Wednesday, November 12, 2014

Reilich Raises "Fees" ... Not "Taxes" ...


Tax rate to remain at $6.34 per $1,000 of assessed value

Lighting & drainage fees to rise

EVERYONE WILL PAY for retention pond upkeep

Lighting fees to increase by $.05 per $1,000 ($4.78 for a $100,000 home) so Greece can buy the streetlights from RG&E

The $56.6 million 2015 budget breakdown: about one- third of town spending goes for the Police Dept, about one- third for the Highway Dept. and the rest to courts, general govt, development & human services, the library and retiree benefits.

SCATS ~~ Reilich has been hanging out with Maggie a little too much. Raising "fees," not "taxes" is her claim to fame!
  

33 comments:

Anonymous said...

SO, will Billy Boy be giving those of us in Rural Greece streetlights that the last bunch of politician punks started making us pay for?

I want a damn street light at the end of my driveway.

george hubbard said...

To: SCATS

1. Purchase of street lights from RGE implies more financially than annual operating budget for 2015.

1a. This is a physical asset, long term investment... and needs long term financial analysis – cash flow, return on investment etc to know if this is a good move.

1b. What is cost to purchase?

1c. Is debt financing involved?

1d. How many poles will be purchased?

2. Does Board approval of budget give tacit approval to purchase?

Anonymous said...

Operative word is tax RATE. Since our assessments are all a bit higher (our homes are worth more this year than last) the RATE can stay the same and the increase in revenue comes from the higher total assessment. This Fee business is just another finger-in-the-pocket. Except these FEES cant be deducted from your federal income taxes, so they actually dig deeper in our pockets than taxes. Thank you Mr Supervisor!

SCATS said...

To George ~~
1. - Does it matter whether or not the Supervisor and Town Board can pole dance?
1.a.- Should taxpayers fund lessons?

Anonymous said...

George Hubbard is correct the board and finance department are reviewing:
1. Purchase of street lights from RGE implies more financially than annual operating budget for 2015.

1a. This is a physical asset, long term investment... and needs long term financial analysis – cash flow, return on investment etc to know if this is a good move.

1b. What is cost to purchase?

1c. Is debt financing involved?

1d. How many poles will be purchased?

And when they are done if it makes sense they will proceed with the purchase and if like the city in 4 years recoup the investment and from then on realize about 1.4 million in savings. Lets hope it works for the town as well as it did for the city. Good move town and thanks George for pointing this out.

Anonymous said...

Keeping the tax rate the same is just smoke and mirrors. Most of us had our properties reassessed at a higher amount.(Don't know about anyone else out there but I can't sell my home close to what it is assessed for.) So, now that all these properties were assessed higher the Stupidvisor can claim he did not raise taxes. And the dumb sheeple keep electing these idiots. I will be paying more in town, county and school taxes because my assessment went up. This is nothing but a shell game!

SCATS said...

To 3:42PM ~~ My concern for after the purchase is who will maintain them & how? Where will THAT funding come from? If I call RG&E to report a streetlight out today, there's a really good chance they will have it fixed tomorrow morning. I know, because I've often reported outages in my area and witnessed the response. If I have to rely on DPW, it might never get repaired. I can hear the voice on the phone now ... "We'll add that one to our list."

To 6:28PM ~~ I feel your pain! In fact, MANY other Greece homeowners can commiserate. Few got any reductions, even after going to court this year. There's an example of that in the Letters to the Editor of the Greece Post today. Seems to me like it's time for a citizen uprising. What would they do if in January 2015 hundreds of folks call to challenge their taxes again this year? I'm thinking an annual challenge just might be what the doctor ordered.

Anonymous said...

I just looked and my town tax is $900. my school tax is $3200 and my fire tax is $750!
I know for the town tax my road s are paved and plowed. I get a library and community center. I get a police department and free wood chips. What do I get from the fire department for having almost as high taxes?
There is where we need to revolt!

SCATS said...

To 8:26PM ~~ First of all, I totally AGREE with you!

Secondly, they will likely tell you very loudly that you get "protection." The way they go about communicating that message though makes it feel more like mob-style "protection." They don't want to be questioned about anything, capisce?

Anonymous said...

A revolt in the form of a ballot referendum to eliminate the Town Pd and Fire Department s in favor of a county wide police and fire departments is the route to lower taxes and more efficient operation. It s calledConsolidation of these services. The savings would be enormous in terms of your town tax portion of your combined town county tax bill. Roughly a 40% reduction could be realized.
This concept was last voted on in 1983 county wide and defeated 2-1 It's time to revisit this concept .

SCATS said...

To 7:29AM ~~ I'd support that!

Anonymous said...

7:29 your dreams aside, WHERE in NY Law do you find a basis for Referendum beyond School Law?

Anonymous said...

Save on lighting today and salt tomorrow.

Look for the pole now and the shaft later.

Anonymous said...

1:41. What gives you the idea I'm talking about SED law?
In reality it would be a voter approved referendum allowed by State, Municipal and Town Law. I suggest you read my post again and try to understand my meaning.

Anonymous said...

Was there some reason we need to buy the lights versus what we do now? Seems RG&E takes a good share of my income so it might as well cover the street lights too.

My street has been here since 1954 and it's highly residential, and a thoroughfare to other roads now...yet it's dark. No lights.

If you make tax payers buy the lights, we'd better all get lights.

george hubbard said...

To SCATS:
1. Compare sale prices with assessments. Results from 418 recent sales are revealing.

2. One home sold for $120 thousand while assessed lower at $98 thousand,

3. yet another sold only slightly higher at $121 thousand while assessed higher at $143 thousand.

3. Presumably the second homeowner had been paying 45% ($2,000/yr) more in taxes than the first homeowner on homes of 'same' market value.

