Skip to main content

Thomas Houseknecht's response to Jason Molino

By Howard B. Owens

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

Cheryl Wilmet

I live in the city and rent my single family home. Like a lot of people my family basically lives paycheck to paycheck. When I need to purchase a tote for garbage it will have to come out of my already tight budget because I am sure my landlord is not going to pay for the tote. If he does, then my rent will go up. At least with keeping the garbage fees in the tax bills, I already pay these fees when I pay my rent as the taxes are figured into my rent cost. If the garbage fee is not in the tax bill, my rent won't go down to reflect that lower tax bill amount.

I think that Mr. Molino does a lot of double talking. My biggest question after seeing how he handles changes in Batavia is why do we have a city manager and not a mayor? At least when a mayor makes a stupid mistake you can choose not to re-elect them.

Feb 21, 2013, 8:28am Permalink
tim raines

Until recently, probably 98% of Batavia residents had no idea what they paid for trash removal and didn't seem to care.

When adopting for a new system of trash removal at substantialy lower costs, the City management didn't need to provide individual costs to each property owner or say that taxes would be reduced.

The city should can the proposed tote system, keep ARC as the trash hauler, but at the lowest possible price for the next 5 years. As their own proposal shows, ARC has been overcharging city residents for 30 years.

Don't reduce taxes, take the savings and
repave some bad streets, build a dog park, and buy a new fire truck.

All they needed to say was that City Residents have the opportunity to save $1,200,000 over the next 5 years for trash removal.

Who can complain about that?

Feb 21, 2013, 10:00am Permalink
Kyle Couchman

If that were true Tim, then no one could complain. But as Tom pointed out, first 90% of people would save that 1,200,000 then during a council meeting where citizens brought up research into those numbers it was reduced to 65 to 75% now it stands at 56% so which one is true? Or is the reality that the only savings is gonna be to a few citizens, and that over all it's gonna be even more expensive in the long run. But as pointed out the city asked for secrecy from ARC while getting ready to alter the trash and recycling collection and just a couple of months before they implement it they BREAK the news to us giving us very little time to discuss or even understand what it is we exactly are getting into. This is not the way a Govt is supposed to work with it's constituents.

So currently, looking at the facts and other things surrounding this everyone should be complaining, loudly and vehemently. Over the last couple of weeks even those who supported the city in this garbage and recycling issue have started to withdraw that support.

Feb 21, 2013, 9:24am Permalink
Kyle Couchman

Hey Tim another thing.... Look at your statement "Until recently, probably 98% of Batavia residents had no idea what they paid for trash removal and didn't seem to care."

You know what that says to me, that the system was working so well that no one was concerned with it, and did not need tampering with. So why change something thats established and works so well that no one cared about the what or why?

Feb 21, 2013, 10:10am Permalink
John Roach

Kyle,
The cost was hidden. If we were to keep ARC or not, people should be paying the true cost of this service. Businesses who do not use it should not have to pay just so some can pay less.

Those who use the service and do not pay, should.

I live on a street with many elderly retirees. Some are now widows or or widowers. Their income is less than many in the city, but because they have lived in the same house for around 40-45 years and the value went up, they pay more for garbage than people who make more money than them and who put out more trash. How is that fair?

This is a service that can be purchased from a number of vendors. There is no reason for anyone to tell anyone else who they have to buy that service from.

Again, like ARC, stay with them, but it should be our own free choice, not an order from the City.

Feb 21, 2013, 11:24am Permalink
Rick Brodsky

It was my understanding that the ARC bid was based on the city mandating totes. This cost would require them to retrofit existing equipment, purchase new equipment, etc. I think that if the tote system was scrapped, ARC would be able to significantly come down in price. I attended the meetings, I stand firm in wanting to retain ARC as well as do away with the tote system. I also would not be opposed to Batavia getting completely out of the garbage business, let us choose and pay for our own contractors and reduce our taxes. On a side note, I agree with Tim, I would really like to see a Batavia dog park.

Feb 21, 2013, 11:42am Permalink
John Roach

Rick,
You are right. That's why ARC would be very competitive in the free market.

The dog park idea has come up before. Since the City decided it would not hire anyone to clean it up or to buy the fencing, but offered space at Williams Park. A volunteer groups was started to raise the money for one. They could not get enough money through the fund raisers and donations, so the idea died. The money collected went to the local animal shelter.

Feb 21, 2013, 12:03pm Permalink
Rick Brodsky

John, thank you for the background history on the dog park. Its a shame that the effort stalled. Having adopted two dogs from the Genesee county animal shelter, it sure would be nice to have a place for them to socialize and play. We take them back to the shelter every once in a while to visit the wonderful staff and volunteers(as well as it kind of being a "scared straight" program after one of them has eaten a remote control or glasses lol). In any event, its good to see the money was donated to the shelter.
As for the proposed solid waste program, it just baffles me as to why city council can't make Jason present alternative plans in the budget. Totes, no totes and free market choices. Let all options be on the table and then discuss options.

Feb 21, 2013, 12:46pm Permalink
John Roach

Just on the dog park. I think part of the reason it did not get more support is the layout of the City. If you live in the northeast corner around North and Vine, Williams Park is a bit far to go to walk the dog. Same thing if you live in the Kiby Park area or up around Burk Drive. Crossing town and past Rt 5 or 98 might have seemed to be more trouble than it was worth. Just a guess.

Feb 21, 2013, 12:55pm Permalink
Christopher Putnam

How about people stop getting dogs if there is nowhere nearby your home to walk it. . . so if you live in the CITY... and you made the poor decision to get a dog that needs a space to 'be a dog'.... #poordecision

Feb 21, 2013, 1:58pm Permalink
Rick Brodsky

Perhaps Christopher, you should learn reading comprehension. I have a yard for them to run. My desire for a dog park is, as I shall restate, for your benefit, to allow them to SOCIALIZE AND PLAY.
You are certainly fast to spread criticism without fact, aren't you? As I see it, the only poor decision made here was as a result of your own fingers!

Feb 21, 2013, 2:14pm Permalink

Authentically Local