Assessments Online Updated...

and now our program includes ALL properties in the Town of New Hartford as of the July 1, 2006 Final Roll.

Previously, we only included residential properties, but now you can search on commercial, vacant land, townhouses, condos, agricultural as well as residential. History on each parcel is available from 2001 to Final Roll 2006. You will also find exemptions, sales and special districts for each parcel.

We will be submitting a Freedom of Information request to obtain a copy of the tentative roll for 2007 dated May 1, 2007 and make it available to you as soon as possible.

To access the assessment information, please visit our Assessment Information Program.

Please let us know if you have any questions or suggestions.

New Hartford Central School Budget Vote

Ed Wiatr and Peter Bianco, two members of Concerned Citizens for Honest & Open Government, are running for the school board seats currently held by Lorey Zaman and Peggy Ksiadz. They would appreciate your vote.

Tuesday, May 1 there will be a public hearing on the school budget at 7:00 p.m. at the Oxford Road Auditorium. We hope that you will plan to attend.

Absentee ballots are available for the May 15th vote. Forms to request absentee ballots should be requested by mail from the District Clerk, Mrs. Aurelia R. Greico, c/o District Office, 33 Oxford Road, New Hartford, NY 13413. Completed applications for absentee ballots must be received by the District Clerk at least seven days before the election if the ballot is to be mailed to the voter or the day before the election if the ballot is to be picked up by the voter.

You must be registered to vote in school elections. There is no need to register this year if you have previously voted in the New Hartford school elections. If you are not registered to vote in either Oneida or Herkimer County, and you reside in the New Hartford School District, the dates to register are:

Tuesday, May 1
4:00 - 7:30 p.m. Bradley Elementary School Lobby

Saturday, May 5
9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Senior High School Lobby

Wednesday, May 9
4:00 - 7:30 p.m. Senior High School Lobby

Proof of residency is required to register--a driver's license is acceptable.

The telephone number for the District Clerk's office is 624-1296 if you need more information.

The budget vote is on May 15, 2007 from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. in the New Hartford High School Gymnasium.

Oneida County Soil & Water, DEC & $66 million

Strikeslip over at Faultlines has written some thought provoking columns regarding the D.E.C. Consent Order.

Bass Ackwards and Beefless in New Hartford

Paying for Poop: Oneida County's Dereliction of Duty

Concerned Citizens for Honest & Open Government has been busy submitting Freedom of Information requests. So far, two documents have been received and more are on the way.

The first is a letter to the New Hartford Planning Board from the Oneida County Soil & Water outlining their comments on the proposed retail development at the Twin Orchards and was written in March 17, 2006. From reading this document, it would appear that a) there were many typos in filling out the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) or b) the SWPPP was deliberately put together so as to be misleading.

The second letter is dated March 15, 2007 and was sent to Mr. Joseph Girardi, site operator for the Lowes site. It is regarding the Oneida County Soil & Water review of the Environmental Assessment Report to the retail development at Twin Orchards. The last paragraph kind of says it all. Remember, this document was written about a month ago.

"Overall Rating
In concurrence with Rich Coriale of the DEC, an Unsatisfactory rating has been assigned for the New Hartford Retail Development Site (Lowes)."

As more of our FOILed documents are received we will be posting them on our blog.

Oops... Update on Previous Post

UPDATE: You might have missed it, but a brief explanation about the school board meeting mix up appeared for a short time on the Observer Dispatch website this morning:

"A meeting notice for the Tuesday, April 17, New Hartford Central School Board of Education meeting contained the incorrect location on Page 4B Sunday and Monday. The meeting was at Ralph Perry Junior High School."

Well, that begs a couple of questions:

What version of the Observer Dispatch do the other candidates for the school board read? Obviously, there must be a version with the correct information because the other candidates for the school board didn't seem to have a problem finding the right location or could it be that they were they sent a "special" invitation?

Why did someone tell the janitor at the Robert L. Bradley Elementary School to get the Library ready for the School Board meeting if it was really scheduled in advance to be held at the Perry Junior High School? Must be the person that gave the instructions to the janitor read the wrong version of the Observer Dispatch too.

