And next......the BOCES $38.55 million bond vote

By now, I am sure everyone received their brochure explaining BOCES $38.55 million bonding plan to address their "needs". There are 12 component schools and it looks like New Hartford, New York Mills and Clinton taxpayers will pay for almost half the cost of the bonding plan with the other 9 component schools paying the other half. New Hartford taxpayers will pay $6.46 on a home assessed for $100,000 or $.0646 per thousand. And for New Hartford residents, this amount is on top of the roughly $27.00 on a $100,000 assessment for the town bonding plan and the New Hartford school bonding plan that will add approximately $25 a year on a home assessed for $100,000. If your home is assessed for more, you do the math. And this does not account for any "extra expenses" added to the budgets each year.

To quote the BOCES brochure, "we anticipate this project will meet our facilities needs for the next 20 to 30 years. What is the maturity of the bond--couldn't find it in the brochure, but I would guess 30 years!

I love the question in the brochure of "what will happen if the referendum does not pass?". The answer---they will "proceed with plans to renovate the existing space, an option that would not require a vote, but could be more costly." Is that a threat? And to further quote the brochure, "If these problems are not solved, we will be forced to shut down some programs and send students back to their home districts." That's almost as bad as Mr. Gilligan's (Superintendent of New Hartford Schools) saying prior to the December 13 bond vote that it might cost another $2 - 3 million due to inflation if they have to put their bonding plan back up for a vote. And how about the fact that Mr. Gilligan implied that the purchase of the land will be addressed at a later date? Will we see it as a separate item on the May budget vote?

Again, we are back to the difference between "wants" and "needs". It is about time the school, town and county "leaders" learn the difference! Taxpayers are getting tired of all the want! want! want! chants.

Let me point out some of the key things you need to know regarding the voting procedures for the BOCES bond vote:

Each person will be required to vote at their school districts at the locations that are normally used for school budget and school board elections. (Everyone, but not New Hartford. We will be voting in the High School Band Room instead of the gymnasium! Gee, I wonder why? Could it have anything to do with the $15+ million Performing Arts Theater that is part of their bonding plan?)

The polls will be open from 12 noon to 8:00 p.m. on February 13, 2007.

You will need to bring a photo i.d. with you such as a driver's license or non-driver photo i.d.

Absentee ballots will be available from the Oneida Herkimer Madison BOCES district clerk's office. You should contact Deb Griffiths at 315-793-8558.

To contact Mr. Howard D. Mettelman, District Superintendent, call 315-793-8561.

Everyone should make sure to get out and vote--either in person or by absentee ballot. Let your voice be heard!

Is the tail wagging the dog?

Street lights on Chapman Road?

A resident recently emailed us a memo that was sent to Chapman Road residents from Robert Payne, Ward 1 Councilman and Roger Cleveland Superintendent of Highways regarding the possibility of putting street lights on Chapman Road. The memo stated that there is to be a informal discussion on January 31 at 7 P.m. at the Kellogg Road Community Building. The person who sent it to us wanted us to find out if it was true that the cost would be placed on the whole town and not just the residents of Chapman Road. Or would there be a special lighting district set up for just the Chapman Road residents or perhaps the Weston Road lighting district that is already in place would be expanded to include Chapman Road.

We tried to get the answers for the resident--but we were basically given the "runaround", so we did a search of town board minutes and found out what was happening.

Interestingly enough, the Chapman Road residents didn't petition the town for a lighting district or at least if they did collect the needed signatures to bring the petition to the Town Board, it was never discussed in open meeting.

To read the full story, visit our website.

School Aid

So Gov. Spitzer may be redoing the school aid formula in his 2007-08 budget. The budget is due to be released this week. However, the final budget won't be available until after the State legislature has a chance to do their "magic".

According to the Observer Dispatch, "Spitzer spokesman, Brad Maione said he couldn't discuss specifics, but said the governor will make good on his promises." "There will be a new transparent school funding formula that will dramatically increase investment over the next four years throughout the state, targeted to where it's most needed," Maione said.

Also, according to the Observer Dispatch article, "Local politicians aren't exactly sure what Spitzer's plans are, but say they're optimistic."

RoAnn Destito said "Spitzer likely won't decrease current funding to school districts, but will target high need districts.....". Two words bother me in that sentence--- "likely won't" . RoAnn Destito goes on to say regarding the school aid formula "she doesn't think it will be taking from Peter to pay Paul." "I think he is going to be adding resources....". Well, Ms. Destito, where is the money going to be coming from?

I wonder what it might mean for a "rich" district like New Hartford--shall we believe RoAnn Destito's take on the Governor's plans. Unfortunately, we won't know for sure until after we vote for the school bond that includes almost $16 million for a Performing Arts Theater. How much are you willing to pay in increased taxes for this theater in the "unlikely event" that our State Aid is decreased?

Something to think about on March 13, 2007 when the vote is once again put before the voters of the New Hartford Central School District.

By my calculations.....

I have been looking over the Bond Proposition handout that was available at the January 11, 2007 town board meeting and for the life of me I can't make the numbers work out to what the town has stated will be the cost per $1,000 of assessed value if each of these bond resolutions are approved by the voters on March 29, 2007. I even had another person check and they came up with the same number I did. Either my calculator isn't working or the town is using different numbers than they printed in the handout.

On the last page of the handout, in big print, they say "18 cents per $1,000 of assessed value. Includes all propositions".

Now let's look at each of the propositions and the costs they have associated with each one according to the handout:

By my calculations, it would be $.271 per thousand or $27.10 for a home assessed at $100,000. Where do they get $.18 per thousand? Am I missing something?

By the way, here is the slide they presented at the November 1, 2006 budget hearing:



Yep, "could result in additional tax increase of $.05 per thousand". And if you remember, as of November 1 when they stated $.05 per thousand, there was actually an additional $500,000 for paving included in the bonding figures. Now they take out the $500,000 and we are told it will be $.18 per thousand, yet the numbers in the handout reflect $.271 per thousand!

You know, nothing they say about these bond resolutions makes any sense. How can they ask us to vote in favor of something that they don't seem to have a handle on?

Hell at this rate, by March 29, we may be up to $.50 per thousand of assessed value depending on whose calculator we are using!

