Does Geneva Have the Highest Taxes in the Country?

On March 4th, the Democrat and Chronicle ran an article proclaiming “Rochester Area Property Taxes Among Highest in Nation.” The measure of the “tax rate” used in their study was the total tax bill for a property owner, adding together all county, city/town, and school taxes. The median rate in New York State as $30.69 per $1,000 of assessed value. That means that a $100,000 home would have a tax bill of $3,069. The median rate in Monroe County is $34.49. East Rochester was the highest at $47.94.

What about us? How did the City of Geneva score in the study?
Hold onto your hat: City of Geneva tax payers shell out a staggering $47.19 per $1,000. That figure is doubly of concern because Geneva is in Ontario County where, on the whole, taxes are lower than in Monroe County. Geneva's the exception to the rule! The median for Ontario County is only $29.57 versus the $47.94 rate for the City of Geneva. Yikes!

A quick look at the County’s property tax schedule pinpoints the problem in the City of Geneva. The Ontario county tax paid by property holders in the City of Geneva has held pretty steady around $6.37. Our City school tax is lower than surrounding school districts (Red Jacket, Midlakes, Bloomfield). It’s our City tax rate that is way out of line. Here's the 2007 tax levy:

• City of Geneva tax rate $ 18.22
• City of Canandaigua tax rate $ 5.97
• Town of Geneva $ 0.00

Many towns and villages have rates that fall between Canandaigua and the Town of Geneva, but our city tax rate is 3 times the rate of the next highest municipality in all of Ontario county!

Another D and C article (5/28/06) examined the ratio of property tax to home value. In the town of Brighton, where average home prices are around $200,000, total property taxes represent 4% of that value (just over $8,000 per year). In the City of Geneva, our median property value is about $80,000. So, taxes on an $80,000 home would be $3775. That is almost 5% of the home value, which represents about 25% more tax than Brighton.

Why does all this matter? Of course, in the short run, when we have to pay the bill it hurts our household budget to have to keep shelling out. In the long run, it hurts in other ways. Experts say that property values are depressed when taxes are too high which means that the equity people have in their homes doesn’t grow as fast. The dollars we put into the American Dream of home ownership shrink when property values don’t increase at the going rate. Seniors get priced out of their homes. Younger families move to a lower-tax jurisdiction (which, in many neighborhoods on the city’s borders means that they move right across the street into the town), new businesses build in the town to avoid city taxes, new development in the City is either non-existent or dependent upon tax breaks that perpetuate the cycle.

Thanks to some tough budget work sessions last year City Council got the message and took it seriously. The City Manager was directed to prepare a budget that held the line on the tax rate. Sorry to say, the City Manager in his final proposal put aside Council’s directive and came in with a tax increase. A slim majority of Council voted for an increase and failed to keep its promise to the people and to abide by prudent public policy.

This year the budget discussions have been even more disheartening. There has been council turnover in two seats. The new majority is unwilling to commit to no-increase budget. What’s worse, when Councilors Augustine and Capraro cited empirical evidence of the negative effects of high property taxes, they were told that the majority simply “don’t believe it.” Those disbelieving Councilors were unable to cite any evidence to the contrary. It should be of grave concern to every Genevan that an issue of vital importance to the long-term health of our community is treated so cavalierly.

For more details on regional tax issues, click on the link to the No Strings Document Library.

Shouldn't Council Have Access to Public Documents?

In the wake of the City Manager’s 2005 salary increase (granted by a 5-4 vote on February 2, 2007), we were asked to embark on a process to consider a salary increase for 2006.
This decision (whether or not to grant another raise so quickly) is not just a matter of the City Manager’s performance, we must also consider what the city can afford, what other ‘perks’ or incentives are being offered, etc.
Capraro e-mailed the City Comptroller, asking for a spreadsheet of the City Manager’s total compensation. This is public information, available to anyone who wants to fill out a Freedom of Information Act request. You would think that City Councilors would have ready access to that information. But instead of the information, Capraro received a reprimand from the City Attorney that read:

Your most recent request to Tara Clark pertaining to Rich’s salary and benefits has been referred to me for response. While we have in the past attempted to be liberal in this regard I am concerned that your direction to employees of the City without notice to the City Manager or approval by the City Council as a whole is in violation of Section 3.12 of the City Charter. As a consequence, I have advised her not to provide salary and benefit information pending request by the City Council during it’s normal process of evaluation of the City Manager. As you can imagine, individual Council members making requests of City staff without coordination through the City Manager is disruptive to the proper administration of the City and as a consequence will no longer be permitted. [Clark Cannon (2/15/07)]

This didn’t sound right. Was it being ‘liberal’ to provide public information to a public official? Was asking the Comptroller for a spreadsheet really ‘disruptive to the proper administration of the City’? And was it really up to the City Manager to control access to public documents? Capraro contacted the NYS Committee on Open Government for an answer.