Read my previous blog for more on this subject.

Oops! Did we forget to let you know...

Looks like there must have been a last minute change in the location of tonight's New Hartford Central School Board meeting.

You would think that since the school board members intended to discuss the candidates for the upcoming school board vacancies tonight, they would make sure to let everyone know where the meeting would be held--at least you would think they would have the courtesy to let all the prospective candidates know.

Today's Observer Dispatch said it was to be in the usual place, at the usual time--The Library at the Robert L. Bradley Elementary School on Oxford Road--7 p.m. But at 7 p.m. no one was there and even the janitor at the elementary school said he was told to prepare the Library for the school board meeting so he was surprised when no one showed up.

Oddly enough, the reporter for the Observer Dispatch and a photographer knew about the change in plans as did other people who appeared to be candidates for the school board. However, I guess the school forgot to let two of the candidates in on the "new" location for the school board meeting. Signed petitions to be considered as a candidate for the school board were due to be turned in on Monday, April 16, 2007, so the school clearly knew who the candidates were--must have been an oversight that not everyone was notified.

Changing the school board meeting place at the last minute and not letting all the school board candidates know would almost rival the anonymous memo this blogger received that was sent to All Faculty & Staff from Mr. Gilligan regarding the town bond vote. That memo just looks suspect, especially since Mr. Gilligan doesn't even live in the Town of New Hartford. Why would he care about the town bond vote?

I wonder what can this blogger can expect to receive in an anonymous email in mid-May? A memo from Supervisor Reed telling all town employees, their families and friends to be sure to exercise their right to vote for the school budget and the two candidates that are best qualified--wink! wink!

Of course, this is all speculation. No one can really know for sure why there was a change in plans or why not everyone was notified, but all is well that ends well!

By the way, who were the two candidates who were left out of the loop? Ed Wiatr & Peter Bianco--members of Concerned Citizens for Honest & Open Government--that couldn't have anything to do with the mix-up, could it? Nah..that would be ridiculous!

I will blog more about these two school board candidates in the coming weeks.

Email Group...

Concerned Citizens for Honest & Open Government now has an Email Group to keep residents updated as to happenings in the Town of New Hartford.

To sign up for our Email Group, please use the link below.

Sign Up for our Email Group

IMPORTANT !! This is an "opt-in" list, therefore, shortly after you enter your email address and click "Subscribe to the selected email groups", you will receive a confirmation email.

To be added to our email list, when you receive the confirmation email, you must respond by clicking on the link provided in the confirmation email. You will then receive a Welcome letter and your email address is added to our list. Your email address will not be added to the email list until you reply to the confirmation email.

We also included a place for you to indicate if you want to actively help us in any way. Filling in this part is optional; however, if you do, we will contact you via email.

Initially, our intent is to send out town board agendas, let you know when town board minutes are available, share information that we have obtained through Freedom of Information requests, and report on topics of interest in an effort to keep Town of New Hartford residents informed.

We welcome your suggestions for topics you may want discussed or any enhancements that you feel would benefit our group. We are also here to help in any way--if you need a problem resolved or an issue addressed or if you need help in signing up for the Email Group, please Email us!

One thing changed today...

residents of the Town of New Hartford finally got to view a public recount, which is exactly how it should have been in the first place. For the town board to have assumed that the Town Clerk's "Epiphany" over the weekend would have gone unchallenged is ludicrous.

The stormwater bond did pass with this recount; however, the whole process should leave questions in the mind of everyone. Does this confusion occur with every election and was it brought to light only because we challenged the town board? The inspectors used for this "special" bond vote were the same ones the Town has used in previous elections so how could they have not known the "drill"? Why is the town clerk not using a computer spreadsheet to do the computations instead of relying on hand calculations?

To be fair, mistakes can and do happen, but the town board needs to learn how to communicate with town residents. It took over 2 weeks for the town board to admit to errors and hold a public recount and then only because we spoke up. Moreover, the whole thing could have been avoided if the town clerk had allowed us to view the voting records in her office as she first told us we could. What does that say for our elected officials? It would have been interesting to see if there would have been an "epiphany" if the stormwater bond vote passed by 6 votes on March 29th.

