Memo on Tax Exempts Now Available

Our post “Tax Exempt vs. Tax Exemptions” mentioned a memo that the City Manager prepared for Councilor Greco, discussing the assessed value of certain tax exempt properties. We promised to obtain a copy of that memo, and we have. It is in the No Strings Document Library, you can view it here.

You might be surprised by the results. Here are the four properties the memo. discusses along with their percentage of the City’s total property assessment:

Hobart and William Smith Colleges 9.3%
Finger Lakes Health 6.1%
NYS Experiment Station/Cornell University 5.5%
Geneva Housing Authority 1.5%

Total percent of City assessment: 22.4%

Perhaps you remember, from that previous post, that almost 60% of the City’s property is off the tax rolls. But these organizations represent less than half of the untaxed assessments in the City. To put it in perspective, the Chamber of Commerce and City Economic Development Department list three of those organizations as Geneva’s top employers. Here’s their list of full time employees*:

Finger Lakes Health (the top employer) 1007
Hobart and William Smith Colleges 528
NYS Experiment Station 300
*the Geneva Housing Authority does not appear on the list

These three organizations also fall into the category of properties that are tax exempt by law, meaning that the City has no choice, no power to compel payments of any kind from them. Churches and schools also fall into this category and represent another 10% of the city’s tax exempt property. But, as our post detailed, the rest of the City’s tax exempt properties got that way by approval of the City. We clearly need more discussion about that half of the equation!


[Councilor Capraro is one of Hobart and William Smith Colleges’ full time employees. He does not vote on matters directly pertaining to the Colleges.]

The Mayor Reminds Us Why This Website Is Necessary

It’s good to see Mayor Cass is paying close attention to our blog. We hope some of our other colleagues in government are also finding our ideas interesting, and our information and documentation useful. We feel we are making a positive contribution to the civic life of Geneva by introducing a sustained, fact-based point of view into our local public dialogue.

Of course it wouldn’t be necessary for two councilors to break off and start a blog if the current administration wasn’t reluctant of leading an open and honest public discussion about the many pressing issues we face in Geneva. The primary responsibility of elected officials is to gather and share information about important issues so that constituents can express informed opinions, elected officials can make informed decisions, and everyone knows where their representative stands. Call it accountability, call it transparency, call it truth-telling. Whatever you call it, it’s what good government is all about.

Perhaps we should be happy that the Mayor submitted a comment in response to our post about the lakefront visioning, but it’s hard to be happy when the comment just reinforces our fears about the way things are being done in Geneva. The Mayor had the perfect opportunity to defend his committee selections by providing some rationale for them. He could have explained the criteria he used in selecting members and what the anticipated contribution of the group would be. But he didn’t.

Instead, he chastised us for having this blog, telling us “to get the facts straight” and not to say anything that’s “not based on facts.” But he doesn’t identify any factual errors.

He says that some of the very people we mentioned as having been passed over for appointments to his new lakefront committee are, in fact, people whose opinions he values. But when he had the opportunity to appoint those very people to the committee, he didn't. That is a fact.

He goes on to say that people with different opinions should come forward to public meetings where they’ll be heard. That's nice, but he had a chance to involve them in the process from the start and he didn't. That is a fact.

Just because something is uncomfortable to see in print doesn’t make it untrue.

But this is, unfortunately, indicative of the political climate that has taken over our City in recent years. If you question the status quo, you’re considered a troublemaker. If you aren’t willing to ‘go along just to get along’ then they say you’re not a ‘team player.’

We want to break that cycle, and this blog is our way of bringing some rationality, professionalism, and accountability back to city government. There are plenty of websites for unsubstantiated opinions, promises lacking in credibility, and rants. Ours isn’t one of them. We know that our readers won’t always agree with our opinions, but whether you agree or not, it is our responsibility to explain how we reached that opinion, what factual basis there is for it, and what factors, if any, might change our minds. That’s the level of candor that elected officials should be required to maintain at all times.

