WHITE PLAINS CITIZENETREPORTER SETS RECORD VISITS FOR YEAR 7,017,658 VISITS! 2,098,003 VISITORS MADE 6 VISITS A DAY EVERY DAY. 63,330 UNIQUE VISITORS MADE 133,730 VISITS IN DECEMBER. WPCNR AVERAGED 17,284 VISITORS A WEEK, VISITING 31,270 TIMES.

Hits: 0

WPCNR PHOTOS OF THE DAY. By the WPCNR ROVING PHOTOGRAPHER. July 4, 2011: 

As we look forward to fireworks celebrations and Sousa marches to celebrate the signing of the Declaration of Independence, nature is celebrating with “FlowerWorks,” as the incomparable day lily explodes in beauty and regal splendor and clusters of accolades no burst of pyrotechnics can match. The blossoms only bloom for a day and come out just about Independence Day weekend. Happy Birthday, America!

 

Hits: 0

 

 

WPCNR QUILL & EYESHADE. By John F. Bailey. June 28, 2011 UPDATED July 3, 2011 in yellow.: 

 

 If you believe the euphoria coming out of the editorial pages of local and metropolitan newspapers you would believe the state legislature has stopped the rising tide of property taxes in its tracks.

 

Nothing could be farther from the truth. 

 

City financial managers, mayors, school superintendents and city managers  across the state today  may just be beginning to discover the horrible truth about the 2% property tax cap:

 

It is misleading at best and sticks them with enforcing the cap  and cutting expenses or facing voter outrage.

 

In the actual bill, the school district must get a budget passed on the second try to override the cap, or face keeping the budget on the 2011-12 level. Two defeats will necessitate massive cuts in personnel, and school district expenses.

 

That outrage will come when  voters expecting a 2% cap on their taxes next year, get hit with a much higher tax levy. That is well within possibility, because the new Tax Cap Law lets cities and school districts off the hook by forcing the cities and schools to cover sharply higher pensions and dropping assessments with minimal relief.

 

There is no way without substantial, cruel cuts that White Plains, the city, or White Plains, the school district can keep the levy under 2% in 2012-13.

By  WPCNR reckoning, unless the City of White Plains cuts their budget by $5 million dollars through layoffs for 2012-2013 or taps its fund balance restoration fund next year to deliver labor settlements in 2012-13 ,  you, the taxpayer could expect a 7% increase in property taxes next year and still  incredibly comply with the 2% property tax cap.

 

Do not be surprised, I am telling you this one year in advance.

 

Commissioner of Finance for White Plains, David Genito,  in his initial analysis of the tax cap as it applies to cities, told me today,  that the city is not allowed to exclude assessment declines in figuring the allowable  levy increase. Assessment declines are not addressed by the new tax cap law, confirming what Assemblyman Robert Castelli told WPCNR Saturday night.  Pension increases are addressed, but only 2% of any  total increase in pension payments in 2012-13 are allowed to expand the city tax cap amount , Genito said.

 

 The city pension increase alone amounted to $2.1 M of the 2011-12 budget just approved (a 21% pension payment increase). That amount (probably more) could be spent and added to the levy, without violating the cap next year, though, it should be pointed out that is not under consideration at this time by the city.  

 

The city, if they do not cut the budget substantially will never make the tax cap of 2% in their 2012-13 levy.

 

No problem. The Tax Cap Law Lets Them Override it.

 

All the Common Council has to do is simply vote by super majority (5-2) to override the cap and the 2% restriction is finessed away. The city does not have to take an override to the voters.

 

The school district however does have to take an override to the voters. According to new tax cap law (viewable complete at
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=A08518&term=&Summary=Y&Actions=Y&Votes=Y&Memo=Y&Text=Y

 

— the district can resubmit the budget twice after it is defeated, however after 2 submissions, the district has to adapt a budget no larger than the precious year. That would mean big layoffs for this school district, and cost cutting. The bottom line is the district will need to really sell to get the 60% override on the first budget they send out.

 

The bill says:

 

(9) If the budget is defeated after two presentations to the voters,
or after one defeat where the school district decides not to resubmit
a budget to the voters, then the district would be required to adopt a
budget with a tax levy less than or equal to that of the prior year;

Replacing another $3 Million decrease in assessment roll erosion would be a budget haymaker to the city’s jaw, meaning the city would have to tax or cut to the tune of $537,000 to recover the lost revenue from this trend.