The most disturbing part of this recount is that Councilman David Reynolds, Ward 3, Village of New Hartford, spent most of the time before and during the recount making faces, sneering and making rude comments to a town committee person regarding the ridiculousness of the public recount. The committee person he was speaking to also had the unmitigated gull to suggest to a member of our group that 15% of the signatures we collected for the permissive referendum were bogus. According to this person, the signatures should have been thrown out and we should apologize to the town board. By the way, this person is on the Police Commission so maybe it was a case of "sour grapes". Or maybe it is a matter of getting some "new blood" into town government.

On behalf of the Concerned Citizens for Honest & Open Government, I confronted Councilman Reynolds with his "attitude" problem and suggested that since he is attending as a representative of the town, it might be best if he considers how his facial expressions and snide remarks might be perceived. His reply was that he disagreed with me. Unfortunately, I have to say that his reply is exactly what I would have expected because snide remarks and facial contortions seem to be a "trademark" of the new members of our Town Board. How sad!

On behalf of the Concerned Citizens for Honest & Open Government, I want New Hartford residents to know that we are not going away. We will be watching very closely and blogging to let residents know what is going on. By the way, we are almost ready to launch our email sign-up so that you can receive email updates to happenings in the Town of New Hartford. The email list program should be available by this Sunday. Please stop by and sign up.

Mistakes were made...

according to one New Hartford councilman.

Here's what wasn't reported in the April 11, 2007 Observer Dispatch. The first mistake that was made was the the Town Clerk should not have been the one to open the absentee ballots. The absentee ballots were to have been accepted in the Town Clerk's office until 5 p.m. the day of the election at which time the Town Clerk was to have delivered them to the election inspectors. After the polls closed at 8 p.m. the election inspectors were supposed to open, valid and count the absentee ballots. All counts were to be tabulated and checked prior to the election inspectors leaving for the evening. However, that did not happen in New Hartford. The Town Clerk held on to the ballots until the next morning and opened them in the presence of a few people. Then she had an epiphany over the weekend and held a private recount.

Town Law Article 6 TOWN ELECTIONS specifically states:

8. No absentee voter`s ballot shall be canvassed, unless it shall
have been received in the office of the town clerk not later than five
P.M. on the day of the election.
9. The town clerk shall, on the day of the election, transmit all absentee voters envelopes, received by him in accordance with subdivision eight of this section, to the inspectors of election.
10. If, at the election, any absentee voters` envelopes shall have been received at the polling place, the inspectors of election immediately after the closing of the polls shall examine them, and shall compare the signature, if any, on each envelope with the signature, if any, on the register, of the person of the same name who registered from the same address. If the signatures are found to correspond, the
inspectors shall certify thereto by signing their initials opposite the name of the voter at the appropriate place in the register. If a person whose name is on an envelope as a voter, shall have already voted in person at such special town election, or if his name, residence and signature, as stated on the envelope, are not on the register, or if there is no signature on the envelope, this envelope shall be laid aside unopened and be returned unopened to the town clerk. If such person is found to be registered and has not so voted in person, and if no objection is made, or if an objection made be not sustained, the envelope shall be opened and the ballot withdrawn without unfolding and deposited in the proper box or boxes. At the time of the deposit of such ballot, the inspectors shall enter the words "absentee vote" at an appropriate place in the register.

You can read the Town Election Law in its entirety by clicking on the link above.

So now they say "mea culpa", we will do it right this time! In the meantime, residents have 20 days from Monday, April 9, 2007 to decide whether to take legal action. The date for the public recount is supposed to be discussed at tonight's town board meeting.

At this point, the Town Board has not only conducted a vote that does not follow Town Law, but now they are cutting into the time we are legally allowed to seek court relief by denying us the right to look over the information we need in order to file an Article 78.

If Town Law was not followed, at the very least the legal notice in the paper should be rescinded to give residents the full 20 days to decide whether or not to go forward.

It has taken the town board 2 weeks to openly admit that mistakes were made. Given the circumstances surrounding this vote and the subsequent "secret" recount(s), it will be very difficult to accept the validity of any further recounts.