And let's not forget that this will only take care of the "needs" for this year. What future plans do they have for Highway equipment, sidewalks, etc. How much will they want to bond for in 2008? They gave us blank stares when we asked that question at the January 11th "informational" meeting.

Absentee ballots for March 29 special town election

Just a reminder to contact the Town Clerk's office if you will be out of town or you are otherwise unable to vote in person on March 29, 2007 for the Town's proprosed $4.6 million bond resolutions. If you leave an address with the town clerk, an absentee ballot be mailed to you when it gets closer to the election.

Also, please read the comments on my loves me...loves me not! post from January 22, 2007 (see below). Just click on the number above the envelope in the green highlighted space below the post.

loves me....loves me not!

Anyone else notice that the Observer Dispatch editorial board seems to be flip-flopping a lot lately when it comes to the New Hartford School bond vote?

First, the New Hartford Central School bond was a good plan and we should vote for it--it's for the children.

Then the vote fails and the Observer Dispatch editorial board says that New Hartford School should take a second look at the plan and drop the land and perhaps scale back the Performing Arts Center.

The school decides to drop the land, at least for now, but leaves everything else exactly the way it was for the first vote--no scaling back on the auditorium. Now it is once again a good plan and we should vote for it according to the Observer Dispatch editorial board in the January 22, 2007 paper.

And regarding the auditorium, the people I talk to don't want to pay for a $15+ million Performing Arts Theatre. Everyone agrees that the present auditorium needs some work, but this proposal is more of a "want" than addressing the actual "need".

And by the way, how many seats will be in there? When I spoke to Mr. Gilligan before the last vote, he said they currently had 450 seats and it would be about a 10% increase in seating; so about 500 seats. He said they weren't really adding that many seats, they were adding bigger seats to accommodate today's "seats". At the public hearing in December, they were saying about 500 - 550, but they didn't have an exact number. Now in today's editorial, it is stated as 600 seats. Is this project growing or are they adjusting the number of seats to try to make it more appealing to the voters?

And does anyone think there might be a reason as to why the voting for the BOCES bond issue will be held in the high school band room instead of the gymnasium?

Exemptions in the Town of New Hartford

Just thought you might want to know:

We have created an Exempt Properties report on all exempt properties in the Town of New Hartford using the 2006 Final Assessment database as of July 1, 2006. The report is in Adobe pdf form and is 17 pages long so it might take a few seconds to load.

The information in this report was created directly from a copy of the assessment database that was represented to us as the one being used in the Assessor's Office and was obtained by a Freedom of Information request we filed with the Town Clerk's Office.

For this report, we have listed TOTALS ONLY for exemptions that we deem to be of a personal nature. While the information is public, if you would like to view the particulars you need to talk to the Assessor and you may need to submit a Freedom of Information request with the Town Clerk to obtain the information from the Assessor's Office.

As far as business-type exemptions, that is fair game. We have listed the name of the businesses or not-for-profits that currently are listed as having a property tax exemption in the Town of New Hartford, N.Y.

By the way, if you are not familiar with blogs, at the bottom of some posts you will find comments from readers and my replies. Just click on the number above the envelope in the green highlighted area at the end of each post. Whether you agree with me or not, feel free to comment...let's get a dialogue going! If you would like to write to me and not have your message appear on this blog, please email me using the link at the bottom of the homepage of our website.

Isn't it ironic?

So Preswick "may not" be tax exempt. I'm sure there is going to be commentary on both sides of the issue--those who have already purchased their spot at Preswick and those who will be left carrying the "burden" if tax exempt status is granted to Preswick. Taxable status date is March 1--Preswick has until then to file for an exemption and at that time the assessor will have to make a determination as to whether or not they qualify for the exemption. It will be interesting to see just when Preswick's "actual" tax exempt status becomes public knowledge. Time will tell!

Isn't it ironic though how Mr. Reed, the school and the town board are trying to do a "rah-rah-rah" on something that has yet to be "carved in stone" when in reality there is a similar assessment issue on the table that they are failing to address.

Our assessment reports have been online for residents to view for about 6 months; however, we have actively been trying to get the board to "fix" the inequity for over 3 years now. They acknowledge the problem, they say it is on their "to-do" list, but they never seem to get around to it. They are willing to bond for $4.6 million for town trucks, sidewalks and the like, that will increase the tax rate, yet they have not included even one penny for fixing the number that determines your tax bill--your assessment. For the record, I am on the Board of Assessment Review.

Is tax exempt status for Preswick any more of a concern than the fact that there are homes in New Hartford that are still being assessed at their 1995 value or slightly above while other assessments have been increased twice and those property owners have had to file a grievance and/or a court case to try to get some relief? Was the State Reassessment program instituted in the Town of New Hartford in such haste that there was little time to worry about whether or not it was done equitably? Instead of taking the time to group "like" homes together to form "Neighborhoods", homes were divided into "neighborhoods" by tax map numbers. That methodology might work in some towns where there has been little growth, but in the town of New Hartford it has caused a nightmare!

Take a look at our latest report on the homes that are considered to be "Starter Homes" and, according to the Assessor's neighborhood codes descriptions, would have been selling between $40,000 to $75,000 in 2002 - 2004. For a market value of $40,000 to $75,000 in 2002 when residential properties were first part of the reassessment program, you would expect that the homes would not be more than maybe 1,000 sq. ft. to maybe 1,200 sq. ft. and would basically be similar to the homes in Perry Manor. In fact, if you visited the assessor's office to question your increased assessment, he would have told you that the homes in Perry Manor were basically what made up Neighborhood Code 4817. But look at the homes in our report. The square footage range is anywhere from 5,066 sq. ft. right down to 424 sq. ft. Other than the similarity of their tax map numbers how can anyone, least of all "professionals" like the assessor and Maxwell, think that a 4,000 or 5,000 sq. ft. home qualifies as a "Starter Home" and that the assessed value should only have been increased if selling prices or "market value" of homes in the $40,000 to $75,000 range increase? Homes on Gilbert, Sanger, newer homes on Fawncrest--- how can they be included in a neighborhood that is supposed to be similar to the homes in Perry Manor? The answer is simply "tax map numbers"!

