Regular Session - March 26, 2001
3035
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
March 26, 2001
3:09 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
3036
P R O C E E D I N G S
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate will
come to order.
I ask everyone present to please
rise and repeat with me the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
THE PRESIDENT: In the absence of
clergy, may we all bow our heads in a moment
of silence, please.
(Whereupon, the assemblage
respected a moment of silence.)
THE PRESIDENT: Reading of the
Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Friday, March 23rd, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Thursday,
March 22nd, was read and approved. On motion,
Senate adjourned.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
3037
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
is there any housekeeping at the desk?
THE PRESIDENT: No, there is not,
Senator.
SENATOR SKELOS: Would you please
recognize Senator Meier.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Thank you, Madam
President. May I have a sponsor's star
placed, please, on Calendar Number 162.
THE PRESIDENT: So ordered.
SENATOR MEIER: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Would you please
recognize Senator Dollinger.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
3038
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you to
the Deputy Majority Leader.
I hereby give written notice, as
required by Rule XI, that I will move to amend
the rules to add a new rule, XV, in relation
to ethical standards for members, officers,
and employees of the New York State Senate.
THE PRESIDENT: It's been
received, Senator Dollinger, and it will be
filed in the Journal.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there's a privileged resolution by Senator
DeFrancisco, Number 1020, at the desk. May we
please have the title read and move for its
immediate adoption.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
3039
DeFrancisco, Legislative Resolution Number
1020, honoring the students of Driver Middle
School's Special Education 12-1-1 Program,
Marcellus, for their participation in the
"Good News! Good Kids!" Youth Responsibility
Program.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I really
appreciate the opportunity to rise and welcome
our students from the Driver Middle School of
the Marcellus School District.
Each year we have a program called
"Good News! Good Kids!" because unfortunately,
in our society, it's a lot easier to make the
news if you do bad things and are bad
citizens. But we should recognize those who
are doing the good things.
This is a specifically important
group of people. Recently, a Mr. D'Andrea,
Frank D'Andrea, who was the middle school
psychologist, unexpectedly died. He was a
3040
very special person to the special education
students at Marcellus Middle School. Very,
very close friends, helped these young people
over some very difficult times.
Rather than making this a
completely negative event, these students that
are here today actually participated in a fund
drive to help set up a scholarship fund in the
name of Mr. D'Andrea, which is extremely
important. It brought that something that
became positive out of a very, very difficult
situation for each of them individually.
And I wanted to honor them today.
They were selected among many, many good
groups that have presented projects to me for
the 49th Senate District. They are truly good
kids, and it's very good news that they're
here and doing the wonderful things they are.
Thank you very much for coming, and
we hope you've enjoyed your day.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the resolution. All in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
3041
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there will be an immediate meeting of the
Labor Committee in the Majority Conference
Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Labor Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: If we could take
up the noncontroversial calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
44, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 859B, an
act in release to authorizing.
SENATOR DUANE: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
103, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 417A, an
3042
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to eliminating.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
163, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 833, an
act to amend the Education Law, in relation to
certain BOCES programs.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
195, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 2082, an
act authorizing the Office of Real Property
Services.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
200, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 2032, an
act to amend Chapter 672 of the Laws of 1993.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
3043
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
205, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 1158, an
act to amend the Military Law, in relation to
extending.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
207, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 2133, an
act to amend the Executive Law, in relation to
requiring.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
Senator Skelos, that completes the
reading of the noncontroversial calendar.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you, Madam
President. If we could go to the very
controversial calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
3044
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
44, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 859B, an
act in relation to authorizing the Chabad
Lubavitch of Old Westbury.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni,
an explanation has been requested by Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR BALBONI: Thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR BALBONI: This bill would
allow the Lubavitch of Old Westbury temple to
have a remedy that consists of being -- of
utilizing and recognizing their tax-exempt
status so that they will not have to pay
approximately $13,000 in real property taxes
from the January 1999 date of purchase of the
property.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, will the sponsor yield to a
question.
3045
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I do,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. You
may proceed, Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President. As you know, Senator
Balboni, these bills have been a particular
interest of mine. And I would just like to
know, do you know what happened at the closing
with respect to -- at the time this property
was purchased with respect to the allocation
of real property taxes in this case?
SENATOR BALBONI: No, I do not.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if Senator Balboni will
continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I do,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Do you know
whether the religious organization that would
3046
otherwise qualify for an exemption had a
discussion with its attorney about the date of
closing and what impact that would have on
real property taxes on this property?
SENATOR BALBONI: No, I do not.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
Through you, Madam President, if Senator
Balboni will continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, do you have a few more questions?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Yes, I -
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Madam
President, I continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, would
you yield for a few questions?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Yes. Thank
you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. Senator Balboni, do you know
whether there were any claims made by this
religious organization against the attorney
when they determined that they were paying
real property taxes under circumstances in
which they, as a matter of law, as you know,
3047
should not have -- would have otherwise been
eligible for an exemption?
SENATOR BALBONI: I don't agree
with your premise for your question.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
Through you, Madam President, if Senator
Balboni will continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: My question
is this. Did the religious organization have
a discussion with their attorney about if they
had closed this transaction in December of
1998 they would have been eligible in
January 1999, which was the taxable status
date, and they wouldn't have been required to
pay any real property taxes during that period
of time that you're now seeking to give them
an exemption?
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, I'm sorry, I'm not aware of a
question in that particular dialogue.
3048
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, could you rephrase your question?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I will. I'm
simply asking whether Senator Balboni is aware
of such a discussion between the religious
organization and their attorney.
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, asked and answered.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay. Madam
President, just one final question.
Senator Balboni, are you familiar
with Senator Hannon's bill that would allow
assessors statewide to provide partial real
property tax exemptions in New York State?
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, what year would the esteemed
Senator from Rochester be asking about?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, I think that's an appropriate
question in response.
Pick a year, Senator Balboni. It's
been in the Assembly and I think has been in
the Senate since 1995. Any one of the
versions from 1995 to 2000. I'm not sure
there's a 2001 bill in the house. But
3049
certainly for the last five years, every one
of those years, there's been a bill sponsored
in the Assembly and also, I believe,
cosponsored by our colleague Senator Hannon
that would allow assessors to give partial
property tax exemptions for religious
organizations such as this one.
And my only question is, do you
know why that bill hasn't come to the floor of
the Senate for a debate or a vote?
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, through you, would the
distinguished member from Syracuse or
Rochester, or where are you -- no, you're from
Rochester, that's right.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: That's
correct.
SENATOR BALBONI: Would you
please tell me what the bill number is for
this year?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Hold on a
second, I'd be glad to, Madam President.
Well, let's see. How about S7325?
SENATOR BALBONI: The laws of -
for this bill year -- this year?
3050
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I don't know
that, Madam President. That was the bill
number last year.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yeah. But do
you have the bill number this year?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I don't,
Madam President, have that right with me.
SENATOR BALBONI: Perhaps that's
because the bill has not been introduced this
year.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
Through you, Madam President, will Senator
Balboni continue to yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator
Balboni, do you know why Senator Hannon's
bill -- that would completely obviate the need
to do this in a piecemeal, case-by-case
fashion -- do you know why that bill hasn't
been introduced in the house this year?
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, through you, I have not had the
3051
ability to -- or the opportunity to ask
Senator Hannon as to why he has introduced any
particular piece of legislation that's in his
legislative agenda.
However, I will certainly attempt
to do so in the future.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay, through
you, Madam President, just one final question.
Senator Balboni, do you know why that bill by
Senator Hannon had never come to the floor of
the Senate for a vote in the last five years?
SENATOR BALBONI: Do I know why?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Yes, do you
know why?
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, I don't understand the gentleman's
question.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
Through you, Madam President, on the bill.
I've said this before, I'll say it
again. I appreciate Senator Balboni's strong
work for his constituents on Long Island.
Lord knows our Long Island colleagues seem to
have a plethora of these problems with
religious organizations that buy properties in
3052
the middle of a tax year and find that either
they have not had a discussion with their
lawyer about the tax-exempt status of the
property or they can come to the State
Legislature and get their property fixed, get
the tax exemption declared after the fact, ex
post facto, and therefore relieve them of
their property taxes for a period of time.
The reason why I asked Senator
Balboni the question about the conversations
between the lawyer and the religious
organization is because what I think we're in
essence doing is allowing the lawyers in
certain parts of this state to commit the
equivalent of malpractice with the hope that
the State Legislature will obviate the need
for a malpractice claim.
I point out to Senator Balboni if
the property is transferred in January of a
particular year, my recollection is -
certainly, I think, in all the counties the
taxable status date could be in December and
you could simply transfer the property prior
to the taxable status date, file the property
tax exemption upon the date of transfer, and
3053
the problem that Senator Balboni has not only
attempted to correct with this legislation but
with prior legislation wouldn't need a
correction. It could be done by good,
competent lawyering.
I would also suggest that one of
the things that probably happened in this
closing is that the religious organization and
the owner of the property, because it was
taxable property, probably did have a
discussion through their lawyer about, Wait a
second, can we delay this closing until such
time as we can push the closing back for a
period of time so that we could qualify for a
property tax exemption, transfer the property,
and then ask for the exemption.
My guess is, Madam President, that
as often happens in deals negotiated by
lawyers with clients with competing interests,
they reached an agreement. And the agreement
was, We're going to transfer it on X date,
with everybody knowing that the religious
organization would miss the taxable status
date for that year and would have to pay
property taxes.
3054
My guess is, Madam President, it
may have even been a factor in the
determination of the offering price for the
property that the religious organization was
going to pay the back taxes or pay the taxes
prospectively.
My point is simply this, Madam
President. All of these transactions occur,
they occur with lawyers representing clients,
they come in and do a transaction which
results in taxation for an otherwise
taxable-exempt entity, and under those
circumstances the dynamics of the negotiating
process are such that in all likelihood, if
there's good lawyering, that's taken into
account in the purchase and sale price, in the
cost of the transaction.
If there's bad lawyering and a
lawyer doesn't advise the religious
organization that they can either delay or
accelerate the closing date to avoid having to
pay property taxes, then why should we be in
the position of bailing out not just a
religious organization, which by law is
entitled to it, but a lawyer who represents
3055
them who doesn't have the ability to see that
paying property taxes is going to be a cost to
the religious organization?
The last thing I'll conclude is I
find it fascinating that Senator Hannon's bill
was in the house in the year 2000. I think
it's a wonderful bill. I think it's a bill
that, my gosh, Madam President, if I had the
ability to move to discharge the Hannon bill
and bring to the floor, I would do that now,
because it's time for us to have a debate
about the Hannon bill.
Now, it may not be submitted to the
house yet. I would hope that Senator Hannon
submits the bill. I would be willing to take
Senator Hannon's bill, put my name on it, give
it a number and see if it could be brought to
the floor of this house, so that we can
forever put to bed this lingering problem that
only seems to crop up in Nassau County about
religious organizations having to pay real
property taxes.
As you know, Madam President, we
have eliminated the ability of any member of
this house to bring a motion to discharge, to
3056
bring that debate before the house even though
everybody in this house knows that it's time
that we had it. I would just suggest, Madam
President, that the rules we've constructed
that constrict debate, the rules that we've
constructed that constrict the ability to
bring a bill like the Hannon bill to the floor
are misguided.
And there couldn't be a better
demonstration of the misguided nature of those
rules than this very debate. Because we'll
continue to have it, Senator Balboni, every
time one of these bills comes up until we find
a way to bring a solution to the problem.
That bill that Senator Hannon
sponsored last year that should be responsored
by him again. Until we find a way to bring
that bill to the floor, we will be left with
the labor of trying to figure out who told
what to whom when, the old Richard Nixon
dilemma of who knew what when involved in real
property transactions.
I think it's frankly a waste of our
time to get into that detail. Let's cure the
problem. Let's have a debate on the Hannon
3057
bill. Maybe if Senator Hannon does put it in,
maybe, Lord knows, I would try to move to
discharge it and be greeted with a motion that
I'm out of order. But then maybe we could
have a debate, maybe parenthetically, about
the merits of the Hannon bill, which we know
will solve this problem for everyone in this
state.
Madam President, consistent with my
past votes, I'm going to vote no. I don't
think this kind of bailout for lawyers in
Nassau County is a good idea. The religious
organization, we don't know enough about the
terms of the transfer to know whether the
economics of it are such that by doing this
change we may be altering what everybody knew
were the economics at the time.
