RESTRUCTURING OUTDATED LOCAL GOVERNMENT

In this piece I shall enlarge upon my view that the County of Onondaga can and should play a more significant role in improving the financial affairs of the City of Syracuse. A dispassionate public discussion airing the pros and cons of the present City/County relationship would be in the public interest.

This is not about who is to blame for past omissions. Syracuse is but one of many northeastern cities that face grave financial problems. A recent analysis of census figures by Syracuse University’s Maxwell School reveals that upstate New York cities lead the nation in child poverty. Narrowing it down to poverty among Latino children, we find that Syracuse has the second worst record in the country, following only Buffalo, which is on the verge of bankruptcy. Why is this so? Most would agree one of the major root causes is the out-migration of the middle class to the suburbs and the gradual reduction of the City’s tax base. The fact remains that Syracuse is left with a disproportionate number of the poor and the social problems attendant upon poverty.

Unfortunately, our governmental structures have not kept pace with these demographic changes. For example, it makes absolutely no sense for our community to support two law enforcement agencies, the County Sheriff and the City police, both housed in the Public Safety Building and both engaged in police work in separate adjoining territories.

County Executive Pirro says in his response to my article that I do “this community grave harm by suggesting that there is a wall between the City and the County that stands in the way of progress.” But he of course knows that such walls have long been in place. They were constructed in an earlier time and they can be found standing in the Public Safety Building. They serve to perpetuate the inefficient and wasteful separation of the County Sheriff’s Office and the Syracuse Police Department. If these law enforcement bodies were merged under the jurisdiction of the County, we would necessarily tear down these real and symbolic barriers and consolidate all police activities under the umbrella of a single cost-effective agency.

The financially strapped City of Buffalo is on the verge of being run by a Control Board, not unlike the one that was in place in New York City a number of years ago. The need for increased governmental efficiency was recently recognized by Erie County Executive Joel A. Giambra when he urged City/County consolidation and in particular the merger of the City of Buffalo Police Department with the Erie County Sheriff. I would like to see County Executive Pirro and Mayor Driscoll take a similar public position here in Onondaga County.



In the meanwhile, the present system is penalizing Syracuse property owners. It is manifestly unfair to compel them to pay millions of dollars in taxes to finance County departments which give them nothing or little in return. These include a Sheriff’s Department that makes no arrests in Syracuse, a County Parks Department that maintains parkland only outside the City and a County Transportation Department that limits its construction, repair and maintenance work to roads in the towns and villages.

On the subject of parks, County Executive Pirro asserts that although 10 of the 12 County parks are located outside the City, the County does more for the City by supporting two large facilities that are located within Syracuse, namely, the Rosamund Gifford Zoo and the P&C stadium. He points out that together they consume 38 percent of the County Parks Department budget. I would respond that these are not traditional local parks where nearby residents take their families for a picnic. Both the zoo and the stadium attract patrons from all over Onondaga County and in fact visitors come here from towns and villages throughout Central New York. In no way should either the zoo or the stadium be paid for solely by City taxpayers.

It is instructive to note that nearby Monroe County takes a different approach to its financial relationship with the City of Rochester. In 1961, the County agreed with the City to operate and pay for the maintenance of a number of large Rochester Parks even though the parks remain under City ownership. These properties currently include the 297 acre Seneca Park which houses Monroe County zoo, the 150 acre Highland Park, the Arboretum, the Genesee Valley Park, and two lakefront parks, the Ontario Beach Park and the Durand Eastman Park. This a sensible payback to the City for tax contributions made to the County Parks Department budget.

So also, the Monroe County Transportation Department spends millions of dollars on traffic control, signal maintenance and street lighting within the City of Rochester. No such benefits are bestowed upon Syracuse taxpayers who help finance the Onondaga County Department of Transportation.