For more on this topic, visit Fault Lines.

Another recount?

So did the stormwater prop. pass or not?What is the status of this whole sorry mess? said Anonymous on our last post.

Let me tell you the story as we know it today...

Last Thursday, April 5, 2007, we were told that members of our group, Concerned Citizens for Honest & Open Government, could meet at the Town Clerk's office today, April 10, 2007 to review the voting records & certifications for the March 29, 2007 bond vote. The Town Clerk only asked that we call first thing in the morning to confirm that someone could assist us--the Town Clerk is out of town so we were to speak to the Deputy Clerk.

We called about 8:15 a.m. this morning and spoke to the Deputy Clerk. She gave her o.k. for us to meet at the Town Clerk office at 1:30 this afternoon.

Within a couple of minutes we get a call back from the Deputy Clerk saying that she spoke to the Town Clerk and the Town Clerk plans on having another recount in a day or two and everyone who is interested may attend. Therefore, we are not allowed to look over the records today. So how many recounts does that make? Three, four...I've lost count of the recounts!

Interestingly, the Wednesday, April 11, 2007 town board agenda has "Results of Special Election" under the Town Clerk's agenda items.

It would appear that there is much confusion in the Town of New Hartford. Perhaps it is because the story is being made up as they go along. Residents should be outraged!

Building Plans--What Plans?

We received an email from the Town Clerk on Thursday, April 5, 2007--one week after the vote for the $1,500,000 bond resolution to purchase 1 Oxford Crossing for $1,000,000 and $500,000 for renovations. The email was in response to our Freedom of Information Request dated March 4, 2007. Over one(1) month after we filed for the information and one (1) week AFTER the vote we receive the answers.

Here they are--the Town Clerk's answers are in blue print:

I would like to FOIL:

1. any plans, drawings, etc. showing the details of how the building at 1 Oxford Crossing will be configured if the Town of New Hartford purchases the building..
#1 - doesn't exist

2. the name of the person(s) (contractor or architect, etc.) who gave the $500,000 renovation estimate to the town and the date of the estimate.
#2 - I don't have this information; contacted various officials again

3. Copy of the written estimate, if available, giving a breakdown of the costs associated with each part of the $500,000 renovation estimate. Otherwise, some kind of breakdown for the $500,000 renovation costs.
#3 - same as #2

4. The latest purchase offer signed by both the town and Mr. Schuurman. I already have the December purchase offer. According to Attorney Green because of the delay of the bond vote, a new purchase offer would need to be signed. That is the copy I want--it should be dated after January 17, 2007.
#4 - a new one doesn't exist as far as I know

5. The status of any leases currently in effect for offices at 1 Oxford Crossing including the date the leases expire and whether or not all current renters are willing to vacate the property upon purchase by the town.
#5 - not town records; please contact owner of property

Town board members were asking taxpayers in the Town of New Hartford to agree to bond for $1,500,000 to purchase a building and yet none of this information is available for public inspection, no plans, no cost estimates--nothing. This is indicative of a town board that thinks they have "absolute power" to do anything without giving town residents any information.

And in regards to Question #4, the town attorney stated at the January 17, 2007 town board meeting that a new purchase offer would need to be signed because the first vote in January was cancelled. So does a new purchase offer exist or not? Just because the town clerk doesn't know does not make it so! Why didn't the town attorney respond to that question?

Here is a copy of the email we received from the town clerk in response to our Freedom Of Information request just in case you think we are kidding.

Twilight Zone - Part 2

This is just what we needed---a little comic relief. Thank you CNY Snakepit! Mysterious Machinations Mystify Many In New Hartford.

You Are Entering the Twilight Zone...

It is now one week after the vote for the 8 bonds resolutions in the Town of New Hartford totaling $4.6+ million. Two recounts have taken place with no witness, other than the person who couldn't wait to taunt us on the Story Chat forum. This person seemed to know about the recount about 4:30 p.m. the day before the story appeared in the Observer Dispatch.

At this point, the Town Clerk's office doesn't return phone calls, the voting documentation cannot be viewed, the town attorney is on vacation and questions do not seem to be answered. What happened?

