David Andreatta

@david_andreatta

A year ago this week it was written here of the Village of Pittsford: "When a government spends a quarter of its budget on legal fees, it's only a matter of time before services suffer or taxes rise."

That time has come.

The village has proposed a budget for the fiscal year beginning in June that calls for a property tax increase of 20 percent. A public hearing on the matter is scheduled for 7 p.m. Tuesday at Village Hall.

If trustees approve the spending plan, the tax rate would rise to $3.47 per $1,000 of assessed value from $2.89. The tax levy — the amount of revenue raised from property taxes — would jump to $608,000 from $507,000.

That's still a bargain when compared to the tax rates of most villages. But the proposed hike is noteworthy because of its unusual source — mounting legal bills, mostly related to the increasingly expensive civic battle over Westport Crossing.

Westport Crossing is the name of the luxury apartment complex — 167 units and a restaurant wrapped in promised "Victorian charm" — that would rise on 7 acres of vacant land on the Erie Canal if it could ever get off the ground.

The village has spent a small fortune on Westport Crossing legal fees, mostly defending itself against lawsuits dating to 2012 brought by the developer, Mark IV Enterprises, and a civic group that doesn't want the project.

Trustees have done so to either stymie development or protect the village's character, depending on whom one asks.

Pinpointing what the village has spent is difficult because hundreds of hours of work has been done by the village attorney, who also handles everyday legal issues and whose bills don't reflect the precise time he devoted to Westport Crossing matters.

But invoices from other law firms, annual financial reports filed with the state comptroller, and the village's own balance sheet show the village will have spent at least $620,000 on Westport Crossing litigation by the end of the current fiscal year on May 31.

The same records show that the village will have spent $1,015,000 in legal costs during the four fiscal years spanning the litigation.

That might not sound like a lot. But consider that the village has a population of 1,350 and an operating budget of $1.3 million. That money is used to run village government, pave roads, repair sidewalks and, increasingly, go to court.

For the current fiscal year, the village adopted a budget that allocated $225,000 to litigation. By February, though, that line item had been obliterated, with the village burning through $306,000. The village anticipates spending $325,000 by year end.

Prior to Westport Crossing, legal fees comprised about 8 cents of every $1 in the village budget. This year, they account for 30 cents of every $1.

It's taking a toll.

The village's general fund — a combination of cash reserves and assets — fell to $458,348 in February from $812,245 four years ago.

Last year, village trustees approved a $425,000 bond issuance to pay for improvements to roadways and Village Hall and new equipment. Now, repayment on that bond begins in June with $54,000 in debt service.

The proposed budget calls for spending $100,000 on litigation for the fiscal year beginning in June — coincidentally, or not, the same amount to be raised through the property tax hike.

That the village has been the defendant in the litigation may suggest that it is the victim. But village government is not an innocent here.

Village trustees, led by Mayor Robert Corby, initially embraced Westport Crossing and granted special permits for its construction. They later attempted to rescind those permits after a civic group, the Friends of Pittsford Village, sued.

Trustees accused the developer of radically altering its design, a charge the developer denied.

Last month, a state judge urged the parties to reach a compromise. The mayor and the developer claim to be doing so.

Village taxpayers should welcome one, for it's been said here before and should be said again: When government spends that much on legal fees, it's only a matter of time before services suffer or taxes rise.

David Andreatta is a Democrat and Chronicle columnist. He can be reached at DANDREATTA@gannett.com.