 

Genito told me today the assessment revenue loss from declining assessment rolls is not even addressed by the law.  Only an increase in assessments is addressed as being able to expand the levy cap(like that–an assessment roll is really going to happen.)

 

Of course expenses from torts and capital expenditures could also be excluded  from the cap amount, as yet undefined.

 

Assemblyman Castelli told WPCNR the local city government can override the 2% property tax cap by voting by a super majority (5-2 ) to override with no need to go to the people for referendum.

 

The legislation has dumped the finance problems caused by assessments and pensions squarely on local leadership, thus the legislature has cleverly passed the buck down to you and me Mr. and Mrs. and Ms. New York State and White Plains. There is no penalty for overriding the cap. Only the tax payer is penalized.

 

Passing the Buck on Down.

 

The Common Council  and most cities, towns and counties  next year   may suffer a severe public relations problem with the public should they vote through a 7% or higher property tax increase to cover pensions, assessment revenue and a labor settlement of  3%.

 

Three per cent! Impossible? Should the council go to arbitration again, that is what they might end up with as inflation heats up the rest of this year.

 

After Friday’s firings, it  would appear people are being sacrificed so the council does not have to pass a big property tax increase next year. Another issue that comes in play is tapping the fund balance restoration fund to bankroll labor peace by pumping out some raises to the police, fire, teamsters and CSEA. Mr. Genito said that fund is an option next year.

 

Meanwhile over at Education House.

 

Down at City School District Headquarters, A 2% property tax cap would mean the district could only increase the levy $3,080,000 (the budget levy is $154 Million for 2011-12).

 

 

On pensions, the district is helped that 2.9 % of the pension cost increases for 2012-13 may be added to the district property tax increase they can legally execute next year. But that is a pittance, increasing the property tax cap 2.9% of the pension increase. This is token relief from the legislature on the pension burden.

 

This coming year, starting Friday,  the school district will pay 21% more in pension costs into the Teachers and New York State Workers funds. If that trend continues next year, budget anxiety will ratchet up under the new tax cap law.

 

It gets worse. In 2011-12 fiscal year, the district is paying $1.7 Million in increased teachers and New York State employee pensions and faces negotiating a new contract.

 

Think what this means: For the district (as presently constituted going into 2011-12) in expenses to be maintained at $185.5 Million, with 2011-12 personnel,  the district has to raise the tax levy by a possible $3.4 Million to cover the pensions, plus perhaps a $4.2 Million salary increase for the teachers alone (Estimated 5% total increase,that’s what they generally get in the last five years.)

 

The district could face (just doing rough calculations) an assessment revenue shortfall of $1.65 Million, another $3.3 Million pension increase, and their teachers new contract (estimated $4.2 Million more) – a total of  $8 to $9 Million without facing other increases in health insurance, bus transportation, fuel, and of course raises for other unions and administrators. Budgeting is not rocket science. It is simply a matter of projection and looking at the possible scenarios, if you are leveled with by the state legislature.

 

To recoup the lost assessment revenue of $1.65 Million, the possible pension hit ($3.3 Million if it is the same as this year’s) and accommodate the teacher’s contract hopefully without a 5% overall increase, which if they give them 5% total that adds $4 Million or so you come up with– $8 to $9 Million in pensions, assessment recovery and union wage increases.

 

Say all the rest of increased expenses amount to $3,000,000 plus the $8 Million to 9 Million we are guessing at will be taken up by pensions, assessment shortfall and the teachers contract.  The district increase in spending would be  a potential $12-$13 Million on the high side.

 

A 2% property tax cap would mean the district could only increase the levy $3,080,000 (the budget levy is $154 Million for 2011-12).

 

Now if the district keeps the budget scope  of the district where it is and decides to fund the present teacher staffing, give them a new contract with say a 5% raise (includes longevity, steps and salary raise), has to face similar pension payments next year (2012-13), and has to make up the ever dwindling grains of the White Plains assessment hourglass–

 

This rough cut would bring the district to the $197.5 Million level, and require a 9% property tax increase, increasing the tax rate from $549/per thousand dollars of assessed valuation to $599/per thousand to reach the $166 Million levy required. 

 

The district could cut expenses by layoffs or more cutbacks to get in under the 2% for public relations sake, or they could bank on the district voters voting to approve a 9 % tax increase, with hopes the district voters would hit the magic override of the cap – 60%. This plurality of approval was what the voters approved the district 2.67% tax increase this year.