Even in 2004, during the last year of the reassessment when "trending" was done, some people seemed to escape the increase in property value. I believe that we were told that in neighborhood codes where trending was necessary, everyone had their assessment raised. That is not true--not everyone did. And notice how many times people were moved in and out of neighborhood codes.

We have extensively reviewed the assessment rolls for years 2001 through 2004. We do not find that the inequitable assessments can necessarily be attributed to who owns a particular parcel; although in some instances, that may very well be the case, we are not in a position to make that judgement call. What we are saying is that there are many assessments that were never brought anywhere near "market value" while other homeowners were "hammered" . For the most part it appears to be a tax map number issue along with moving people in and out of neighborhood codes each year and failing to make adjustments in assessments due to additions even though the added living space is noted in the assessment database. It was also a failed attempt to try to make corrections "on the fly" if you will and in so doing they created more inequities than they cured.

So I ask, it is any more fair to leave some people with assessments that have been raised twice or more while others have seen little or no increase in their assessment particularly when one of the people who is enjoying no increase in the assessed value of their home is the current "leader" of the Town of New Hartford and has made such a big deal out of the Preswick Glen situation in Friday's paper? Does anyone reading this blog think that only select homes in New Hartford have increased in value or for that matter that only some homes on select streets have increased in value while their neighbor's property next door did not? Does anyone reading this blog think that any of the homes on Gilbert Road are "starter" homes?

Isn't it ironic that Supervisor Reed and other leaders are burying their heads on this one and "beating their chests" on Preswick? And isn't it ironic that one of the board members was quoted as calling this mess an "assessment debacle"? He even campaigned on the reassessment issue yet he sits there and says not a word now. Isn't it ironic that assessments is an issue that is so far-reaching and touches the emotions of so many in New Hartford particularly around the end of May each year and yet not one town board member (that would be the people that are supposed to represent our concerns--the same people that privately acknowledge that there is an inequity in assesments) NOT ONE board member is willing to publicly say "the emperor has no clothes". Isn't it ironic?

To view our reports on several of the "neighborhoods" in New Hartford, follow the links to them on our sitemap.

psst! Mr. Reed....

According to my sources, it is not sufficient to just say you are going into executive session to discuss Preswick. You need to say exactly what it is you are going to discuss regarding Preswick--current, proposed or pending litigation would be your only choices. Which one was it?

Otherwise, Mr. Reed, you may not have an acceptable reason for the "closed door" meeting. You might want to tuck that piece of information in your pocket because if it was an illegal meeting, residents can file an article 78 against the town to have any actions voted on as a result of that meeting voided.

Just thought you should know the facts according to the Open Meetings law. Shall I write to Robert Freeman from the Committee on Open Government to get his "official" opinion, Mr. Reed?

Update after reading the January 19th edition of the Observer Dispatch:

Mr. Reed, according to the Friday, January 19th Observer Dispatch editorial, they have already contacted Mr. Freeman for us. Not about the Town of New Hartford executive session, but still the same law applies, and I quote from the Observer Dispatch editorial:

"When moving for executive session, the motion must provide adequate information to let the public know the board has a legitimate reason for going behind closed doors. Merely stating "personnel" isn't good enough, says Robert Freeman, executive director of the state Committee on Open Government."

Nor is merely stating "to discuss Preswick" Mr. Reed. By the way, want to let us know if any resolutions were passed after the meeting since it will probably take at least 2 months before we get to see the minutes of the January 17th meeting? It is my understanding that you cannot pass any resolutions to expend public monies in executive session. You must re-convene the public portion of the meeting. I suppose a call to the Town Clerk should answer that question though.

And is your meeting next week to discuss Preswick open to the public?

From today's Observer Dispatch:

"The Town Board will meet again within a week with the school district and county officials to further discuss Preswick Glen, officials said."

I believe you will need to call a Special Board meeting that is open to the public, properly identify the purpose of the executive session and then vote "in the public view" before you can legally conduct an executive meeting, Mr. Reed. And since you already know that you are meeting and therefore it doesn't qualify as an "emergency" meeting, I would guess that we will see notice in the Observer Dispatch as to when the Special Town Board meeting will be held so in case any residents want to attend?

The law is there for a reason, Mr. Reed!

Preswick Glen

23 minutes---That is how long tonight's town board meeting was---

It was apparent by the people in attendance that something was going to be discussed. Some of the people in attendance at tonight's town board meeting were New Hartford Central School Superintendent Dan Gilligan, Town Attorney Gerald Green, Assessor Paul Smith and Robert Nole, New Hartford Central School Asst. Superintendent for Business.

Come to find out, it was because of an executive meeting they were all going to attend after tonight's town board meeting. Earle Reed rushed through the "public" portion of the town board meeting, cutting his normal 35 minute "public" session to 23 minutes, and then called for an executive session saying that they have a very important and lengthy executive meeting regarding Preswick Glen, then he excused everyone, including the press.

According to today's Observer Dispatch and we quote, "Town attorney Gerald Green said one of the issues that would be discussed in the session is whether an outside counsel should be hired to offer advice and information about Preswick Glen's tax exemption issue." Well now that is strange, they already unanimously voted to contact outside counsel at the November 15, 2006 town board meeting.

According to the Open Meetings Law, the only reasons that a town board can go into executive session is:

• matters which will imperil the public safety if disclosed;
• any matter which may disclose the identity of a law enforcement agent or informer;
• information relating to current or future investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense which would imperil effective law enforcement if disclosed;
• discussions regarding proposed, pending or current litigation;
• collective negotiations pursuant to article fourteen of the civil service law;
• the medical, financial, credit or employment history of a particular person or corporation, or matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person or corporation;
• the preparation, grading or administration of examinations; and
• the proposed acquisition, sale or lease of real property or the proposed acquisition of securities, or sale or exchange of securities held by such public body, but only when publicity would substantially affect the value thereof.

Let's see, the only one that might fit is "discussions regarding proposed, pending or current litigation". So is there a lawsuit on the horizon, either proposed or pending, because I haven't heard anything about a current lawsuit yet? Either that, or this meeting was not supposed to be behind closed doors! Have tax exempt papers been filed with the Town Assessor's office? How soon before we find out what this one is about?

One man's castle.......

is another man's "Starter Home".

