New Hartford Public Library…a taxing problem!

An article in today’s Observer Dispatch, “Questions arise over filing of taxes by the library”, brings to light the fact that the library has apparently failed to file 1099s for independent contractors that they paid more than $600 for services rendered.

Additionally, according to the article they may have failed to follow the NYS Sales Tax Laws by not collecting sales tax for the many items that they sell.

According to Library Treasurer Heather Mowat:

Mowat said sales tax is included in the price of each item sold. The goal of selling items such as memory sticks is to provide a service to visitors, not to make money, she said.

That may very well be true; however, according to the NYS Sales Tax Publication 34, that practice could cause some problems for the library because it is considered illegal unless the customer understands that as part of the price they are paying NYS Sales Tax.

New York State Tax Law requires that a vendor must collect sales tax from the customer when collecting the selling price of any taxable item or service. It is illegal for a vendor to advertise or represent to the public in any manner, directly or indirectly, that tax is not considered as an element in the price to be paid by the customer. Therefore, advertisements stating that the customer will not be charged the tax, that the vendor will pay the tax for the customer, or that the tax will be refunded to the customer or applied as a credit against the customer’s bill, account, or future purchases, are prohibited.

This writer has been to the library many times to purchase used books. Since the book sales are ongoing (every day vs. once or twice a year), all sales on the used books are taxable. Never has a receipt been offered for purchases and the money paid each time has merely been placed in a drawer beneath the counter. Where's the accountability?

Mr. Wiatr has in the past asked who is selling the books and has been told that the Friends of the NHPL conducts and collects the money for the book sales. We have always just paid at the desk so we have no idea if that is true. If it is true, then the Friends of the NHPL are liable for taxes and must have their own Sales Tax Certificate of Authority. They cannot use the library's certificate!

Further the Certificate of Authority for both the library and the Friends must be displayed at all times. We have never seen a certificate for either the New Hartford Library or the Friends.

Now if the library chooses not to issues receipts (although we can’t imagine why that would be) the law states:

Where no written receipt is given to the customer at the time of the sale, the unit price method is allowed for sales other than sales of gasoline and diesel fuel. The unit price is the total price charged, including the sales tax. The customer must be made aware that the sales tax is included in the selling price of such sales.

The vendor must visibly display a placard or sign stating that the selling price of all taxable items includes sales tax. In addition, the vendor must distinguish between taxable and nontaxable items offered for sale. This may be done by such methods as attaching labels to merchandise to indicate taxable or nontaxable status, displaying taxable and nontaxable items separately, or having available detailed listings of taxable and nontaxable items.

The library should also note that:

If a customer requests and receives a receipt, the sales tax must be separately stated on the receipt.

Bottom line, the library is clearly not following the NYS Sales Tax Law even though Ms. Mowat tried to excuse their actions by saying the sales tax is included.

As a business owner, this writer is well aware of the Sales Tax Law; however, it would appear that the library board lacks the expertise on such matters and is “out to lunch” when it comes to their fiduciary responsibilities. There are many publications on the NYS Sales Tax website that the library board should review.

The library needs to stop choosing their trustees because of their “family and friends” connections and start choosing people for their specific areas of expertise or at least choose people who are not afraid to ask questions and people who don’t purposely try to humiliate those who do ask the “hard” questions.

Comprehensive Plan Update Informational Meeting...

Last night, the New Hartford town board held an informational meeting regarding the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Update documents that a committee made up of town personnel and residents has been working on for about a year.

Representatives from River Street Planning & Development gave a presentation to a roomful of interested people.

We are providing a videotape of the presentation:

We are also making available a completely searchable pdf of the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Update.

Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Update

Lot Development Standards & Permitted Uses

There are so many changes to the current zoning, it is virtually impossible to present a document that would note each change.

Therefore, if you wish to compare the proposed zoning with the present zoning, you would need to go to the Town of New Hartford Codes to review the current zoning.