 

For the new school fiscal year starting Friday,  the district increased the budget .9% and the levy 2.67% so increasing the levy 9% and taking a chance that they can convince the school “stakeholders” to come on out and approve an increase that would increase the taxes on a median priced assessed home ($650,000) to over $9,100 compared to $8,400 you will start to pay Saturday when your tax bill arrives, Mr. or Mrs. Median Home Owner.

 

Where’s the Relief?

 

The Tax Cap bill is nothing of the kind it is a pass the buck bill.

 

The legislators are forcing the cities and districts to cut expenses while continuing to keep decreasing the revenues cities and school districts receive by ignoring the evil of certiorari tax challenges and refusing to negotiate strong pension reform that cut the pension problem now not when we are all dead.

 

The tax cap bill makes two important exceptions to keep the money train rumbling for retirees of the state, the certiorari lawyers, commercial property owners, and the construction industry.

 

These groups are the  major culprits in increasing White Plains property taxes:  assessment declines and pension cost increases, capital expenditures and tort settlements have been allowed to continue unchecked in their rampant looting of taxpayers’ pockets with this bill.

 

The legislators have taken care of their pals who give them the campaign contributions  that keeps them getting reelected, while making you believe they are working to give you tax relief. Money talks if you don’t want to walk.

 

Instead of say 2% tax cap, no ands, ifs, or buts, the allow the cities by vote of the majority to override the cap with no voter say. They allow the school districts to override too but by popular vote and to override, the district has to get 60%. 

 

The city  and the school district, unless the pension and assessment commits are remarkably lower next year (2012-13), and unless unions can be appeased, both entities will have to cut expenses substantially to even approach the 2% cap.

 

For the School District this will mean at least the same number of firings next year if not more (50 firings could save the district $5 Million, 90 firings would enable them to save them $9 Million and get them under the 2% property tax cap and keep the school budget under $190 Million.

 

For the city, this week they fired 8 people saving $625,000, but hired another for $104,000. They can’t get their hands on the fund balance stabilization money fast enough.

 

Sales tax don’t fail us now.

Hits: 0

WPCNR FBI WIRE. From the Federal Bureau of Investigation. June 28, 2011:

Gary Foster, a former vice president in Citigroup, Inc.’s treasury finance department has been arrested on bank fraud charges arising from his embezzlement of more than $19 million. Foster was apprehended at John F. Kennedy International Airport Sunday morning when he arrived on a flight from Bangkok.¹

According to the complaint, Foster transferred money from various Citigroup accounts to Citigroup’s cash account and then to his personal account at a different bank. Between July 2010 and December 2010, he allegedly caused approximately $900,000 to be moved from Citigroup’s interest expense account and approximately $14.4 million from Citigroup’s debt adjustment account to the bank’s cash account, and then caused the money to be wired out of Citigroup’s cash account to his personal account at another bank in eight separate wire transfers.

The complaint further charges that Foster caused a fraudulent contract or deal number to be placed in the reference line of the wire transfer instructions to create the appearance that the transfers were in support of an existing contract.

“The defendant allegedly used his knowledge of bank operations to commit the ultimate inside job. We are committed to ensuring the integrity of the banking system and to prosecuting those who would undermine it for their personal gain,” stated United States Attorney Lynch. Ms. Lynch expressed her appreciation to Citigroup, which brought this matter to the attention of the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

“The egregious behavior of those who would exploit our banking system for personal and criminal gain will not be tolerated. We remain committed to investigating and apprehending those who cheat the system,” said FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge Fedarcyk.

If convicted, the defendant faces a maximum sentence of 30 years’ imprisonment on the bank fraud charges.

The government’s case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Michael L. Yaeger and Karen Hennigan.

Hits: 0

WPCNR STAGE DOOR. From Riverspace, Nyack, New York. June 25, 2011:

The folks at Riverspace are very sad to announce an enormous amount of damage in the theater due to this week’s floods in Nyack. Tragically, the building housing the theater was inundated with water and the theater itself was flooded from the stage all the way to lobby. Needless to say, we are heartbroken at this turn of events and are working hard to assess the situation.

Because of the extent of the damage, we know we won’t be able to host the Helen Hayes Youth Theater camp as we usually do each summer – which was scheduled to begin July 5th.  There are over 300 kids ages 4 to 18 who now desperately need to find a stage for their summer performances. If anyone can help them relocate, your help would be most sincerely appreciated!  Please contact Danielle Rudess at helenhayesyt@aol.com

Our hearts go out to everyone who was impacted by the storm and floods this week.  Please keep us in your thoughts as well.  We will keep you updated of future developments.