We thought we would take a break from the bond vote (we are waiting on some Freedom Of Information requests that we made) and focus our attention once again on the assessment debacle. If you haven't looked at some of the assessment reports on our website, please do.

Last night we added a new report--a report on Neighborhood Code 4817 or "Starter Homes" as Maxwell Appraisals dubbed them in their Trending Report in 2004.

Two councilmen and the town attorney are willing to concede that there is a problem, but they fear a "firestorm" if they try to correct it so they would rather focus their attention on spending. We have been assured that the assessment debacle is on their "to-do" list, but they don't know when they will be able to focus on it. I was told that with Preswick Glen looming in the wings and this bond vote they are busy!

Let me give my opinion on a few things--disagree with me if you like.

Some of the bond spending they propose may be a good thing. Stormwater management is desperately needed to give relief to people who are constantly watching their property being destroyed every time there is a drenching rainfall. If the town board or more specifically, if the Highway Superintendent presented a "plan of action" detailing the who, what, and where, it probably would make sense to bond for stormwater. What they have presented so far is nothing more than a list of streets and one has to wonder how they came up with $2 million. That is like me needing to fix a leak in my house and buying $2,000 worth of plumbing supplies because I might need them. It is difficult to hold anyone accountable for $2 million in spending particularly when the town board is so secretive. I want something concrete so I can tell if the work is being done.

Town trucks do eventually need to be replaced. In the past, $300,000 to $350,000 was earmarked out of the town budget each year so that older vehicles could be routinely replaced. The bonds they have on the table equate to almost $1 million of new town vehicles payable for the next 14 years. When asked how they plan to handle any further replacement of vehicles, in other words, do they plan to bond for them every year, they gave us a blank stare indicative of the fact that they hadn't even thought of that yet. By the way, we have requested a list of all vehicles presently owned by the town.

Energy efficient lighting is a good thing, but it is questionable as to why they want to pay for it over 14 years when according to the town board's own slide presentation the new lighting will save approximately $30,000 a year. Those projected savings mean that after about the third year, the lighting has paid for itself and the $30,000 is a plus in the budget so why do we need 14 years to pay off the debt?

1 Oxford Crossing is 12,000 sq. ft. That is a lot of space compared to what they have now for police, codes, assessor, engineering and planning. What are they planning on putting in there besides those departments? We were told that the present police department uses about 2,500 sq. ft. in the Madden Building. Could we see some plans as to what the building is going to look like when finished. They plan on using the whole first floor for the Police Dept. (that's over double what they have now), that leaves a lot of space for about a dozen people to occupy. Could we see an accounting of what the $500,000 in renovations will include and how those offices will be laid out.

And to bond for $45,000 for renovations for the highway garage over 21 years--whoa! It sounds to me like there is more to that story!

Lastly, sidewalks for $150,000. Ask your councilman where these sidewalks will be built. Don't count on it being in front of your house unless you live in the direct path of either the Rayhill Trail or Sherrillbrook Park.

That brings me back to the assessment debacle. Let's reason this together. Some people are not paying their fair share because many mistakes were made during the last reassessment when they decided to use tax map numbers to place properties in Neighborhood Codes. Neighborhood Codes are supposed to reflect "like housing". The budgeted expenses from each of the taxing entities, school, county and town are going up. That means that some of us are paying more than our fair share and will continue to do so until a "firestorm" occurs and this town board is once again "forced" to make a decision.

The problem did not happen under Mr. Reed's watch, but he and the current town board are the only ones who have the means to "fix" the problem now. Instead, they choose to bury their heads in the sand and spend more money on other things. It is easy to spend, but to stand tall and admit that errors were made takes the kind of "moxy" that this town board does not seem to have. So when you decide to vote for or against this bond spending, factor in the amount of extra money you will be paying because there are people like the Town Supervisor who are not paying their "fair" share.

Read the Neighborhood Code 4817 or "Starter Homes" report to get a clearer picture.

Misinformed?

You have to love the Observer Dispatch editorial page today. If I didn't know better, I would think that Earle Reed was one of the editors.

To the OD editorial staff--even if the school bond vote failed by 1 vote--the majority rules. That is called "democracy". You are right, though--the school board did an excellent job of getting "their" message out, but the bond issue failed anyway. Obviously, they need to either come back with a down-sized version or they need to put it to rest.

And since when is any plan a good one just because the Observer Dispatch editorial board thinks so? Maybe you should have been at the Thursday, October 11, 2007 town board meeting when the town board couldn't even answer most of the the questions that were posed to them. It is extremely obvious that they haven't done their homework! They couldn't even say what plan they had for future Highway Dept. equipment purchases. Does anyone think that this is the last time we will need new Highway trucks over the next fourteen (14) years? For that matter, does anyone really know how many trucks the town already owns?

And perhaps you should be sitting here over my shoulder scouring through past town board minutes looking at all the money we have already thrown at the stormwater problems in New Hartford--a report which we will be releasing shortly. We have every right to see details to be sure that this time our $2 million will not be wasted. We already spent $2.4 million and we still have the same problems. Don't you think that maybe the "majority" gets tired of paying to solve problems of a "few"? I don't begrudge anyone the right to have their stormwater problems fixed, but let's demand a detailed report on just what they plan to do, where they plan to do it and a timeline as to when the job will be finished. In the "real" world it is called accountability! Otherwise, let's form stormwater districts so that those who have problems and don't mind paying for an "elusive" fix can pay for it themselves!

And if this is such a good plan, why doesn't the town just tell people that the equipment in bond resolution 1 & 2 has already been purchased. The town website leads one to believe that we are purchasing the equipment.

And to bond for $45,000 or $92,000--come on! Did anyone at the Observer Dispatch ask how much these bonds will cost after you add in all the mandatory costs for bonding such as bond counsel, the financial advisor, printing the bonds, etc? And with the $30,000 cost savings each year, the $92,000 for "energy-efficient" lighting would pay for itself over a 3 year period anyway. So why are we bonding for 14 years?

By the way, the next town bond resolution vote is scheduled for Thursday, March 29, 2007 NOT Monday, April 2, 2007 as the editorial board wrote in today's Opinion. Or is the town board misleading people about that too?

And I ask, WHO is misinformed?

