Many Residents See Payment As Unjust Tax
By PATRICK L. FANELLI
CHAUTAUQUA — This is JoAnn Vedder Rogers’ 66th summer at the Chautauqua Institution.
She has spent summers there ever since her family bought the home in 1945.
It saddens her this will be her last summer on South Terrace Avenue, since it has become too difficult to maintain a seasonal residence, especially at the Chautauqua Institution.
But, it angers her that the corporation is now entitled to 2 percent of the value of her home.
‘‘If it isn’t a tax, it certainly walks like a tax and quacks like a tax, and they aren’t a taxing authority,’’ Rogers said. ‘‘It’s a matter of principle.’’
The new fee amounts to 2 percent of the purchase price of a home, half to be paid by the buyer and half to be paid by the seller. It was adopted by the 24-member Chautauqua Institution board of trustees in May and notice went out to property owners soon after.
‘‘People were absolutely flabbergasted,’’ Rogers said. ‘‘I thought it was the most outrageous thing I ever heard.’’
According to Mike Sullivan, Chautauqua Institution spokesman, it’s definitely not a tax since the corporation is not a taxing authority. It is simply a fee aimed at paying for capital improvements and is ultimately meant to better the Chautauqua Institution.
‘‘We are not funded by the county or the state, and there are a lot of improvements we don’t get to,’’ Sullivan said. ‘‘It seems fair to do that instead of a huge yearly fee. This only effects them when the property is sold.’’
According to Sullivan, any money generated by the fee will only be used for capital improvements, especially road replacement.
‘‘We repair and re-pave roads, but after a while you need to dig a road out and start from scratch,’’ Sullivan said. ‘‘The quick fix is to patch it, and we keep doing that.’’
Sullivan added the fee will generate an estimated $380,000 a year. In contrast, the 2005 capital budget was $1.5 million with deferred needs amounting to $3 million.
That means $3 million in needed capital improvements to the Chautauqua Institution were not made in 2005 because there wasn’t enough money to go around, according to Sullivan.
That’s why Trustee Larry Davis — one of four popularly elected trustees — voted in favor of the fee.
‘‘From my standpoint, there is no question of the need for additional revenue,’’ Davis said. ‘‘The Institution has lost money for the last three years. The financial gap is one that will increase each year, so there is real need.’’
Despite that, Davis hopes the board of trustees will take a new look at the fee and consider some suggestions property owners are providing them. They range from acquiring the additional revenue through an increase in the service fee; exempting property owners who put their homes up for sale before the fee goes into effect Jan. 1; charging the fee to real estate agents; and eliminating a stipulation that exempts property transactions where no money changes hands.
This stipulation predominantly includes inheritances and gifts, and is unpopular with property owners.
‘‘So basically, what this says is anyone who is wealthy enough to give their property to an heir who is wealthy enough to maintain it is exempt from this charge,’’ Rogers said. ‘‘Those who have the least amount of money will be the most affected.’’
Sullivan thinks most residents understand the need for additional revenue to cover capital improvements and the benefit of a fee that is only charged when one receives a large sum of money from selling their home.
‘‘I think people realize this is something that will help their overall property value,’’ Sullivan said. ‘‘Will there be some people disappointed? Absolutely.’’
Some property owners — such as Lois Raynow, former CPOA president, are in favor of the fee.
‘‘There have been a few people who are quite adamant against it, and I can see where they might be coming from,’’ she said. ‘‘Personally, I feel it was discussed quite a lot last year and many different opinions were listened to. Capital improvements need to be made.’’
Rogers, on the other hand, remains adamantly opposed to it.
By PATRICK L. FANELLI
CHAUTAUQUA — This is JoAnn Vedder Rogers’ 66th summer at the Chautauqua Institution.
She has spent summers there ever since her family bought the home in 1945.
It saddens her this will be her last summer on South Terrace Avenue, since it has become too difficult to maintain a seasonal residence, especially at the Chautauqua Institution.
But, it angers her that the corporation is now entitled to 2 percent of the value of her home.
‘‘If it isn’t a tax, it certainly walks like a tax and quacks like a tax, and they aren’t a taxing authority,’’ Rogers said. ‘‘It’s a matter of principle.’’
The new fee amounts to 2 percent of the purchase price of a home, half to be paid by the buyer and half to be paid by the seller. It was adopted by the 24-member Chautauqua Institution board of trustees in May and notice went out to property owners soon after.
‘‘People were absolutely flabbergasted,’’ Rogers said. ‘‘I thought it was the most outrageous thing I ever heard.’’
According to Mike Sullivan, Chautauqua Institution spokesman, it’s definitely not a tax since the corporation is not a taxing authority. It is simply a fee aimed at paying for capital improvements and is ultimately meant to better the Chautauqua Institution.
‘‘We are not funded by the county or the state, and there are a lot of improvements we don’t get to,’’ Sullivan said. ‘‘It seems fair to do that instead of a huge yearly fee. This only effects them when the property is sold.’’
According to Sullivan, any money generated by the fee will only be used for capital improvements, especially road replacement.
‘‘We repair and re-pave roads, but after a while you need to dig a road out and start from scratch,’’ Sullivan said. ‘‘The quick fix is to patch it, and we keep doing that.’’
Sullivan added the fee will generate an estimated $380,000 a year. In contrast, the 2005 capital budget was $1.5 million with deferred needs amounting to $3 million.
That means $3 million in needed capital improvements to the Chautauqua Institution were not made in 2005 because there wasn’t enough money to go around, according to Sullivan.
That’s why Trustee Larry Davis — one of four popularly elected trustees — voted in favor of the fee.
‘‘From my standpoint, there is no question of the need for additional revenue,’’ Davis said. ‘‘The Institution has lost money for the last three years. The financial gap is one that will increase each year, so there is real need.’’
Despite that, Davis hopes the board of trustees will take a new look at the fee and consider some suggestions property owners are providing them. They range from acquiring the additional revenue through an increase in the service fee; exempting property owners who put their homes up for sale before the fee goes into effect Jan. 1; charging the fee to real estate agents; and eliminating a stipulation that exempts property transactions where no money changes hands.
This stipulation predominantly includes inheritances and gifts, and is unpopular with property owners.
‘‘So basically, what this says is anyone who is wealthy enough to give their property to an heir who is wealthy enough to maintain it is exempt from this charge,’’ Rogers said. ‘‘Those who have the least amount of money will be the most affected.’’
Sullivan thinks most residents understand the need for additional revenue to cover capital improvements and the benefit of a fee that is only charged when one receives a large sum of money from selling their home.
‘‘I think people realize this is something that will help their overall property value,’’ Sullivan said. ‘‘Will there be some people disappointed? Absolutely.’’
Some property owners — such as Lois Raynow, former CPOA president, are in favor of the fee.
‘‘There have been a few people who are quite adamant against it, and I can see where they might be coming from,’’ she said. ‘‘Personally, I feel it was discussed quite a lot last year and many different opinions were listened to. Capital improvements need to be made.’’
Rogers, on the other hand, remains adamantly opposed to it.
It’s extremely unfair and it segregates out a small percentage of property owners,’’ she said. ‘‘I believe this could be successfully challenged in court.’’
For more information on Chautauqua Lake Real Estate & Living visit: www.chautauqualakehomes.com
No comments:
Post a Comment