Furthermore, from 1985 to date, Monroe County has greatly increased the percentage of sales tax monies allocated to the City of Rochester. It now comes to 35.6% of the total local sales tax collected. Onondaga County, on the other hand, allocates 25% of the local sales tax collected to the City of Syracuse and despite the similarity in economic trends, currently gives no such special treatment to the City with respect to future growth in sales tax revenue. In addition to picking up a large part of Rochester’s traffic control, street lighting and park maintenance expense, Monroe County turns over to the City $514 of sales tax revenue per capita. Onondaga County provides no financial aid to comparable City of Syracuse departments and gives to the City $327 per capita from sales taxes collected. There are also, of course, counties such as Erie, at the other extreme, which give much less aid to Buffalo thereby contributing to that City’s insolvency. Yonkers, on the other hand, while receiving slightly less than Syracuse in sales tax receipts, has much more valuable real estate and therefore takes in twice as much as Syracuse from real property taxation.. Yonkers also benefits from special State legislation that allows it to garner substantial funding from an Income Tax Surcharge.

The subject of tax equity and governmental efficiency is complex subject, not given to easy solutions. To my mind, there is a great need for an in depth study of the fiscal and structural relationship between Syracuse and Onondaga County governments. This should be conducted by an impartial major accounting firm, staffed with experts on municipal finance. The detailed information obtained could help settle long-standing disputes about the fairness of the current system and hopefully set in motion programs for modernization and efficiency.


But studies must necessarily take time and the City of Syracuse is in urgent need of money now if we are to stop the gang wars, drug traffic and rising homicide rate. Onondaga County government could expedite help by voting to increase the local sales tax rate from 3% to 4%, so as to be in line with every major county in New York State. This would bring roughly 65 million dollars of added sales tax revenue into the County as a whole to be used in the manner chosen by each governmental recipient. The City of Syracuse could take the 16 million dollars of new income it would receive and invest it in crime prevention; neighborhood restoration and schools. Every other locality could utilize the added money based on its special and individual needs, one of which might be the lowering of its real estate tax rate.

The old governmental formulas are no longer compatible with today’s realities. However, solutions to the City’s problems are at hand and can be realized with the aid of sound political leadership and active community support.

THE COUNTY OF ONONDAGA CAN DO MORE TO HELP SYRACUSE

A record breaking twenty five homicides occurred last year in Syracuse. Based on the number of shootings to date, it can be anticipated that the murder rate will continue unabated in 2003. Sadly, some victims are innocent bystanders and others are unemployed young men who die because they are identified as a member of a gang which is at war with a rival group. The prize for the winner might be anything as lucrative as control over drug traffic at a particular corner or as illusory as neighborhood bragging rights. What we know is that whenever one gang-initiated killing occurs, retribution follows and the cycle of violence goes on.

What is there to do about this ongoing mayhem? The deceptively easy way out is to shut our eyes and say that this is someone else’s concern. We can try to block from our minds the tragic killing of sons, and the disintegration of families. This, of course, would not only be heartless but foolish. Inaction on the community’s part would be an abdication of responsibility and serve only to escalate lawlessness.

Solutions can be found but to reverse the trend toward violence will cost money. In light of the City’s precarious fiscal position, new sources of funding must be found. I suggest the City look to County government for greater help than has been forthcoming in the past. A strong case for increased County aid to the City can be made on grounds of justice. An analysis of the County budget will bear this out.

All real property owners in the County, whether they live inside or outside the City, pay taxes in support of the County budget. Yet all do not receive benefits of equivalent value in return. Let us address the important issue of public safety. Over three times the number of violent crimes are committed in the City than in all the towns of Onondaga County. Roughly six times the number of homicides occur in Syracuse as compared with the number perpetrated in all the rest of the County. This despite the fact that the City has a smaller population base. The County Sheriff has a police and civil division which receives 22.5 million dollars each year from tax dollars paid by City as well as town and village residents. However, all of this money goes to patrol and safeguard roads and highways that are located outside of Syracuse. Why is not some of this money given back to the City to help in bring order to its troubled neighborhoods? Meanwhile, while the County carries a general fund reserve of over 50 million dollars, the City does not know where it will find $125,000 to pay the salaries of four outreach workers whose job will be to work with troubled youths age 20 and under in an effort to steer them away from gang warfare. Based on principles of fairness and common sense, the County should put at least an equivalent amount of money into crime prevention in Syracuse as it spends in the suburbs.

There are other strange examples of budgetary inequities. The County Department of Transportation budget sets aside 16.4 million dollars to build, repair and maintain some 800 miles of highways and bridges. This includes providing managerial, engineering and technical expertise. All these facilities are located in the towns. None are situated in Syracuse.