Concerned Citizens for Honest & Open Government

Concerned Citizens for Honest & Open Government placed an ad in this past week's New Hartford edition of the Pennysaver to make sure that Town of New Hartford residents had information regarding the $4.6+ million bond referendum that was to take place on January 16, 2007.

As you recall, in October 2006, several of our members collected signatures to "force" the bond spending to a vote. Our group believes that all town residents deserve a chance to have a say in any spending that requires bonding and although town officials were quoted as saying they would "educate" the public on their plan, no information was forthcoming. We also were the ones to bring to light the fact that no absentee ballots would be allowed; a detail that our town councilmen and town attorney claim they did not think about prior to receiving numerous calls from residents who read our website and blog. We also sent information to the Observer Dispatch and as a result they did an article regarding the "no absentee ballots" decision.

On Wednesday, January 10, 2007, just 6 days before the vote was to take place and one day before our ad was to run in the Pennysaver, the town board cancelled the vote. They will vote on new bond resolutions at the next town board meeting on Wednesday, January 17, 2007. That meeting will be at Butler Memorial Hall at 6:00 p.m. We urge you to attend--meetings usually only last 35-40 minutes at most.

According to a statement made by Town Supervisor Earle Reed, the new bond resolution vote will be a mandatory referendum, meaning that we will not have to collect signatures--the vote will take place and absentee ballots will be allowed this time.

In the meantime, we have posted our Pennysaver ad for anyone who has not already had a chance to view it in the New Hartford edition of the Pennysaver that was mailed to homes on Thursday, January 11, 2007. We removed the information regarding the January 16th vote so as to not confuse anyone.

At this time, we do not know if there will be any changes to the bond resolutions, but we will keep you informed as details become available. For more complete information regarding all eight(8) bond resolutions be sure to visit our website.

Stormwater Problems in New Hartford

We are working on a report you don't want to miss whether you have stormwater problems or not.

Where are the targeted areas for the $2 million stormwater bond up for a vote on March 29, 2007 and how did we spend the $2.4 million stormwater money that we already bonded for in the 1990s?

You don't want to miss our report. I will post a link on this blog as soon as it is ready for viewing. We are anticipating the completion of our report by early next week.

In the meantime, visit our website to view reports on the assessment debacle, information on Preswick Glen, town board meetings and searchable town board minutes.

Stay tuned! We've only just begun!

Update on our Blog of January 9th

The entire blog entry can be found at http://newhartfordnyonline.blogspot.com/2007/01/say-what.html.

Here is the related part of the post and the updated information:

"Reynolds said the board could have lost out on the offer for 1 Oxford Building, so the purchase offer was made ahead of the vote. Green said the price could have gone up too."
Well, Mr. Reynolds according to Mr. Schuurman, the seller, he has no other buyers interested in the building as of now. And Town Attorney Mr. Green, how much more could the cost have gone up on a piece of property that is appraised for $950,000 particularly since the town already owns the land that the parking lot is on. By the way just what are the terms of the land lease or easement between the town and the owner for that piece of land that the parking lot is on, Mr. Green?


The owner of 1 Oxford Crossing supposedly has a lifetime easement for the town-owned land. So in essence, the owner has tax-free land for his business! We checked and the town-owned land is not included in the assessed value of the property. This easement was slipped through during the Kazanjian years and is a stark reminder of what happens when residents do not get involved in how their town board is doing business! If this bond is approved we will actually be buying back our own land. The driveway used by all three buildings and the parking lot of 1 Oxford Crossing is on tax-free town-owned land and I'm not sure that any of the buildings would be worth $950,000 without land for an entrance or a parking lot.

I do want to make note of the fact that the current owner was not the owner of the property at the time the lifetime easement was granted!

Let's get something straight....

At the Town of New Hartford Special Town Board meeting on Thursday, January 11, 2007, the Town Board unanimously voted to rescind the previous board resolutions even though it was reported in the January 11, 2007 Observer Dispatch that this meeting was merely an informational meeting and the bond resolutions were to be rescinded at the January 17, 2007 Regular Town Board meeting. This article was supposedly written as a result of a press release sent by the Town Board to the Observer Dispatch. Either the press release that was sent to the paper by the New Hartford Town Board contained erroneous information or the Observer Dispatch printed erroneous information. It can’t be both ways.

If the Town Board sent erroneous information to the Observer Dispatch, they need to "own up to it". They vehemently denied at last night’s meeting that their press release stated that the vote to rescind would take place on January 17, 2007.

If the Observer Dispatch printed incorrect information, they owe the residents and the New Hartford Town Board a correction in their paper so that residents can be assured that their town board was not up to their "usual tricks".

In a related article, the January 12th Observer Dispatch reported that "Town Supervisor Earle Reed and Councilman David Reynolds decided this week that the vote should be postponed to allow for absentee ballots and to inform residents more fully about the borrowing for the projects.....".

Could someone please explain to me how the decision of two (2) makes up a majority when the Town Board is comprised of five (5) board members. The vote was unanimously garnered at the Special Town Board Meeting on Thursday, January 11, 2007 without any discussion or comment other than to read the resolution to rescind (actually I am surprised we even got that much--usually the topic is mentioned and a vote is taken).

The press release must have been sent to the Observer Dispatch early on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 because it appeared on the Observer Dispatch website as breaking news around 10:30 a.m. and was reported in the January 11th paper--one day before the Town Board "publicly" voted to rescind the bond resolutions. So when did the "official" discussion take place or does Mr. Earle Reed and Mr. David Reynolds have full control of the decisions made by the New Hartford Town Board? When did they hold the meeting to decide if a "majority" of the board was in agreement with postponing the vote. Was there a notice on the bulletin board in Butler Hall informing the public of a Special Meeting to decide on whether or not to postpone this vote? Was the press informed? Were there minutes taken? If not, then it was an illegal meeting that decided the fate of the bond vote that so many people worked long hours to get signatures to "force" to a vote by the taxpayers of New Hartford.

This town board seems to pride itself on having decisions made prior to the public presentation and I am not sure that it is something I would brag about if I were in their shoes. It sort of "smells" of a violation of the "Open Meeting Law". I want to hear some of the discussion so that I know whether my councilman is representing me to my satisfaction. That is the way it is supposed to work---I listen to the viewpoints of my councilman and if his views don't agree with mine and he doesn't seem to be representing me the way I like, I perhaps don't vote for him when he seeks re-election.