At this point, the town board plans to hold a public hearing at the April 23, 2014 town board meeting where residents can voice their opinions on the proposed changes.

Common Core – Opting Out NOT an option for some…

Yesterday was the first day of the Common Core testing. The parents of several students in the New Hartford Central School District opted their child out of the tests. However, there are some parents and teachers who disagree with that approach.

Many parents and teachers spoke at last night’s New Hartford Central School board meeting in favor of the Common Core curriculum and testing. They felt it was the implementation of the Common Core that needs to be improved, but they don't want to "throw out the baby with the bath water". Those who spoke in favor felt that children will be better prepared for college with the Common Core curriculum.

Below is the videotape of the April 1, 2014 New Hartford Central School board meeting:

Town of New Hartford DRAFT Comprehensive Plan...

A public informational meeting is scheduled for Thursday, April 3, 2014 starting at 7:00 p.m. in the ground floor of Butler Hall. Riverstreet Planning will present the new Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Update for public discussion.

After a visit to the town website seeking information regarding this new "blueprint" for the Town of New Hartford, it became apparent that the town has failed to provide the public with a copy of the new plan prior to Thursday's informational meeting. Discussion of this document without posting a copy of the document on the town's website is in violation of Section 103(e) of the Open Meetings Law. That law provides that copies of documents, whether in draft form or not, are to be made available prior or at a meeting to the extent practicable.

Since the document is 160 pages long; it would not be practicable to expect print copies to be made available Thursday evening; however, since the document does appear to be computer-generated, it would be practicable to post a copy on the town website.

Why would the town board call a public discussion of something as important as a comprehensive plan and zoning changes without any documentation provided to the public? Hopefully the town board's lack of transparency is not an indication of their lack of desire to respond to public comments and questions Thursday evening.

To aid in the discussion, we were able to obtain a copy of the plan; lot size specs and permitted uses in each zone. We are making it available as a completely searchable pdf document.

Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Update

Lot Development Standards & Permitted Uses

We encourage all residents to browse this document and bring your concerns and questions to the meeting Thursday evening. This is your time to speak up regarding any zoning that might affect your property. Once the document is adopted by the town board, it will be the law of the land. Any changes thereafter will requires a zoning variance.

Common Core - Opting out IS an option...

Jessica McNair, a New Hartford Central School elementary teacher, currently on a voluntary leave from teaching, wrote a guest editorial for the Observer Dispatch today, Guest View: Put the state system to the test by opting out.

In her article, Jessica echoes the voices heard at the New Hartford School Board meeting on Monday, March 24, 2014.

Listening to the heartfelt testimonials of people who attended Monday's meeting, to include parents as well as teachers, one could not help but sympathize with the parents who are concerned that their once average or above average child is now suddenly suffering with low self-esteem and stress-related illnesses since the implementation of the Common Core.

We videotaped the meeting and have made it available on our YouTube channel in two parts. In the first part, you will be able to hear from several parents and teachers. In the second part, Vince Condro, Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction, gives a talk on "NYS Standards: A Comparison of Common Core and 2005".

Jessica ends her Observer Dispatch Guest Editorial by stating:

• To learn how you can easily refuse state grades 3-8 exams by simply writing a letter, visit Opt Out CNY or join the conversation at Opt Out CNY on Facebook.

Everyone...parents, grandparents and teachers should take the time to listen to the video, attend meetings and get involved.

Videos of the Common Core discussion at the March 24, 2014 New Hartford Central School Board meeting.

Republican Assemblywoman Claudia Tenney Announces Campaign for Congress...

In a press release received this morning, Claudia Tenney announced that she will challenge incumbent Richard Hanna in the June 24th Republican Congressional Primary.

Tenney said, “We need a real Republican in this race. Someone who will actually stand up for our Republican principles of less government spending, lower taxes, and greater opportunity for all. In the state Assembly, I have a proven record as strong fiscal conservative. In Washington, I will continue fighting for lower taxes and to preserve our constitutional freedoms. Taxpayers need a voice that will stand-up for them.”

