Special Double Radio Post: Is 'Option 4' still an option?

In our last two Finger Lakes Morning News interviews with Ted Baker on WGVA radio (April 16 and May 21), we discussed our point of view that Ontario County’s process for deciding which one of five building options ought to be pursued for the permanent home of Finger Lakes Community College (FLCC) Geneva Extension Center had a preordained outcome, an outcome which, itself, was ill conceived.
Now we wonder if Option 4-- to demolish the architecturally and historically significant 1926 Geneva High School edifice and build a new, significantly smaller structure-- is still an option. It seems that the County rammed through Option 4 only to discover that state law may not allow the plan to go forward.
What the County finds itself up against are two state-placed hurdles. First, County Administrator Geoff Astles says that he has received notice that purchasing the building will trigger a series of code enforcement actions that would render the building unusable for FLCC’s intended purpose. Second, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) must sign off on the County’s demolition and mitigation plan before any state funds can be drawn down for the project.
In a sense, the County has found itself having gone full circle back to the position held by some opponents of the plan. The 1926 building may, in fact, have to stand with FLCC remaining the primary tenant.
On Friday, May 21st, FLCC announced it would seek to renew its current lease with the Geneva City School District, rather than executing the purchase offer that was on the table. The purchase offer was used by the Projects Committee as the main reason that additional options could not be considered. They announced that the purchase had to be made before the end of June and therefore, time was of the essence. Turns out that isn’t the case after all. And as Capraro pointed out in the April interview, anytime a multi-million dollar project hinges on an accelerated deadline, there’s probably a lot being overlooked, a lot of important reasons to slow down and do a more thorough review.
In the May radio appearance, we challenged the Mayor of Geneva’s suggestion that it was “arrogant” for the Geneva City Council to take a position on the FLCC project that did more than just support whatever the County proposed. Arrogant? Since the County had asked for a resolution from the City on the project it was not arrogant but rather the responsible action to take. As we had covered in our post, state legislation that forbids state money to be used to demolish architecturally and historically significant buildings, and the 1926 building is one of them. It is not a given that the state would approve the drawdown of funds for the demolition option. Between that and the code issues, the County Board of Supervisors might have given their unanimous support to an option that isn’t really an option at all.

What the Electeds Neglected and the Public Pointed Out in the Former Geneva High School Debate

The Ontario County Board of Supervisors unanimously set the course for “Option 4” at their May 13^th meeting, declaring its intent to raze the 1926 Geneva High School building in favor of a new one story structure that Projects Committee Chairman Dick Calabrese (R-Gorham) assured the public would last “50 years.” In doing so, the Ontario County Board of Supervisors put aside a number of compelling arguments put forward by members of the public which had supported fiscal restraint, due diligence, and educational vision-- and which relied mostly on the County’s own data and planning documents— in favor of the preordained outcome.

In other words, the ‘public input’ sessions conducted by the County served exactly the purpose Geneva City Supervisors stated, “to help the public understand what is being proposed” not to actually allow for the public to have input on what the options might be. So the ‘output’ of the ‘input’ remained the same as it had always been: a County commitment to spend $12 million on a new building to house eight (8) classrooms that might not even outlast the students who will sit in them. At $1.5 million per classroom, we can’t tell our readers exactly what to expect, but we suspect that English 101 won’t ever be the same.

And then, at long last—and, unfortunately, too late to do much good-- the Finger Lakes Times decided to take up the role of public information engine and government fact-checker, to start reporting some of the real facts behind how the County made its decision, facts which, by the way, challenge the local paper’s own, previously stated editorial stance on the project. (Remember, the Times came out early saying that the project was akin to buying a shiny new car).

On Tuesday, the Finger Lakes Times ran an above-the-fold story about the problems the County likely will encounter when they attempt to draw down the State’s pledged $6 million contribution to the project. As members of the public doing their own due diligence, had warned, there is a prohibition on using State (or Federal) funds for the demolition of “historically or architecturally significant structures.” The existing 1926 structure is significant on both counts, which means the County will be required to undergo what is known as a “Section 14.09 review.” The County will be required to prove not only that demolition is necessary, but also, that steps will be taken to mitigate the impact of demolition.

It is hard to see how the County will meet either one of those thresholds without expending additional time and money though the Supervisors claimed that there was no truth to these ‘rumors.’

See for yourself. On the last page (page 13) of the County’s “responses to questions” posed by Geneva City Council on behalf of the community, the first question pertaining to due diligence is asked and answered:

“Have any architects ever been charged with developing a $12 million adaptive reuse program?” In other words, did the County ever actually verify whether or not the existing building could be renovated using the available funding? The County takes a paragraph to tell us, essentially, ‘No, they did not.’ They talk about wanting to take the building off the hands of the Geneva City School District. They talk about multiple cost estimates for remodeling the site, and the school district’s inability to find any other “legal use” for the property. But even the County has to admit that they never specifically asked the architects to see what they could do to that building for $12 million. This will likely not fly for the State, who demands a higher threshold of proof that all alternatives are exhausted.

Whether analyzing the Community College’s space needs, the County’s ability to draw down State funds, or the viable reuse strategies for the space in question, the public has exercised the due diligence and fact-based critical thinking that would have served the County well. Too bad the County followed the lead of the FLCC administration in choosing pomp over circumstance, and the Finger lakes Times didn’t catch it earlier.

Discussion about FLCC Geneva Center Continues

As you know, the debate about the Pulteney Street campus center for Finger Lakes Community College continues. As we work on our next installment, be sure to follow the discussions that continue after the posts. We welcome any and all comments, so long as the author signs his/her name to them!

Read more here.

Keep Community in Finger Lakes Community College

No Strings Geneva has long championed “a more robust Finger Lakes Community College extension campus in the City of Geneva.” As our post two years ago asserts, the educational opportunities and workforce development that educational facilities provide ought to make them a top local priority.

And that’s why it seems so odd to us that the current discussion of the fate of FLCC’s extension center building project rests not on an insistence on providing the greatest programming possible, but, instead, on the FLCC administration’s desire for a facility with a certain ‘feel.’ In other words, we can’t figure out why form should matter more than function.

Educational institutions in general are tax-exempt for a variety of reasons: They contribute to the overall well-being of a community; They strive to be accessible and keeping costs down helps develop broader constituencies; And, while they must be fiscally responsible, profit is not in their mission. In addition, while not a justification for tax exemption, education serves as an engine of economic development, preparing people for the local workforce, creating jobs on the campus, and making positive contributions to the host city.

In the case of community colleges, their host-community relationship is especially vital. Community colleges in our state are governed by the State University of New York, and have the following mission:
“The SUNY Community Colleges ensure open access to high quality postsecondary education and contribute significantly to the development of an educated citizenry and skilled workforce. They offer comprehensive learning opportunities ranging from transfer and career degrees to programs customized to serve specific individual, community, business and economic development needs. All share a dedication to instruction and services that nurtures the academic and personal achievement of individuals with diverse backgrounds and aspirations.”

The specific mission of FLCC is:
“Finger Lakes Community College is a supportive, learning-centered environment that empowers our students, provides enriching life experiences, and enhances the quality of life throughout our community.”

According to a 2008 Extension Center Growth Assessment plan, conducted by the FLCC administration, the existing Geneva extension has outpaced all other locations in new enrollment. 50% of those students are currently in the local workforce, only 26% are coming directly from high school. This is almost directly inverse to enrollment at the main (Hopewell) campus, where 48% of students are directly out of high school, and only 29% are coming into the community college system from work.

In addition, 52% of the students at the Geneva center are over age 30, compared to only 22% students over 30 at the main campus. While 37% of students at the Geneva center have one or more children, only 14% of students at the main campus are parents. And, one last important statistic, 85% of students at the main campus take the majority of their classes during the day (8am-5pm). At Geneva, 50% of the courses taken are at night (5-10pm).