I wish this house would consider
the Hannon bill. I'll continue to vote no on
all of these bills until we do.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, I have sat through four or five
different debates when Senator Dollinger has
3058
taken it upon himself to rail against the
system as if there was some corrupt practice
on behalf of the many religious institutions
that have brought about the petition for
relief that is presently before us.
And that is what this is. This is
a petition for relief from a religious
organization that by our laws, and by our
Constitution, we have decided should benefit
from an existence without taxation.
And though Senator Dollinger has
had no great concern for the individual
parties that have presented this petition, and
in his attempt today to try to find some
fingernail of relevance to this particular
issue he is now defaming the attorney who was
involved on behalf of this religious
organization -- what I am thrilled about,
Madam President, is that we have not named
that attorney today, because I assure you,
Senator Dollinger, that that individual really
wouldn't appreciate being referred to as
having committed malpractice.
I would offer to the gentleman that
perhaps he should consider that this
3059
individual is not just my constituent, but
it's a constituent of all of us, from a
collective perspective, as representatives of
the State Senate.
Madam President, this particular
bill before us is no different than the other
petitions that we've received by religious
organizations who are entitled to the
proceeding that we have today because they
have asked for it. And what Senator Dollinger
never does is he never says what the
alternative should be. If you missed the
date, should you lose the money. That's the
basic question.
That is the question that is before
us today, not whether or not the closing was
done properly, not whether or not the
individual attorney knew the terms of the
Tax Law and was familiar with the
Not-for-Profit Law or the religious exemption
clause, but, rather, whether or not this
organization deserves this type of
consideration and perspective.
This is the same type of
consideration that you would give to your
3060
constituents. Your vote is simple. And I
know that you try to rail against the system
from a systemwide perspective. But I would
ask you this, Senator Dollinger. Would you
say no to this organization? Would you say,
I'm sorry, you don't do it the way we want you
to, and I've got so many other things, so many
important things in Albany to discuss, I don't
want to be bothered with this particular piece
of legislation? Isn't that a little of a
harsh result on behalf of the Lubavitch
organization?
I would ask you that you would ask
yourself that question. Your no vote is
entirely appropriate from a systemic basis.
But please, try to lay off the people that are
trying to earn a living.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I wonder if
the sponsor would yield for a couple of
questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I will,
3061
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Madam
President, I would like -- I'm curious about
267 Guinea Woods Road in the Village of Old
Westbury. Is this going to be a synagogue or
a parsonage residence for the clergy?
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, in way of response, allow me to put
into the record a letter I received on
October 24, 2000, by the Rabbi Aron Konikov of
the Chabad Lubavitch of Old Westbury:
"As a religious organization, the
Lubavitch is seeking a property tax exemption
for this location. The property is utilized
for several purposes. There is a separate
chapel, with its own ark and Torah, which is
used for Sabbath services on alternate weeks.
The premises are also used for Friday night
Kiddush and meetings of the Board of Trustees.
Finally, a portion of the premises is used for
my residence."
SENATOR STAVISKY: Thank you. I
have a couple of other questions, Madam
President, if the Senator will yield.
3062
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR STAVISKY: The sponsor's
memorandum in support states that the fiscal
implications include the cancellation of
unpaid taxes, fines, penalties, and interest.
Can you tell us approximately what that
amounts to, how much revenue is -
SENATOR BALBONI: Approximately
$13,000.
SENATOR STAVISKY: $13,000.
Madam President, I have one last
question, and that concerns the question -
and I asked you the same question when you had
a similar bill for another religious
institution about two or three weeks ago. Why
are all of these bills involving Jewish
organizations in Nassau County?
SENATOR BALBONI: Senator, I
don't understand the basis for your -- the
premise for your question.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I haven't seen
any exemptions from real property tax from
other parts of the state.
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, through you, how long have you
3063
searched? Because I know in the past 10, 15
years there've been lots of organizations that
have come and asked for this kind of relief.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Because we've
just seen -- Madam President, through you, on
the bill.
Thank you, Senator.
It seems to me that we are
exempting religious institutions based upon a
hardship. The memorandum says this bill would
remedy the hardship suffered by the Chabad. I
am sympathetic to the religious institutions,
obviously. I have a great many friends who
are active in the Lubavitch movement. But
this is a hardship of their own making. They
could have purchased the property to coincide
with the tax season, and they did not. They
then come to the Legislature and ask for
relief, as they have every right to do.
I'm going to vote for the bill, but
I am still not satisfied as to why there's
something in the Kiddush wine that seems to
affect only Jewish institutions in Nassau
County.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lachman.
3064
SENATOR LACHMAN: This was not
what I was going to say or ask. But I think
we might be getting out of hand in terms of
religious institutions at this point.
I have always felt that there
should be a standard throughout the state for
religious institutions and nonreligious
institutions that are applicable to all. But
I would not quibble whether one is a Jewish
institution or a Catholic or Greek Orthodox or
Protestant or a Muslim or a Buddhist
institution. And I would have preferred that
these standards be applicable in Nassau
County, New York City, upstate New York.
Nonetheless, even though this
institution was not precise in following the
directions of the application that it should
have, there were other institutions throughout
the state to do the same, and I would
therefore vote for it -- questioning, however,
why we cannot have a bill that applies to all
these institutions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
would Senator Balboni yield for a question.
3065
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I would.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR SKELOS: At some point
during the session, we see a number of
reconveyance bills from New York City with
home rule messages. Do you know why all these
bills pertain to New York City?
SENATOR BALBONI: No, I don't,
Senator. And it's funny. As you bring that
up, I recall all my years in the Legislature,
every time those reconveyance bills arrive on
the floor, I voted for every single one.
Because I believe that those people deserve
the relief that was being offered in terms of
that legislation.
Thank you, Senator Skelos.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, just on the bill briefly.
It's always encouraging to engage
in spirited debate with my colleague from
Nassau County. He has said that this
3066
religious organization is entitled to this
exemption. And I would say to you, Senator
Balboni, the answer to that question is no,
they are not entitled to it.
And why are they not entitled to
it? For the same reason that anybody who
fails to file their income taxes on April 15th
are not entitled to the protection of the Tax
Laws. They failed to perform a duty that has
to be performed on a specific date.
And I'll give you even a better
example, Senator Balboni, and then I'll yield
to a question. I bought a house on the 15th
of May. I paid $26,000 less than the property
was assessed for in my hometown community.
All I had to do was take my real property
contract to my local assessment board, and I
could prove that a willing buyer will paid a
willing seller less money than what the
property was assessed for.
My wife said, "You're going to do
that, aren't you?" I said, "Absolutely. I'll
do it, I know that day, I'm sure of that, I'm
a lawyer. It's the third Monday in June."
When I went on the third Monday of
3067
June, I was told, "It's the third Monday in
May, you dunce." And at that point I didn't
have a right, under state law, to get the
property tax deduction, because I had missed
the filing date.
And I said, "But wait a second.
I'm absolutely entitled to this. I can prove
that the property is worth less than what it's
currently assessed for."
My friend the assessor looked me in
the eye and said, "You're absolutely right.
I'll give it to you next year when you file on
time."
Madam President, that's why we have
deadlines. That's why this house has
deadlines in its rules. That's why we have
deadlines in most of the things we do in our
lives. As the President knows, we have
deadlines in our judicial system, we have
deadlines for lawyers. Lord knows I'm under a
couple of pressing ones right now.
But nonetheless, these are the
deadlines. We have times under which you must
do something or your rights evaporate. Call
it a statute of limitations, call it whatever.
3068
This is a classic instance in which a
religious organization failed to meet the
statute of limitations and now they come to us
to ask that they get that relief.
One of the points that I tried to
make earlier -- which, with all due respect to
Senator Balboni, I think he missed -- is that
a good lawyer would look at this at the time
of transfer and say, Wait a second. As part
of the transaction, we want a credit for the
property taxes that we're going to pay.
And my guess is, Senator Balboni,
if this was closed by a good lawyer acting on
behalf of this religious community, he got a
credit at the time of closing for these taxes.
And now what they're attempting to do is to
recover the taxes twice. They got a credit
for it at the time of closing, and now they
want a second credit.
With all due respect, Madam
President, I understand Senator Balboni's
fervid advocacy for this religious
organization. I have never suggested that
that's not the right thing for him to do.
What I have suggested is that the right thing
3069
for all of us to do is to obviate the need to
do this in any other place in this state.
Let's do the Hannon bill. It's
passed the Assembly four years in a row. It's
clear that it will become a chapter. All it
needs is a little nudge from this house to
come up on the floor. And I will guarantee to
anybody who wants to sponsor it, it's like
karaoke on the other side. Come up to the
bill, speak to the bill, put the bill on the
floor. I will do my best to provide 25 votes.
We only need six more. It will become a law.
And all of Senator Balboni's
advocacy, which is -- again, I don't doubt for
a second this is what he should be doing for
his community. But if that advocacy could be
bottled in favor and provided to the Hannon
bill, we'd have a statewide solution. The
assessors, by the way, don't like it. But
we'd have a statewide solution for this
problem. We wouldn't have to saddle our
lawyers with having to go through the
gyrations at the time of closing to figure out
all these credits.
And I would suggest that the harsh
3070
result that Senator Balboni is now talking
about if we don't pass this bill will never
happen anyplace else in this state. It's the
right thing to do. Let's do the right thing
and do it now. Bring up the Hannon bill and
make it law.
SENATOR BALBONI: Are you done?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I am.
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, will the Senator yield?
I know it was a filibuster, but
would you yield anyway?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, I believe under the rules I'm not
required to yield because I'm not the sponsor
of the bill and I can't be called on to
respond to any questions. So under those
rules, Madam President -
THE PRESIDENT: Do you choose to
yield, Senator Dollinger?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I do not,
Madam President.
SENATOR BALBONI: Fine.
3071
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Balboni would yield for
a question.
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, I do yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, you may
proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I
want to go over a few points with you. And if
the institution, the religious institution had
filed on time and at that time claimed the tax
credit, they would have still gotten the tax
credit, and they also would have gotten the
exemption. So even though it appears to be a
double payment in lieu of the taxation, it
really is not. This is what they would have
been -- this would have been allowable to them
under the statute anyway. Isn't that correct?
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, through you. Senator Paterson, if
your question is whether or not they would
have been entitled to this same amount if
everything had been done on time and therefore
no extra money has been paid, you're
3072
absolutely correct.
However, I cannot answer the fact
that they would have been given the exemption.
Because as you know, under the terms of our
law, we give the county assessor the right to
make the determination that they are in fact
eligible, which is a three-step process that
we've talked about many times beforehand.
And that's what I was trying to
point out to Senator Dollinger, that he was
wrong when he stood up and he said we are
entitled -- that are they entitled to the
exemption, yes or no. He doesn't know if they
are, and neither do I, because neither one of
us are in the position to actually determine
whether or not they're qualified to get the
exemption.
And that's all this legislation
does. It says to the county assessor: Make a
determination. We give you the ability to
move the tax assessment date backwards or
forwards, depending on what you think is the
appropriate thing to do. Because as we all
know, we treat religious institutions
differently than we treat individuals. Which
3073
is again why Senator Dollinger was wrong in
saying that this is in fact the same case that
he was doing.
And lastly, lastly, this is also
not something you can brush over by saying
that the people who are selling the property
they should have gotten a credit from.
There's nobody to get a credit from. Which is
again why Senator Dollinger was wrong.
So that's what -- I appreciate your
question being able to point that out.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator
Balboni -- Madam President, if Senator Balboni
would continue to yield.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I would,
Senator Paterson.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: Well, there's
so much wrong in the world, Senator Balboni,
and it's all attributed to Senator Dollinger.
I don't even know where to start.
SENATOR BALBONI: He's a nice
guy.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: But wrong.
3074
(Laughter.)
SENATOR PATERSON: Let's go back
to the issue about the deadline. The deadline
really doesn't influence one way or the other
the determination of exemption, does it,
Senator Balboni?
SENATOR BALBONI: You are
absolutely correct, Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: I've been
right twice. I'm starting to become afraid.
Senator, on the issue of the
actions of the lawyer -- I don't know if you
know, but I'm Senator Dollinger's lawyer,
and -
SENATOR BALBONI: My condolences.
SENATOR PATERSON: I don't think
that you actually interpreted what Senator
Dollinger said correctly.
What I heard him say was not that
the lawyer had -- he didn't even imply that
the lawyer had engaged in any malpractice.
