Thomas Houseknecht's response to Jason Molino

Here's Thomas Houseknecht's response to the letter from Jason Molino that we posted earlier:

UPDATE: We received this e-mail from Thomas Houseknecht this morning. I think Mr. Houseknecht's note at the top explains the need for the update. I'm not a fan of unpublishing something once it's published. Mr. Houseknecht's original e-mail is preserved after the jump (click on the headline); however, the new one is obviously the one that matters most.

After returning home from work late yesterday and reading Mr. Molino's response that I initially read on The Batavian, I too did not see all of the attachments. Having read them all minimally changes my response to withdraw my statements that my questions have not been answered. The text below is my response corrected after reading the other attachments:

Mr. Molino,

I appreciate the service you provide to our community and the difficulties you are faced with as you prepare a budget. As much as I appreciate the invitation to sit down with you and your staff to review numbers, this public letter you have written to me is puzzling and only adds to my discontent with the current refuse and budget proposal. It seems to have been written to once again praise the value of a user fee approach in an effort to mute the opposition in preparation for City Council’s vote on February 25. Unfortunately, as the City has handled this issue with little prior public input and as part of your overall budget proposal, I have had no alternative but to express my concerns through public comments and media postings. Your offer to discuss it at this late date seems disingenuous as it appears that there is little or no time for dialoging to, as you stated, “better communicate our intentions and goals for the City as it relates to refuse collection both now and in the future,” prior to the Council vote merely two business days away.    

In your response, you continue to make your case to impose a user fee and its merits as you see them verses the current means of both collecting refuse and paying for collection. I could make the same argument for school taxes, but both discussions are diversions from the discussion of the actual financial impact on the majority of city residents. In your responses, you draw conclusions that the majority of properties will see a reduction, but this does not necessarily support your conclusion that the majority of residents will save money. Commercial properties, who will be relieved of the costs of refuse collection, are not residents and they do not vote. It stands to reason that if the overall cost of the new program represents a savings of $300,000 to commercial properties and those with higher assessments will achieve a savings as well, that a program with a total savings of approximately $260,000 must be passing on an increase to the lowest valued properties in the city. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that this proposal will adversely affect the majority. I appreciate that you do recognize that failure to remove it from the property tax will cause Council to have to vote to exceed the property tax cap with the current budget as proposed.

My assumptions were simple and need no further explanation as they were arrived at through the City’s website postings, including the 2012 tax rolls. You have the best possible access to this data, yet you again present a biased view of the actual number of city residents who will effectively be paying more for their city services under your proposal. Your answers draw conclusions that once again skew the argument to the user fee. The fact sheet on the City’s website states that “close to 90 percent of city residents will save money under the proposed plan” in a comparison of the current program to a user fee program. At a recent Council meeting, you were quoted in the news media stating that 65 to 75 percent of residents will save money. Your most recent response to my questions as presented to City Council states that 56.4% of single family homes will save. Clearly, from your own statements, the percentage of homes that will save has changed throughout these proceedings. Please explain these statements to the residents of Hutchins St., Swan St., Kingsbury Ave., Lyon St., Tracy Ave., to name a few where the vast majority will pay more. Again I ask, what is the actual number of city residents that will pay more?

Your response to my e-mail to City Council, that I have just received for the first time, attempts to discredit my analysis of homes that will pay more by discounting those that are multi-family and rental properties. As these residents will also be impacted, is it fair to exclude them? Also, the Senior discount does not eliminate the fee, it merely lowers the break-even point. I believe this furthers the argument that the full impact has not been assessed. The misrepresentations in the City’s presentation cause me to further question some of your new assertions. 

Batavia has historically included refuse collection in the property tax.  Converting to a user fee may be desirable from a budget preparer’s standpoint, but it will adversely impact the majority of city residents. This simple fact must be recognized and be a part of the discussion. City management’s attempt to leave this fact out of the discussion is unacceptable and dishonest to me. It is possible that all of the numbers being discussed by both of us are thoroughly confusing to City residents.  Therefore, at the public hearing I asked Council, and will again ask Council to take the five following steps :

1. If you still have doubts about the analysis I have presented, have city management or an independent party review the tax roles and determine exactly how many residents will be adversely impacted. The 2012 assessment role is available on the city’s website for all to see.

2. Once you have completed your due diligence, vote against the change to the ordinance that is required to change the current refuse program to a user fee.

3. Find out why you were presented with bad information upon which to base your decision and take the appropriate actions to insure that it doesn’t happen again.

4. Take another look at the budget and cut unnecessary functions of city government.

5. Establish a refuse committee of citizens, which I would be happy to serve on, to look at how recycling could be increased or a PAYT system could be phased in with ARC as our provider in a manner that would truly benefit all residents.