Then there is the County Parks and Recreation budget totaling 8.9 million dollars. Except for the Burnet Park Zoo which is centrally located in the City, all of the 12 park facilities maintained by that Department covering some 6500 acres of land, including the Beaver Lake Nature Center, are located in the towns. The County does not contribute in any way for the upkeep of the 1000 acres of parkland within Syracuse. I question the fairness of this arrangement.

The County denies any inequity. In the County Executive’s message accompanying this year’s budget, he claims that a disproportionally large share of the County’s 818 million dollar total expenditure is spent within the corporate limits of Syracuse. To support his thesis, he alludes in general terms to what the County spends for the benefit of City residents on human service programs such as Medicaid and the County’s efforts to reduce infant mortality. This argument is founded upon erroneous reasoning. To contend that these expenditures should in any way justify a reduction in the City’s share of County funding cannot withstand analysis. What the County spends on Medicaid and public health is not based on the geographical boundaries separating the City from the towns. It is federal and state governmental standards relating to income and need that determine whether assistance will be provided. A poor family in Tully is every bit as eligible for Medicaid and public health support as its counterpart in Syracuse. The principal reason why Syracuse finds itself in financial difficulty is because, like most older cities in the United States, it houses a greater proportion of the poor than does its suburban neighbors. This low income population results in a correspondingly lower real estate tax base and less available revenue for the City to pay for schools, police protection and other essential services. For anyone to contend that less County tax money should be provided to Syracuse for public safety, streets and parks because a greater number of welfare recipients live in Syracuse is totally illogical and grossly unfair.

In the same message from the County Executive in defense of the County’s method of allocating its revenues, he states that the County is investing $400 million dollars in upgrading the antiquated sewer system “left to us”that “dumps raw, untreated sewage into the central neighborhoods and waterfronts of Syracuse.” What he neglects to mention is that this sewer system was built by early settlers located in the City in the nineteenth century. There was no County government of any significance in those days. The County is now upgrading the sewer system because it was ordered by a Federal judge to clean up Onondaga Lake. The old sewer system is a part of the history of the area and its reclamation is properly a charge to the entire County.

The County budget is a lengthy, complex and, in many ways, confusing document. The debate regarding its fairness needs to be more adequately addressed. There has not, at least in recent years, been an impartial analysis of how County tax receipts are distributed to the various localities. A study by a major accounting firm, having no ties to either the City or County, would have the capability of helping public officials and the general public understand whether the reasoning behind present allocation formulas is in line with today’s realities. It would make sense for the City and County governments to join in initiating such a study.

Of course, a study would take time and the City is in urgent need of funding now. Fortunately, there is a more immediate partial solution to the City’s fiscal problems. Mindful of the fact that politicians hate to vote for a tax increase, there is one way to raise revenue that would be to the advantage of the City, County and nineteen towns. At present, persons buying goods in Onondaga County pay a seven percent sales tax. Of this sum the State appropriates four percent and the remaining three percent is divided among the County, the City of Syracuse and towns and villages. It is estimated that 494 million dollars will be collected in 2003 . Based on a formula set by the County legislature, the City will receive 49.4 million of that sum.


Every other large county in the State imposes at least a four percent local sales tax which when added to the State portion comes to a total of eight percent. This is true of New York, Albany, Westchester, Rochester and Buffalo. If the present three percent County sales tax rate were increased by a single percent, there would be approximately an additional 164 million dollars collected County-wide. This money could be used by the County and any of the towns and villages to reduce real property taxes. In the case of the City, the some 16 million dollars of new money it would receive could be spent primarily upon making our inner City neighborhoods safe and livable. Unlike real estate taxes which are based upon the value of property in the taxing jurisdiction, monies received from the sales tax are paid in part by individuals who live and own property outside the County but who come here to shop and use our services.

It is in no way my purpose to pit one geographic area against another. County government has recently made an increased effort to come to the aid of the City. In my view, it should do more. There has been an undeniable link between Syracuse and the towns throughout our region’s history. This connection, though changed, exists today and, for better or worse, will exist in the future. It is not enough to talk about the City’s intolerable increase in the number of killings and the escalation of street crime, we, as a broadly based community, need to take meaningful action now.