He spoke with Camille Jobin-Davis, an attorney and assistant director of the Center. Jobin-Davis said Cannon’s opinion was “silly,” and proceeded to further discredit Cannon’s opinion as she discussed the body of opinion in support of Capraro’s request. She also sent relevant published opinions on the matter, including

From my perspective, with certain minor exceptions, the records containing the information sought must be disclosed. In general, records reflective of payments made to present or former public employees are, in my view, clearly available. Similarly, time and attendance records are accessible. In this regard, I offer the following comments.
As a general matter, the Freedom of Information Law is based upon a presumption of access. Stated differently, all records of an agency are available, except to the extent that records or portions thereof fall within one or more grounds for denial appearing in §87(2)(a) through (i) of the Law. [Robert Freeman, NYS Open Government, 1996]

So Capraro e-mailed the City Attorney to let him know what he had found out. His e-mail concluded,

Frankly, they found your assertion that my request for records was somehow giving "direction" to a worker, and would not be allowed by the Charter, to be over the top. The section of the Charter you cite, 3.12, prohibits Councilors from "interfering in administration." It concerns me that you would regard my request for information as somehow interfering in administration. For those interested in open government and in reviewing some of the body of opinion coming into play here, please check out these pages [for a copy of the links, view the Open Meetings/Public Documents section of the Resources Page] Bottom line, the law says I am entitled to those records. [Chip Capraro, 2/15/07]

The City Attorney continued to insist that Capraro was out of line in requesting the salary information. He responded to Capraro’s e-mail with the following (note the opening sarcasm):

Thank you for seeking additional opinion concerning your request of staff members to provide information without notice to the City Manager. While I was not privy to your conversation with the Office of the Committee on Open Government, I cannot believe that they completely disregarded the clear language of our City Charter, which states in part “neither the City Council or any member thereof shall give orders to any subordinate of the City Manager”. Your e-mail to Tara and Val directed them to provide you information without consultation with the City Manager as required by Section 3.12 of the City Charter. It seems to me that the intent of this section was to prevent just this type of interaction with staff by individual Council members. It was never my, nor Rich’s intent to deny the requested information to you or Council but only to follow the process which is clearly set out in Section 3.12. Your subsequent e-mail to Rich was appropriate and will be acted upon, although I continue to believe that it would be more efficient for the entire Council to request this information during their evaluation process for 2006.[Clark Cannon, 2/16/07]

The City Attorney was saying that there could be no interaction between a City Councilor and any city employee. Instead, Councilors must submit all requests for information to the City Manager, even if the information requested is in reference to the City Manager’s performance evaluation. Capraro’s response, which included the following:

Requesting a record is simply not an "order" or an "exercise of administrative duties." Requesting a record is also not "interfering in administration." That section of the Charter was clearly intended to guard against Councilors ordering snow plows out, or light bulbs changed, and the like. No where in that section does it refer to the City Manager as having anything to do with requests for records…The few times I have asked for any records, they have all been FOIL-able. Why you and Rich and some colleagues on Council want to restrict access to such records is beyond me. Your opinion has the potential to completely eliminate checks and balances from City government by leaving legislative requests for access to public records in the control of the executive.
On the Open Government Committee, I urge you to call or write them, giving them the full text of the opinion you stated in your e-mail to me, and the full text of the section of the Charter you cite, and listen to what they have to say. I urge you also to review the written opinions they provided and identify which parts of the opinion you disagree with. The body of legal opinion is overwhelmingly in favor of access to records, whether it be upon the request of elected officials or of the general public. [Chip Capraro (2/16/07)]


went unanswered. So, we ask again: Shouldn’t Council Have Access to Public Documents?

Let the Sun Shine In...

Did you see the Times' editorial tonight? This week is "Sunshine Week," intended to remind people about the Open Meeting Laws and the Freedom of Information Act.

And it seems very timely that this is the week we decided to start a blog. Our intention is to make our deliberations on issues public, to rail against all the decisions being made privately and exclusively, and to remind people that they do matter even when it seems that most people are being shut out by 'the majority'.

The OML and FOIA are all about empowering people to be part of the governing process. Elected officials don't sit up on high and dictate to people. Our thoughts on public issues can't be private, our information isn't priveleged. We are supposed to be doing the research, having the debates, and making the decisions that are in the best interest of the public. That requires a give and take.

People who hold public office should show humility, not hubris; this means honoring the public's right to know and our responsibilty to involve the public (not just the public that tends to agree with us) in the process every step of the way.

So, while we didn't intend to unveil this blog during "Sunshine Week", it seems wholly consistent with the spirit of the week.

New York State has a Committee on Open Government. Its executive director, Bob Freeman is a great guy. Here's a link to their website, which can also be found on the Open Meetings/Freedom of Information section of our Resources page. It is a wealth of information on how things should be done.
http://www.dos.state.ny.us/coog/Right_to_know.html