Since January 1, 2006 through the present date, there has never been anything but unanimous voting by the New Hartford Town Board. When every vote cast at a town board meeting is unanimous, how does anyone "truly" know what their representative's views are? How can it be possible for every board member to be in TOTAL agreement on every topic? How could they possibly be serving the best interests of their constituents! Or for that matter, does every member of the Town Board actually get a say in the decisions that are made by this town board?

And how many illegal meetings are held in order to reach all these "unanimous" decisions?

New Bond Vote - March 29, 2007!

We attended the "informational" town bond resolution meeting tonight. Be sure to read Strikeslip's blog over at Fault Lines--couldn't have said it better myself!

Several questions were asked--many of the questions Town Board members were unable to answer. It is clear that still have not done their "homework" or maybe they don't have a clue what they need to do. We were met with a lot of blank stares and "I don't know" as they madly rushed to write down our questions and suggestions. You know, it is too bad that this administration doesn't include residents in their discussions--some of us probably have expertise that they could use, but they prefer to circle the wagons and keep the "detractors" out.

Their reason for cancelling after several residents worked days to collect signatures to force the vote was that they realized that they needed to "educate" and they had no idea of the absentee ballot problem. They want to make sure that everyone has a chance to vote. Well, I must say that wasn't their attitude a couple of town board meetings ago when we first mentioned the no absentee ballot rule. I also must say that I seem to remember Mr. Earle Reed mentioning something about "educating" the public back in October so what happened? How much time does he need?

They can "spin" it anyway they want; however, it would appear that they knew they were not going to get the needed votes and so they took their ball home and didn't want to play anymore. We met their 30 day time line and got almost 600 signatures; then they waited until the last minute and when the going got tough, they got going.

We suspect that they also may have received a "heads up" on the ad that our group "Concerned Citizens for Open & Honest Government" paid for in this week's New Hartford edition of the Pennysaver. (We will be posting the ad on our website this weekend in case you did not receive a Pennysaver.) Not that it matters if they did know about our ad in advance. Our only agenda was to give residents information regarding each of the bond resolutions and we were willing to pay for it "out of our own pockets".

For the sake of the town, things need to change. Mr. Robert A. Payne, III needs to wipe that smirk off his face when residents are politely stating their feelings and Mr. Earle C. Reed needs to take the look of disgust off his face when people are asking too many questions he can't answer. And by the way, Mr. Reed, when you invite people to a question and answer meeting and they sit directly in front of you, politely ask intelligent questions, but you dismiss them and close the meeting even though it is obvious you know that they have their hands raised to ask another question, that is RUDE!

Finally, we have posted the handout that was available at tonight's meeting so that anyone who was unable to attend would be able to read it. One thing though, there ARE NO dollar amounts listed for each of the bonds so we have no idea if the new bond resolutions will be for the same amount as before or a different amount. I guess we will have to wait until next Town Board Meeting on January 17, 2007 to find out--that is when they are going to vote on new bond resolutions. Wouldn't it be nice to see a hand-out from the Town Board where everything makes sense. Right now we have no idea if they are once again changing the rules of the game--are the bond amounts going to be the same or different? These gentlemen keep reminding us that they are "businessmen", yet if they ran the business-side of their life like they run the town--they would be unemployed by now!

Leads me to a slightly edited version of a quote I have seen several times--The New Hartford Town Board has met their enemy--it is themselves!

"Words for the Day"

Open Space Planning?

New Hartford Central School?

Purchase of 87.5 acres Tibbitts Road?

Town of New Hartford?

$5.5+ million bond resolutions?

"Partnering with the New Hartford Central School District"?

Town of New Hartford Comprehensive Plan?

Hartgen?

Your tax dollars at work?

That's strange!

Received another letter from a concerned resident. It seems that a couple of weeks ago, someone was "poking" around the 87.5 acres of land that the school wants to buy on Tibbitts Road.

Our letter writer went outside to where the "visitors" were and asked what they were doing. They replied, "The Town of New Hartford has retained us to do some work for them." "No", the resident said, "You must mean the school, the New Hartford Central School wants to purchase this property". Again the visitor said, "No, we were definitely retained by the Town of New Hartford".

Hmm, that's strange. Why would the Town of New Hartford retain a company called Hartgen to "poke" around privately owned land that the school is "wanting" to buy?

It is particularly strange given Mr. Gilligan's comment in today's Observer Dispatch that the proposal to purchase the land should be removed from the $26.2 million school project before the plan is put up for a vote again.

Rumors are flying as to what the town is planning, but one thing is for sure---the visitor from Hartgen did state that they were retained by the Town of New Hartford and NOT the New Hartford Central School District.

Say What??!!

Just had to comment on the story in today's Observer Dispatch:

"Mr. Sosen supposedly said he will probably vote in favor of the resolutions, but he is worried he does not have enough information on the $4.6 million bond resolutions to make a wise decision."
So I guess he is opting to make an unwise decision???

Board member J.C. Waszkiewicz says "there seems to be some confusion regarding the propositions."
Really, maybe that's because the town board seems to have some "holes" in their stories!

J.C. Waszkiewicz further says "I am hopeful the propositions pass on their merit..I am hoping for the town's sake."
Is there something we don't know, J.C.? Like the town board overspent the budget in 2006 and this is an effort to not raise the tax rate this year because the town board didn't want to rain on Mr. Gilligan's parade?

"Town Board member David Reynolds said that at the time of the purchase offer, the board did not anticipate residents would challenge the resolutions adopted by the board."
Where were you Mr. Reynolds, the Town Clerk stated at the October 18, 2006 meeting that the board needed to budget for an additional $2,000 because it was very likely that enough signatures would be collected. And for the record, we turned in the signatures on November 3, 2006 almost two weeks before the town attorney was authorized to tender the purchase agreement.

Mr. Reynolds again is quoted as saying "This is the first time ever it has been challenged. This voter referendum...this is unusual."
Mr. Reynolds, can you say "Library Referendum"?