What he said was that we didn't know one way
or the other. And that we didn't know didn't
even relate to failure to practice. We didn't
really know what was in the contemplation of
3075
the attorney and even really of the entity.
But what I think he was saying was
that his solution to put this in a -- to
create a scenario where this could be solved
other than through individual legislation in
either way would actually have been a better
way to do this, so we didn't have to actually
take the responsibility for ourselves for what
it is that we don't know.
Now, if the Senator would yield for
a question, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Madam
President, I will yield.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I'm
not entirely convinced on one aspect of this
type of law-making that it might not be a good
idea to do these cases on a case-by-case
basis.
Do you have any information or any
inclination to agree with me on that?
SENATOR BALBONI: Sure. I think.
(Laughter.)
3076
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, to Senator Balboni. Pray
elucidate.
SENATOR BALBONI: Okay. Is there
a question? I'm sorry, Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: The question
is, since we haven't created a process by
which these cases would be handled through the
type of legislation that others have proposed,
my point is, there might be some reasons not
to do it that way. And I'm inclined to
consider them, and I wanted to know if you
are.
SENATOR BALBONI: Senator
Paterson, if you're saying that -- and
notwithstanding other members' of the house
protestation that there is not a statewide law
in effect right now -- that this bill does
present the only remedy for this church, for
this synagogue, and therefore it considered by
the house, I would agree with you on that
premise.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if the Senator would continue to
yield.
3077
SENATOR BALBONI: I do so, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, what I'm saying is that this is the
only remedy that stands right now, but that
there might be some reasons why, if we had a
statewide law, they might be overbroad and
might not accommodate the values of
case-by-case scenario. And I wanted to know
if that was something that would be a reason
to continue the system as we have now. That's
my question.
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, I had lots of coffee today, and I
think I'm paying attention and listening. I
don't understand the premise of the question.
I apologize. Perhaps -- could you put this in
writing for me? Send me a memo on this?
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, let me try one more time.
We have not changed the law. We
have not changed the law to adopt a statewide
statute such as others have advocated in this
chamber today.
3078
SENATOR BALBONI: Agreed.
SENATOR PATERSON: If we were to
change the law, isn't it possible, Senator,
that the law would be so overbroad that even
the law itself would not accommodate some of
the ministerial aspects of governance in
our -- in some of our tax rules, such that it
would make it actually more difficult for
institutions such as the one that you're
advocating for through this bill today to get
the relief that they are seeking?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I would
agree with that.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you.
SENATOR BALBONI: There's an
exception to every rule.
SENATOR PATERSON: Right. Thank
you. Madam President, if the Senator would
yield for one last question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield for a final question?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, if we
3079
were to adopt that statewide law, would you
care to list what some of these exceptions
might be?
SENATOR BALBONI: That's why it's
best handled on a case-by-case basis. Because
I don't know what the exceptions could
possibly be. There's a whole host of
different exceptions, fact patterns, parties,
situations that might not lend itself to a
statewide approach.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President. On the bill.
I'm going to vote for the
legislation. And I think that there are times
that a case-by-case basis actually serves us
well. And I thought I would point that out,
because up to this point it has seemed almost
unanimous around here that that's the
direction that we have to go. It -- it might
be.
But before that point, I think we
would have to be scrupulously careful to make
sure that we've included as many possibilities
whereby some of our religious institutions not
be overburdened by going through a process
3080
where we might not have properly listed all of
the aspects of their particular case.
We've had about three or four bills
in here, Madam President, just in the last
couple of weeks, where we added on -- in fact,
last Wednesday I believe that Senator Bonacic
had a piece of legislation where we originally
passed it in 1995 and it had to do with the
use of bodily fluids and other objects in the
correctional facilities, the misuse of it, and
we were attaching criminal penalties to it.
He came back here last week with essentially
the same bill, but just adding a couple of
other items which the courts have not seen fit
to accept because they weren't listed in the
bill.
Now, I think that a statewide
approach is a good approach, and for somewhat
of a different reason. But if we do adopt the
statewide approach, I'd like to admonish all
of us here that it's not just a matter of
taking this legislation and writing it on a
statewide basis. It's one where we would have
to come up with as many of these types of
exceptions, such as we see here today, to
3081
actually list.
In the end, the reason -- I think
the statewide approach is specific to just
what I consider to be a contradiction in this
whole process. If we're saying that religious
institutions are special and we're going to
grant them protections that are special, then
for us to attach geographic locations to those
areas that are going to get special treatment,
in my opinion, is patently ludicrous.
Now, your religious institution
better be in the right place at the right
time, or you're not going to get that special
protection. And since I thought the nature of
attaching the word "special" to "religious
institution" is a concept that's spiritual, I
didn't know that we had particular locations
of a geographic nature where the spirits hang
out and the rest of us in the state apparently
don't have that kind of connection.
I think it is very important to the
integrity of this system that we do adopt a
statewide approach, even if we have to make
sure that it is specific and detailed so as to
accommodate all the problems that our
3082
religious institutions have. But I think it
is very important to do it lest we not open
ourselves up to a feeling that there are
things even more special than our religious
beliefs.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Yes, Madam
President. Will the sponsor yield for a
question -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Madam
President, I do.
SENATOR ONORATO: -- from a
nonattorney. I've been hearing all of this
dialogue back and forth from all the lawyers
in the house.
I'd like to ask a layman's question
regarding the possibility of enacting a
statewide piece of legislation giving the
assessor of any community in the state the
right to accept or reject it, give them, as we
have done so many other times before, enabling
legislation so that we wouldn't have to come
back, they would make that determination as to
3083
whether they want to grant the exemption or
not grant it.
SENATOR BALBONI: Senator
Onorato, I do not know the policy that is
behind the original state law that required
these fixed timetables. I don't understand
why it was put into place. Maybe it has
something to do with the home rule and the
ability of the individual counties, through
state legislation, to decide their own
destiny. I do not know the actual impetus
originally.
SENATOR ONORATO: Do you think
it's possible, though, that we could enact
such a piece of legislation giving the town or
county assessors of every county in the state
the right to do what we're doing here today,
rather than having us come in here to do it on
a case-by-case basis, enable them to do it and
take it out of our hands?
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, through you, Senator Onorato, I
believe it is possible. But I think that some
concerns about that approach were raised very
admirably by Senator Paterson -- once, of
3084
course, I understood what the heck he was
saying.
And I think that it is an approach
that we should look at, but perhaps we need
some more time to see if there's a way to
draft legislation so as to take into account
as many different exceptions and circumstances
as possible.
SENATOR ONORATO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President. Through you, if the sponsor
will yield for a few brief questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I do,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
I'm not completely clear, I might have been a
little confused by the dialogue with Senator
Paterson. And I'm not clear as to exactly
where you stand as far as the different
approaches to this.
3085
Are you familiar with the
Governor's proposal in 1997 when he said he
did not want to routinely approve similar
bills to this and proposed a task force of
legislative, executive, and local government
executives?
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, through you, I am familiar with
that.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Do you
favor that proposal?
SENATOR BALBONI: Actually, you
know, I -- Madam President, through you, I
am -- at this point in time I don't have the
proposal in front of me, so I'm not conversant
the actual elements of the proposal. So I
can't give you a yes or no.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Madam President, it seems that there are
three different approaches being discussed
here today. One is what Senator Dollinger was
speaking of, Senator Hannon's bill. The other
is the possibility that doing this on a
case-by-case basis might be the most prudent
way to proceed. And the third is the
3086
Governor's proposal.
Do you have a view as to which of
those would be the most beneficial way for us
to proceed?
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, through you, I do not at this time.
But I will tell you that regardless
of which proposal or approach this house would
seek to choose, I would still advocate that
this particular measure that's before us now
deserves your support. Because otherwise,
this religious institution is going to be out
in the cold. And I think we have the
opportunity here to help them continue their
religious mission.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Madam President, I appreciate that. I
guess my question is since it is before us and
we are discussing this, just because you're
doing a plea bargain for a client you have
doesn't stop you from attempting to reform the
plea bargaining procedure prospectively.
And my question is, since the issue
has been raised, you have articulated
fervently -- perhaps a bit aggressively, but
3087
I'm sensitive to those things -- but I think
that the issue is joined. And it's a good
time for us to figure out what we're doing.
I personally think Senator Hannon's
bill makes sense. I don't know that we need
another commission for this. But I'm curious
if having achieved a certain amount of
expertise -- I guess this one congregation,
you're achieving expertise based on their
situation.
But you don't have a view one way
or the other on those three approaches?
SENATOR BALBONI: No, I don't.
Madam President, through you.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Okay,
thank you. Through you, Madam President. The
only other question I have is -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson,
why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Schneiderman would yield
for a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Yeah,
3088
maybe for one question.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. You
may proceed, maybe, with one question.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator
Schneiderman, I have a proposal for this. And
I would call it the fourth proposal.
What I'm suggesting is that the
issue of whether or not these cases should be
handled on a statewide basis is one that
really accommodates the actual -- what really
accommodates what would be the actual way of
handling it. In other words, a process. And
that's what the Governor's task force was
suggesting, that there needs to be process so
we don't have to do this on a piecemeal basis.
Now, given the consideration that
on a case-by-case basis there are separate and
distinct aspects of the operation of these
religious institutions, I would see why
sometimes there might be a case-by-case basis.
So my argument is that that's a discussion
that was resolved by the Governor's task
force.
What I'm saying is this institution
that Senator Balboni told us has a mission and
3089
we want to help them, and they're special
because we give a certain credence to that
kind of work beyond the work of other
organizations and beyond the -- what the
individual taxpayer, like Senator Dollinger's
case described -- if that's the case, isn't it
true that if this institution moved about
20 miles from where they are, they couldn't
get any protection right now, special though
they may be?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I'm not
sure what you're referring to. What is the
20-mile move you're proposing? I'm afraid
that would lead the Lubavitch of this
particular area uncared for.
SENATOR PATERSON: Well, it's
20 miles away from Brooklyn, it's 20 miles
away from Queens.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I think
Queens, yes. No, I understand.
Senator Paterson, my response to
you is this. I don't -- I think that you're
raising another issue which is encompassed
within this notion or this idea that the
Governor advanced, that we really need to have
3090
a comprehensive view of how to achieve
alternative means to resolve these sorts of
tax issues.
It comes up all the time. Senator
Skelos raised the issue with regard to
parallel issues in New York City. And I think
the concern is this. It's not that this
community is any better or any worse than the
other applicants for this sort of legislation.
The question is, when you have
special bills, there is an impression created
that some institutions have the ability to get
their Senator to take their particular case
and get it done and other institutions may not
be so politically connected, so attuned to
things. And that's the reason that a lot of
people have troubles with this approach.
I think the question of tax equity
between New York City and areas outside of
New York City is a much more complex issue.
Which I would hope that we would take up,
because New York City does contribute more to
the state than it takes out, even though it
does have a tremendous number of people with
extraordinary needs for social services and
3091
educational purposes. Although Senator
Balboni's county of Nassau contributes -- is
even in worse shape as far as the balance of
payments to the state. So I don't mean to
suggest that they're not.
But I think that that is another
issue that should be addressed. I must say I
am persuaded by Senator Dollinger's argument
on the Hannon bill.
But let me just address one more
question to the sponsor, if I may, through
you, Madam President, and then we can proceed
to discuss this on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield for an additional question?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I will,
Madam President. Thank you.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I just -
before I speak on the bill, I am concerned
about the issue of civility here. And you've
been here for some time. Have you ever
observed Senator Dollinger to refuse to yield
to a question since you've been here?
SENATOR BALBONI: No, I have not.
But at the same time, let me
3092
disabuse you of a notion, Senator. This
particular religious institution is not,
quote, politically connected. They do very,
very good work in their community. You know
how they got this bill? They sent me a
letter. You know how everybody gets their
bills? They send me a letter.
And the other notion I wish to
disabuse this entire house of is that this
happens to be Jewish organizations is
absolutely not true. We are doing bills for
Greek Orthodox, for Baptists, for a whole host
of different religious organizations. So it's
not just Jewish communities in Nassau County
that are seeking this kind of relief.
So on those two very important
points I wish this matter to be crystal clear.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Madam President, that does raise a
few more questions, if the sponsor will yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I do,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
3093
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Senator,
you stated that this organization sent you a
letter. Are you actually familiar with the
work that this organization does in the
community or the beliefs or anything about
this congregation in particular?
SENATOR BALBONI: I don't know
anybody in the congregation.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Are you
familiar with the work that they do?
