The Fair Taxation Committee of Yates County

FTC Position on the Revised Penn Yan Academy Capital Project - July 2006

A number of people have asked what the Fair Taxation Committee's position is on the revised Penn Yan Academy (PYA) Capital Project. The FTC would like to support it be-cause we strongly feel that the PYA facility needs to be updated and reasonably ex-panded. The Board of Education is to be commended for seeking out reductions from the defeated April proposal. Unfortunately, these total only around 4% of the previously proposed costs. With construction costs rising at around 5% per year, these cuts are not terribly impressive.
In trying to evaluate this proposal objectively, we have looked for benchmarks to serve as a guide for what has generally been accepted in other communities. Many school boards evaluate the effectiveness of their programs by looking at cost per student. As-suming that PYA should be sized for 600 students, a reasonable future projected high school enrollment, the cost per student for this proposal would be $47,833 ($28.7 million divided by 600). The national average for the top 25% of high school construction in 2005 was $23,333, which amounts to $27,011,when adjusted for inflation and projected out to 2008. Keep in mind that this does not include the costs already incurred or those which would come up for another vote in a year or two. So, clearly, the cost per student measure fails.

Another benchmark is the number of sq. ft. per student. The current proposal calls for 277 sq. ft. per student (166,000 sq. ft. divided by 600). Although the largest high schools in the area average 253 sq. ft. per student, the top quartile for new construction of high schools nationally showed 211 sq. ft. per student during 2005. This measure fails too.

So, this analysis shows that the numbers don't jibe with either the local or national aver-ages for the largest new schools constructed in 2005. There are obviously regional dif-ferences to be taken into consideration and averages can be misleading. Also all com-munities don't have the same needs or financial resources. But these statistics are rep-resentative of what has actually taken place in other locations and do provide a rea-sonably unemotional and objective basis for comparison.

You have to decide if local circumstances merit your "Yes" vote for this project regard-less of these comparisons. The important thing is that you vote on August 15th to de-cide how you want your money spent.

NO TO OVERSIZING PYA - April 2006

We were surprised to see that our School Board has approved a $29.9 million expansion and renovation project for PYA that will be put to a vote by residents on April 11. It is important that our school provides the resources needed by our educators and children and it is also important that a careful analysis be done so that our Community gets what is really needed. It is a complicated task to look at a proposal and determine if it is adequate, undersized or oversized.

The Fair Tax Committee has attempted an unbiased and fair analysis of the Academy expansion and renovation proposal. We have considered and evaluated comparable high school projects on both a national and local basis. The PYA renovation and expansion proposal fails as too big and too costly. We are truly disappointed as we had hoped to be able to provide support.

On a comparable basis, the PYA proposal calls for 27% more square feet per student that that for the average of the top 25% high schools nationally that have undertaken construction plans in 2005. It calls for 21% more square feet per student than that of the top 5% of schools in our BOCES district (Board of Cooperative Educational Services is a public organization that was created by the New York State Legislature in 1948 to provide shared educational programs and services to school districts).

Our analysis of costs shows an even greater disparity versus the construction costs for the top 25% of schools nationally. These costs are, however, more difficult to put on an "apples to apples" basis due to geographical differences, inflation and methods of defining costs. We have not been able to obtain local BOCES costs. Nonetheless, the difference of construction costs and square footage per student for the top tier national school averages are so great that serious questions must be asked of our School Board.

This project does not include a further referendum that is being proposed for additional renovation work amounting to approximately $6 to $7 million above and beyond the $29.9 million. Also, during 2007 a new roof will be required for both PYA and PYE requiring an additional expenditure projected to be around $2.5 million.
Our conclusion is that this proposal is too extravagant, on both a size and cost basis when compared to other high school construction projects. Voters should tell the School Board to go back to work with its architects and come up with an appropriately sized and realistic plan that addresses its "needs" not "wants".

An Open Letter on the Yates County Budget - December 2005

Although The Fair Taxation Committee (FTC), which has been monitoring the budgeting, spending, and revenue forecasting activities of Yates County, realizes that the Yates County tax levy increase for 2006 of 2.8% is not significant. However, the FTC is still concerned about the budgets of Yates County that have increased from $23.4 million in 1998 to $37.3 million in 2006 and represent an average annual budget increase of 6.0%. This year, your Legislature adopted a budget with a 7.0% increase over last year's adopted budget.

The FTC commends the County in its effort to present the budgets in a more concise and relevant manner, which is, makes the figures more easily understood and comparable by the public. Furthermore, the FTC congratulates the County on more accurate forecasting of expenses and revenues.

These budget increases are running twice the annual rate of inflation. The County's budgeting process including the budget workshop and the Legislature's budgeting approval process have not been effective in limiting the budget increases to a rate consistent with the rate of increases in inflation.

The past increases in non-property tax sources of revenues, which include the tobacco settlement, an increased sales tax rate, a mortgage tax, increased fees and increased aid from New York State and the federal government have kept the average annual tax levy increase at $4.1

The FTC is very concerned that Yates County is running out of sources for increased funding from non-property tax sources. Therefore, the rate of County property tax levy increases will begin to approach the rate of increases in the budgets. The FTC understands that the tobacco settlement revenues of approximately $1 million this year will cease in 2008 and either the County's budgets will have to be curtailed or the tax levy will have to be increased appropriately. Furthermore, the FTC reminds Yates County property owners that they also pay for many of the non-property tax sources of revenue when they pay sales taxes, fees and New York State income taxes. It is akin to paying the County's bills from several pockets.

It is time for Yates County to reign in spending. The legislature needs to set budget guidelines in advance of the budgeting process and require the departments to budget within these guidelines except for significant and well-understood reasons for exceeding these guidelines. We encourage property owners to begin voicing their concerns about these large spending increases at twice the rate of inflation to their Yates County legislators.

Sincerely,

Jim Barre
For the Fair Tax Committee