"....real estate appraisers, who put the value at $950,000. The seller made a counter offer for $998,000 and it was settled at that" according to Mr. Reynolds.
Gee, do you think the fact that it was publicized in October that you were willing to bond for $1 million for the purchase of the building it might have had some impact on the counter offer made by the seller? Were you serving the best interests of the residents...er..taxpayers when you put the cart before the horse?

According to the owner, Jacob Schuurman, "he is satisfied with the offer".
Well, duh, you have only been paying taxes on the assessed value of $563,000. I can't say I can blame you for settling for a $998,000 sale price.

"Town Supervisor Earle Reed said the board was getting quotes as high as $5 million for a building to house new court facilities."
I thought the building is being purchased to house the police, planning, codes, engineering and assessor. Are we back to the court facility again as was identified in the original bond resolution unanimously approved on October 4, 2006? When does the town board plan on telling us the real story as to what they plan to house at 1 Oxford Crossing?

"Reynolds said the board could have lost out on the offer for 1 Oxford Building, so the purchase offer was made ahead of the vote. Green said the price could have gone up too."
Well, Mr. Reynolds according to Mr. Schuurman, the seller, he has no other buyers interested in the building as of now. And Town Attorney Mr. Green, how much more could the cost have gone up on a piece of property that is appraised for $950,000 particularly since the town already owns the land that the parking lot is on. By the way just what are the terms of the land lease or easement between the town and the owner for that piece of land that the parking lot is on, Mr. Green?


The owner of 1 Oxford Crossing supposedly has a lifetime easement for the town-owned land. So in essence, the owner has tax-free land for his business! We checked and the town-owned land is not included in the assessed value of the property. This easement was slipped through during the Kazanjian years and is a stark reminder of what happens when residents do not get involved in how their town board is doing business! If this bond is approved we will actually be buying back our own land. The driveway used by all three buildings and the parking lot of 1 Oxford Crossing is on tax-free town-owned land and I'm not sure that any of the buildings would be worth $950,000 without land for an entrance or a parking lot.

I do want to make note of the fact that the current owner was not the owner of the property at the time the lifetime easement was granted!

"But board member Waszkiewicz said it is prudent business procedures to discuss the business aspects of a contract in executive sessions" when asked why the Board discussed the purchase offer during executive session on November 15, 2006.
Yes, Mr. Waszkiewicz, but it is also prudent business procedures and the LAW to state the purpose of the executive session. That way residents would be aware of what is being discussed just in case they wished to stay around to hear the results of the executive session when the regular portion of the town board meeting is reconvened. The town board stated that they were going into executive session to discuss Highway Dept. union negotiations, not the purchase offer for 1 Oxford Crossing or for that matter the Preswick Glen discussion that took place on November 15. But then the board must have been in a quandary, because when they were questioned at a town board meeting in October, they stated that they already had a signed purchase offer--guess they really didn't have one at that point--huh?

"The taxes will go up for a few years and then....

they will drop" says Reed in today's Observer Dispatch.

So, Mr. Reed, are you telling us that this is the last time you will have a need to bond for almost $1,000,000 for new town trucks. These will last us for the life of the bond or at least until the bulk of the bond is paid for so that taxes will remain level? Funny, cause in the past we have seemed to be replacing town vehicles on a yearly basis.

And this is the last time you will be bonding for new lighting because none of the other building in town "need energy efficient" lighting? This bond only takes care of two buildings.

And this is the last time you will be bonding for a new building for town offices, because I heard that you also have plans to buy 2 Oxford Crossing.

And this is the last time that you will need to bond $45,000 for improvements at the highway garage? What if those member items and grants that you are counting on according to your slide presentation don't materialize?

And your sidewalk program will cease with the addition of the 1 mile of sidewalks that the $150,000 bond will pay for?

And by the way Mr. Reed, have you put aside any money for the revaluation that so desperately needs to be done in the Town of New Hartford? Don't you think it is rather unfair that some people are getting a "free ride" because so many mistakes were made during the last revaluation? Mistakes were made, isn't that right, Mr. Reed?

And by the way, when is the last time anyone has seen a drop in their taxes?

Update on our "From the Mail Bag..." (see story below)

We have attended every town board meeting for about the last 3 or 4 years. After we received the information from the resident who submitted a Freedom of Information request for a list of motor vehicles owned by the town, we seemed to recall a situation where a town truck was involved in an accident and there was no insurance card in the vehicle (the truck wasn't covered by insurance). The incident resulted in a resolution that the Town Clerk's office would be responsible for keeping an inventory of all vehicles owned by the Town of New Hartford.

We decided to use our searchable town minutes program to find out. Sure enough, Resolution #162 of 2004 addresses that particular situation and pretty much states that there should be an up-to-date inventory listing all town vehicles. We have an excerpt from the Board meeting minutes of May 5, 2004 so that you can view the resolution that was passed.

So why then does it take almost a month for the resident to get a copy of the inventory or at least be given the opportunity to view the inventory in the Town Clerk's office?

From the Mail Bag...

We just received a letter from a concerned town resident that I thought I would share with everyone.

Seems that on January 4, 2007, this resident sent in a Freedom of Information request to obtain information on vehicles owned by the Town of New Hartford. The letter reply from the Town Clerk's office (by the way, the resident supplied us a copy of the letter from the Town Clerk so we can vouch for the validity of his request and the reply he received) stated that the information will be provided not later than February 1, 2007.

How convenient! Not until after the bond resolution vote on January 16, 2007---could it be that they don't want anyone to know the ages of the equipment they are replacing with the bond resolutions or how many motor vehicles the town actually owns? Or is it just that the Town of New Hartford doesn't keep an inventory of vehicles owned by the town?

I would have guessed that the insurance company used by the town would require us to keep an inventory of vehicles so they know what they are insuring, but maybe not! If the town doesn't keep an updated inventory----shame on them!

If the town does keep an updated inventory for insurance and registration purposes, it should be a matter of making copies or at the very least offering to have the resident come in to the Town Clerk's office to view the information. So why will it take up to one (1) month for the resident to receive the requested document?

After the Public & Press Were Excused....

The present town board seems to like to save some of the public discussion until after the executive session of Town Board Meetings. We would assume it is so that no one is present to ask questions. So, we decided to start a new page on our website, After the Public & Press Were Excused.