SENATOR BALBONI: As a matter of
fact, there are several neighbors of mine who
belong to a Lubavitch organization in general.
And many of them are familiar with the rabbi.
I have not met the rabbi personally. But they
have told me of the many charitable works that
they do and the strength of this community in
Old Westbury. It's very important in my
district.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: And
through you, Madam President, if some other
congregation -- and this is really the point I
was trying to make -- had the exact same
situation but did not have neighbors who knew
you or members of the congregation who knew
3094
you, or similar congregations, and just didn't
write a letter, they would not receive this
type of relief, would they?
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, through you, that's not my -
that's certainly not what I thought you meant
by political connected. Being governmentally
aware is different than politically connected.
Now, I can't answer that because I
hope that at least in the Senate district I
have the privilege of representing, that
everybody who needs this relief realizes that
they can contact me. I hope that's the same
for everybody's district.
Perhaps in your district it might
be different. At least in my district I know
that many people believe that they can get
some response if they send a letter to my
district office.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Madam President, I think the people in my
district contact me. Whether I have the same
luck as you in getting it to the floor may be
a different issue.
The point I'm making is not to
3095
suggest any sort of level of corruption
regarding political connection. But it's
simply that in the absence of something like
Senator Hannon's bill, we do have uneven
treatment of organizations in similar
circumstances. There's nothing sinister about
it.
Some organizations assume that when
they miss a deadline, they miss the deadline.
Other organizations may inquire. And -
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, will the gentleman yield to a
question, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR BALBONI: Senator
Schneiderman, can you detail for us in this
house any organization that you know of that
is similarly situated as this organization and
has not been able to receive any benefit from
the Legislature?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Madam President, no. Because they
3096
haven't come to our attention. That's my
point.
But you've identified the fact that
this organization is here because they sent
you a letter. And all I'm suggesting is that
a more comprehensive approach, instead of
relying on the initiative and awareness of
each individual organization to contact their
legislator, would be an appropriate response.
Not that there's anything wrong
with them sending a letter. Not that there's
anything wrong with you bringing this here.
But that this sort of piecemeal approach I
think inevitably -- and I don't have some
particular group to cite, because obviously if
we knew about the group, we'd be trying to get
them the relief. But this inevitably leads to
treatment of similarly situated organizations
differently.
Thank you. Through you, Madam
President, on the bill. I think that the
issue that's raised here is a significant
issue. We have a -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane,
why do you rise?
3097
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. If
the Senator would yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman, do you yield?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
Do you agree with me that it seems
ironic that the sponsor appears to be so
shocked that we would not agree to help out
this community when in fact we are agreeing
with him that we do think that a group in his
community should be helped out?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Well, I'm
not sure I would describe the sponsor as
shocked. Perturbed. Irritable.
Over-caffeinated, by his own admission. I'm
not sure "shocked" would be the proper term.
But I do take your point, Senator,
that what we're doing is -- I think we're here
in support of his fine efforts, with the
exception of a few people who stake their
principles on procedural issues on bills such
as this, like Senator Dollinger. Most of us
3098
are supportive of this.
I think we are trying to come up
with a way so that if there -- if the Senator
who succeeds Senator Balboni is not as alert,
is not as sensitive to the issues of his
district -- say it's someone who doesn't
respond to letters from constituents, is a
neglectful senator. That fact should not
prevent this congregation or another
congregation from obtaining relief down the
road.
We should not require that every
Senate district be dependent on the skills,
talents, and whims of the individual Senator
for obtaining this type of relief.
SENATOR DUANE: If the Senator
would continue to yield, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
continue to yield?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes, thank
you.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR DUANE: I want to give
you a somewhat hypothetical situation,
Senator, and see if maybe you could help me
3099
out with the odds on it. Supposing there was
a group in your district that needed similar
kind of help to this. What do you think the
odds would be that the Majority conference
would permit that to come here to the floor
under your sponsorship for a deserving group
like the Senator -- the sponsor of this
legislation has?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I don't
know, Senator. I think that I -- I took heart
from the fact that Senator Balboni just stated
that the way every group gets an exemption
like this is to write his office a letter. So
I do plan to also have them write letters to
Senator Balboni, in the hopes that that may be
of some benefit to them.
It is quite difficult for Senators
in the Minority and for the organizations in
the districts we represent to get bills to the
floor. It has become more difficult. I don't
know -- I hope that that will not continue,
and I hope that we will be able to adopt a
system in this house where the constituencies
of individual Senators are not penalized just
because of the party that Senator belongs to.
3100
But I think that it is undeniable
that it is more difficult to obtain relief
like this if you're a member of the Democratic
Party in this house than if you're not.
SENATOR DUANE: And if the
Senator would yield for a final question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm wondering,
Senator, whether you would join me in reaching
out to the sponsor of this legislation to see
if he will work with us to fight within his
conference to make sure that all bills get out
here on the floor.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I've
reached out to the fine sponsor of this bill
on various occasions. I would be happy to
reach out with him again, and hope that his
fervent advocacy for this kind of a relief for
a deserving congregation is something that he
would like to see acted upon in other parts of
the state.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you,
3101
Senator.
Thank you, Madam President.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Madam President, I think I'm on the
bill.
I think that this is -- the
question of a piecemeal approach versus a
comprehensive approach I think in this area is
tremendously important. And I urge the
sponsor of this piece of legislation that this
is not a question of any suggestion of
improper conduct on the part of the Lubavitch
in Nassau County.
The fact of the matter is we do not
have and we have the option to have a system
that really, as Senator Dollinger said,
obviates the need for this sort of piecemeal
legislation.
I do think that in addition to
advocating for these individual groups, it
would be worthwhile for this house to take
some time, and for the sponsor to take some
time, to push for the comprehensive approach.
I personally like Senator Hannon's bill,
although I heard Senator Paterson's points and
3102
I understand that there are alternative
approaches. But I think that I have not yet
heard a good argument against the
comprehensive approach.
And I think that we should not be
dependent, as I said, on the awareness of an
institution that it should send a letter to
their state Senator or to the competence,
sensitivity, and ability of that Senator. I
mean, Senator Balboni's office, you know, he
just said it. You send him a letter, you get
action.
And, you know, maybe some sad day
there will be someone representing your
district who does not hold to those high
standards, who neglects the community.
Perhaps a victim of sloth, greed, corruption,
avarice, lust. And in those circumstances, we
shouldn't punish the constituencies. Every
group should be treated similarly.
I will support this bill, but I
think it is time for us to take a
comprehensive approach.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
3103
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just a point
of order. I -- again, just to remind the
presiding officer, I think the rules require
that the presiding officer canvass the house.
I'd simply ask for compliance with the rules
that I voted against.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator Dollinger. As you know, last week I
did state that. So I appreciate the reminder.
Does any other member wish to be
heard on this bill?
Then the debate is hereby closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, to explain your vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: First of all,
3104
Madam President, I wronged Senator Balboni
during the debate, and I'll apologize. First
of all, he was correct about the rules. I had
spoken -
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes. If I could
ask Senator Dollinger to speak from his chair.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Be glad to,
Madam President.
Madam President, the -- I was -- I
wronged Senator Balboni twice, Madam
President. First of all, I misinterpreted the
rules. He was correct, I had previously
spoken, and therefore I was subject to
questioning. And I apologize, Senator
Balboni, I should have taken your question.
Secondly, I want to make it
absolutely clear. If Senator Balboni has
concluded that I accused him of being
politically connected to this organization, or
them to him, and that somehow brought them to
this chamber, I did not intend that. In fact,
I believe I said just the opposite.
I think Senator Balboni is doing
3105
exactly what a member should do. He was
presented with an issue, he looked for a
solution, he got them the right solution. The
problem is that this organization did that
governmental connection that he talked about,
which again is all part of our process.
But the point that Senator
Schneiderman made is the perfect one, which is
what do we do for all those people who are not
governmentally connected who are told by their
lawyer, Sorry, you missed the tax status date,
you can't get an exemption. Under those
circumstances under our current law, they have
no out. They don't know enough to come to us.
They don't know how to get the process started
on their behalf.
And therefore, we take those who
are just as deserving as this congregation but
don't have access to the knowledge or
understanding of government to get relief.
That's not fair. I've advocated that it be
changed.
The last thing I would say, Madam
President, is that, Senator Balboni, there is
a reason why we have a cut-off taxable status
3106
date. Because in order to maintain the
integrity of real property taxes, there must
be a date on which an assessor knows exactly
how much taxable property there is in the
community. Because he uses that, determines
the amount of revenue needed by government,
divides it by the available tax base, and
that's how we come up with a tax rate that is
set out to property-tax payers. The taxable
status date is -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, how do you vote?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I will, Madam
President.
-- is the critical ingredient -
THE PRESIDENT: Your time has
elapsed, Senator. That's why I'm asking.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: -- in
calculating real property taxes.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, I'm
trying to -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I will vote
in the negative, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, I'd
appreciate it if you would let me finish my
3107
sentence, please.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I apologize.
THE PRESIDENT: I was notifying
you by asking you for your vote that your time
has elapsed.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. I vote in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, you will
be so recorded as voting in the negative.
Senator Duane, to explain your
vote?
SENATOR DUANE: Yes, Madam
President, to explain my vote.
I'm going to vote yes on this
legislation. But I've now been here for
almost three years, and we have voted on an
enormous number of these taxation bills for
organizations that didn't get their paperwork
in on time.
And I don't know whether that means
that there are lots more of them that aren't
able to go through the rigors of the paperwork
and don't know how to reach out to their
Senator and Assembly member, but it seems to
me that this is actually something which
3108
should be taken out of our hands.
This is something that requires
administrative review. It's inappropriate
that a group has to depend on their elected
representative. I don't think that there's
anything wrong with it, but I think the
appearance is very, very problematic.
And I think in the spirit of
reforming how our state works, I think the
best possible process would be to level the
playing field and put into effect an
administrative review so that every
organization in the state is treated the same
way.
I'm going to vote yes on this, but
with a plea that we really, instead of
spending time discussing these specific
instances and where people are standing when
they speak on the floor, that we actually put
our whatever it is to the wheel and make it so
that we don't have to have these bills come
before us and there's an administrative remedy
for this problem.
Thank you, Madam President. I'm
voting yes.
3109
THE PRESIDENT: You will be
recorded, Senator Duane, as voting in the
affirmative.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I'm voting yes as well, with just
this admonition.
We know that there are
decision-making capacities that are vested in
the majority parties of both houses of the
Legislature. And we grant that as part of our
system. It's the system we work under.
And for most pieces of legislation,
or most groups seeking some kind of
reconveyance or some type of treatment where a
ministerial inability to file at the deadline
is granted, that we award that to groups, and
it's up to each individual member to find a
way to get the groups in their district that
protection.
But religious institutions have a
different standard. We grant them the
privilege -- in a sense, we take their word
for it. We understand their mission, the
seriousness of their mission and the faith of
3110
their mission. And so we grant that
protection.
In this case we should do that, as
Senator Balboni pointed out. But what I'm
saying is when it comes to these specific
types of cases of the special consideration we
give to religious organizations, we should do
it on a statewide basis, almost in the
unanimity that we do it in the vote that we're
going to see here of the house. We shouldn't
put them through having to have a Senator
intervene.
And it's for that reason that I
think that not only should we say yes in our
vote for this bill but for all those
institutions that might have the same problems
and might come before us this year.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson,
you will be recorded as voting in the
affirmative.
Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: To explain my
vote, Madam President.
I too am going to vote in favor of
this bill. And I want to commend Senator
3111
Balboni for doing the only possible right
thing that there is at the moment.
But I would suggest that for the
future that we do look into ways and means of
providing each county and city of the state
that has the right to assess taxes to make
their own decision as to what taxes they wish
to forgive, including the City of New York, so
that we don't have to come up here begging to
have somebody's home saved to give the City of
New York permission to allow them to pay back
taxes.
Here, we're looking for somebody to
be forgiven for taxes. In the cases of in rem
procedures, we're asking for permission for
them to pay back taxes. So let's adopt an
all-encompassing legislation that will protect
all of the taxpayers of this state once and
for all, without coming to the Legislature.
I vote yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Onorato,
you will be recorded as voting in the
affirmative.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
3112
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58. Nays,
1. Senator Dollinger recorded in the
negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
would you please call up Calendar Number 163,
by Senator Morahan.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
163, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 833, an
act to amend the Education Law, in relation to
certain BOCES programs.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Morahan,
Senator Paterson, I believe, has requested an
explanation.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, Madam
President.