So, we learn from this that the success of the Geneva campus-- its ability to draw in an increasing amount of tuition revenue for the system-- is based on its robust offering of night classes for non-traditional students who are advancing their existing careers or looking to change careers. In addition, this report concludes that a vibrant Geneva campus will continue to draw a substantial number of students from Seneca County, who bring with them an additional tuition differential, making their enrollment even more critical to the diversification of the FLCC revenue stream.

On page 7 of the report, it is suggested that “new program offerings at the Geneva Campus Center” should “include second-year courses for Criminal Justice and first-year courses for the proposed A.A.S. Degree in Paramedicine and expansion of courses in the A.A. Degree in Teacher Education. Additionally, courses will be offered in the Ornamental Horticulture area.” This is based not just on what will generate the most revenue for the college, but also what the community needs.

The report states (again, on page 7):
“demand for emergency medical services will naturally parallel the aging of the general population, and demand for paramedicine training is magnified by relatively high turnover rates in these jobs…Evening and weekend enrollments are common for these audiences.”

“….the new Teacher Education transfer program responds to the growing public school teacher shortage…representing a combination of prospective day and evening students.”

“….proximity to the Cornell Agricultural Experiment Station and the interest expressed by current individuals from the Geneva area suggests that the [Ornamental Horticulture] program could be very successful [and] could be tailored to meet specific demands of the area with classes such as organic land care, viticulture, and others.”

Continuing (on page 8):
“…the target audience…is a combination of traditional age students and older adults already engaged in the helping professions seeking a career change. The scheduling of these offerings will probably favor evening time slots.”

“Prospective areas to explore for these additional programs include tourism-related offerings, customer service management, viticulture, and hotel/resort management. These prospects share the common thread of relationship to various aspects of the grape growing and wine making businesses, particularly including hospitality, food service, and other retail services to visitors attracted to the area by the wine industry. Continued growth of other programs at Geneva is also expected to generate demand for additional sections of courses previously offered.”

All in all, this college planning document, completed by the administration shortly before President Barb Risser took the helm as the College President, shows a dedicated effort to identify community needs and employment trends, and tailor community college course offerings to meet those needs and provide a vibrant extension center for residents of Ontario, Seneca, and Yates Counties.

A criminal justice program to help with recruitment and retention of well-qualified police officers, a paramedicine program to make sure we have the emergency responders we need for an aging population, a teacher education program to help local students get ready to return to their schools as instructors to make a positive impact, courses to help adults make career changes, programs to support the workforce needs of the thriving tourism industry. All of it sounds like a recipe for success for the Community College and the Community itself.

So, why is the Ontario County Board of Supervisors so eager to adopt Dr. Risser’s plan which appears to pre-empt future growth in enrollment at the Geneva Center? When asked this very question, directly and at a public meeting, Supervisor (and Projects Committee Chair) Richard Calabrese (Gorham) stated that the architects designed the new building far back on the lot “to allow for a new wing for expansion in a couple of years.”

This raises an interesting question: If the Board of Supervisors acknowledges that their $12 million “Option #4” doesn’t give enough room to grow and will require an addition within five years, why can’t the community have the benefit of the full project cost. If this is stage 1, why not tell us how much is budgeted for stage 2? Maybe the cost of both is less than the cost of “option 1” that makes the existing building fit for the current, and anticipated needs? Spending $12 million on a campus center that barely meets existing program needs doesn’t seem like the “growth position.”

At the same meeting, Dr. Risser and county planner Tom Harvey were quick to point out that the new building will allow for a sufficient number of “FTE” hours to accommodate some growth. But they should recognize that this number is misleading (and if they don’t realize it, well, maybe that’s even worse!). The FTE (full time equivalent) hours are based on projections of enrollment in classes offered from 8am-5pm 5 days per week and from 5pm-10pm four days per week. But FLCC’s own data shows that extension center students can’t be evenly distributed in that way. Working folks aren’t taking daytime courses, and main campus students aren’t traveling to Geneva to get smaller classes. In other words, students are not just as likely to take English 101 at 10:10am as at 6:30pm, the student demand is just different, it’s specific to the area. So Dr. Risser can’t take a ‘main campus’ mentality and apply it to an extension center and call it all even.

At the March 31st, and again at the April 7th City Council meetings, Councilor Augustine tried to raise these points. In reply, she was asked by President Risser for a copy of the planning document. We would hope, since Augustine received her copy from the President’s office, that Dr. Risser will familiarize herself with it before continuing to endorse a building project that works directly against its well-reasoned and data-driven recommendations. The future of FLCC in Geneva clearly depends on it.

We hope that the County Board of Supervisors can be reminded that the mission of a Community College is not to build buildings that look sleek and modern, and it’s not to draw down millions of taxpayer dollars to create large glass-enclosed atriums and fancy lounges.
The mission is to educate, to prepare, to equip local residents to be good citizens, productive workers, better people. The Board of Supervisors has the ability to use what we have, a 1926 building that is, by all architectural assessments done thus far structurally sound and built better than most recently constructed projects in the city limits, to achieve that very end. We know that some people want something that ‘looks prettier,’ that ‘feels newer,’ that they can point to and say “I built that!”

But, in the name of fiscal responsibility, community development, and the educational and economic needs of the residents they represent, that $12 million dollars should go into renovating the existing building that has a whole lot of learning potential left.

FLCC Projects Committee Wants Questions on Proposed Geneva Extension Center:We Want Answers

Thursday, February 25, the Finger Lakes Community College Projects Committee, which is chaired by County Supervisor Richard Calabrese (R-Gorham) and includes Geneva City Supervisor Rocky LaRocca, and additional Supervisors and members of the FLCC staff and Board of Trustees, met to discuss public presentations regarding the proposed Geneva Extension Center.

To kick off the meeting, JMZ Architects and Planners provided a viewing of their PowerPoint presentation which explores various options for a new extension center. The County currently leases classroom space in the building which formerly housed the Geneva Middle School, at the corner of Milton and Pulteney Streets in the City of Geneva. Purchasing and renovating that building was one of three options considered initially for the new center.

At Thursday's meeting, JMZ stated unequivocally that the main structure at that site-- the 1926 structure originally built to house Geneva High-- is structurally sound. The 1965 natatorium and gymnasium additions have not fared as well. They, apparently, were built without expansion joints and as a result of a lack of maintenance, have deteriorated. Under every option proposed, that wing (facing Pulteney and William Streets) is recommended for demolition.

Reuse of the main structure was the least costly of the three initial options presented. The estimated cost of renovation-- $18 million-- did exceed the $12 million budget, but would make available 90,000 square feet of renovated space. FLCC currently utilizes 80,000 square feet within the building, but a revised space assessment had come in at 58,000 square feet. Full renovation would leave 32,000 square feet open for use by potential co-tenants. But the Projects Committee Chairman ruled that Thursday's meeting was not the time or place to examine issues of co-tenancy, layout and contracting options and the minutia of each plan. Instead, he opened the floor to questions from non-committee members which were recorded by the clerk and made part of the official record. Chairman Calabrese assured everyone present that written responses would be provided for every question submitted on the record.

Here are the comments and questions put to the Committee on Thursday:

1) The Geneva City Councilors who had penned a defense of the County's process the day before in the local paper, Ron Alcock and Paul D'Amico, were in attendance, as was Councilor Augustine. D'Amico did not ask questions, but simply repeated his support for demolishing the main building at Milton and Pulteney and building new. Alcock noted the need for the community to be notified of, and perhaps involved in, the design process for any new building, to foster clear communication on issues such as set backs from the street and the overall orientation of the building within the neighborhood.