Let's back up a little. Anonymous over at Strikeslip's blog commented "I wonder what REALLY went on. I don't think there was any wrong doing because if so, why wouldn't they have passed the much sought after Oxford Crossing proposition?"

I have heard that comment repeated many times over the past week. Of course, no one can say for sure; we can only speculate. But let me give everyone some insight as to how bonding works.

First of all, you can only bond for items with a useful life, in other words, you cannot bond for operating shortfalls, payroll, benefits, etc. Secondly, you must spend the money on whatever the bond states it is for. You can't bond to purchase a building and then purchase a truck with the money---you must purchase the building. Any monies earned by the bond while it sits in Reserve prior to the money being spent must be rolled back into the same bond reserve account.

So let's look at each of the bonds:

1. Two snowplows and sander trucks - $243,174 - already purchased. The town needs the money to pay off the Bond Anticipation Note that was used to purchase the trucks in October 2005. Has a specific purpose; must be used for that purpose.

2. Two Multi-Use Vehicles - $173,205 - already purchased. Again the town needs the money to pay off the Bond Anticipation Note that was used to purchase the trucks in October 2005. Has a specific purpose; must be used for that purpose.

3. Highway Building Update - Could sit in Reserve for a couple of years and earn interest, but the interest would be rolled back into the bond monies. Has a specific purpose; must be used for the Highway Building.

4. Storm Water Control - $2 million - no specific purpose except for storm water control and that can cover a lot of things. I will get back to this one.

5. Public Safety Building - 1 Oxford Crossing - $1 million to purchase the building and $500,000 for renovations. Again has a very specific purpose. I'll be writing more about this in a day or two.

6. Maintenance Equipment - very specific purpose. And given that the Bobcat (pay loader) and the Gradall (Badger) that we used to have (both 1995, by the way) have already been sold or declared salvage, it would appear that this bond has a very specific purpose. Roger Cleveland said at the March 14, 2007 town board meeting that he "needs them". Not sure why we sold the ones we had until we purchased new, but that is another story.

7. Energy Efficient Lighting - $92,000 Once again very specific purpose.

8. Sidewalks & Trailways - $150,000 Very specific purpose.

Hmm! Looks like all but Bond #4 - Stormwater has a very specific purpose. So if at year-end (2006) you had to transfer almost $550,000 from some of your accounts (even some employee benefit accounts) to cover a deficit in other accounts, what bond would be the most important to get passed? One for a very specific purpose or one with some "wiggle room"?

Yep, bond #4 - Stormwater, because you would be surprised what items can be paid out of that money. Sort of reminds me of what happened with the last $2.4 million bond for stormwater and why the same problems still exist today. There is overtime, ditch cleaning, etc., etc., the money can be stretched to pay for all kinds of things. And don't forget the deal the town attorney worked out for his law firm whereby they will get $150 an hour for their work on the stormwater issues. However, the State Comptroller's office seems to disagree with the legality of such a deal.

If you use the bond money to pay for normal budgeted items, you free up money in the regular budget and hopefully dig yourself out of a hole--maybe. Bond # 4 - Stormwater Management is what some might call a "slush fund". And what did Town Supervisor Reed say in the Standard & Poor's letter? He hopes to have $2 million in Reserves and he is only bonding for $3 million. That's not what he has been telling residents!

Of course, this is all conjecture, because as of today, April 6, 2007, we are unable to get a copy of the December 2006 Supervisor's Report that by Town Law is supposed to be available in the Town Clerk's office at the end of every month. But the $550,000 year-end transfers do seem to tell a story and they are part of the December 28, 2006 Town Board Minutes.

Until now, we have remained silent on the vote and subsequent recounts, but the town's apparent unwillingness to allow us to review the voting records & information that should be readily available to any resident is beginning to look suspicious. Unannounced recounts that are held behind closed doors lend even more credibility problems to the mix. Two members of our group were called and told we could witness the opening of the absentee ballots, so why weren't we called regarding the recount? One member of our group spent time in the town clerk's office waiting for the second recount to take place and then left asking to be called on his cell phone when the recount was to begin. No call ever was made to him.