In his comment, the Mayor calls our readers “the uninformed,” but we’re not sure where that comes from. We know the people of Geneva want to know what's going on. Many seek out information about important issues, but it’s tough when it’s a closed shop. So if he’s saying that Geneva's residents have been left in the dark by the majority on Council, then he found something we can agree on.

Latest Radio Interview Available Online

The document library has been updated to include Councilor Capraro and Augustine's latest appearance on Ted Baker's morning show on WGVA (1240AM). You can find it on the radio page.

Can We Expect Different Results From The Same Old Efforts?

Lakefront development is a hot topic. Should we leave the lakefront the way it is right now? Should we build on every available square foot? Is there any option other than those two? Many people have come forward with ideas for the lakefront, including a public trust, a marina, office space, other recreation options, and condominiums.

In the past, some elected officials even tried to dodge lakefront planning issues altogether by suggesting that we just hold a referendum--an open-ended "develop or not?" ballot initiative. The problem, of course, is that is that State Law prohibits cities from doing this. You cannot spend public money to force the general public to decide issues that elected officials (paid with public money) are supposed to be working on. See NYS Comptroller commentary about that, here. Councilors can't be let off the hook from gathering information, promoting discussion, and ultimately being accountable for big decisions. Additionally, it's that kind of 'all or nothing' posing of the question that keeps our lakefront planning at a standstill.

The City just received a grant from the State’s Quality Communities program to engage in this very kind of “community visioning project” for the lakefront. In theory, the project will bring together people from all walks of life, with varied opinions on the best use of the lakefront, with different perspectives on Geneva and the downtown-lakefront connection. The group would work together, with Council and an independent facilitator to define a comprehensive lakefront strategy. The end result would be a plan of action (real action, not just ‘maybe-someday-unless-a-new-plan-comes-along’). And there are several non-profit organizations in the region that specialize in identifying stakeholders, bringing them together, and reaching consensus so projects can get moving. The Genesee Valley Regional Planning Council is located in Rochester, the Community and Rural Development Institute (CaRDI) is affiliated with Cornell, and the former director of the Common Good Planning Center now runs Rochester-based Green Village.

What a disappointment then, to open the newspaper and see that a committee has already been appointed, by the Mayor, to oversee the implementation of the grant and the committee is pretty lopsided in its thinking. The newspaper was quick to point out the affiliations of some of the members (the Mayor’s brother, for instance) but didn’t point out that only one of the many people who have spoken publicly about lakefront issues in recent months was invited to join.

Mike Rusinko, President of the Finger Lakes Tourism Alliance has been promoting the findings of their recent study that speaks to the kinds of amenities that tourists seek in our area. (See the RNews coverage or the WHAM coverage ). Tourism is one of Geneva’s largest economic engines, shouldn’t that perspective be a factor?

Charlie Evangelista, one of Geneva’s representatives to the County Board of Supervisors, had presented an in-depth review of lakefront planning possibilities to Council and to the Lakefront Committee. He also offered the shared services of the Ontario County planning department. Neither Evangelista nor any County planners were put on the committee. Another city resident had contacted a landscape architecture firm that specializes in waterfront planning and shared some of their ideas, but he didn’t make the cut either. It should also be pointed out that while the lakefront is a City issue, it is certainly a regional point of interest. It’s one of the issues that could bridge the divide between the City and Town, if they were also invited to the table.

The Finger Lakes Times didn’t ask the Mayor follow up questions to probe the reasoning behind any of his appointees. At the April 4th council meeting, Councilor Augustine was told that the group will merely select a consultant for the project and help to coordinate public input sessions that will allow other voices to be heard. But will opinions at a public hearing be given as much weight as the opinions of the ‘steering committee’ members?

Geneva’s lakefront is an asset and a resource and the more voices in the planning process, the more likely it is that the plan will have the support necessary to be implemented. Sure, involving the public in decision-making can be messy, and you might find that the group goes in an unexpected direction, but if it’s quick and predictable that you want, you’re better off with a dictator than a democracy.