2) City resident and member of the FLCC Foundation Board, George Michaels, asked for more detailed analysis of the space needs. He pointed out that the $11.9 million plan that includes demolition of the building and construction of a new space would result in far less than the 58,000 square feet that FLCC said it needs. He received an immediate response from the architect, who stated that the orientation of the new building on the site allows for further additions and expansion in the out years. Michaels responded that he would prefer to see the money spent to accommodate current needs stemming from recent growth and anticipated needs from projected future growth. He noted a 28% increase in student enrollment at the Geneva center within the past year. He asked again for a detailed analysis of those projections as they related to space needs and square footage costs under each option.

3) Pulteney Street resident Diana Davis asked about the practices for estimating particular line item costs, and in particular, the nearly $900,000 projected to improve the parking lot at the corner of Pulteney and William Street.

4) Augustine submitted six questions/requests for information for the record, three directed at the architects and three at the committee as a whole.

From the architects, she asked for the following:
1. A timeline for the project, if approved, including phasing of the construction and demolition elements. An assurance that the full range of classes would continue to be available at the extension center site while the project proceeds.
2. A clarification on the cost estimates per square foot for the $18 million project that puts FLCC classroom space on all three floors.
3. The estimated process timeline for SHPO sign off for the draw down of state funds for a project option that includes demolition.

From the Committee as a whole, she asked for the following:
1. A detailed description of the process of considering and rejecting each of various co-tenancy options for the renovated main building. This a follow up to an assurance made by President Risser at a 2008 City Council meeting, that the committee along with the Community Advisory Committee, would look at co-tenancy options.

2. (Similar to Mr. Michaels' request), the five-year growth projections (both in programming and enrollment) for the Geneva Extension and the associated space needs.
3. Results of focus studies and/or other research that indicate that a flat-roof, contemporary building design is needed to achieve the "message of hope" that President Risser says that the building must convey to students. This is in contrast to other college improvement projects that opt for a more traditional collegiate design that might be more in line with the existing neighborhood.

We assume the FLCC Projects committee is already hard at work developing responses to the questions posed and will conduct public meetings (TBD) to receive input on the plans before a decision is made, beginning with a presentation to the Geneva City Council (TBD). While Chairman Calabrese said that he didn't want to give any "false hope" that the committee would step back and reconsider demolition, we do remain confident that an honest and open public process will bring forward the public intelligence that will ensure the best decision for the long term needs of the County, the college, and the Geneva community.

BS (as in Bait and Switch) Part II:Wonderful Bait for a Sinister Switch

On March 29, 2009, NY State Senator Mike Nozzolio’s website read “Senator Nozzolio Delivers!” What was it that he was delivering? Over $26 million in State dollars for projects bundled as the “21st Century Geneva Plan”-- and what turned out to be lots of bait for local practitioners of bait and switch.

$5 million of the bundle was dedicated to a “signature building for the Finger Lakes region that will serve as a destination for tourists.” That building, it was eventually determined by City Council, would be the Finger Lakes Boating Museum, currently operating out of meager facilities in Penn Yan.

$6 million was earmarked to match $6 in funding the Ontario County board of supervisors had already set aside for the “Finger Lakes Community College Campus in Geneva.” The Geneva FLCC campus had been housed for many years at the “Civic Center” and, in 2006, was moved to the former Geneva Middle School building at the corner of Pulteney and Milton Streets, leased to Ontario County by the Geneva City School District.

At first, taxpayers seemed generally pleased with the use of their state dollars in these ways. State money, it appeared, was being used to support placement of a regional tourist attraction, the Boating Museum, on the lakefront. And the new structure would be an architecturally significant building replacing the drab City building which currently houses the Chamber of Commerce.

Recall how the current building, which formerly housed the local Boy Scouts Council, was put on that site without proper footings. Over time, revenue from the lease with the Chamber for the use of interior fell short of expenses for the upkeep of the exterior. The building, of no historical significance, has been generally accepted as an eyesore on the lakefront and might be better used as a source of recycled building materials.

In September 2009, the City Council agreed with the Finger Lakes Boating Museum (FLBM) to design and build a more appropriate facility to house the Chamber and to serve as a regional tourist destination. However, as that project appears to move forward, the money Nozzolio promised seems to move back to Albany.

Nozzolio had come up with the $5 million figure by securing $4 million from the NYS Dormitory Authority and keeping his fingers crossed for another $1 million from a specific source he has yet to identify. The Senator’s office still has not been able to tell reporters from the local paper where the other $1 million resides.

In addition, it seems, Nozzolio’s priority has shifted from a regional destination to a local office complex. Rather than clearly backing the boating museum concept, the $4 million seems now to be flagged for new-and-improved offices to be occupied by the Geneva Area Chamber of Commerce (GACC).
If that is the case, Geneva City taxpayers would lose out doubly. While both the GACC and FLBM are tax-exempt entities, the FLBM is a regional destination, a place that people living here or visiting would come to experience. So, not only would the upgraded deluxe Chamber of Commerce not house activities that local residents could participate in, it would also eliminate another activity that would presumably draw tourists Geneva to boost the economy.

It is also worth noting that the notorious Bergmann report of 2009 on downtown-lakefront connectivity emphasizes the need to pursue water-related uses on the lakefront as a maximization of the highly coveted land that currently belongs to all of Geneva’s citizens. A Chamber of Commerce executive suite hardly seems water-based or even water-related. A boating museum and the proposed enhanced dockage fits the vision perfectly.

In the case of the FLCC extension center, use of the former Geneva Middle School building has accomplished many community goals. First, it stabilized a building that has significant community value and is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic places along with its neighboring church and church school.

Second, it keeps FLCC students near the city center, utilizing its optimal location both to benefit students looking for a convenient location and downtown businesses happy to have more patrons in the vicinity. Last, it assisted the Geneva City School District in putting to good use a building that was no longer serving the district but still in need of maintenance.

But wait. A memo from FLCC president, Barb Risser, states her preference to tear down the building and looking forward “to the day a couple of years from now when we will open a… modern campus center in Geneva." So those two $6 million amounts, $12million total, which is nothing more than a combination of county tax and state tax dollars, will be used to pay Casella to take tons of building debris and then to build a smaller more contemporary looking building in its place.

Bait and switch takes many forms. In this instance, what’s used as the ‘bait’ are the community’s own values and ideas. Then, once the tax dollars are appropriated, under the guise of the public good in the public interest, the ‘switch’ comes in and we end up with projects that not only don’t achieve the intended outcome, but actually work against it.

Foregoing a boating museum for a Chamber office takes up valuable lakefront space for an unnecessary purpose. Foregoing a building renovation for contemporary new construction destroys a valuable piece of the community fabric and dumps a costly, unsightly single-purpose structure in its place. In both cases, what is unique about Geneva is used as leverage to get money for projects that ultimately destroy that very character.

Is the Red and Black In the Red or in the Black?City Schools Seek $12.5 million in New Borrowing

A year ago, we ran a series of posts concerning the Geneva City School District's proposal to shift from two K-5 neighborhood schools to one primary (PreK-2) and one intermediate (3-5) school. The plan was brought to our attention by faculty and staff who were concerned that the effort was misguided in several ways. We don’t deal in leaks and rumors, so we didn’t post until we’d checked out the facts. And when we did, we were compelled to speak out about what we’d found, especially when the Finger Lakes Times was giving the plan a pass.

First, we shared worries that the plan was educationally unsound, and that it was likely to lead to greater disassociation between students, parents, and their school. Second, it was foreseen that there were serious logistical difficulties with such a move: scheduling, bussing, and adequate classroom space would be a problem.

Underlying those concerns, and creating a situation of distrust within which those issues could not easily be discussed or addressed, was the perception that the District administration, in conjunction with favored insider faculty members, was moving full steam ahead in insulated, secretive, non-public meetings.