Hits: 0

WPCNR ALBANY ROUNDS FOR THE RECORD.  Special to WPCNR From 89TH District Assemblyman Robert Castelli. June 25, 2011:

Assemblyman Castelli has forwarded to WPCNR the latest “Sponsor Memo” explaining what the “passed” 2 % Property Tax Cap Bill Does. In essence, both the city budget and the city school budget of White Plains could only increase the tax levy in 2012-2013 2% each.  WPCNR believes, reading the bill that Westchester County is subject to the same 2% cap.

For Readers wishing to read the passed version of the bill, Mr. Castelli directs you to:

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=A08518&term=&Summary=Y&Actions=Y&Votes=Y&Memo=Y&Text=Y

In a nutshell, The sponsor Memo highlights how the bill would work:

 

The Sponsor Memo:

This tax levy cap would shift the focus from total spending to the actual property taxes levied to support school district and local government
expenses.

The bill includes the following provisions: 

· This bill limits tax levy growth to the lesser of two percent or the annual increase in the CPI, other than the “Big 5” school districts of
Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Yonkers and New York City. Those are funded through city budgets.  

· The exceptions for a tax levy above two percent or CPI are funds needed to support voter-approved capital expenditures, pensions, torts over five percent of the prior year’s levy, and an override of the cap.

· This bill also allows the growth in the levy due to physical and quantitative change.

· A school district would be required to submit a tax levy proposition for approval by voters at the district’s annual meeting on the 3rd Tuesday in May.

If the proposed tax levy is within the district’s tax levy limit, then a majority vote would be required for approval. If the proposed tax levy seeks to override the cap and exceeds the district’s tax levy cap, the threshold required for approval would be 60 percent of the vote.

· A school district that does not levy an amount up to the cap in any one year would be allowed to carry over unused tax levy capacity into future years. However, this carryover levy capacity cannot be used to increase its tax levy by more than an additional 1.5 percent above the cap in any single year.

· In the event a district’s actual tax levy exceeds its authorized levy due to clerical or technical errors, the erroneous excess levy must be placed in reserve to offset the levy for the next school year.

The bill also provides for the same cap to apply to taxes levied by municipal governments.  Local governments that do not levy an amount up to the cap in one year can rollover that amount up to 1.5 percent in the following year. Local boards can exceed the cap with a 60 percent vote of the governing body.

Exceptions include the pension and tort judgments in excess of five percent from the prior year’s levy. When enacted, the law
would take effect for the 2012-13 fiscal year.

MANDATE RELIEF

In addition, the mandate relief component would provide real cost savings in the form of $127 million in savings to local budgets.

This includes:

· $70 million for all local governments and school districts through
piggy-backing and centralized contracts;

· $34.6 million in savings for school districts;

· $13 million for transportation/housing/contracting/procurement/administration for all
localities;

· $7.9 million in social services savings for counties; and

· $1.5 million in criminal justice savings.

 The establishes a Mandate Relief Council which will: 

· Determine if a statute or regulation is unsound, unduly burdensome, or costly;
· Establish procedures for repealing unfunded mandates in both statute and regulation;
· Provide a mechanism for direct appeals from the State Administrative Procedures Act petition;
· Require the state Comptroller to issue a detailed report on the cost and effect of unfunded mandates;
· Require that all bills that require a local government or a school or special district to take any action contain a fiscal note; and
· Be comprised of 11 members nominated by the Governor and Legislature: two nominations for each of the legislative leaders, and seven nominations for the Governor, including the Secretary to the Governor (who would serve as chair), the Governor’s Counsel, Secretary of State, Director of the Division of Budget, and three additional members from the Governor’s
executive chamber staff.

RENT CONTROL

Under the legislation:

o The rent laws are extended for another four years;
o The income threshold for deregulation is raised from $175,000 to $200,000;
o The high rent deregulation threshold is raised from  $2,000 to $2,500;
o The amount a landlord can increase rent after a capital improvement to an individual apartment is reduced from 1/40th to 1/60th of the cost of the improvement on buildings with 35 or more units;
o The Department of Housing and Community Renewal’s authority to regulate the provisions of the act will be enhanced; and
o A limit of one vacancy increase is allowed per year.

There are almost 4000 Emergency Tenant Protection Act (ETPA) units in Mr. Castelli’s district in White Plains alone, (he points out) and this bill marks the strongest strengthening of rent control laws since 1997.