Reorienting City Council

It’s always nice to get feedback from people who couldn’t attend a Council meeting but caught it on FLTV. As you might imagine, we receive a lot of comments about our particular opinions. But whether people agree or disagree with a position on an issue, one thing comes across loud and clear: Genevans want the City Councilors to be professional, respectful, honest with one another and with the public. The issues that Geneva faces are not simple. Economic development, land use, deficits, just to name a few; the list is extensive and so is the required debate.

But for productive discussion to take place, there must be a commitment to professionalism on all sides of a given issue. At the last meeting, Councilor Capraro called for more professionalism in the conduct of executive session. (You can listen to an audio clip of his request here). He called attention to three issues:

• Legality—According to the Open Meetings Law, a motion to move into executive session must specify the particular issues to be discussed. Usually, a generic heading is used, such as ‘sale and lease of city property’ but the law requires that we identify *which* piece of property is being discussed. So, at the last meeting, the motion for executive session should have indicated “matters pertaining to Maryland Street (a paper street behind Virginia and Kirkwood) and the Cookery block.
• Accountability—This works in tandem with the issue of legality. If neither the Council nor the public are aware of issues to be discussed in executive session, there is no assurance that executive session will be *limited* to those legitimate topics. If executive session is ‘open-ended’ then topics might be discussed, if only briefly, that are not executive session material. And because there is no requirement that minutes be taken in executive session (unless there is a vote taken) the Council is, in theory, not accountable to the public for any discussion undertaken behind closed doors.
• Tone—Without an agenda or minutes, Executive Session can take on an air of Las Vegas, as in “what happens in the back room stays in the back room.” And the tension exhibited during the open portion of the meeting certainly carries over into the closed session. In fact, out of the public eye, any incentive to show restraint is lost. Having an agenda and sticking to it would ensure that Executive Sessions were not our local version of the “Fight Club.”

In response to Councilor Capraro’s comments, the City Manager has agreed to provide an executive session agenda prior to each meeting. This is a big step in the right direction. Transparent and professional conduct isn’t hard to achieve and it’s essential to good decision-making. We must remember that each councilperson is a representative, and if we are disrespectful to one another we are disrespectful to the people being represented.

1,000 Hits!

The No Strings Attached blog was launched March 25, 2007. It was initially an effort to expand upon our e-mail exchanges and other interactions with colleagues on Council. We hoped to encompass a broader, more inclusive audience of readers interested in what’s going on in local government, but even we were shocked when No Strings got its 1000th hit yesterday (April 17th). About 2/3 are repeat visitors and word is spreading out about the blog, because 1/3 of the daily traffic (now 100 hits per day) are new visitors!

We embarked on this time-consuming, criticism-generating (yet still rewarding) endeavor for three reasons:

• To serve as a source of reliable information on local issues.
• To model constructive debate on those issues.
• To provide a source of interactive discussion between concerned citizens.
  

We’re new to this technology so we appreciate you bearing with us as we learn and grow. There are many more posts in the works and we welcome your feedback, ideas, questions, etc.

An updated editorial policy is currently in the works to better define the site’s purpose, direction, and interactive features. Thanks for reading!

A Case Study in What We Call "The Back Room" and why it's not always a good thing

In the Fall of 2006, the Geneva Hispanic Church of God submitted a purchase offer for a few parcels of city-owned land (totaling 150’ x 120’). The church, located on Kirkwood Ave in the City of Geneva, consists of about 25 young families, most of whom are Puerto Rican Americans. The land they are interested in is immediately behind their church and is not accessible by any existing, paved city street. (Click here for an enlarged map of the parcels in question.)

City Council discussed their purchase offer in executive session, otherwise known as “the back room,” and rejected it. They told the church the City wanted to hold the property for future economic development.