Claudia is a life-long resident of New Hartford and has served two terms in the State Assembly, representing the 101st District, which includes Oneida and Herkimer Counties.

Mark your calendar to vote in the June 24th Republican Primary!

To read Claudia's entire press release, please click here!

Arrogance ad nauseum...

Guest View: New Hartford School Board acted in public’s interest

Let's correct Ms. Luker's statements that the New Hartford Board of Education always follows the Open Meetings Law.

Concerned Citizens has been videotaping all New Hartford Central School board meetings for several months now and those meetings are available on our YouTube channel.

It was at Concerned Citizens insistence that school board agendas and handouts, to include complete minutes of prior meetings, are now posted on the school’s website prior to all meetings. Before our intervention, all the public was given were school board summaries which are totally useless and not in keeping with the Open Meetings Law.

Furthermore, if Ms. Luker is so big on Open Meetings Law, why doesn't she speak up so that people in the audience can hear what she is saying. She has a habit of talking so low that most times our camera doesn't even pick up what she is saying. We have asked that a microphone be placed on the table, but we're told the school does not have money in their budget right now for such an item.

Regarding Mr. Nole’s contract extension…

As we already blogged, Mr. Nole had until December 31, 2013 to send a letter to the school board asking to extend his contract for an additional year; that is, instead of his contract ending in June 2015, it would end in June 2016.

Assuming that Mr. Nole did indeed send a letter to the board by the deadline, the board could have taken action in any one of three (3) meetings; January 14, February 4, and February 25.

However, they took no action until the February 25th meeting which was three (3) days prior to Nole’s contract deadline for an extension. Truth be known, it is our guess that Mr. Nole sent a letter to the board long before the December 31, 2013 deadline so there were several other meetings where the decision to extend his contract could have been discussed and voted on.

The question is why? Why did the New Hartford Central School Board wait until the last minute…

Particularly, if, as Ms. Luker stated in her guest editorial:

…the majority of the board believed that the continued success of our district – in light of recent changes in curriculum and upcoming changes in administrative personnel — would be best served by stability at the top. Superintendent Nole has successfully led this district through very difficult times and, with numerous challenges ahead, we felt that “staying the course” would be in the best interest of the citizens of New Hartford.

Why did the board wait to approve the extension? Ms. Luker even states that “the majority of the board believed”. All that is needed is a majority vote. Ms. Luker wants us to believe that they had a majority vote, but they decided to not act on the extension until the bitter end.  It just doesn't make any sense and certainly doesn't sound like a complete vote of confidence for Mr. Nole!

Concerned Citizens was standing outside the library when Ms. Soggs was helped into the room by Vice President Jadhon. It was obvious that Ms. Soggs was quite ill.  Prior to the start of the meeting, we overheard Ms. Luker and other board members trying to figure out how to get a vote without a personal appearance. However, the Open Meetings Law does not permit voting in absentia.

Overall, the executive session lasted about an hour and ten minutes. However, Ms. Soggs was not ushered in until almost the end of the executive session. We do not believe that Ms. Soggs had much, if any, time to be part of the deliberative process that evening. It is our belief that she was merely brought in at the last minute to vote; probably because it was determined that the votes of the three (3) dissenting board members could not be changed no matter how long they continued with their executive session. Thus without Ms. Soggs' vote, Nole's contract would not have been extended.

Clearly, there is more to this story that isn’t being told to the public. New Hartford School Board President Luker is so arrogant that she probably does not even recognize the fact that the tone of her guest editorial is offensive to the taxpayers of New Hartford Central School.

Luker's seat is up for grabs this May. It’s time to send a message to the school board!  There is still time to file your petition!

NHCS Board Petitions available...

According to the New Hartford Central School website, petitions can either be picked up at the District Office in Bradley Elementary School between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. or downloaded from the District website:

For a larger pdf, please click here!

...OR...

