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.