In closing, I would like to reiterate that I appreciate the difficult job you have in preparing and implementing a budget for the City of Batavia, especially when faced with NY’s property tax cap. I simply ask that all of the facts be presented in a fair, honest and concise manner before our council members are asked to put their reputations on the line with their votes.

Sincerely,
Thomas Houseknecht

Original e-mail replaced by the revised one.

Mr. Molino,

I appreciate the service you provide to our community and the difficulties you are faced with as you prepare a budget. As much as I appreciate the invitation to sit down with you and your staff to review numbers, this public letter you have written to me is puzzling and only adds to my discontent with the current refuse and budget proposal. It seems to have been written to once again praise the value of a user fee approach without answering any of the questions or concerns I have raised in an effort to mute the opposition in preparation for City Council’s vote on February 25. Unfortunately, as the City has handled this issue with little prior public input and as part of your overall budget proposal, I have had no alternative but to express my concerns through public comments and media postings. Your offer to discuss it at this late date seems disingenuous as it appears that there is little or no time for dialoging  to,  as you stated, “better communicate our intentions and goals for the City as it relates to refuse collection both now and in the future,” prior to the Council vote merely two business days away.   

You opened your letter stating that you were responding to my questions, but you did not respond to any of them. You simply make your case to impose a user fee and its’ merits as you see them verses the current means of both collecting refuse and paying for collection. I could make the same argument for school taxes, but both discussions are diversions from the discussion of the actual financial impact on the majority of city residents. This statement of your reasoning for the conversion does not answer the question as to whether this proposal will adversely affect the majority nor does it answer the question as to whether it attempts to get around a vote on the city’s property tax cap, as I have asserted.

My assumptions were simple and need no further explanation as they were arrived at through the City’s website postings, including the 2012 tax rolls. You have the best possible access to this data, yet you again fail to reveal the actual number of city residents who will effectively be paying more for their city services under your proposal. If you use the average assessments quoted in your response, any reasonable person would agree that it is dishonest to make the case that the majority of residents will save money under the proposed system. Yet the fact sheet on the City’s website states that “close to 90 percent of city residents will save money under the proposed plan.” At a recent Council meeting, you were quoted in the news media stating that 65 to 75 percent of residents will save money. Your most recent response to my questions as presented to City Council states that 56.4% of single family homes will save. Clearly, from your own statements, the percentage of homes that will save has changed throughout these proceedings. Please explain these statements to the residents of Hutchins St., Swan St., Kingsbury Ave., Lyon St., Tracy Ave., to name a few where the vast majority will pay more. Again I ask, what is the actual number of city homes that will pay more?

Your response to my email to City Council, that I have just received for the first time, attempts to discredit my analysis of homes that will pay more by discounting those that are multi-family and rental properties. As these residents will also be impacted, is it fair to exclude them? Also, the Senior discount does not eliminate the fee, it merely lowers the breakeven point.  I believe this furthers the argument that the full impact has not been assessed. The misrepresentations in the City’s presentation cause me to further question some of your new assertions, especially the one where you state that all properties under $77,200 will benefit with lower costs. If the City has to live within the 2% property tax cap, the break-even point becomes $85,600.

Batavia has historically included refuse collection in the property tax.  Converting to a user fee may be desirable from a budget preparer’s standpoint, but it will adversely impact the majority of city residents. This simple fact must be recognized and be a part of the discussion. City management’s attempt to leave this fact out of the discussion is unacceptable and dishonest to me. It is possible that all of the numbers being discussed by both of us are thoroughly confusing to City residents.  Therefore, at the public hearing I asked Council, and will again ask Council to take the five following steps :

1. If you still have doubts about the analysis I have presented, have city management or an independent party review the tax roles and determine exactly how many residents will be adversely impacted. The 2012 assessment role is available on the city’s website for all to see.

2. Once you have completed your due diligence, vote against the change to the ordinance that is required to change the current refuse program to a user fee.

3. Find out why you were presented with bad information upon which to base your decision and take the appropriate actions to insure that it doesn’t happen again.

4. Take another look at the budget and cut unnecessary functions of city government.

5. Establish a refuse committee of citizens, which I would be happy to serve on, to look at how recycling could be increased or a PAYT system could be phased in with ARC as our provider in a manner that would truly benefit all residents.

In closing, I would like to reiterate that I appreciate the difficult job you have in preparing and implementing a budget for the City of Batavia, especially when faced with NY’s property tax cap. I simply ask that all of the facts be presented in a fair, honest and concise manner before our council members are asked to put their reputations on the line with their votes.
Sincerely,
Thomas Houseknecht