We started with the November 15, 2006 Board Meeting Minutes. Items discussed after the public & press were excused include Preswick Glen, possible purchase offer of $998,000 for 1 Oxford Crossing, and Highway Dept. Stipend Pay. They discussed these 3 topics and passed a resolution in 1 minute according to the times entered in the approved board minutes! Read all about it on our website.

As a reminder, we have board minutes since 2002 available on our website and they are completely searchable!

Word of the day - de·tractor n.

Noun 1. detractor - one who disparages or belittles the worth of something.

According to today's Observer Dispatch, Mr. Reed is quoted as saying "We will never be able to satisfy the detractors".

We believe that what Mr. Reed really meant is that some town residents are "sick and tired" of the baloney. They are tired of being "squeezed out" of town government. They are tired of the arrogance displayed by the current town board. They are tired of being told that what is "wanted" by a few is best for the "whole". We believe that what Mr. Reed really meant is that he does not care about the wishes of the majority unless of course it corresponds with his own opinion. However, we prefer to call ourselves taxpayers!

Mr. Reed, here is another word of the day. DEMOCRACY - rule by the people. When the town board puts forth a $5 million spending plan and yet there are so many holes in the plan that it looks like swiss cheese, and you start throwing out words to try to discount the feelings of the taxpayers in New Hartford, it might be time for you to look at your reasons for wanting to be Town Supervisor. Shall I post some of the materials that you mailed to our homes during your campaign?

Bond Resolution No. 5 - Purchase & Renovation of 1 Oxford Crossing

The last of the eight (8) Bond Resolutions that will be put to a vote in the Town of New Hartford on Tuesdsay, January 16, 2007 is now on our website.

There have been four different "official" documents for this bond resolution--a bond resolution that was unanimously approved in Oct. 2006, a slide presentation at the Nov. 2006 budget hearing, a legal notice in the paper on Dec. 30, 2006 and the information on the "official" town website. Three (3) of the documents have different uses for the building. The only thing that has remained the same is the fact that they are looking for $1,000,000 for the purchase of the building that is currently assessed for $563,000 and they also want $500,000 for renovations. I still can't figure out how they came up with a dollar amount for the renovations when they don't seem to have a handle on just what it is they plan to do yet!

I hope you will take the time to read the facts that we have been able to gather for each of the eight (8) bond resolutions. Please remember to vote on January 16, 2007. Several people worked very hard to obtain the needed signatures to force this spending to a vote and to gather information so that you can make an informed decision.

Bond Resolution No. 8 - Sidewalks

I just put information on my website for Bond Resolution No. 8 - $150,000 for construction and reconstruction of sidewalks in and throughout the Town and the bond maturity is 14 years (14 years for $150,000--huh?).

Supposedly, the Town Board has formed a Resident Sidewalk Committee (see the slide below from the Nov. 1, 2006 budget hearing) to make recommendations as to the location of the sidewalks:

The members of the "Resident Sidewalk Committee" are:

Roger Cleveland - Highway Superintendent
Raymond Philo - Chief of Police
Kurt Schwenzfeier - Town Planner
Mike Jeffery - Parks Dept. Director
Hans Arnold - Planning Committee Chair
Peter Rayhill (Philip A. Rayhill Memorial Trail)
John D'Amore - Member of the Parks Dept. Committee
J.C. Waszkiewicz III - Ward 2 Councilman

This is supposedly a Resident Sidewalk Committee--you sure could have fooled me!

Before you vote for this one, you might want to review the Sidewalk Law that is currently on the books for the Town of New Hartford. We have included the law in its entirety in the write-up of Bond Resolution No. 8 available on our website.

Only have Bond Resolution No. 5 - Purchase of 1 Oxford Crossing left to write. It will be on our website by Friday, January 5th!

You say potato......

According to the "official" town website, Bond resolutions No. 1 & 2 are, and I quote,

"Proposition #1: Purchase of 2 Snow Plow and Sander Trucks
Proposition #2: Purchase of 2 Multi-Use Vehicles (used for green waste, trash & leaf pick-up)"

However, what they don't say is that these items have already been purchased. Proposition #1 was purchased in October 2005 and Proposition #2 was purchased in May 2006. Both were purchased using a Bond Anticipation Note that is currently payable within 5 years.

You ARE NOT VOTING on the purchase of this equipment--you are voting to extend the time the bonds need to be paid off. What they really want to do is change the time for paying back the two Bond Anticipation Notes totalling $416,379 that currently have a 5 year maturity and extend them to a 15 year maturity.

Why don't they just say what they mean?

Bond Maturities as of November 1, 2006

We were able to get some information (however, not from the Town Board) regarding the original maturities of each of the bonds. We don't know if they have since modified these maturities dates, but here is what was planned until they were forced to put the bond resolutions up for a vote.

Look at the dollar amounts and the length of time they want to carry the bonds---$45,000 for highway garage improvements for 21 years and $92,000 for lighting for 14 years when the lights will supposedly pay for themselves in 3 years! Look at some of the others. What are they thinking? Residents will be on the hook for at least the next 14 years and up to 24 years. What will they want to do for future highway equipment and more sidewalks, etc.-- more bonding or raise taxes? And since $2 million is only to fix 1/2 the stormwater problems, how soon before they want more in the form of another bond or will the other half of the problems be fixed 25 years from now?

The town board (or should I say Councilman Payne) just put up new information on the "official" town website that once again is a different story and is misleading. When will they get it together and give residents a concrete plan--this should not be a difficult task!

If you haven't already visited our website, we have been putting up information on each of the bond resolutions so that you have an idea of what you are being asked to support with your tax dollars. We still have two more bond resolutions to go (sidewalks & purchase of 1 Oxford Crossing) and they will be on our website in the next day or two. We have been searching board minutes and talking to people including the financial advisor being used by the town and previous board members. You have the right to know what you are voting for and the Town Board should be ashamed of themselves for the lack of "real" information.

Bond Resolution No. 7

Bond Resolution No. 7 for $92,000 to pay the cost of the purchase and installation of lighting improvements is now on our website.

That leaves two (2) more bond resolutions to discuss--Proposition No. 5 for the purchase at 1 Oxford Crossing and Proposition No. 8 for Sidewalks in and throughout the town. We will have them on our website by mid-week.

Hoping everyone has a Happy & Healthy New Year!