Last year we passed two bills, this
being one of them, one that was motivated by a
home rule from Rockland county which allowed
the county to bond to set up a distant
3113
learning program within the county.
This bill passed this house last
year, but it did not get through the Assembly.
It was late in the year. And we have
reintroduced it this year so now that the
county has the ability to bond, they will be
now eligible to go into a contract with the
school districts, coordinated through BOCES,
so they can create a distant learning center
in the County of Rockland.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I'm just a little unclear. If
Senator Morahan would yield for a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, I do.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, does
the purpose of this legislation relate to a
particular school district?
SENATOR MORAHAN: No, sir. All
school districts within the county.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator -- I'm
sorry, Madam President, if the Senator would
3114
yield for a question.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: Perhaps it
doesn't apply to a specific school district.
I think my question was not stated correctly.
Are you aware of any school districts affected
by this that encouraged you to propose the
legislation?
I'm really interested in the
details of the actual circumstances that could
come up and how this cures it.
SENATOR MORAHAN: I'd like to ask
the Senator a question for clarification.
SENATOR PATERSON: Certainly,
Madam President.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Senator
Paterson, are you asking me how we came about
to have this bill in front of us? Is that
what you're asking?
SENATOR PATERSON: I'm sorry,
Madam President, would the Senator repeat
that.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yeah. Are you
asking me how this bill became a bill? In
3115
other words, what developed to make this a
request of the Legislature?
SENATOR PATERSON: Essentially,
that's the question. What I'm interested in
is not necessarily what -- what was the
catalyst for your writing the bill. What I'm
interested in is an example or circumstances
that would merit this kind of protection.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Oh, okay.
Fine. Well, more as to how it would work.
The school districts within
Rockland County, for example -- I believe this
is like a leading-edge kind of approach to
education -- if we had in one school four or
five students that wanted one subject but not
enough to create a class, and we had another
school district within the county that had
additional students that wanted to have that
class, and that they could go around to the
districts, and if they could create that class
under the auspices of BOCES, then that class
could be run from a central point for the
students in the various districts without
incurring the cost of doing an individual
class in each school district.
3116
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Morahan would continue
to yield.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, Senator Morahan really has a good
idea. And what it is is it's a supplemental
situation where, if there are certain services
not available in a particular district, that
we might be able to create a link and provide
the needed ability of the student to receive
services from another district.
But the reason I asked him was
there a specific district in Rockland County
or somewhere around that that caused him to
write the bill is because it is an idea that I
think is important enough that we might want
to do it statewide.
So my question to Senator Morahan
is, why don't we just create a scenario where
we can do this bill for all the residents of
New York State?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Well, that
3117
could be done, of course, Senator. However,
this bill is a little bit unique in that the
county is the one that's going to fund it.
And therefore this county, using its funds
through the bonding process, will do the
initial layout to build the infrastructure.
If you're saying to me that the
Education Law ought to be changed so this sort
of technique could be used around the state, I
don't question that to be a bad idea. That
may be a good idea.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if the Senator would continue to
yield.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: So then -- and
I can understand this -- this is an idea that
the county is willing to fund. In other
words, this is ready to go. We don't have to
wait -- we might do it later on for the
residents around the state, but we can do this
right now because the county has approved the
money for this. Is this correct?
3118
SENATOR MORAHAN: That is
correct. It's my understanding that the
request last year on the home rule was to
allow them to pass the bond and to float the
bond for this purpose.
This certainly could serve as a
pilot for others to emulate.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if the Senator would continue to
yield.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, I do,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, my question is not the same
question, but it goes back to what was the
gist of my original question.
If the county has gone to this
extent to appropriate financing for this type
of a project, I would have thought that there
was some specific cause, something that gave
the county this idea. In other words, if this
was general, it might have been something that
the county might have encouraged their local
legislator to put a bill in.
3119
But this is sounding to me like
it's somewhat specific. And I just wanted to
know if Senator Morahan had any information
about what issue arose that might have caused
the county -- it might not have been Senator
Morahan, but the county -- to think that we
might need to do this.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Madam
President, it seems that the County of
Rockland, when I served there as a legislator,
had developed a distant learning committee, if
you will, to look at the education process
within the county. The county legislators
sponsored that effort. County legislators at
the conclusion of that process decided that
this is what they wanted to do. And
therefore, they sent a request here to the
State Legislature asking us to give them the
permission to bond for the project and asking
for permission for BOCES and other school
districts to enter into a contract with the
county to effectuate the programs.
We passed the first bill and the
second bill in the Senate. The Assembly
passed the first bill, enabling the bonding,
3120
but they didn't get through the second bill.
And therefore, we're resubmitting the bill so
that it can be -- give the fruition, if you
will, to the programs that they envision.
I think it is, as you say, new
technology, a new concept. And maybe it's a
credit to Rockland County for their forward
thinking in the area of education. This is
one of several initiatives that I've heard
that they've embarked on. Others are still in
the process.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, just one final question if Senator
Morahan is willing to yield.
SENATOR MORAHAN: I'm willing to
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I
just want to ask you about the contract
between the county and BOCES. Is BOCES
involved in any of the payment, or is the
county paying and the state would reimburse
3121
the county?
SENATOR MORAHAN: The bill would
allow these programs to be aidable, so that
the school districts and BOCES could submit
for aid from the state. And therefore they
would be paying that back to pay off the bond,
through the contract process.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I'm very
familiar with BOCES. And I'm having a little
trouble here trying to understand a couple of
things. So if the Senator would yield for a
question.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, Madam
President, I yield.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: BOCES has a
very extensive distance learning setup now.
All the BOCES I know provide distance
learning. I don't understand how this is
different. In this case, they'll be providing
it to the county. I guess I'm -- I don't
understand -- why isn't BOCES doing this now,
is my question.
3122
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, I've been
informed that BOCES can do this now, but they
cannot do contracts with the school district
to do the same sort of thing.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Through
you, Madam President. Don't the BOCES all at
present have contracts with school districts?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, they do,
but these bonds are to build a separate
building just for this particular program.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Through
you, Madam President, if the Senator will
yield.
SENATOR MORAHAN: I'll yield.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Does not
your BOCES already have an established space?
I mean, our BOCES have campuses.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Well, let me
say this. This bill is being requested for
and by the County of Rockland and the BOCES
and the school districts. Now, all the
details of the program known to them may not
be fully laid out in the bill.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I guess,
3123
Senator, I'm questioning why a building is
needed.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Well, that's
for them to decide. I don't ask them why they
needed a building, why they have to use a new
building. There may be an infrastructure
problem. That may be the number-one concern
of theirs. This just allows them to do what
they think they want to do.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Okay,
through you, Madam President. The monies that
we will be supplying through this bill will go
towards a capital to pay off the -- to help
with the bonding for the building?
SENATOR MORAHAN: No, how it
actually works is the school districts and
BOCES -- BOCES, actually, will be contracting,
as I understand it, with the county. And the
school districts, in their contracts to BOCES,
okay, will be paying BOCES, and BOCES will be
contracting with the county on a rental or
whatever their arrangement is.
The schools, in turn, will put in
for aidables, state aid for the programs.
That should be the money that would be used to
3124
pay back the bond. I believe they can get
anywhere from 36 percent up.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Through
you, Madam President. Is this only a
different circumstance because we're not
dealing with children ages five through 18?
Is that the difference in this bill, that
we're dealing with an adult?
SENATOR MORAHAN: No, this is -
we're dealing with the regular student
population as well.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I'm still
confused, but I'm going to try and work this
out. Thank you, Senator.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Through you,
Madam President, would the Senator yield.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR LACHMAN: What would be
the population cohort of students that would
have access to these sites?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Well, any
district, any school district that wants to
3125
contract with BOCES to do this would be their
population.
I don't have the specific
population numbers, and I don't know that
they're applicable to the bill.
SENATOR LACHMAN: All right.
Madam President, would the Senator continue to
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Would this
apply to any students who are taking home
learning instruction? Would the distance
learning be available to these children in
their homes who cannot go to these sites
outside of their homes?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Unless the
school is providing that, the school district
is providing that, I don't think that it would
be available to private, you know, parents
just to have their children enroll in it, no.
I believe it would have to go through the
3126
school district. If the school district
includes it, then it would be available for
them.
SENATOR LACHMAN: So some
children -- Madam President, may I continue?
So some children that go under home
learning and cannot, for physical or emotional
reasons, be in a school setting would not be
able to participate in distance learning at
these sites?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Senator, I
don't know that I know all the answers to your
question. But let me see if I understand the
question.
You're asking if some children who
are now being educated through the public
school system at home would have access to
this center or have access to the services
provided by the center.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Cannot
physically go to these sites.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Okay. The
sites would be in the school districts. I
don't know what arrangement the school
district would make from the school to home,
3127
whatever their -- you know, I don't know what
they have now as far as electronic or any
technical, technology devices that would help
them do that other than send a tutor to school
or send the homework home.
So I don't know that there's any
change there, sir.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Madam
President, if the Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, I do.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Senator, are
you aware of the fact that Empire State
College and Regents College, which has
recently changed its name to Excelsior
College, have specialized in the area of
distance learning and one of their major
endeavors is to reach young adults at home who
cannot, for a variety of reasons, attend
classes? Now, has this school district at all
been in consultation with these experienced
college endeavors to provide distance learning
to a large cohort of a population that needs
it?
SENATOR MORAHAN: I don't know if
3128
the school districts in my county or the
County of Rockland have been in touch with
those people. No, I don't know that.
SENATOR LACHMAN: On the bill,
Madam President.
I'm in favor of this bill. I'm a
strong proponent of distance learning. But
the dimension, I think, of distance learning
as you describe it could be enhanced with,
one, a cooperative endeavor with either Empire
State College or Excelsior, formerly Regents
College. And they have made major improvement
in learning through reaching young adults,
young people who have to be home.
Now, these can be people in their
late teens who have to be home for physical
reasons or young mothers who have to take care
of children who cannot leave their home to
take courses and yet are able to take courses
through distance learning without attending
sites outside of their homes.
And this is patterned after the
British Open University system, which has made
major, major improvement in the education of
teenagers and young adults in England.
3129
So I would suggest that you as the
representative, Senator, from this county
bring this information back to your BOCES and
your school district.
Thank you. I will vote yes on the
bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: I just want to
respond to Senator Lachman.
Sir, I'd be very happy indeed to
bring back your suggestions. While I have not
asked them that question or those questions or
pointed that out to them, I'm normally
hesitant to tell, if you will, administrators
who are expert and professionals in this
particular very important field of the
development of our children.
But I would be delighted, because I
think what you say has much merit. I will
make sure that they have that information,
that they're aware of those programs. Maybe
they're just a little impatient. Maybe they
just want to get ahead of the curve.
But thank you, Senator.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Madam
3130
President, through you, just an explanation of
what I was saying. Senator, I didn't want you
to tell them, I just want you to suggest it to
them.
And as a former administrator, I
can tell you we are not the font of all wisdom
in education.
Thank you kindly.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you, Madam
President. Through you, would the sponsor
yield for a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR BROWN: As I understand
it in listening to this, then, it appears that
one of the reasons for this bill, Senator, is
to provide this cutting-edge programming, this
distance learning programming, but at the same
time to allow the county to finance a new
building that will house the distance learning
activities. Is that correct?
SENATOR MORAHAN: That's my
understanding, Senator, yes.
3131
SENATOR BROWN: And do you know
at this time, Senator, what it will actually
cost to construct the facility?
SENATOR MORAHAN: I'm not the
fellow who is going to be constructing it.
No, I don't know.
You know, they could very well be
using the money, besides the building, for all
the infrastructure that would be needed to put
the technology in place. That's probably the
greatest part of the expense. Truly, they may
use some available space.
SENATOR BROWN: Through you,
Madam President, would the sponsor yield for
another question.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, ma'am.
Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR BROWN: So this enables,
then, the county to finance the building of
the distance learning facility for BOCES and
the -
SENATOR MORAHAN: Senator, would
you suffer an interruption? Let's just put it
this way. To finance the construction of the
3132
facilities, whatever that may include.
SENATOR BROWN: Okay.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Okay?
SENATOR BROWN: -- and to finance
the construction of the facilities and then to
have the school district and BOCES work
together on providing the programming and to
have the facility reimbursed at the current
available state rate through the school
district?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes. Yes.
SENATOR BROWN: Through you,
Madam President, would the sponsor yield for
another question.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR BROWN: That current
state rate, is that the 84 percent rate?