Sure enough, the Finger Lakes Times towed the "company line" that no decisions had been made and there were no foregone conclusions. But they didn't press, and they didn't ask the hard follow up questions that would have revealed the facts behind the well-controlled sound bites. Despite the newspaper's headline "Nothing Decided" (2/9/09), the final public hearing on the proposal was held March 25th, and the decision passed with the support of five of the seven school board members on April 6th.

In less than two months, the District maintained (according to the resolution that you can read here) "the reconfiguration of the elementary schools will maintain and/or enhance the quality of educational programming for students and will also maintain fiscal discipline during this time of economic uncertainty."

You might wonder, as we do: Has the reconfiguration of the elementary schools enhanced, or at least maintained, the quality of educational programming for students? Did the move maintain "fiscal discipline" during a time of economic uncertainty? While we abhor the concept, we wonder if at least the ends justified the means? Did the perceived Machiavellian maneuvers of the District administration at least pan out?

If so, you wouldn’t think this move would require, in its first year, the pursuit of a $12.5million building project to remedy a lack of classroom space that, apparently, went unnoticed or unplanned for during the very process that the District said was guided by a thorough, responsible, and detail-oriented advisory committee. We wish it was otherwise, but alas, the district is putting just such a request up for a public referendum on March 9, 2010 (one year and one month, to the day, after solemn reassurance to District families and taxpayers public that this wasn’t a ‘done deal’).

Here’s the referendum item:

SPECIAL REFERENDUM
SPECIAL REFERENDUM OF THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF
GENEVA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special referendum of the qualified voters of the City School District of the City of Geneva, New York, shall be held at Geneva High School, 101 Carter Road, Geneva, New York on Tuesday, March 9, 2010, between the hours of 12:00 o’clock to 9:00 P.M., for the purpose of voting on the following proposition:

PROPOSITION

SHALL THE BOND RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF GENEVA, NEW YORK, DATED JANUARY 19, 2010, AUTHORIZING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS CONSISTING OF ADDITION TO, CONSTRUCTION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF, SCHOOL BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES, VARIOUS SITE IMPROVEMENTS, AND THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN ORIGINAL FURNISHINGS, EQUIPMENT, AND APPARATUS AND OTHER INCIDENTAL IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR SUCH CONSTRUCTION AND SCHOOL USE, AT AN ESTIMATED MAXIMUM AGGREGATE COST OF $12,500,000; AND PROVIDING THAT SUCH COSTS SHALL BE RAISED BY THE LEVY OF A TAX TO BE COLLECTED IN ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS WITH SUCH TAX TO BE OFFSET BY STATE AID AVAILABLE THEREFOR, AND IN ANTICIPATION OF SUCH TAX, DEBT OBLIGATIONS OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AS MAY BE NECESSARY, NOT TO EXCEED SUCH ESTIMATED MAXIMUM AGGREGATE COST, SHALL BE ISSUED, AND, IF THE PROPOSITION FOR THE APPROVAL OF SUCH BOND RESOLUTION SHALL HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY AT LEAST A SIXTY PERCENT VOTE, SUCH OBLIGATIONS MAY BE ISSUED IN EXCESS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEBT LIMIT OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT PURSUANT TO APPLICABLE LAW, ALL BE APPROVED?”

For the complete referendum, click here.

It's probably wise for the Board of Education to separate the vote for $12.5million of new debt from the May vote for the election of new Board members. Is it to cover their lack of foresight—or, the old bait and switch? Whether it was poor planning or misleading the public, or something else, perhaps board members feared that residents who care about accountability and fiscal responsibility would not re-elect board members who supported this ill-fated reconfiguration.

In upcoming posts we will delve into this issue in more detail, fully presenting this case study of bait and switch. But we are again reminded that one of the values in public, inclusive decision-making processes (which the reconfiguration debacle certainly was not) is the ability of governing board to be clued in to 'public intelligence' on critical issues. We see what happens when those in power think they know better than those they are elected to represent. Unfortunately, it's the represented that end up footing the bill for their representatives’ mistakes.

Bait and Switch Anyone? "The Bloggers" Preview Posts and a Citizenship Academy to Come in 2010

Our recent appearance on Ted Baker's WGVA morning radio show featured a discussion of our post on Tiger Woods, Obama, and spin. We also previewed the themes we're looking to cover as NoStringsGeneva enters its fourth year, this coming March.

True to our original mission, we remain focused on public decision-making and accountability. We also remain committed to providing a fact-based point of view, resisting the urge of other media sources to rely on sound bites from local leaders without verifying the accuracy of those statements. We believe that our readers have come to rely on us for the "whole story" surrounding critical local issues, and we plan to keep delivering on that. As we mentioned to Ted, we will be starting with a look back at critical issues that have dominated community discourse in the past year.

Those include the Geneva City School District elementary school realignment plan (Were the projections accurate?), the City's Neighborhood Initiative (Is it catching on and how much is it costing?), City subcommittee work (What are those groups up to?), leachate (It keeps coming in, but what is the ‘it’?), and the ever looming national, state, and local budget crises (Who’s going to be hit the hardest by a failure of forward-thinking?).

Baker also engaged us in discussion of “bait and switch,” a political term Capraro first encountered when he entered public life in a big way in the early 1990s. He has been intrigued with it ever since, because it is so common in public affairs.

The term refers to presenting one set of reasons, rationalizations, premises, arguments—whatever will get elected officials, boards, or the public to agree on a certain action—and then, once taking that action is passed, changing the action, or the reason.

Ted’s example was selling the U.S. invasion of Iraq with fears of weapons of mass destruction, and then, once it happens, saying the invasion was about regime change and state building all along. And locally, we can think of several examples, like promising job creation to receive Empire Zone benefits, but never actually producing any new jobs, or pitching a new idea as a cost-saver but then watching costs soar after it’s implemented.

According to WiseGeek, “bait and switch” is an old marketing ploy:

“The bait and switch begins with the bait, an advertisement for a product at what seems like an extremely low price. Sometimes these products, such as a mattress, are of very low quality. Other times, the price may apply to one specific style of, or model of an item. In general, the bait is stocked in very low numbers. In some cases, only one or two of items are available at the low price.
Once the customer has walked into the retail establishment, the bait and switch moves to the switch. The salesperson will inform the customer that the store has sold out of the advertised item and offer a similar item at a higher price. Alternately the salesperson may push hard to be certain the customer understands that the lower-priced product is of inferior quality, and try to sell a better quality product at a higher price. Bait and switch may also be used to bring in customers with bait, low prices, and also raise prices of unrelated items that customers might also pick up at the time.”

Any sportsperson will tell you that deception is inherent in a bait scenario. If there were no barbed hook inside the worm, you’d just be feeding the fish one worm at a time on a string. We told Ted we’d be doing more posts on bait and switch, perhaps some case studies, of which there is never a shortage.

Our hope is that our readers will come to recognize the bait, uncover the hook, and not get caught up in the deception! This is the essence of accountability, getting to the core reasons, the true reasons, for public decision-making and making sure those, and only those, guide the public policy debate.

Of course, we want to cover the issues that matter the most to you. While we think the topics above are a good start, we welcome your suggestions!

In 2010 we also hope to begin a NoStringsGeneva “Citizens Academy” that will give anyone who's interested the opportunity to learn about and participate in local government decision-making, from filing FOIL requests to effectively debating the policy that arises from those assembled sets of facts. All in all, it looks to be an exciting year and we look forward to having you join us on the journey!

Are Things Going "The Blog Way?"

At the end of our most recent WGVA radio appearance, host Ted Baker asked us to reflect on the blog’s influence on local politics over the years. Capraro was quick to point out that it ought to be up to our readers to determine how effective we’ve been in advocating for open and accountable government, and community based civic engagement. But with the third anniversary of www.NoStringsGeneva.com on the horizon, it’s worth a look back: Have we made a difference?