In March 2007, a City Councilor brought forward another purchase offer for the same parcels. Council filed into the backroom again to consider the offer. The new offer was from an unnamed buyer, for an unspecified amount, for no particular use— at least none of that information was given to all Councilors. This time, though, Council said they were ready to sell the land, the process for “sale of city property” was activated, and a public hearing has been scheduled for May 2nd.

Mark Venuti, attorney for the church, has come forward with concerns about the way his clients have been treated by the City. In an open letter to City Councilors, officials, and Kirkwood Ave residents, he tells the story of the church since its founding and raises serious doubts about the way the City has handled this matter.
(Click here to read the letter in its entirety, posted with Venuti’s permission.)

To Venuti, it looks like the church may be getting the run around from the City, and that they may be victims of discrimination on the basis of their race and ethnicity. To Capraro and Augustine, it looks like the City may be using backroom sessions to pull off another deal out of the public eye.

Venuti and Council have been told there was a petition circulated three months ago that shows unanimous opposition to selling the property to the church. Venuti, Capraro, and Augustine have all requested a copy, but no one seems able to produce it. A few neighbors contacted say the only petition they recall being circulated on Kirkwood involved a convicted sex offender taking up residence in the area.

A few months ago it was said that the land was not for sale at all, that it was being saved for unspecified future development. Now it’s up for sale again with no mention of an economic development project (click here to see the ad). What is going on?

Beckley to Put Down Pen and Take Up Sword?

It’s an open secret that Phil Beckley will be running this year for mayor on the Republican ticket. We congratulate Phil, a nice guy, on what we assume will be his departure from journalism and his entrance into politics. For the first time ever, he’ll have the opportunity have his ideas tested by the electorate at the ballot box. But he’ll have to give up control of the Finger Lakes Times’ perspective on reporting local news. Of course, Phil has left a long paper trail of opinion. At least there’ll be no mystery where he stands on the issues. His life is an open newspaper.

We wonder, though, how the Finger Lakes Times will handle these ‘rumors’ about his candidacy. Beckley has multiple associations with the paper: former publisher, long time editor and reporter, current editorial board member, and weekly columnist. He shouldn’t, in the interest of fairness to all candidates, be allowed to continue his column, unless the Times wants to extend an equal opportunity to the others. How will they handle endorsements? As an editorial board member, he is responsible for many of the opinions they have issued, so to not endorse him would be to repudiate that which has been the very soul of the Times. But to endorse him would be to risk accusations of bias. We are interested to see how and when the Times will deal with his candidacy because they must know that he’s running.

Putting the 305 Main Street Decision on a Solid Foundation

The gas station at 305 Main Street: should it stay or should it go? There’s been a lot of talk, and a lot of emotion concerning the issue. Some say the building is a worthless eyesore that should be torn down, while others believe it’s an architectural and historical treasure that is well worth saving. When City Council last took up the issue, it was really the bottom line—the cost of keeping it— that was the deciding factor.

Regardless of your gut reaction to “305,” one thing is for sure: there is not enough reliable, objective information on which to base make an informed, rational decision. Luckily, the City and the entire Geneva community can now get that information-- at no cost to the taxpayer, and in time to do the right thing, whatever that turns out to be.

The Preservation League of NYS recently named the building to it’s “Seven to Save” list. Their statewide panel of experts judged 305 to be historically and architecturally significant/unique. And they put their money where their mouth is. The League has funds available for a ‘soup to nuts’ assessment of the building performed by a professional with loads of experience. We’d get reliable cost estimates for a variety of options for the building, options that would keep the building standing for someone to fix up and use (including a non-exempt owner). But we can't access the money if we don't apply for it. And the May 1st deadline is rapidly approaching.

Last week, the City Manager, the Mayor, and three councilors followed up with representatives from the Preservation League. Our council has 9 members, so to avoid a quorum, no more than 4 could attend the meeting. Many councilors, especially our new members, were interested in receiving more information from the League about opportunities to fund studies of the building. Because Councilors Augustine and Capraro attended the morning long press conference and information session when the “Save” designation was announced, and because they were involved through 2006 in discussions of the project, they gave up their spots to allow as many people as possible to have access to the same information. For a glimpse at the very impressive press packet, containing information about the building's history and reuse potential, click here.