SENATOR MORAHAN: It could range.
I don't know what it is specifically in this
district. But the minimum would be
36 percent. And it depends on the land,
wealth, et cetera, et cetera, all the other
formulas which I think takes a bit of an
3133
expert to figure out.
And they're all school districts.
Some districts get aid at a different level
than others because it goes across various
school districts. So each school district has
its own aidable reimbursement.
SENATOR BROWN: Through you,
Madam President, would Senator Morahan yield
for another question.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR BROWN: Senator, have you
been informed of what students would have
access to these programs and how they would be
structured at this time?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Well, I would
imagine any students who are eligible in the
school district that want the particular
programs. Or if it's a group of students who
develop a program they want, anyone would be
eligible, you know, depending on what the
program consists of.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you.
On the bill, Madam President.
3134
This is a good bill that I'm going
to support. As Senator Paterson was saying
when he spoke, it does sound like this is the
kind of thing that could be done statewide.
Distance learning is going to be an important
way for people to learn in the future.
I would certainly like to see more
distance learning facilities be developed
across the entire state. I know that in my
own community, Buffalo and Niagara Falls,
Grand Island, City of Tonawanda, there are a
number of applications that I could think of
where students or people who want to return to
school could use the state-of-the-art distance
learning facility. So perhaps through the
construction of this facility in Rockland
County there will be lessons that can be
learned for other parts of the state to be
able to replicate this model.
Thank you.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Oh, Madam
President -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane was
next.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
3135
President. On the bill.
I was going to vote in favor of
this legislation. But, you know, it's a good
thing that we're having debates on the floor
because that's really enlightened me into -
or I should -- well, it's enlightened me as to
why it is that it's so important that we have
debates on the floor.
Because I'm not at all enlightened
about what this bill is going to do. The only
things I heard were, "oh, probably" and
"maybe" and, "oh, that's a suggestion" or,
"well, I think that could be the case" or -- I
mean, it just -- on and on.
I mean, I don't understand what
happened in the Education Committee, because
people who were in the Education Committee
don't even really seem to understand what's
happening with this bill either.
I can't in good conscience vote for
this because any of the questions that I think
are really important to this bill have not
really been addressed here. I think that a
bill like this needs to have a much more
thorough hearing in the committee. Things
3136
that were suggested are things which we should
talk to the advocates and the people who are
going to be directly impacted by this
legislation. They should have a chance to
testify as to why they do or do not want to
have this legislation. I think that we need
that so that when the bill comes to the floor,
we all have an idea about exactly what it is
that's going on with it.
As I say, you know, when I read the
bill, it was my intention to vote for it. But
now, after what I can only call a very fuzzy
sort of discussion about it, I'm not going to
vote for it, because I don't think it's ready
to -- it's certainly not ready to come to the
floor. Nobody really seems to know enough
about this bill. And it's a good thing that
we had this debate on the floor. Otherwise, I
would have just voted for it without having
the appropriate information, which I still
don't have.
So I'm going to vote no on this.
And I'm embarrassed that we're even voting on
this today, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
3137
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: If the
Senator would yield.
SENATOR MORAHAN: I yield.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I think I'm
trying to focus in on what my problems are
trying to understand this.
I guess I don't understand why the
county is getting involved. In my case, where
we live, in the Southern Westchester BOCES
area, we have 12 buildings that are the campus
of Southern Westchester BOCES. These 12
buildings had no participation in county
funding. They were funded through the BOCES
construction. Why are we bringing the county
in to construct the BOCES building? That's my
question.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Because the
county, through its legislature, the school
districts, through their superintendents,
BOCES, through their superintendent, have
asked us for the ability to do what they think
they want to do to educate the children in the
County of Rockland in a different manner.
3138
Now, while I'm responding to you,
I'll also respond to Senator Duane with the
maybes and the probablys and those sorts of -
that sort of phraseology around these debates.
I don't micromanage, I legislate.
I respond, I don't dictate. I try to help and
not to hinder. If in my considered judgment
the county requests, through home rule and
other supporting documentation, that this is
an event, this is an enterprise, this is a
joint venture that they, in their wisdom,
being responsible to their taxpayers, want to
enter into, and the school districts and BOCES
think it's a good idea and they want to do it,
they have been entrusted with the local tax
dollars, with the responsibility to educate
our children, therefore, this legislator will
try to get done for them what he can. And
that's why we're here.
All of the screws and all of the
bolts and all of the nails and all the planks
are not for me and I don't believe for this
Legislature to hammer out. That may be a
difference of opinion, it may be a difference
of style. I'm not going to debate down to the
3139
last bolt and screw and nail how they're going
to do the implementation.
This will either be successful or
it won't. I believe it will. I believe it's
advanced technology. I think it's forward
thinking. I congratulate the legislature of
Rockland County for having the foresight and
the courage and the willingness to take on
this particular project that's nowhere
anything else State of New York, to my mind.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Oh, that's
not true.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Not in this
form, not in this partnership.
And I hope that addresses my
philosophy to you. And I don't know that I
can answer all of the questions that you bring
forth.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Senator
Morahan, I just want to assure you I
understand that this is being done because you
feel, and I probably agree with you, that it's
a right thing to do. It doesn't seem harmful.
I'm just trying to understand how
this came about, because surely a lot of our
3140
BOCES have distance learning and extensive
distance learning. And I'm just trying to
understand why this distance learning is any
different from all other distance learnings in
the existing BOCES that I'm familiar with.
I have another question, if the
good Senator will yield.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, ma'am.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: And I think
you're doing a fine job for your constituents,
and you're doing exactly the right thing. So
please don't question my goodwill, even though
I do have very specific questions about why
this is happening, because I have not seen it
happen in any of the other BOCES.
Now, in your justification -
remember, I asked you earlier if this was just
for children, because BOCES takes care of
preschoolers as well as through 12th grade.
And here in reading the justification -- the
reason I asked that question, in reading the
justification it says that the construction,
equipping of the facilities is designed for
the interactive, instantaneous communication
between county sites.
3141
And that was why I'm questioning,
again, is this not for adult learning?
Because county sites are not school sites,
they're not educational sites. The county
site, to me, would indicate adult learning.
SENATOR MORAHAN: You could be
very well correct on who's going to be the
recipients of the education. I believe
whatever -- now, let me say it this way.
BOCES now has adult education
programs. Okay? Whether that's tied in from
their point of view -- that may be their
programs, and maybe that's what they will do.
I don't think it's been laid out by the county
or the distance learning advocacy group
specifically to bar or exclude anyone.
And if BOCES now gives its adult
education around the county or at its site,
maybe now they can use this technology so
people won't have to travel so far to get to
the BOCES center, that they can do it from
other local sites that are owned by the
county.
I don't know that the county in
this terminology means county-owned property.
3142
It could very well mean that, because it has a
capital "C" as I see it. But it says other
locations, school district locations. It's
very broad in its application, Senator.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you,
Senator. I have one last question. Do you
have an idea -- through you, Madam
President -
SENATOR MORAHAN: I yield.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Do you have
an idea of the fiscal impact of this bill?
SENATOR MORAHAN: The only fiscal
impact other than the statable aid would be
absorbed by the county. In other words, as I
said before, if the programs are aidable
through the state education system, they could
get anywhere from 36 percent up, depending on
how it's structured, in what district, what
their aid is. The rest of the bond is being
floated by the taxpayers. They will have to
work that out themselves.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Okay.
Thank you, Senator.
SENATOR MORAHAN: You're quite
welcome, Senator.
3143
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: On the
bill.
This is a departure from what I
have seen in the past as far as the funding
formula for BOCES. I find this interesting,
and I support the bill, even though it's not
something that has been my common knowledge
before.
One of the services BOCES does
offer is distance learning, which provides
students with training through videos and
computers. One such distance learning program
is located at the Hamilton-Fulton-Montgomery
BOCES, where they have an extensive distance
learning program for seven different school
districts. This system has been meshed with
the 12-site BOCES distance learning network
already in place here in Albany. And it's
also in the Schenectady and Schoharie region.
And in this network, there's daily courses
that are offering advanced accounting for
college credit and for human development.
So I mention this because there is
a vast network which is being developed in our
state which will deal with student and adult
3144
learning through video, through long distance
networking. And it is certainly a very
beneficial thing for our citizens, and they
will be able to learn in a variety of
settings. They will not have to travel
distances to get to the BOCES center. And I
think it's the way we have to be going in our
state.
The only thing I was questioning
the sponsor on was the unusual methods of
financing this. But I support the bill, and I
think it is the right direction.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you. Madam President, I think the question
was answered. But if the Senator will yield,
just for me to be sure.
SENATOR MORAHAN: I yield.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you. Thank you, Senator.
I thought I heard you, in the final
answer to Senator Oppenheimer's question, say
3145
that it was taxpayers' dollars. I'm assuming,
then, that the bond is being floated by the
county and it's not a state bond.
SENATOR MORAHAN: That is
correct.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Okay.
Thank you. That was my own question.
SENATOR MORAHAN: You're welcome,
Senator.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
July.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
The debate is hereby closed.
Read the last section.
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Stachowski, to explain your vote.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Madam
President, briefly to explain my vote.
I listened to most of the debate,
3146
and actually I had no problem with this bill
before the debate started. And I think I
understand what they were saying, but I'm
still trying to figure out in my head whether
it's a better deal if the county floats the
bond rather than the school district, even
though the school district gets a great deal
right now with the building funds from the
state, and it's -- the money for the classes
offered are going to pay off the bond.
And I'm not sure quite sure how
that all works, but I'm going to give the
sponsor the benefit of the doubt, and
hopefully that it's wishful thinking -- I mean
that it's forward thinking, and hopefully that
it's a program that will work out well and
maybe other counties will offer to help out
school districts or their BOCES programs to
enable school districts to put together
advanced learning labs that maybe they can't
quite fit in right now and don't need a whole
building for.
And maybe the county can provide
that in various places in the state after this
one is successfully done and they see the
3147
so-called pilot project. It may be something
that everybody will want to copy -- hopefully,
it will be -- and not something that isn't
better than things we can do currently in the
Education Law.
So with that in mind, I will vote
yes on this bill.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be so
recorded as voting in the affirmative,
Senator.
Senator Duane, to explain your
vote.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
Really, I can sum up my explanation
in one word: What?
I vote no.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be
recorded as voting in the negative, Senator
Duane.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
3148
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Please call up
Calendar Number 195, by Senator LaValle.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
195, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 2082, an
act authorizing the Office of Real Property
Services and the Commissioner of Education.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator LaValle,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Madam
President, this bill requires the Office of
Real Property Services and the Commissioner of
Education to conduct an analysis of the impact
that a special equalization rate would have
upon the Riverhead School District for the
purposes of computing state aid to education.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator LaValle would be kind
3149
enough to yield for a question.
SENATOR LAVALLE: But of course.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, the
equalization rate of towns within a school
district obviously varies around the state.
So in a sense, I'm going to ask you the same
question that I previously asked Senator
Morahan. Would this not be a good idea to try
this all around the state?
Or is it the case, as Senator
Morahan described, that this is a situation
that's already organized and is urgent so we
would want to do this right now, whatever we
do later on regarding the rest of the state?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator
Paterson, under Section I think it's 1230 of
the Real Property Law that we passed in I
think it was 1992, we provided very
specifically for a process that would allow
for school districts to come before the
Legislature to apply for special equalization
rates.
And those circumstances would be
for school districts that are property-poor
3150
and have other circumstances. Riverhead
School District, as well as other school
districts around the state, are in more than
one assessing unit. And the state aid formula
is very, very complex.
As a matter of fact, in my prior
life here as a staff member, whenever had you
a school district that was in more than one
town, you had to go to this special provision
in the state aid formula that probably in this
city only two or three or four people even
know how it works.
But it causes -- because it is in
more than one assessing unit, it causes parts
of that school district to have problems. The
problem, as I had stated in the bill, is, one,
state aid to education, but, two, tax
liability of the area.
And the equalization, the formula
to get to that is to take the full value and
divide it by the equalization rate, and you
would get the tax liability in that particular
area. So actually, equalization rate plays a
part in not only how much aid a particular
school district is going to receive, but how
3151
the tax liability will be apportioned.
And here you have a situation that
one part of this school district, the tax
liability is playing a very disruptive role in
the lives of the people that live in that
area.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator LaValle would continue
to yield.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead,
Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator
LaValle, the Riverhead School District has a
majority in one county and has a smaller
portion in the second county?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, the
Riverhead School District is wholly in the
County of Suffolk. It is within three
townships. It is within the township of
Riverhead, the township of Brookhaven, and the
township of Southampton.