4. Homeowners are unaware of the discrepancies in the system.

5. Who’s accountable to taxpayers?

Comments invited.

SCATS said...

To 6:03PM ~~ If you live near Arcadia, GCSD plans to "give you lights!"

George ~~ It's Greece. Nobody in this town is EVER accountable!

Anonymous said...

George you know and I know many factors go into the selling price of a home beyond just the numbers. If the person is going through divorce or lost their job they may take less because they desire a quick sale. I once sold my a house in 1997 for 20K less than I could of gotten because I wanted a quick sale because of a job transfer. I sold the house in 3 days.
Assessors do not routinely go into a house. One may have 25 cats living in it the other the home owner just spent 25K on a new upgraded kitchen and have no pets or children. The price will vary wildly.
Assessing over 34,000 parcels in our town is not an exact science. Those that are under assessed will never speak up, those that are over will. If you sit in enough hearings you would be amazed at how many people complain the assessment is to high but when asked if they would sell their house for that amount say "no I wouldn't take that amount!" Amazing to witness but it happens quite a bit.

Anonymous said...

6:03PM Let me explain. Once the town owns all the light poles it will save over 1.4M dollars annually that it now pays to rent the poles. The pay back time is estimated at 4 years so in year 5 and forever after the town will save 1.4 million dollars annually in rent. Kind of like buying your TV or getting from rent a center.

SCATS said...

To 10:54PM ~~ Because you brought up some specific examples, I'm going to push back. If someone spends $25,000 on a kitchen "upgrade" as you call it, then WTH doesn't the town reassess it? To do that kind of work PERMITS ARE NEEDED! Permits are supposed to result in an inspection. From personal experiences, I know that rarely happens. For most homeowners, getting a proper permit is like paying a special tax without getting ANY benefit from it. I suspect the majority no longer bother getting permits unless it's for an addition.

As for asking if someone would take the higher amount for their home, WHAT THE HELL does THAT have to do with a "fair market value/assessment"? It shouldn't matter one way or the other! If the blue book says my car is worth $1500 and a friend offers $1800, of course I'll take the higher offer! That does NOT mean the car is now worth $1800. Same thing for houses, especially where bidding wars take control of emotions over logic & sensibility.

SCATS said...

To 11:23PM ~~ That's really wonderful except nowhere in any of this has my questions about WHO will maintain them, HOW will that occur and HOW does that compare with the current WORKING situation?

Anonymous said...


town will just bid it out to the same group of contractors currently doing the work for the former RG&E ScCATS.

There are damn few RG&E trucks or employees on RG&E jobs these days. Contracting is fixed cost known in advance.

RG&E wants out of the streetlight business. Current ownership only wants to deliver electrons. Look what they did to Russel and the Station below Driving Park Bridge.

Anonymous said...

With so much emphasis on light, the future must look bright in Greece once again as it moves from 'good town' back to 'great'.

Spending $1.4M out of $57M budget(2.5%) to rent the poles, how much is spent on the electricity, or is that included in the rent?

SCATS said...

To 11:55AM ~~ I think we pay for that in the tax bill we get.

Anonymous said...

11:55, if you look at the RG&E Tariffs there is a schedule of charges for street lights. The town pays per month for each street light according to the type of light it is.
Town also pays major bucks for installing new street lights (see the fiasco at Frisbee Hill & Hirise, which could be the most expensive light in Town).
If new lights are installed as part of a new development, the developer pays for the install, or does the install.

Anonymous said...

10:54am SCATS you are dead wrong. In your example of the car, the value to any item is what someone is willing to pay. If everyone wanted sand and no one wanted diamonds, which do you suspect would sell for more? Further more if no one wanted diamonds they would not be able to be sold and worth nothing. So then what is the diamond worth?

george hubbard said...

To: 10:54PM

1. Thank you... I can’t disagree... with your hypotheticals, but can we agree…

2. before we can resolve an issue, or explain the cause, must we agree first there is an issue?

3. Consider these numbers from 418 transactions sine Aug02 forward 13wks...

4. Variance= Sale Price/Assessment, variances WITHIN +/-5% of assessment, count= 136 (33% of 418).

5. Variances OUTSIDE +/-5%, count= 278 (67%).

6. What is an acceptable confidence interval or tolerance level for assessments?

SCATS said...

To 1:48PM ~~ No, I'm actually RIGHT. Like they say, there's a sucker born every minute. Just because one such person is willing to pay an inflated price on an item that's worth less - whether it's a home, car, boat, or popsicle - does NOT change the market value of that item. It merely proves there might be a sucker out there willing to pay the assessed/inflated value. It doesn't prove it's "in demand" by the masses.

SCATS said...

To George ~~ Just an FYI regarding your questions: According to Leo Carroll himself, if the assessed value is within 10% they've done their job! That certainly gives them LOTS of wiggle room on overassessing a multitude of properties in THEIR favor.

george hubbard said...

To: SCATS, thank you.

1. I don’t recall seeing the “...assessed value is within 10%...” figure before.

2. Do know if it is a range of 10% ie +/-5%? Or, does it mean +/-10%?

3. Is this in writing? Source is?

SCATS said...

George ~~ No, it's not in writing that I'm aware. He stated it at a Q & A forum. He didn't expand on it ... only said what I stated.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Hubbard: Did you check out the sellers of those houses that got so much more than their assessments? Are they members of the Republican party? Contributors to Mr. Big's coffers, Maggie B's and other high profile politicians? Keeping taxes low for the "friends" of Auberger was par for the course. I doubt that deal has changed.

george hubbard said...

To 11:29am

No, I did not check... a lot of extra work... wouldn't know how to use info.

My purpose is to show WHAT situation is... not HOW or WHY it got there.

Thanks for commenting.