While there has been no further discussion among Councilors thus far, it was reported that the Executive Director of the Business Improvement District was on hand and private interest in the site was an anticipated topic of discussion. Councilor Augustine has direct knowledge of four such offers. There have been at least two additional inquiries made in the wake of the "Seven to Save" announcement.

The City Manager has asked the Mayor to produce a summary of that meeting. Much of that summary ought to focus on the City’s plans to proceed in getting reliable cost estimates for various options. The resolution to demolish the building was brought up at the end of a long meeting, just ‘to put the issue to rest.’ Due diligence on the true cost of saving the building vs. demolishing it was not done.

Whether you see the potential (and tax revenue) in that building, or you wish the wrecking ball had been called in yesterday, there is one thing we can all agree on: Matters of economic development are rarely cut and dry; they often take time to negotiate; and decisions made out of fear or frustration are never sound.

Only a comprehensive assessment of the site’s current condition and potential redevelopment, produced by someone with expertise in that line of work, will give us a clear option regarding reuse or demolition. We can no longer use the excuses of no time, no money to study the issue.

'Tax Exempts' vs. Tax Exemptions

At last night’s City Council meeting, Councilor Greco read a statement prepared by the City Manager regarding tax exempt property in the City. The statement named some of the properties that are exempt from property tax under NYS Real Property Law (churches, schools, hospitals, etc.). This is called the “mandatory class” and, as the name suggests, no city has the ability to prevent nor to override that exemption. If the City Manager wanted to draw attention to certain tax exempt properties over others, that is his prerogative, but Councilor Greco might go back and ask for a more complete picture of the situation we face.

It’s true that Geneva’s untaxed property represents about 60% of our total assessed value, but it is not true that our major employers (the Hospital, the Colleges, the schools) and our civic and/or charitable organizations represent that entire amount. The fact is that almost half of the city’s tax exempt properties were granted exemptions by the city under various “permissive” provisions of the tax code. That means that a company, organization, or group petitions the City to consider giving it a break on its assessment or a total exemption and the City Council must approve it. A recent example is the Lyceum Street housing project. Many people assumed that this project, on the former Shuron Optical site, was a mandatory exemption because it is managed by the Geneva Housing Authority. But in reality, it is a project of a subsidiary (you can see the organizational structure here) and was granted a tax exemption (not unanimously) as a redevelopment project in a ‘blighted area.’ Was it necessary? The majority of council thought so, including Councilor Greco.

Councilor Capraro requested that the rest of council be given a copy of the memo the City Manager prepared. If the information is important for one councilor to have, it should be information that all councilors can have. We should all be kept apprised of the amount of tax exempt property, but the discussion should be about strategies to mitigate the impact and rein in the situation, not just a way of complaining about things we cannot change.

A Tax Exemption Would Be Good, but a Lower Tax Rate Would Be Better

The proposed increase in tax exemptions for low-income senior citizens paying property taxes in the City of Geneva is a good idea, but we should be clear that it is only a band-aid on the open wound of high taxes. City residents must shoulder an increasingly unbearable tax burden. And we must be careful not to feel free to go ahead with further tax increases once the most vulnerable are partially sheltered from their effects.

The City currently offers a partial tax exemption for senior citizens whose annual household income is under $15,200. At that level, there is a 20% reduction in their property assessment. Here is how it works. A senior couple living in a house assessed at $100,000 would normally pay $1822 in city taxes. If their total household income is $15,200, they would only have to pay taxes on 80% of their assessed value, or $80,000. Their tax bill would be reduced to $1458. That represents a savings of $364—money put back into their household budget that could be put toward groceries or prescriptions.