On April 3, 2007, right after we read in the Observer Dispatch that a recount had taken place without giving anyone a chance to be present to witness the counting, we sent an email requesting the original certificates filed by the election inspectors. That same day, we received an email from the Town Clerk in answer to our request and I quote, "You may stop by the Town Clerk's Office 8 AM - 4 PM (I try to take lunch from 12:30 - 1:30 PM) any weekday. We're closing at 12 Noon Good Friday."

About 11:30 a.m. today, April 5, 2007, we decided to take the Town Clerk up on that offer and we were told that the Town Clerk's office would be unable to accommodate us until Tuesday or Wednesday next week, April 10 or 11, almost 2 weeks after the vote. Later this afternoon we received an email message from the Town Clerk in reply to a Freedom of Information request for "a copy of each voting inspector's certificate prepared at the conclusion of the bonding vote of 3/29/07". The email we received from the Town Clerk said, and I quote, "I expect to have these available the week of April 16".

Town of New Hartford residents, how do you feel about the vote that just took place--feeling confident that there was no irregularities?

And I haven't even got to the part where according to a legal opinion we obtained regarding town improvements. Town Law says that the town cannot charge the Villages for the stormwater bond unless a resolution is passed by each Village Board allowing for the charge. If you live in the Village of New Hartford or the Village of New York Mills/Town of New Hartford, you might want to see if your Mayor and Village Board are willing to vote in favor of a resolution allowing the town to charge you for the next 24 years for a bond where you will see no benefit. Heck, after reading Thursday, April 5, 2007 Observer Dispatch, it looks like the Village of New York Mills has their own problems to pay for, but we would be more than happy to have you help us pay for ours too.

You scratch my back...

Shortly after the March 13th school bond vote, I received an anonymous email telling me the school district did something that might raise eyebrows. The email said that school personnel looked over voting records of the December 12th vote to find out names of the faculty, staff and family members who did not vote the first time the school bond was put up for a vote and was defeated. Those individuals then were sent an email suggesting they might want to vote for the second school bond vote. Also, the head of the teacher's union was reminded to be sure to get the people who did not vote the first time out to vote this time and to remember that the teachers' contract negotiations were this year.

I didn't write anything on this blog regarding this anonymous email because I didn't have any proof and I didn't want to make unfounded allegations. Today I still cannot confirm the validity of this anonymous email, so I will let you decide for yourself if the allegations are true. However, a person who stated they were a teacher from New Hartford School recently wrote on the Observer Dispatch Story Chat and I quote, "As for the memo, I do not remember anything stating your contract is up for renewal." Well, I guess there was indeed a memo sent out for the second school bond vote.

We doubt that Mr. Gilligan would be so foolish as to put a threat in writing; however, our anonymous email told us that it was spoken to union representatives. You decide!

Then, out of the blue, another anonymous email is sent to me right after the March 29, 2007 Town special election and this time a memo is attached to the email. Please read!

Now just why would New Hartford Central School Superintendent Dan Gilligan, who doesn't even own property in New Hartford and probably doesn't even live in New Hartford, be sending out a memo on school letterhead to All Faculty & Staff regarding the Town of New Hartford Bond Vote on March 29, 2007?

The first thing that comes to mind is "Partnering with the New Hartford Central School District" that was splashed all over the Town of New Hartford website!

Think about it--this smells of impropriety and really makes one wonder if the first anonymous email I received was indeed accurate. I will let you be the judge.

Think about how many people are employed by the school and town, their families and friends. New Hartford residents better start waking up to the shenanigans of this "school and town partnership" or we will end up with little voice in any vote in town, whether a school budget or another special town bond vote or a town general election.

Forewarned is forearmed!!

Back by Popular Demand!

The Trash & Brush Collection Schedule for the Town of New Hartford has been updated for 2007 and is now available on our website or click on the link in the column at the right under Helpful Links for Town of New Hartford Residents.

Simply by entering the first 3 or 4 letters of your street name, you will be able to view a complete trash & brush schedule for your street. You can even print a copy out, if you choose.

Be sure to add the program to your Favorites to use throughout the coming months!