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!