NYS tax law provides for “sliding scale limits,” ranging from the minimum of 20% to a maximum of 50%. Under Geneva’s current tax ordinance, the maximum exemption is only available to senior households with incomes of $9,500 or less. Ontario County and other municipalities are responding to the realities of rising costs and fairly stagnant income sources (such as social security) by raising those limits. That is the ordinance coming before council Wednesday night.

The proposed schedule would raise the base income (the income qualifying for a 50% exemption) to $12,500 and set the ceiling (the income qualifying for a 20% exemption) at $18,200. Here is the full proposal:

Sliding Scale Limits Current Proposed
50% $9,500 $12,500
45% $10,500 $13,500
40% $11,500 $14,500
35% $12,500 $15,500
30% $13,400 $16,400
25% $14,300 $17,300
20% $15,200 $18,200

Currently, $29,535 in property tax revenue is exempted, the new proposal bumps that figure up to $62,404. The difference, $32,969, will have to be made up elsewhere in the budget. It should not come through further increases in the property tax, whether it's being paid on 100% or 10% of a resident's assessed value!

The senior tax exemption is something that Geneva needs, but it shouldn’t be hailed as a cure-all for the senior living on a fixed income. After all, people wouldn’t be forced to seek exemptions if taxes stayed at a manageable rate.

Conflicted Interests: City Staff, Geneva IDA, and the Attorney General

On December 29, 2006, after several months of investigating the Geneva Industrial Development Agency (IDA), the Office of the New York State Attorney General (OAG) wrote to the City of Geneva: “The OAG’s investigation has confirmed that the parties involved repeatedly failed to take appropriate steps to avoid conflicts of interests and to ensure that proper disclosures were made to the City Council.” The OAG letter went on to suggest “that the details of the transaction and conflicts of interest be disclosed to the City Council at the next public meeting.” For the full text of the letter, check the Document Library or click this link.
The letter, in fact, raises several issues of concern:
1. The letter is addressed to Thomas A. DeSimon, Esq., of the Harris Beach law firm in Pittsford. We were surprised to learn that the City had been represented in this matter by outside counsel because there had been no prior discussion of that, nor approval or a vote on spending public funds for that purpose. We still are not clear if DeSimon was representing the City generally, or particular staff members that were being questioned by the Attorney General’s office. We also do not know how much he was paid for his service, or why an outside attorney was necessary given that the City Attorney is full time.

2. City Attorney Clark Cannon notified Council of this letter in January and said he intended to bring the matter up at the next Council meeting (February 7). But he did not raise the issue, so Councilor Capraro asked that the discussion be placed on the March agenda as a formal action item, which it was. However, the City Council did not engage in a discussion about the findings, but instead listened to the City Attorney’s admission that Council had not been given the necessary information.

3. The question remains whether the deal negotiated between the IDA and the City is indicative of a larger problem. The IDA is a separate quasi-municipal entity, independent of the city. However, the City Attorney is also the IDA’s Attorney, the head of the City’s Planning Department is the IDA’s Executive Director, and the City Comptroller is the IDA Financial Officer. Many of the IDA projects require attention from staff on ‘city time’, so the IDA provides the City with monies to compensate for that. But the staff people also receive stipends from the IDA in addition to their full time city salaries. This is not a question of the character of the individuals, it is instead a question about the practice of having staff people ‘serving two masters.’ In fact, the Finger Lakes Times just reported (March 9 2007 & March 17 2007) that Seneca County Economic Development Director, Glenn Cooke, resigned his position citing a real conflict of interest in holding that title while also serving as Executive Director of the Seneca IDA. He has since resigned the IDA post as well.

A former City Councilor, who was himself responsible for appointing members of the IDA board, rented space in an IDA-owned building. That same councilor sold a vehicle to the IDA with the understanding that it would be sold, in turn, to the City. This transaction was approved by the IDA and handled by IDA staff. However, the IDA staff did not, in their capacity as City staff, alert City Council to the transaction. It has been argued, by the City Attorney and City Manager that the shared staffing makes it easier to do business. Yes, too easy, according to the Attorney General.