We are also providing copies of the petition that you can download from our blog:

2014 School Board Petition

There must be at least 30 signatures on your petition; however, we suggest that you get at least 45 signatures in case any signatures are deemed to be invalid.

Petitions MUST BE filed with the Board Clerk, Aurelia, R. Greico, no later than Monday, April 21, 2014. Petitions can be filed between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

Nole contract extension...odd indeed!

According to the editorial in today’s Observer Dispatch, OUR VIEW: New Hartford school board off base:

The decision came in a particularly odd way last week when one board member was rousted from her sick bed in order to secure a fourth “yes” vote, which proved the deciding factor.

There is obviously more to the story than what the school board wants the public to know!

Nole's contracts

Shortly after each of Nole's contracts and amendments were signed, we FOILed the documents. The process for Nole’s contract to be extended is spelled out in each of the contracts with a slight modification of contract extension dates in the 2010 amendment.

According to the first two contracts signed between the NHCS and Nole dated August 13, 2008 and January 19, 2010:

(b) No later than December, 2010 (changed to December 31, 2013 in the 2010 amendment), the Superintendent shall notify the Board, in writing of his desire to remain in the position of Superintendent for an additional year beyond the remainder of the Agreement. Thereafter, within thirty (30) days of such notice, the Board shall meet, in an executive session, to determine whether it is inclined to accept the Superintendent's offer to remain in the position of Superintendent for an additional year beyond the term of the Agreement. The President of the Board shall thereafter, inform the Superintendent of the Board's informal determination. The Superintendent shall have the option to request that the matter of the extension for an additional year beyond the term of the Agreement under this provision be placed on the Board's action portion of the agenda for the next regular meeting of the Board, at which time the Board may take such action as it deems appropriate. If either party fails to exercise their option to extend the Agreement on or before February 28, 2011 (amendment changed date to Feb. 28 2014), the Agreement will expire on its normal expiration date.

Additionally, according to the both contracts Section 3 (c):

(c) Any extension of the term of the Superintendent's employment shall be in the form of an amendment to this Agreement; shall be upon the same terms and conditions as herein set forth, unless otherwise agreed upon, in writing, by the parties; and it shall not be considered that the Board and the Superintendent have entered into the new Agreement, unless expressly stated, in writing, and signed by both parties thereto.

On January, 7, 2010, the amendment that was signed between NHCS and Nole changed the dates for Nole to notify the board of his desire for an extension to December 31, 2013 and the date for both parties to act on the extension to February 28, 2014 as noted in red print above.

Did the NHCS Board and Superintendent Nole comply with all the dates in his contract?

We would have to FOIL the school for a copy of any letter sent by Nole to the school board asking for an extension of his contract to 2016, if one exists. However, we wouldn't receive an answer until sometime in April because the school has a standard FOIL reply:

Consistent with Section 89 of the New York Public Officers Law, the District hereby acknowledges receipt of that request. Access to the requested records will be determined in accordance with this section of the law and the determination will be made within 20 business days. If we are unable to make that determination within that time, you will be notified of the same and of the date by which the request will be granted in whole or in part.

Of course, that reply is not consistent with Section 89 of the NY Public Officers Law, but the school doesn’t seem to care.

We aren’t going to wait twenty (20) days to see if a letter exists, so instead… for argument’s sake, let’s suppose that Mr. Nole sent a letter to the NHCS Board on the last possible date his contract allowed, December 31, 2013.

According to his contract, the school board would have had to meet in executive session to discuss Nole’s request for an extension within thirty (30) days and the school board president would then notify Nole of their decision.

After December 31, 2013, the next school board meeting was on January 14, 2014 and there was no other meeting until February 4, 2014. The February meeting would have been beyond the thirty (30) allowed by Nole’s contract so the board would have had to call an executive session to discuss the extension at the January 14, 2014 school board meeting or they would have needed to call a special meeting. There was no special meeting called.