After we were up and running about six months, on August 1, 2007, we outlined the principles our blog was founded on: accountability, open government, fiscally conservative taxing and spending policies, shared services and inter-municipal cooperation, sensible programs for improving the quality of life of city residents.

Of course, underlying each of those, and critical to the success of all, is our focus on process. We believe that the first and foremost goal of any democratic government is a democratic government. We rejected the notion that City Council should ride roughshod over the how in favor of the what.

Councilors and the citizenry should speak up and out when things are not progressing in accordance with democratic principles, including transparency. “Going along to get along” might spare the public a few squabbles, but it is better for government in the long run to insist on accountability. We, therefore, encouraged public participation, public access to documents, a meaningful seat at the table for the public interest, and a vigilant local press that, in keeping with democratic theory, ought to be more watchdog than cheerleader for local government.

In our view, good information + good dialogue = good government.

At its outset, the blog was attacked by some Councilors and some members of the previous administration-- largely for letting the sun shine in on local government, i.e., sharing information that had previously been regarded as ‘privileged,’ even though it never was. A short lived panic and worry emerged among those who feared everyone would eventually “go the blog way,” which meant asking lots of questions, FOILing documents, challenging the authority, speaking truth to power, and confronting those who appeared not to be acting responsibly in the public interest.

Ideas we raised here slowly made their way into the community and even into the hearts and minds of many of our detractors. Some of the ideas we discussed are actually making their way into public policy. Of course, we don’t claim ownership of those ideas, nor do we believe that good policy begins and ends with the blog. Instead, we see our role as another avenue of participation for the average citizen. Anyone who wants a say can have it here, so long as they’re willing to stand by it (by signing their name) and have a good faith discussion about the merits or drawbacks of particular ideas.

At NoStringsGeneva, we’re guided by two concerns: unchecked government power and blind populism. Who keeps us in check? We strive to be a fact-based point of view. We take a stance on the issues, but we do our best to support our position with sourced facts and information, readily accessible to our readers. We also post responsible, signed responses to our posts, with our additional comments, Whether our ideas are seen as good or bad is, for us, secondary to our larger purpose of attempting to model responsible civic engagement, to get the facts, to let the facts do the talking and to make sure that those facts ground any and all policy-making. In that vein, we think we’ll take some credit for at least being mildly successful—for the time being. Check out the rest of our interview with Ted Baker in the radio archive.

Tiger Woods:A Case Study of Public/Private in an Age of Spin

Golfer Tiger Woods— AP Athlete of the Decade and the wealthiest athlete in the world— is taking “an indefinite break from professional golf” in response to a flood of reports on his now admitted “infidelity.” (you can find the full story here)

Since professional athletes and politicians have a great deal in common—they live in the public eye and are celebrities of sorts—we thought aspects of the Woods affair might be of interest to our NoStringsGeneva readers.

Recalling our previous posts on trusting public officials, the resignation of Eliot Spitzer, and the plausible deniability of John Edwards, and others, we thought we might look at the public/private dichotomy in the Woods affair and the ways celebrity politicians and athletes manage their image, and the implications for our own civic engagement.

Athletes and politicians ultimately depend on the public, or various publics—voters, fans, etc.—for the positions they hold, so their image is important. Individually, fans and voters are relatively insignificant; but, in their collective actions (watching/supporting events and casting ballots) they confer wealth and power on athletes and candidates.

Most of these ‘transactions’ take place in the “public” realm: Voters respond to constructions of candidates built from messages about image, issues, and biography; Sports fans react mostly to athletic performances. What goes on in the “private” lives of athletes and politicians, we say, doesn’t matter much, unless they have done something terribly wrong, or flat out illegal.

But it’s not quite that simple. Politicians and athletes actively manage the disclosure of certain aspects of their private lives—such as information about their families and their likes and dislikes. They invite voters and fans into their private lives, mainly, we believe, to suggest something good about their character. “Family man” and “good son” or “hard working” and “sober” fill out the picture of a candidate or athlete worthy of our support and our trust.

Such disclosures are selective, so we can never be sure we are getting the whole story. Take President Barack Obama, who both smokes cigarettes and plays pickup basketball. He lets cameras into the gym, especially if he’s shooting hoops with servicemen, but he is shutter shy when he lights up.

ABC News observes, “Clearly mindful of the image issues smoking may cause, Obama has been careful to keep images of him with what health advocates call ‘cancer sticks’ out of the newspapers. Unlike Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton, members of the media have been unable to find photographic images of Obama smoking even a cigar or pipe.”

However, as The Huffington Post reported this Fall, “White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs enlivened his daily press conference by showing reporters a blown up photo of President Obama blocking a shot by his bodyman Reggie Love during a basketball game.”

Now consider Tiger Woods. He made his reputation and created his image mostly with his amazing performances as a golfer. When it comes to any high performing athlete, and even though we are frequently disappointed, a certain amount of good character is assumed. Inherent in our admiration of athletes is an unstated assumption that underlying their performance is good character at work: hard work, discipline, sacrifice, self-control, etc.

For all his notoriety, Woods was said to be a private person. But, as private as he was, he selectively disclosed aspects of his private life. As he approached his late 20’s, his private narrative— the story of his life off the course—evolved from the good son of Earl Woods to a family man in his own right.

Earlier this year he released the family photo, at left, following the birth of his son.

The combination of ranking number one among the world’s golfers and stepping into the role of family man (husband, father, and good provider) created a powerful image of high performance and responsibility. Corporate sponsors loved the combination. The Tiger Woods brand was premised on a guy you could trust.

There was a lot of truth in that image of Woods. Athletes have something few politicians can claim, a public performance of actual, objective accomplishment. You could, in fact, count on Woods to win. No spin, he has won 93 professional tournaments, including 14 majors, since joining the tour in 1996.

And he is married to Elin Nordegren—former swimsuit model and nanny, and they do have two children. But, in light of his confessed “infidelity,” and a myriad of allegations adding up to promiscuous sex, the image was ultimately false.

With most politicians, we have less to go on. Barack Obama rose quickly from relative obscurity to prominence based largely on image—an image of intelligence and hope and charisma. That’s one of the reasons we’re always trying to get at the bedrock of a politician’s character and, in turn, why they are always managing their image. We want to know who we are putting in office: is this someone you can trust?

In all fairness, we all edit our self-disclosures, with a particular audience in mind. Erving Goffman’s classic sociological study, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959), captures that sense of theater in our lives. What’s more, most would agree restraint in what we reveal about ourselves is the mark of a mature, sane, and civil person.

Our notion of a right to privacy, in its everyday social and legal dimensions, suggests that we want to be protected from unconsensual intrusions and that we ought to be in charge of what is revealed about us. It is up to us to decide what we wish to reveal, and to whom. The State of California, home to Hollywood and other dream factories, just enacted new legislation to further protect celebrities from paparazzi profiting from invasive photos.

In short, because we are after character, there is an approach/avoidance dance between the public and private lives of politicians and star athletes. That’s why they all manage their image in an age of spin—so that we will move our votes, our money, our very trust over to them. If we are lucky, image and reality match up, but they didn’t with Woods, Madoff, W. Bush in Iraq, Spitzer, and so on.

But what about the co-conspirators? Since Woods hit the tour, prize money has increased fourfold, so the entire PGA tour membership and their various dependents benefitted from Woods’s accomplishments and star power. When he missed most of the 2008 season with knee surgery, the audience for golf went down 50%.

Certainly, a great many folks must have known about Woods’s antics, but no one has spoken out. There’s too much at stake. Only a conspiracy of the tabloid press and several apparently jealous or fame-seeking lovers could bring them to light.

The same is true in politics: powerful people develop an extensive network of dependents who then help to submerge any scandalous behavior. In the case of Eliot Spitzer, how could the governor of the State of New York sneak off with prostitutes on a regular basis without a fair number of people knowing about it? So, too, with John Edwards, and with Bernie Madoff, dozens of folks must have been aware of his ponzi scheme but were in some way benefitting from it and therefore remained silent.