SENATOR PATERSON: Okay. What I
don't understand is that you then take the
value of assessment from the three towns, you
3152
then divide it by the percentage of the
townships in the actual school district and
you apportion that to get the actual
equalization rate?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, the
reason we have this legislation before us is
because, under law, equalization rates are
defined as a municipal or town function.
Here, we have three separate townships.
If we look at -- let's -- to make
this simpler for our colleagues, if we look at
the equalization rate in one of the towns -
let's take Southampton. Okay? Southampton
is, as a whole, taken as a whole, is a wealthy
real property -- is real property-wealthy. A
part of the town, Flanders, is not as wealthy
as the rest of Southampton in its property
values.
Because of the fact that the town
of Southampton is one of three townships that
went to full-value assessment several years
ago, but then did not keep their tax rolls
current -- and this is very important to the
discussion -- the equalization rate then
falls, drops.
3153
And when that equalization rate
drops, it plays havoc. Okay? It makes the
tax liability on those people that live in
Flanders inverse, higher. Okay? It also, in
terms of the state aid formula, makes a false
value. In other words, property -- it makes
that section wealthier in real property than
they actually are. The wealthier you are, the
less state aid you receive.
So that's giving us both sides of
the equation in terms of tax liability and
state aid formula. Both of those playing
together plays havoc.
Now, in terms of this legislation,
we are asking the Office of Real Property
Services to go in and do appraisals and do an
assessment to simply see whether a special
equalization rate will be of assistance.
Historically, when we created the
first bill, we had nine school districts that
were included and received special
equalization rates, and thereafter we have
broadened it to six other school districts.
So currently, we have 15 school districts in
the state of New York that receive special
3154
equalization rates.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson,
do you have another question?
SENATOR PATERSON: Yes, Madam
President.
Under the legislation in 1992, the
way it works, as I understand it, Senator, is
that this district applies. And if we the
Legislature see fit, then we would bring in
the Office of Real Property Services, and some
consultation with the Commissioner of
Education, and they would then conduct a
survey to see whether or not a change in the
equalization rate would be appropriate.
As it sounds like it would be in
this case, because of the fact that the tax
rolls not being current, the added taxation in
Southampton has hurt the Flanders area, which
is in the actual school district.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, I
think the way it works is that in the first
instance, we ask to do the study. If the
study comes back in an affirmative way, the
school district must then come back to this
Legislature to be part of Section 1230.
3155
So in other words, we do the study
first. If a special equalization rate helps,
then we put them -- then we give them a
special equalization rate, and we must pass a
second and separate piece of legislation to do
that.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I stand corrected on that. And I
thank Senator LaValle for that.
If the Senator would yield for one
last question.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, I'd be
glad to. But as we get closer to the vortex
of circumlocution, this area can become more
and more complex to our colleagues. But I
will be happy to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: We're getting
closer to the vortex of circumlocution. You
lost me long before you lost my colleagues.
Madam President, my question to
Senator LaValle is, for the other areas around
the state -- because I think your situation is
well-stated, and I think that from your
3156
explanation is in need of remedy. And I think
this legislation will help provide it.
But for the other areas around the
state -- and this is not an uncommon
situation, where you have school districts
that intersect townships -- the question I
would have is, would they have to seek
legislation to create some kind of change or
relief to the equalization rate? Is that the
process on the legislation in 1992?
And using your perspicacity, I'm
sure that there'd be some way to work that
out. So I wonder what your thought is.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, yes,
they -- this would be done. And as I had
indicated -- and I actually misspoke, upon
reflection. The first time I said that there
were nine districts that went in and then
added six more. What I meant to say is we
started with nine districts in which we asked
studies to be done, and six -- we started with
15, and six opted out, to give us the nine.
But the school districts would
literally have to come to this Legislature,
ask us to conduct a study, as I am doing. And
3157
if that study showed that a special
equalization rate would help -- because this
Legislature, in its wisdom, said why should we
punish the school districts and the taxpayers
thereof because the township or townships have
not kept their tax rolls current. In a
perfect world, none of the school districts of
this state should have to come to this
Legislature, because they could deal with the
problem simply by keeping their tax rolls
current or being at full value.
That is the local decision to be
made. Because local decisions are not being
made, we in this Legislature are put in a
position to protect our school districts and
our taxpayers.
So yes, Senator, school districts
around the state that would have the same
problem would have to come in a two-step
process before this Legislature.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Madam
President, would the sponsor yield for a
question or two.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
3158
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Through you,
Madam President. What kinds of cost
implications are there to a study by the
Education Department?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, that's
a good question. Normally within a budget for
the Office of Real Property Services, they
allocate a sum of money, assuming that they
will be asked to do a study.
This study, our guess is, upon
checking, about $10,000 to do the study.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Again through
you, Madam President, as it relates to the
vortex of circumlocution, can we -- I'm sorry,
I'll withdraw that.
Again through you, Madam President.
Since the enabling legislation in the early
'90s, how many studies have been conducted?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Other than the
six that opted out, we don't know. I can't
answer it.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Can you tell
us -- again through you, Madam President -
where those districts that opted out were.
3159
SENATOR LAVALLE: Where were
they? I can tell you that -- I can't tell
where the districts are. I can tell you what
the nine districts are. The nine districts
are Amityville, Brentwood, Central Islip,
Freeport, Hempstead, Roosevelt, Uniondale,
Westbury, and Wyandanch. They're all included
in Section 1230 of the Real Property Tax Law.
Those the are nine districts that are
included.
I cannot tell you the section that
opted out. I don't know where they are.
SENATOR BRESLIN: And again
through you, Madam President, all those
districts appear -- I don't know the
geography, but are they all -
SENATOR LAVALLE: They're Long
Island districts, Senator.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Long Island.
Is there something indigenous to Long
Island -- again through you, Madam
President -- that happens there that doesn't
happen in the rest of the state?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Since we are a
sole-source aquifer, it may be in the drinking
3160
water. Other than that, I can't -
(Laughter.)
SENATOR BRESLIN: Again through
you, Madam President, is there -- you have a
particular expertise that we all respect, and
I was wondering if the rest of the state is
missing something in situations where they
feel as though their school district is
particularly prejudiced by something that
happens with the taxying authorities within
that school district that they are missing
that you are taking advantage of.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Not at all,
Senator. I don't know why other school
districts around the state are not taking
advantage of this.
But for years, in doing the state
aid formula -- and those of the members who
are on the Education Committee that are
involved in the state aid formula, you know
that there are a lot of confluences that come
together to arrive at a dollar amount when we
look at the computer run, the bottom line.
On Long Island, many times before
it hits other parts of the state, meaning
3161
upstate, we find that values change because of
the growth and the fact that the assessors are
not keeping their tax rolls current. Three
townships in Suffolk County -- I can only
speak to Suffolk. Nassau has a sole assessing
unit. Suffolk has ten separate assessing
units.
But the three towns -- the towns of
Islip, Southampton, and Riverhead -- went to
full value. I can only speak to Southampton
and Riverhead. But soon thereafter, they
never kept their rolls. After biting the
bullet, making one of the toughest political
decisions that local towns can make, they
never kept their rolls current.
At the same time, you had values
going up, skyrocketing, spiking. And they
will spike down. Those kinds of changes are
really not present in any other part of the
state. Upstate has gone up and down, and it's
been a more gradual slope up and a more
gradual slope down. Long Island has been
spiking up and down.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Through you,
Madam President, thank you. On the bill.
3162
I would briefly state that this law
appears to -- the law enacted in the early
'90s appears to give some flexibility to us as
a Legislature to make some changes to what
most of us feel is an unfair law which, under
the formula which everybody agrees is rather
complex, leads to some unsatisfactory and
unfair conclusions and unfair and
unsatisfactory amounts given to particular
school districts.
And I think each of us in this body
have particular school districts within our
jurisdiction which we feel are being treated
unfairly. And I think possibly this bill for
the particular school district doesn't go far
enough, and that we really should begin that
overhaul of the entire school formula to
address it in a total and a monumental way
that will have a positive effect on all of
New York.
Thank you very much. And I will be
voting in the affirmative.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Dollinger
3163
is next, I believe.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, will the sponsor yield to
just a couple of questions.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, one
of the lines in the memo that you have put in
in support of this bill is that the
consequence of the equalization rate in this
part of Brookhaven is that that portion of the
district looks wealthier than it actually is.
SENATOR LAVALLE: It's actually
the town of Southampton, Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay. My
question is, is the converse of that true? Is
it true that the remainder of the town, which
is not in this school district, actually looks
poorer than it would otherwise appear from the
point of view of paying its real property
taxes?
And the reason why I ask you,
Senator, is because, as you properly point
out, there's been enormously complex
adjustments of rates. And if it appears as
though the Riverhead School District looks
3164
wealthier because it has a portion of a very
wealthy community, the poorest portion, my
question is, can you do this in isolation or
would you have to look at the equalization
rates and the wealth factor of the remainder
of Southampton as well? Does that look poorer
than it would otherwise and therefore it gets
more money?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, I'm
not sure whether the Office of Real Property
Services, when they do their sampling, would
look at that portion of the town of
Southampton that is outside of the Riverhead
School District. But if they did, they would
see why there's an equalization problem.
And I have actually been at
community meetings with the supervisor of the
town who actually said that the problem that
is caused to the people of the Flanders
portion of Southampton is because, when you
look at the town as a whole, outside of
Flanders property values are far higher than
in the town, thereby showing this distortion
that we are trying to correct.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Correct.
3165
Through you, Madam President, if Senator
LaValle will continue to yield.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: That was the
point I was trying to make. You have a
community, let's say it's cut in half, just
for demonstration purposes. Half of it is
poor, the other half of it is very wealthy.
They're all in the same assessing district.
So when you come up with an equalization rate
for the town, you combine those 50 percent
poverty and 50 percent wealth, you come up
with a ratio which applies to every property
for purposes of taxing it for town taxes, and
you come up with the same equalization rate
for school taxes, which is then part of a
confluence of different rates that go into a
multijurisdictional school district.
That's why my question, through
you, Madam President, is is the effect of the
equalization rate to make the rich part, the
wealthier part, look poorer because it's
combined with the poorer, and then are they
paid, in essence, more in school aid that they
3166
wouldn't be justified?
I'm just trying to get at, are we
doing a transfer of school aid from a district
that actually has more wealth but is regarded
as poorer because it happens to be in a
jurisdiction that has rich and poor, and are
we increasing the value in a portion of the
district that's poor? My question is just to
know is this a trade-off, or is this kind of a
new money deal.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator
Dollinger, you put us right smack in the
vortex.
But here -- let's go back. Section
1230 of the Real Property Tax Law was created
because, in law, the only assessing unit that
we had was a townwide unit, okay, a municipal
unit. What we are doing here is taking a very
small portion, a very small portion of that
town, and we are looking at whether we not use
the town's equalization rate because the rest
of the town is far wealthier but we need the
special equalization rate for just that small
portion of the town.
What exacerbates, just again, the
3167
problem for the formula is that there is a
special state aid formula when a school
district is in more than one township or more
than one assessing unit. And when I tell you
complex, Senator, it is complex.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President. I couldn't concur with
Senator LaValle more, which is why I raised
the question of whether, you know, when you
start to have the same equalization rate for
two pieces of property, one's in a, quote,
poorer school district, or what appears to be
a wealthier school district, and the other one
is right across the street and yet in a
different school district, those questions of
the equalization rate -- or both in the same
community -- this is one of those hodgepodges
at the vortex of our real property conundrum
in this state.
And that's why I was just trying to
figure out whether it's a district that
appears to be wealthier but is actually
poorer, it might be next to a district that
appears to be poorer but is actually
wealthier.
3168
My final question, Madam President,
through you, is the solution to this problem,
Senator LaValle, a requirement that our local
communities like the town of Southampton
perform a biennial or triennial -- once every
three years, once every two years -
reassessment, property revaluation, so that
the equalization rate stays as close to
100 percent as possible?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, if we
were to look at a magic bullet, what you just
offered this body would be that magic bullet,
not only for the town of Southampton but
literally all of our townships throughout the
state that do not keep their rolls current.
And that's the key to the whole -- this whole
issue.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Correct.
Through you, Madam President, on
the bill.