For argument's sake, let’s suppose that the Board President, Ms. Luker, did in fact call an executive session to discuss Nole’s contract extension at the January 14, 2014 meeting. According to the contract, Nole had the option to place the extension on the Board's action portion of the agenda for the next regular meeting of the Board which would have been February 4, 2014.

No such item appeared on the agenda for the meeting of February 4, 2014, nor was there any public discussion of the contract extension at that meeting. Why not? If Nole actually sent a letter requesting the extension, why wouldn’t he put it on the agenda as an action item as soon as possible after the executive session was held instead of waiting until three (3) days before the “drop-dead” date of February 28, 2014 in his contract?

What is really going on here? Is there disagreement between Nole and the school board? Was Nole hoping to get a more lucrative contract and when that failed, he realized he was up against a deadline and acquiesced at the last minute hoping an additional year would give him more time to negotiate for what he wants?

Remember, we used December 31, 2013 as the possible date of his letter to the board, but what if he wrote a letter even before that date or what if he failed to even send a letter to the board. That would make it even more intriguing as to what is going on.

Bottom line...

We can go on and on and speculate about what was being done behind closed doors. However, two board member terms expire this year. Get out and vote!

Better yet, go to the school and get a copy of the petition needed to run for a spot on the school board. You only need thirty (30) signatures. Board member Flemma could use a little backup; he is the only one willing to speak out against the chicanery going on at the New Hartford Central School Board table.

Seats open on the New Hartford School Board

Nole’s contracts and amendment:

Nole contract 2008-2011

Nole contract 2010-2012

Nole contract amendment 2012-2015

Nole's contract extended until 2016 after hour long executive session...

The New Hartford Central School Board held a meeting last night, February 25, 2014. On the agenda was more discussion of Common Core, but the most interesting part of the meeting was after the Executive Session to discuss “item 8 E on the agenda”.

Item 8 E is Resolution to Amend Agreement and extend Bob Nole’s contract for an additional year through June 20, 2016 instead of June 20, 2015. The executive session lasted over an hour. When the public was called back in, they immediately went to a vote. However, during the discussion portion of the vote, board member Ed Flemma asked the board to state the reasons why the contract needed to be extended at this time.

Silence…dead silence from the other members of the board. Then, after a few words back and forth with Mr. Flemma, some of the board members finally chirped in with what appeared to be quite disingenuous reasons.

Final Vote 4 ayes (Mr. Stephens; Ms. Luker; Ms. Philipson and Ms. Soggs, who came in from her sick bed at the last minute just to vote "aye" so the resolution would pass) and 3 nays (Mr. Flemma; Mr. Jadhon and Mr. Piotrowski). Mr. Nole’s contract will be extended until June 20, 2016.

What are the real reasons for an early extension of Mr. Nole's contract? Why would a board member come in at the tail end of a board meeting as sick as Ms. Soggs obviously was judging from her appearance just to make sure that Mr. Nole's contract was extended until 2016? One can only guess!   One thing is for sure…this board continues to try to keep the public out of the process by holding executive sessions and then immediately calling for a vote without any further discussion in the public. That in itself implies that there is more to the story than was told to the public.

The resolution that was included in the agenda (Item 8 E) can be viewed by clicking here.

The actual amendment to Mr. Nole’s contract can be viewed by clicking here.

We will have the entire school board meeting on our YouTube channel later this evening; for now here is the "after the executive session" discussion regarding the extension of Mr. Nole’s contract.



Reminder: Two board seats will be up for grabs this May.

Read any emails from Concerned Citizens lately, Supervisor Tyksinski?

We sent enough of them to the town board and the town attorney regarding the town’s assessment database…the database containing the information that everyone’s tax bills are based on.

An article in today’s Observer Dispatch, Street lighting charges surge in New Hartford district, this time focused on errors in the Town of New Hartford lighting districts.

Previous articles have already been written in the Observer Dispatch regarding the problems in the sewer districts. Non-profits are exempt from operation and maintenance charges for all districts; however, the town has been taxing non-profits for these expenses.