New York Times columnist Frank Rich-- reflecting on America’s “flight from truth” in the past decade, says we allowed ourselves, almost willfully, to be “spun silly” and “bamboozled” and “conned” by “shams” and “flimflams” and “ruses” and “fraudulent images,” i.e., by “men who played us for suckers.” He then drew direct comparisons between Obama and Woods:
“Though the American left and right don’t agree on much, they are both now coalescing around the suspicion that Obama’s brilliant presidential campaign was as hollow as Tiger’s public image.”

For Woods, does it really matter to us, even his sponsors, that he cheated on his wife so deliberately, so repeatedly, recklessly, and hurtfully? People say his next victory, perhaps as early as the 2010 Masters, will put all this behind him, and fans will forgive him. What matters is his awesome achievement on the course.

The problem with spin in the real world is that reality ultimately catches up. Lives are lost fruitlessly in Iraq. Fortunes are lost on Wall Street. And so, too, the public purpose can be lost, and the people lose.

What's Old is New Again

The five meetings held by the City last month to introduce its new Office of Neighborhood Initiatives and the conceptual framework for its mission, revealed something interesting and important about the City:

Long time residents located their fondest memories—“better days”-- somewhere in the past, and wanted to recreate a City and neighborhoods where good things happen like they used to in the old days. To some extent, they lamented change because they saw its negative consequences.

More recently arrived residents described the virtues of the City as it exists today and said what attracted them to Geneva is what it is now, how little it has changed—compared to other places they know, blah suburban McPlaces or big cities seemingly losing their warmth and given over only to the pursuit of wealth.

What is critical is that both groups valued quality of life and community, and both expected Geneva to be a place where they can be found. That suggests a powerful, intergenerational alliance might be formed between them today, and that should be an important aspect of the Office of Neighborhood Initiatives, trying to harness a commonality of purpose between some of Geneva’s longest, and shortest-term residents. That commonality exists in what the older residents say they remember about Geneva and what the newer residents say brought them here by a recent choice.

The Office of Neighborhood Initiatives may strike some as a new effort with a lot of new faces, but at its core, it is a revival of the traditional community values which are, themselves, the most progressive concept to hit Geneva in decades.

Maybe Geneva Needs a "Kamikaze Council":Listening to the Drumbeat of the Numbers

Our most recent appearance on Ted Baker’s Finger Lakes Morning News focused on the City of Geneva’s 2010 budget, its multi-year financial plan, and the economic climate’s effect on municipalities in general. If the City maintains a “business as usual” approach, it will lead to business unusual, as in bankruptcy.

We believe that one thing New York State has done correctly with regard to cities has been to require the filing of multiyear financial projections with the State Comptroller’s office. While these are only non-binding financial models, Capraro points out that they at least force cities to consider scenarios beyond the present. They reduce the possibility that cities can claim to be taken by surprise when faced with reduced revenues and increased expenses. In essence, multi-year planning forces elected officials to do one of two things:

1. Nothing: i.e., pass the problem down the line, and hope it either works itself out or blows up after your term is up.

2. Something: i.e., accept the reality, prioritize expenses, seek out new revenues, change the way business is done to make the business model work. Make a decision.

As Ted rightly pointed out, changing the way the City does business is politically risky. Things are done the way they are because someone benefits. As we’ve pointed out ad nauseam in multiple posts, the existing structure is set up to benefit economic development through tax exemptions, to administer city services without strategic deployment of resources, and to privilege vested special interests.

A new and more dynamic approach would see City government as a partner of the people, using sensible and effective means to meet critical needs. This new way of doing business may leave elected officials on the outs with the outspoken minority, but it would bring government back to the people in a way that is both useful and affordable.

In short, Geneva doesn’t need a Council that takes unnecessary risks, but it does need strong, focused, creative leadership to right the ship and make Geneva shine! Ted suggested the image of a “Kamikaze Council” that might go down in a blaze of sacrificial glory for the cause. Capraro reminded us the drum beat of the numbers is relentless. Click here to listen.

"Business As Usual" Will Put the City Out of Business:Thoughts on the Multi-Year Financial Plan

The New York State Comptroller requires municipalities to file multi-year financial plans that look at 3-to-5 year projections for revenue and expenditures, and the likely corresponding impact on property taxes.

In 2007, the City Council held an in-depth work session on the City’s first such planning document. In it, were projected huge deficits, an annual property tax increase of 3%, and a virtual depletion of the City’s fund balance (think of the fund balance as the City’s savings account).

At that time, NoStringsGeneva declared , “City Manager’s MultiYear Plan is a MultiYear Disaster” and urged Council to assert itself as the governing body. The business model leading us towards a financial abyss had to be corrected. But 2007 was an election year, and budget discussions took place in the midst of the primary battle between then-Mayor Don Cass and his challenger now-current Mayor Stu Einstein. Rather than confronting the reality building on their watch, the former Council (or at least the majority of the former Council) decided to leave the fiscal mess for the new Council to sort out.

The City’s budget woes became a true political football, with the former Mayor and his Council running-mates vowing to “protect jobs” and “increase services” rather than promising innovation and financial responsibility. The needs of the taxpayer were sacrificed to the perceived desires of the voter, and the debates, particularly the Mayoral debate amongst the three candidates, became an exercising in defending—rather than challenging—the failing status quo.

Fast forward to the present day. It is 2009 and the City’s latest multi-year financial plan looks nearly identical to the previous one.

On the revenue side, City staff project a slight increase, about 1%, in overall revenue. Property tax revenue, attributable to a slight increase in property values, will increase. Sales tax will decrease for two years and then trend upward. State aid will likely plummet from just over $2,000,000 to just under $1,800,000.

On the expenditure side, surges in personnel costs—contract salaries, health insurance premiums, and mandatory state retirement contributions to cover the cost of defined benefits for retired City workers—will be responsible for a nearly 10% increase in expenses over the next five years.

The City manager was careful not to aggregate his data, but we can do the math. Over the next five years, he projects revenue to increase by 1% and expenditures to increase by 10%. Assuming a currently balanced budget, with money incoming and outgoing the same, in five years there will be a deficit of 9%. With a current General Fund of $16,600,000, that amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars in deficits! Somewhere around $1,500,000.

With some slight changes in employee health insurance plans, a significant scaling back of capital improvement projects, and a freeze on the equipment amortization fund, the current administration was able to forestall financial woes, but not to avert the financial disaster on the rapidly approaching horizon.

This time, though, we are cautiously optimistic that the new City Manager and the Council have come to embrace a point of view that we urged a long time ago, namely that ‘business as usual’ will put the City out of business! Things must change!

There are still a handful of Councilors who disagreed with a “zero percent” property tax increase for 2010. In their words “everything goes up, our expenses go up, so property taxes should go up, too.” But that is no longer the majority view. We are starting to hear City Councilors talk about innovative ways of delivering services, about creative cost-sharing arrangements. In short, we see some movement towards a new view on City government.

As City Manager Horn stated (in three separate instances) in the MultiYear document, a failure to significantly change business practices will result in revenue decreases, increased expenses, and “significant deficits, not supportable by tax increases alone.”

To be clear, he specifically stated that tax increases were not an acceptable solution, even if they were capable of solving the problem, which they are not. He emphasized the fact that tax increases would be unable to meet the City’s challenges in the coming years. That’s because the problem lies primarily in what and how we are spending.

The City Manager’s conclusion, which we believe City Council must adopt wholeheartedly and with a more united focus than any other task they face, is to approach city operations from a “solutions-driven” standpoint. What does Geneva need and how can we best meet those needs? One thing the city needs is a lower tax rate, to help motivate investment.

