Kathleen Joy

A “PILOT” ( “Payment in Lieu of Taxes”) is used in circumstances where the real property would normally be exempt from paying real property taxes but the owner and City agree on a schedule of tax payments.  They create a steady tax revenue to the City through a structured tax payment.  The amount paid is generally less than what the project would normally pay if the property were assessed at full value but more than if the property were left in its present condition.

It’s time to change the way we structure these PILOTS.

For many past administrations, PILOTS were proposed by the developers with little to no supporting documentation for the figures or even as to why the PILOT would be needed.  There was never a set of criteria or guidelines for the creation of PILOT payments. As a result, outcomes have been mixed, or at the very least, the benefits have been debatable.

PILOTS have been used as a tool to stimulate economic development by providing developers with incentives to create or retain jobs, build or renovate properties that otherwise would be underutilized , revitalize distressed neighbhorhoods and further economic growth.

With many urban projects, there is a gap between the cost to develop the project and its long term sustainability. PILOTs can be used to lessen that burden while still preserving the City’s tax base. On the other hand, some PILOT payments may not cover the increased costs of municipal services which the project requires or may not produce the desired economic results.

In my opinion, if successful economic development in the City of Syracuse necessitates tax abatements in the form of PILOT agreements, then we must develop a uniform policy.  A variety of factors must be considered and applied uniformly to each project.  Such a strategy would provide developers with a frame work in which to “run their numbers”. It would also provide the City with objective criteria upon which to base any tax incentives.

I have been working with developers, my colleagues on the Common Council and the current administration to design PILOT criteria. Public input is also vital to creating a strong policy which achieves our goals.

I believe that all PILOTs should be based on a negotiated assessed value for the property. The City tax rate would be applied uniformly across the City.   

I believe that all PILOTs should have a set time period. If additional years of tax abatement are contemplated, then the developer must present proof of the need for those additional years.

Some of the factors which should be analyzed include the following: Does the project benefit from any other State or local abatement benefits such as the Empire Zone or residential construction abatment. Is the project located in an area targeted for redevelopment and follow the City’s comprehensive plan for that area. Does the project rehabilitate an existing structure; is that structure historically significant; is the area considered a “brownfield”.  Will the project create new jobs or maintain existing jobs. Will the project use local labor, minority or women businesses. Does the project meet an existing, identified need or goal (such as residential downtown housing or high tech business opportunities). Does the project include environmental components such as LEED certification. The City must also consider the developers anticipated reasonable return on its investment but also the burden on City resources such as its roads, sewers, fire and police protection and public works.

Each benefit and burden should be quantified and carefully analyzed for each proposal.  The public must also be given the opportunity to comment. These factors then support the terms of the PILOT. 

Structured tax payments through PILOT agreements can be used successfully to stimulate and promote growth. They must be used prudently and consistently. The City must develop the qualitative and quantitative criteria it will use when entering into PILOT payments.

I will continue to work with developers, tax payers and public officials to create this new PILOT policy.

In a collaborative effort between the Mayor and Common Council, many new initiatives are underway, concentrating on our neighborhoods.  

Gateway: On April 7th, the Common Council approved the use of $500,000 to build five single family homes on West Kennedy Street on the City’s south side. Properties will be constructed by Home Headquarters and sold at market rates. 

This the first phase of revitalization efforts in the Gateway area. Neighborhood design and land use plans are being considered now and will be on the Council’s agenda on April 21st. Additional mixed use residential, mixed income residential, commercial and retail uses are also in the planning stages.

1% Home Improvement Loans:  The Common Council also approved the use of of $1.2 million from the Syracuse Neighbohood Initiative Round VIII. These funds shall be used specifically for home improvement loans in specific neighborhoods and to support other housing efforts across the City. 

Eastwood, Valley and Upper North Side will each receive $200,000 to be used to provide 1% interest rate loans to owner occupants for home improvements.  $250,000 will be used to foster new homeownership opportunities on Prospect Hill (around St. Joseph’s Hospital). $137, 500 will be used in the Tipp Hill neighborhood for vacant property rehabilitiation.

Real Property Tax Incentives:  As part of the Mayor’s State of the City, he announced a bold tax incentive plan for newly constructed and substantially repaired single and two family housing. Working with the Common Council, we outlined the terms of those exemptions. It must now be approved by the State Legislature to be enacted into law.

It may have taken three year of “nagging” but Eastwood is getting its very own rental rehab program.

When I took office three years ago, I continued my advocacy for a “rental rehab” program where a revolving low interest loans would be available to landlords to improve their investments and, in turn, improve our neighborhoods. As my great grandfather used to say “the squeeky wheel gets the grease.” And I, joined by advocates in Eastwood, squeeked pretty well.

The Mayor, in his State of the City Address, committed to create such a rental fund. It was approved by the Common Council Agenda on April 7th and proudly co-sponsored the ordinance with Councilor Van Robinson.

The program will be administered through ENA and available to landlords in Eastwood for just about any type of improvement.

Studies abound on how to stimulate developement to Downtown Syracuse. Groups have formed, and community leaders have been engaged. Once common element to each has been parking. Now its time to take action to address it.