All the problems in the assessment database are symptomatic of a lack of database knowledge and a lack of knowledge of how the information in the database is used to create tax bills. Neither the previous assessor nor the town board understands just how the assessment database works and what is needed to maintain the integrity of a database. Yet, your tax bill is created using the information contained in the Town of New Hartford assessment database. Everyone has heard the phrase “garbage in, garbage out”. It definitely applies in this case.

The town has been improperly reporting the expenses for all sewer and lighting districts for many years. That affects not only not-for-profits, but everyone in a sewer or lighting district because some people have been paying more than their share of district charges and others have paid less or none at all.

According to the OD article:

Town Supervisor Patrick Tyksinski said he wasn’t unaware of any issues or changes. “Right now, we don’t know what it is,” he said. “Darlene (Abbattecola, town assessor) does not know what occurred and why it occurred, but we’re working on it.”

We are amazed that Supervisor Tyksinski would make such a statement considering the fact that we have been sending memos to the town board since last February detailing the problems with the sewer and lighting district taxes.   

What happened is that after discovering that we were right regarding the sewer district errors Supervisor Tyksinski actually sent the correct information to the county for all districts this year including the lighting districts. Therefore, the program used to run the tax bills did what it was supposed to do…exempted not-for-profits from paying lighting district charges. Unfortunately, an unintended consequence was that the by exempting the non-profits, a heavier tax burden had to be placed on properties that are not exempt in order for the town to collect all the budgeted money for the lighting districts!

The program used by the county to run the town tax bills requires two expense figures for each district; operation and maintenance and capital expense. The town has only been giving the county one figure and the program has ‘assumed’ it to be a capital expense rather than an operation/maintenance charge.  Therefore, non-profits were sent tax bills for district charges!

While it may have been unintentional on the part of the town, it was foreseen and could have been properly addressed if the town board took our July 2013 email seriously. But as usual, they refuse to include us in discussions. Now, according to the resolution passed at the last town board meeting, they have hired an attorney that will cost up to $5,000 to advise them regarding the database problems.

Here is our July memo that addresses several issues including the lighting districts. Included at the end of the memo is a list of non-profits that have been erroneously charged lighting district taxes prior to this year.

These lighting district and sewer district charges are just the tip of the iceberg. All sewer district users have been overtaxed because of the failure of the town to correct deficiencies in the database even after we repeatedly sent emails asking for the corrections.

Before paying our 2014 Town and County taxes, we sent a letter of protest to the town board regarding the sewer charges on our 2014 town tax bill. The letter pretty well covers the problems with the way sewer district charges are being levied on parcels in the Consolidated Sewer District.

Mayor, Mayor, Mayor...

As we suspected there were several documents regarding this project after all…

Today, we visited the Village offices and scanned all the documents for the public to review. They are:

• According to minutes, the plan was actually discussed at the November 20, 2013 Village Planning Board meeting. It is proposed to be 50-60 condominiums. Here are the Planning Board Minutes.

• As required by NYS Zoning Laws, the Village referred the zone amendment to Oneida County Planning. You can read the Oneida County 239 document here!

• As required by zoning, the County also prepared a response to the Village’s 239 referral giving their opinion as to the projects impact, if any. You can read the Oneida County 239 document here!

• As required by zoning, a Short Environmental Assessment form signed by Mayor Ryan on December 9, 2013. Here is the EAF form.

• A State Environmental Quality Review form was signed on November 22, 2013. That document is available here!

• Finally, here is an affidavit of mailing notices to those within 500’ of the proposed project, the addresses that received the mailing and the legal notice in the January 20, 2014 Observer Dispatch. Those documents are available here!

Remember, the Public Hearing will be held on Monday, February 10, 2014 in Butler Hall starting at 7 p.m.

These documents should have been available in the Village Clerk's office from the start. The Mayor should have told us that they were available instead of only sending two pdf documents and thinking we would go away. When will they ever learn?