We can no longer accept the status quo. We can no longer hold ‘sacred cows’ that keep us from evolving our business model and doing things better and more responsibly. We can’t do what was done before, as we discussed in our previous post, and throw up roadblocks to the conversation, to stall and create diversions. This is the most critical issue facing City government today, and it’s a game changer.

Should a Councilor Ever Have to FOIL?Say It Ain't So, Mr. Manager and Mr. Attorney

Some of her colleagues on Council took Augustine to task for using FOILed records (i.e., records obtained under New York’s Freedom of Information Law) in our recent post on filling it up at the City pump. One of our readers expressed the same concern in a signed comment to the post: “Forgive me for being rude, but the City of Geneva appears to function in a unique way. It is not common for Council members to have to file a FOIL request to talk to their own comptroller about the budget.”

We agree that it’s probably not common for Council members to file FOIL requests for public records available to any ordinary citizen for the asking. But there’s a reason we FOIL documents, thanks to an absurd protocol established by the previous City Manager and supported by the legal opinion of the previous City Attorney. In fact, that very issue is one which helped to launch NoStringsGeneva, back in March 2007. In our March 25, 2007 post, titled, “Shouldn’t City Councilors have Access to Public Documents?” we described the difficulty Capraro and Augustine had in getting a simple copy of the total compensation spreadsheet for then City Manager, Rich Rising.

Our request for the record was blocked by then-City Attorney, Clark Cannon. According to Cannon, an individual Councilor’s request for a public document was a violation of Section 13.2 of the City Charter. According to Cannon, “neither the City Council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any subordinate of the City Manager.”

Capraro, who was then on Council and made the request for the document in question, was being told by the City Attorney that he could not ask the Comptroller for a photocopy of a record! Of course, any member of the public, simply by filing a FOIL request, would have been given the record on demand. Instead, the Attorney told Capraro that the request should be made by “the entire Council” and only “in consultation with the City Manager.”

At the time we thought it sounded quite ridiculous for City Councilors to have less access to public records than members of the public not serving on City Council. We also thought it was quite ridiculous for City Councilors to have their requests mediated by the City Manager, presumably so that he would have a chance to ‘explain’ things before Councilors asked too many questions. We still believe that unfiltered, direct access to public records by all people is essential to government accountability.

Since 2007, we have used documents gained through FOIL requests in several posts. We posted public documents about the County Revolving Loan program, about the City’s Wastewater Treatment plant performance, about attorney’s costs. Usually they are simply the fact basis for our fact-based point of view, but sometimes, as in the case with the NYS Attorney General’s investigation, FOILing turns up records that reveal the secrets of City business, unknown to Council itself, such as the bill for legal fees for Rising’s proffer agreement.

Because we rely on only publicly available information, FOIL requests over the years have ensured that we have never violated our ‘no leaks, no gossip’ policy. While we do believe that City Councilors should have unimpeded access to city records, and therefore not be required to file FOIL requests, we want to make it clear that when City Councilors challenge Augustine’s use of the FOIL, their anger is misplaced. If Councilors and the public want City Councilors to refrain from FOIL requests, then the policy requiring it should be lifted. We believe the City Manager and the City Attorney and, by consent, Council itself can clear up this matter by announcing an end to the information lock down of the previous administration and allowing unmediated, direct access to the public record by Council members. In the meantime, we’ll continue accessing public records in the way clearly allowed and promoted under the law.

Fuel For Thought: Readers and City Manager React to Gas Post

In response to our post on fuel consumption and the City budget, we received two signed comments that raised interesting points or questions that warrant more discussion:

First, we agree with Mark that the main point of our post was to suggest that the City’s published budget is virtually impossible to follow, that the numbers just didn’t seem to add up, for whatever reason.

Our attention was first drawn to line items relating to fuel consumption (revenue and expenses) when the City announced that by mid-year 2008, the City had used up all of its allocation for fuel, thanks to a spike in the price of gas. Council budgeted for 2009 and then the price of gas went way down. Wouldn’t that create a budget surplus and effect the budgeting for 2010?

Every member of the public has the right to read the city budget, in its entirety, and to view the records that support the various budget line items. We did just that, and found the documents to be cumbersome and unnecessarily vague when it comes to reconciling various line items.

Yet, Mark goes on to state, and, again, we agree, that a reader who is unfamiliar with general municipal operations might get the impression that we were suggesting “something funny” is going on. That must be what happened when some Councilors read the post and accused Councilor Augustine of attacking staff “from the bushes.” Not only was the post not an attack on City staff—we went out of our way to express how cooperative staff had been-but we’re not sure how a signed blog entry on the internet could be more public: if there was anyone hiding in the bushes it wasn’t us. So rather than indulging those who like to jump to conclusions, we want to take some time to respond to the real questions raised by our readers, who apparently, like Mark, understand general municipal operations.

Tom also concluded that we were not claiming to have “hit on some kind of conspiracy, but a system of payment and accounting that was set up years ago and never adjusted.” There is value, he states—and we agree-in looking at these systems closely to make sure that what City government is doing today meets the City’s current needs, rather than simply doing things ‘as we’ve always done them.’

We point out that after the post appeared, the City Manager drafted a memo to Council
addressing the question of apparent discrepancies in the City’s published budget.(We’re not sure if it was his own response to our post or a response to other Councilors who may have read the post and asked for an explanation.) Our post had been on revenue and expenditures for 2006 and 2007, but the City Manager addressed figures for 2008, so we’re not sure how that clears things up. Also, in the same memo, he indicates that in order to reconcile figures for 2008 he had to use a “figure different than the 2008 figure represented in the budget documents,” so, actually, he’s acknowledging the same problem: the numbers don’t add up in the published budget documents. Again, he’s not exposing some conspiracy, but commenting on the numbers generated by the accounting system that’s in place.

Mark’s comment also addressed outside agency use of City fuel. While we don’t disagree that support of critical agencies is a nice thing for the City to engage in, we cannot agree with the implication that the City must do this, or should continue to provide gasoline at cost. Consider this: if the City purchases gasoline from the state contract at $2/gallon and the price at the pump is $3.50/gallon, for example, that is a significant savings for any agency that is billed at cost. But the City incurs a cost to maintain the gas station facility, to generate the bills and do the associated accounting. Even if the City were to charge a $.50/gallon surcharge, the agencies would still see a great benefit and the City would see some actual revenue to cover those costs. There is the additional question of whether the Geneva Housing Authority, which already receives substantial subsidies from the City for services that might not be wholly consistent with the City’s strategic imperatives, should receive additional City assistance for their County-wide operation.

The question of outside agency gas usage has been raised on the floor of City Council before, but never taken up for discussion. We hope that it will be now, given the City’s tight budget constraints.

And that leads us to the last question or concern that our post generated, both on the blog and at the most recent televised Council meeting. Our readers say that Councilors should not have to file a FOIL request to speak to a department head or to receive records. It seems that many on Council share this view, but as we will discuss in an upcoming post, the standing policy prohibits that—as one of our first posts back in 2007 discussed. So, perhaps our post raised yet another ‘old system’ that’s in need of a change.

City Manager's 2010 budget proposal is a call to action

It will be impossible for the City of Geneva to sustain year after year of zero per cent property tax increases AND retain its current administrative structure AND current service-delivery model. City Manager Matt Horn sent that message loud and clear to Council and the citizens of the City of Geneva in his 2010 budget proposal.

In our view, Horn’s challenge is not a threat to raise taxes, but a call to action. Council must respond with bold, decisive choices following directly from the mission, vision, and priorities for the City it has already declared. In other words, it’s up to Council to now walk the walk, after talking the talk.

Horn’s proposed budget holds property taxes to a zero per cent increase for 2010, through a series of interdepartmental line items, and by refusing to bond for capital projects and foregoing an installment to the equipment amortization fund. In effect, he is allowing Council until the next budget cycle (which should begin the day after the 2010 budget passes) to deal with the long-term, structural challenges to the budget.