I want to say that if I ever have
to go down into the vortex of locution with
anyone, I'll take Senator LaValle with me. He
seems to take this very complicated -- and
this is as complicated as we get -- problem of
3169
multijurisdictional school districts that
overlap into several communities and that have
that horrible thing called equalization
rates -- Senator LaValle knows it's a
wonderful thing. It's often thrown about by
lawyers as sort of a symbol of intelligence
that "I know what an equalization rate is."
Frankly, Senator LaValle, I've
never met anybody who really understands it.
I'm still waiting to find them. It's like
looking for the Holy Grail as lawyers.
But, Madam President, I would
just -- I just want to emphasize one thing.
I'm going to vote in favor of this because I
think the people of Riverhead, Senator
LaValle's constituents, should have a fair
crack at the exception that we created under
the Education Law to create a
school-district-wide assessment.
But in doing so, Senator LaValle,
the only caution I would have is that the
silver bullet that I just talked about really
is the solution. What we ought to do is
require all these taxing jurisdictions to once
every two or three years keep their property
3170
valuations up to date.
As I'm sure Senator LaValle knows,
the most famous case from the Court of Appeals
originated on Long Island as well. The
property tax issue of requiring revaluations
and reassessments finds its origin in Long
Island. Whether it's in Nassau or Suffolk,
there is some aversion to recalculating
property values and doing full, propertywide
assessments.
And the only concern I have about
this bill in voting for it, Madam President,
is that we may be encouraging them ever so
slightly not to do it. And I would just
suggest that while the people of Riverhead
need this -- or should at least have a chance
to have access to this exception, I would hope
that our friends in Southampton, Brookhaven,
and Riverhead would not get the idea that they
can allow their property tax values to be
unevaluated, or to be -- failure to revalue
them on a once every two, once every three
year basis.
Because, Senator LaValle, this is
where, as you know, property taxes for schools
3171
are 75 percent of the property taxes that they
raised on those assessments. And I agree with
you, it's almost unconscionable that a town
would sit there for some reason, would not
undergo revaluation when the problem is that
the people who are most punished are the
people who end up as the unfortunate people in
Flanders do, paying a higher percentage in
real property taxes and getting less state aid
as a consequence.
They're getting a double whammy,
and it's all because the town is not doing
what I think is its first and foremost job,
and that is to make sure that all of its
property taxes are paid on a fair, equalized,
100 percent value.
I'll vote in favor of the bill.
And thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: If the
Senator would yield.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I find it
3172
rather astounding that Southampton did a reval
and didn't throw it into a computer to keep it
current. It sounds very dopey to me. But be
that as it may, they didn't do it.
So -- and here's a question that
I'm just trying to sort out. The communities
that you mentioned that get this special
assistance seem to be larger than Nassau. And
I thought Nassau was on a -- I thought because
there's a single jurisdiction that does the
valuation, that they were on a 100 percent and
that they had categorized and -- am I right or
wrong?
SENATOR LAVALLE: I can't speak
to Nassau, but I don't believe they are at
full value.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I see.
Well, that about answers the question. Then
they aren't at full value, and that's why we
have these exceptions.
SENATOR LAVALLE: I believe,
Senator, that the head of their Office of Real
Property in Nassau County has made that
recommendation. But I do not believe that
they are at that juncture as we speak.
3173
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: The County
of Westchester is always citing Nassau as the
example of a single jurisdiction, because we
are so many jurisdictions -- about forty in
Westchester -- and it has been very difficult
for us to move ahead.
Actually, I don't have any more
questions. I'd just like to talk on the bill.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Thank you.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: The fact is
that we have many school districts in
Westchester County that go into three and four
townships and villages, with very similar
problems to those mentioned by Senator
LaValle. And I think I may take a closer look
at some of these jurisdictions now and see if
this legislation might not be applicable to
them.
What we tried to do three years ago
in the County of Westchester -- and we had
everyone signed on, all these 40
jurisdictions, and the state was with us, and
we passed it in this house -- was to go to
countywide revaluation. Because it is so
confusing. My village, for instance, is at
3174
8 percent of true value, which is ridiculous.
We haven't been reassessed in 65 years.
And this is a particular problem in
Westchester County, where we have seven of the
worst 10 valuations, as far as being separated
from true value, of any place in the state.
And that silver bullet would be
really the answer. And if the state could
stand behind it and say, This is a requirement
that we are going to put down on the entire
state, that the whole state move to true
value, what a blessing that would be for some
of my communities.
So I support this bill, and I will
be looking into its possible application for
several of the school districts within my
Senate district.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President, if the sponsor
would yield for a couple of brief questions.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
3175
I just want to make sure I understand how this
situation abutting the beautiful banks of the
vortex of circumlocution came about.
Was the statute in 1992 passed
before these towns went to full valuation, or
was it after? Before or after these school
districts -- there was a statute passed in
1992 that enumerated -
SENATOR LAVALLE: Section 1230.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: -- these
districts.
Section 1230. Was that after they
had changed their valuation system?
SENATOR LAVALLE: No.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: It was
before?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: So at that
time, then, how -- and you may have answered
this before, but I must say I'm -
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, let me
just -
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I'm
puzzled as to how this list came about in
relation to that issue.
3176
SENATOR LAVALLE: The districts
that are included in Section 1230 of the Real
Property Tax Law are districts that have
special equalization rates for school
purposes.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Right.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Does that
answer your -
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes.
Through you, Madam President, that's sort of
my setup question.
These are not the only school
districts in the State of New York, though,
that have special equalization rates.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes, they are.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: They are.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Okay. And
is that something that was -- how did this
particular list come to be in this provision
in Section 1230?
I'm asking this because it does
occur to me, as Senator Oppenheimer has
mentioned, that this doesn't seem to be a
problem that's necessarily unique to Nassau
3177
and Suffolk counties. And at the time this
Section 1230 was enacted, were other districts
in other parts of the state contacted to see
if this might be an issue?
SENATOR LAVALLE: I can't tell
you that, Senator, whether they were
contacted.
But obviously these districts were
all Long Island school districts. They are
all districts that are property-poor school
districts and, because of the formula, were
districts that were being hurt in terms of
receiving their fair share of state aid.
And so they realized that -- and I
think it was Senator Johnson, as a matter of
fact, that may have passed this legislation,
as I recall. But I think the districts got
together, as part of their negotiations in
that period of time, feeling that they were
being discriminated against in terms of the
aid that they were receiving.
Beyond that I can't tell you, other
than districts, as you know, Senator, have
representatives that are part of the School
Boards Association, Superintendents
3178
Association. And I know that if District X
gets something, and it could be in the Eden
School District in Western New York, that I
hear about it from my school districts.
So I would say to you that school
districts are aware that these provisions are
available to them.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Okay.
Thank you. Through you, Madam President.
The reason that I'm curious about
this is because we are dealing -- and sooner
or later we are going to be having to deal in
a very substantial way with the reformation of
school funding formulas. The issue of
districts that are property-poor or feel
they're discriminated against in various ways,
as a result of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity
case, will be coming to us. Whether with an
appeal or after the appeal, it is going to be
an issue that is coming up.
And this does seem to be an
approach that has something to commend it. So
I'm curious as to whether other districts
have -- and you may or may not know the
answer -- have attempted to get this sort of
3179
treatment and failed, or if other alternatives
have been developed since 1992.
I don't know if you know or not,
but this is something that does strike me as
something that could be a part of some of
these reformations that are called for in the
wake of Justice DeGrasse's decision in the
Campaign for Fiscal Equity case.
SENATOR LAVALLE: I don't know,
Senator. I can't answer your question.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Okay,
thank you. Madam President -- excuse me,
Madam President. I don't want to interrupt
any corporal punishment.
On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
That was the gavel, sir.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Oh.
I'd like to thank the sponsor for
his answers in this extremely complicated
area. I think that what this really speaks to
is the tremendous work that is ahead of us in
dealing with the question of fair funding for
all school districts in this state.
And the question of districts that
3180
have within them extremely wealthy communities
and poor communities is one that really did -
was not addressed in any great detail in the
Campaign for Fiscal Equity decision or, as far
as I'm aware, in the submissions to Justice
DeGrasse, but it is a tremendously important
issue.
I don't know that this particular
approach is the best way to go, but it
certainly is a way to deal with the very
difficult issue. If you have a property-poor
school district with wide fluctuations in
property values, putting aside the issue of
not keeping the rolls current, this is
something that we are going to have to
address.
And I am going to attempt to find
out if there are other districts around the
state, through the School Boards Association,
perhaps, that have looked at this, have tried
this, because I think it is an interesting
approach.
And I thank the sponsor for his
patience as we roll around the vortex of
circumlocution, which I think is actually the
3181
name of a discotheque in my district. But I
appreciate the Senator's use of the term.
Thank you. I will vote in favor of
the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: If the
sponsor will yield for one or two questions,
please.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Senator, I
know that this would bring the values more to
date. But one question that's been bothering
me a little bit is equalization rates are
usually roughly about a year behind, if not a
little longer.
Even with the older information, it
would be better than what they have now, is
that what the purpose is?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator
Stachowski, you're absolutely right. The
delay in the process is because of the
samplings that they take.
And what we're doing here is to say
to the Office of Real Property Services: Just
3182
focus on this one little place in the state
and do some samplings now and give us back a
reaction as to whether a special equalization
rate will help or hurt the district.
We may find that the snapshot that
is taken at the point in time that they take
it may not be beneficial. A year ago, this
would have been very helpful to the school
districts, and particularly the Flanders
portion of the Riverhead School District.
But you're absolutely right, that
it moves the sampling process, the appraisals,
on a fast track.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Thank you.
Mr. President, briefly.
It makes sense. I know that
currently E&A rates are a year behind, at
least. There's always some question as to how
accurate they are, even though, quote,
unquote, everyone is using 100 percent value,
which is questionable in a lot of areas.
If this does a snapshot, I can
understand the reason to pursue it.
Hopefully, it will be beneficial. And for
that reason, I'm going to support this bill.
3183
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Does any
other member wish to be heard on this bill?
Debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger, to explain his vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, I'm going to vote in favor of this
bill.
And I commend Senator LaValle both
for a cogent explanation and for his
continuing efforts on behalf of his
constituents to make sure that they get
whatever benefit we have in the system and
have designed for them to get to.
I look upon Senator LaValle's
advocacy the same way I do my colleague
Senator Balboni's, in pitching for a change
available that we -- a process that we have
available for the good of his community. In
3184
that case a not-for-profit group; in this
case, a school district.
I however want to make it clear
that I do have a tempering caution about this,
and that is that this is another bill that
will give an incentive, rightly or wrongly,
for towns not to assess at current value and
not to keep their values current. Senator
LaValle is well aware of the problems that
have occurred on Long Island that have led to
Court of Appeals decisions by the legion to
require communities to update their property
values.
By taking this step, we may
actually be encouraging towns not to do it.
And I would just suggest that we either have
to come to the conclusion that we're going to
bite the silver bullet and force towns to do
it every two or three years or extend to every
school district the ability to establish their
own equalization rate so they can -- give to
school districts the ability to valuate
properties for their own tax purposes.
The lion's share of real property
taxes that are collected in every jurisdiction
3185
are school property taxes. And I would
suggest we have an enormous interest in seeing
a statewide solution to this problem, not one
on a school-district-by-school-district basis.
I'm not suggesting this is the wrong thing to
do. I'm suggesting that the better thing to
do is for us to attend to the problems
inherent in real property taxes across the
state.
I'll vote aye, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger will be recorded in the affirmative.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
is there any housekeeping at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: We have
some substitutions, Senator.
SENATOR SKELOS: If we could make
the substitutions at this time.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
3186
Secretary will read the substitutions.
THE SECRETARY: On page 10,
Senator Marcellino moves to discharge, from
the Committee on Children and Families,
Assembly Bill Number 5141 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 115,
Third Reading Calendar 50.
On page 14, Senator Marcellino
moves to discharge, from the Committee on
Environmental Conservation, Assembly Bill
Number 5960 and substitute it for the
identical Senate Bill Number 782, Third
Reading Calendar 127.
And on page 18, Senator Hannon
moves to discharge, from the Committee on
Health, Assembly Bill Number 4386 and
substitute it for the identical Senate Bill
Number 2821, Third Reading Calendar 187.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitutions ordered.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: I move we
adjourn until Tuesday, March 27th, at
11:00 a.m.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: On
3187
motion, the Senate stands adjourned until
Tuesday, March 27th, at 11:00 a.m.
(Whereupon, at 5:35 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)