batavia has, but those are aggressively budgeted for, to ensure we meet all costs. And we don’t make a habit of retroactive raises. The city manager’s most recent raise is the exception, not the rule.

Add to that our recent increases in State Aid, sales tax, the savings from the library tax, and the new hotel occupancy tax. We are diversifying and increasing revenues at a rapid rate, something Batavia couldn’t do. So we aren’t fooled by Council’s desire to scare us into a tax increase with images of Batavia. And we hope you won’t be either.