And the challenges are many. New York State faces massive debt, thanks to unrestrained spending and severe cuts in revenue attributable to the recession. State aid to the City, never guaranteed, is, therefore, in even more doubt. In addition, cities across New York State will likely receive, in 2011, a bill to cover shortfalls in the State pension fund to cover the costs of benefits for retired City workers.

And though the City will realize some cost savings for health insurance coverage for current employees in 2010, thanks to a change in plans offered, this does not eliminate all benefit increases. Even with some measure of health care reform at the federal level, policy premiums are projected to rise. The City can also expect further declines in sales tax revenue, the second highest source of revenue after property taxes.

Those are the challenges. But Horn, undaunted, says Council has already developed a framework to address them; the “strategic imperatives,” passed by Council in 2008: (1) “value for taxpayers,” i.e. giving tax payers their money’s worth in services; (2) “enhancing neighborhoods,” i.e., following through on the neighborhood initiative; (3) “engaged governance, i.e., better communication and deliberation; (4) “economic development,” i.e., investment and job creation.

His budget document, page after page, hammers home the priorities. The question is, “Exactly how will those priorities address the challenges?” That is for the City Council to wrestle with.

"Follow The Money"Bloggers Resume Talk Radio with Ted Baker on WGVA

After a late summer’s hiatus of a few weeks, we resumed blogging with a fact-based point of view on the City’s own gas station, “Filling it up at the City Pump,” and resumed our regular time slot on Ted Baker’s morning radio show. Ted spoke with us about that post and other financial matters as the City ramps up for the 2010 budget process. Our effort to reconcile what the City spends on gas with amounts of gas departments actually use is a matter of accountability and transparency in government.

But the other hot financial topic of the day was the grant money for lakefront development secured—or not—by State Senator Mike Nozzolio. Remember that this money was first announced last year in the midst of the Bergmann study of the highest and best use of City-owned lakefront property. At that time, we questioned the wisdom of dropping money for a predetermined project into the middle of a process that everyone had been assured had no predetermined outcome.

Now it seems that the pressure to do something, anything may have been rooted in some fiscal realities that are none-too-flattering for the state legislators who made all those big ticket promises in the lead up to the last election. Nozzolio had initially indicated that a total of $5 million was earmarked for the City. In reality, $4 million of that was specifically dedicated for the City, but the remaining $1 million is uncertain, with budget deficits in Albany and a funding source which is not clear. So other guests on Ted Baker’s morning radio show, from the Senator himself to local special interests have been saying that the City must “hurry, hurry,” leaving many to question if the money is really ready and waiting for the City to draw down or if was a premature appropriation that never found its legs?

We also looked ahead to the bigger picture of the City’s budgeting process, stressing the need to address long-term structural stressors on the budget and alternatives to property tax increases for new City revenue. The idea, we think, is to “follow the money,” i.e., to get a better handle on what money is coming in, and where it goes out.

So take a listen and give us some feedback on what issues, fiscal or otherwise, you’d like to see us dig in on in the coming months!

System of a Down Isn't the Only Group Concerned About "The Toxicity of Our City"Water Quality and WasteWater Treatment Loom Large In Many Minds

Our readers may recall that as the question of the composition of leachate and the general quality of Geneva’s drinking water loomed large this past summer, we discussed City of Geneva public works director Gordy Eddington’s guest editorial in the Finger Lakes Times. (You can reread that post here) We wrote, “Eddington’s piece was really not about leachate at all, but, rather, the reported performance of the City’s wastewater treatment plant. The City’s plant and our water, he says, are in compliance with various regulatory requirements.” Eddington’s guest piece came on the heels of a Finger Lakes Times series on landfill and leachate issues. In addition to the fact-finding efforts related to that series, the local environmental group Finger Lakes Zero Waste was filing a series of Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests for data including the City’s own water quality analysis.

That editorial piece was intended, we assume, to put the public’s mind at ease about the quality of the City’s wastewater treatment system and its ‘effluent’ (discharge) into Seneca Lake. Our post tried to point out that compliance with permits should be seen as the minimum criterion on which we would evaluate the willingness and ability to accept and treat runoff from the area landfills that have become regional (and in some cases, international) dumping grounds. We focused on the need to consider pollutants not currently tested for, but that might pose health hazards if passed untreated into Seneca Lake, the source of drinking water for many in the Finger Lakes region.

We stated that Eddington’s desire to provide public reassurance about the wastewater treatment plant’s compliance was understandable and appropriate, but we urged him to make data from the City’s internal testing of the leachate public-- to improve the fact set available to Council, and the public, before the work session dedicated to the topic.

Finger Lakes Zero Waste has reported that the City has been slow to produce the records requested under FOIL. But it is a different set of FOIL requests, in a different venue, that have provided all groups interested in this topic with a better set of reliable data. The new group inquiring about this topic? Not the Finger Lakes Times, but the New York Times, for their series, “Toxic Waters.”

The second installment in that series, an article entitled “Clean Water Laws Are Neglected, at a Cost in Suffering” discloses violations of the Clean Water Act that, while reported in a central database, have gone largely unaddressed by state and federal regulators.

The New York Times offers maps and tables which fill in additional details and provide more information for a better analysis of the big picture of water quality compliance. One map of registered “pollution points” in New York State (this includes any user who discharges material into groundwater, including waste water treatment plants, industries, farms, etc.) shows there are 4,606 facilities in New York State that fall under the EPA’s direct supervision.

The New York Times ranking of polluters, by violation, shows the City of Geneva’s Wastewater Treatment plant (Marsh Creek WWTP) as #22 in New York. In other words, of the 4,606 facilities in all of New York State overseen by the EPA, only 21 had worse EPA violation statistics than Geneva. (Click here for the chart)

If anyone wanted to check things out for themselves, the New York Times piece provides direct links to the EPA’s online data reports for each facility. So, of course, we took a look at the City of Geneva’s report to find out the details behind these rankings. After all, the article said that some ‘violations’ were merely administrative issues, like missing reporting deadlines, and not necessarily violations of the issued permits. Unfortunately, it seems that Geneva has more than a mere administrative problem. Based on the chart, “Three Year Compliance Status by Quarter,” the City of Geneva’s Marsh Creek plant suffered from non-compliance for 12 out of 12 quarters, including the most recent reporting quarter ending March 2009. (Click here for full details)

According to the chart, “effluent violations are displayed as the highest percentage by which the permit was exceeded for the quarter. Bold, large print indicated Significant Non Compliance (SNC) effluent violations. Shaded boxes indicate unresolved SNC violations.”

Geneva has bold, large print entries in three of the ten criteria: Chlorine, Settleable Solids, and Total Suspended Solids. In the last reported quarter (January-March 2009), Settleable Solids exceeded the permit by 233%; Total Suspended Solids by 109%; and Chlorine exceeded the permit by 70% earning a designation as an “unresolved” significant non compliance effluent violation.

On a brighter note, we should point out these numbers actually appear to be an improvement over the noncompliance statistics from previous quarters, perhaps due to recently completed upgrades at the facility. For instance, the same time last year (Jan-Mar 2008), Settleable Solids exceeded the permit by 13233%. That’s not a ‘typo.’

The June editorial piece left an impression of compliance, but we believe more information is needed with regard to this database of noncompliance. In terms of handling leachate, it would be good to know how much of this noncompliance is due to events that occurred as a direct result of the leachate, or when leachate was present in the city system. But even if the leachate stream ‘dries up,’ it seems that Council and the appointed Green Committee should discuss the way in which local monitoring and oversight can track with the monitoring done by the epa, so that future results don’t come as such a surprise, and so that we can more assuredly answer the question posed in a previous post: “How Clean Is Our Water?” To answer these questions, it seems that City Council and its Green Committee should echo our earlier request to the Director of public Works to please “show us the data!”