I am forming a working group to create specific solutions to downtown parking. The City has been presented with a Downtown Parking Study which included general recommendations. There are numerous other studies on parking, traffic and downtown revitalization. This group will bring all of these studies and recommendations together.

We will formulate actual, workable, specific solutions to downtown parking.

I am asking a wide variety of people to join this working group. Do you hate coming downtown because of the parking? I invite you to share your opinions.  Do you use on-street parking or lots? Do you mind walking a few blocks to your destination? We need to know what works and what doesn’t.

Please contact me through this blog and once the committee is formed, we’ll meet and use this forum to share our ideas.

Copper theft across Onondaga County continues to plague the real estate community. I am sponsoring legislation to help eliminate this problem.

Too often we hear of vacant houses being stripped of their copper plumbing.  Even occupied structures and municipal buildings are falling victim to this crime.  Just recently, I heard of catalyic converters being taken off foreign cars because they contained copper.

The costs to repair or replace the plumbing; delays in renting the units or closing on the sales; loss of insurance coverage; and the manpower involved, totals hundreds of thousands of dollars each year.

Last year, the Common Council adopted an ordinance, similar to State Law, which requires scrap yards in the City to keep a photo ID of each scrapper who brings over $50.00 to the yard. That law has lead to some arrests but scrappers simply take $49.00 worth of metal to the yard or cross over the City line.

We need to do more.  In collaboration with the Mayor’s Office and the City Police Department, I will be sponsoring a revised ordinance to eliminate the dollar amount- now requiring all scrappers to produce photo ID and the scrap yard to keep it on record. I’ll also push to increase the penalties assessed. I am also contemplating whether to require each scrapper to list where the metals came from and how much came from that location.  I will also be working with our Onondaga County Legislature and State Representatives to adopt similar laws.

But, to be effective, I need your help. First, I’d like your input. What should a new law include? Is it too onerous for the scrappers to list where they got the metals? Should we license scrap yards?

Second,  I would like to present statements from victims of copper theft, supported by the financial impacts of the crime. What was your situation? What was your dollar loss? Did your insurance company cover the loss? Did they catch the thief?  I will gather that information (and add my own personal accounts) and present it to our local and State Legislators to support the new law.

Please contact me through this blog with any thoughts or testimonials.  As always, thanks for investing in our community.

On Monday, 2/25/08, the Common Council voted not to accept the recommendation of both the Landmark Preservation Board and Planning Commission to designate 1100 E. Genesee Street as historically significant. The vote was 6 in favor of designation and 3 against. Approving designation required 7 votes in support (a super majority).

I voted in favor of designation as did Bill Ryan, Stephanie Miner, Van Robinson, Tom Seals and Lance Denno. Mike Heagherty, Pat Hogan and Ryan McMahon voted against designation.

Only Van Robinson and I made a public statement at the time of the vote. I will post the text of my comments in a separate entry.

My thanks to everyone who provided me with comments both for and against designation. I received hundreds of letters, calls and emails on the subject.

2/27/08 UPDATE: The Mayor, in his State of the City Address formally announced investor program which has been posted on this blog (see details below). 

The Mayor has added an additional incentive by proposing that new residential construction or renovated properties benefit from real property tax exemptions for seven years.

If you are interested, please contact me or Mary Cominolli of the City of Syracuse at 315-448-8016  and you will be added to our list of potential purchasers.

The City of Syracuse is embarking on an innovative program to promote investment properties while putting tax delinquent homes back on the tax rolls.

It will be selling 2-4 family properties seized by the City for back taxes. The sales will be to investors who will renovate the homes. 

While still in the planning stages, if you are interested in learning more, please email me via this site or at kathleenjoy@twcny.rr.com. At this time,we anticipate the program to work something like this (but it’s not finalized yet) :

The City has identified tax delinquent properties across the City. It is partnering with the Community Preservation Corporation (CPC) (a mortgage lender) and Home Headquarters (a local housing agency) to evaluate the properties and determine, roughly, the cost for renovation. It will rate them on the degree of work needed. Once seized, investors can also inspect them.

It will seize about 20-30 homes at a time, grouping them together by street or neighborhood, if possible.

The City will use a Request for Proposals for the properties and the sales will be awarded based on the RFP. It will require a Performance Bond or down payment to ensure that the properties are renovated. Investors must not be delinquent in taxes or have signficant code violations on any other properties they own in the City. Investors must detail their experience with renovations and property management. They must also explain the financing. The goal is to select experienced investors who will complete the work in a timely manner to create decent rental housing.

Another  goal is to  create a program that is not overly burdensome to our investors. For example, once renovated, there will be no conditions on tenancy (ie, not tied to income or other criteria) There will be no condition that it must remain a rental or that the successful bidder maintain ownership for any number of years.

 The CPC will have financing available (rehab to perm) and they will likely require borrower equity of 10% of the total loan amount. There may also be some gap financing available through the City. However, investors do not have to use these loan products.

I will continue to be very involved in this program, offering my perspective as real estate attorney and former property manager. I would appreciate any input you have and will be sure it is heard.   As we continue to fine-tune the details, I will update this post.

Thank you for your interest in investing in our City.