We don't hear you...

Well, Highway Superintendent Roger Cleveland was supposed to have visited the town clerk's office by yesterday to certify that the information we were to be given by the bookkeeper was the information that we FOILed. Our FOIL request was:

At tonight's meeting regarding the New Hartford Business Park, they said that $478,000 Fee in Lieu of Mitigation money would be used to offset the cost of the bond.

I would like to FOIL what project the Fees are from, who the developer was, how much money each project is contributing to the $478,000 total and what year the Fees In Lieu of Mitigation were collected. I suspect that Roger Cleveland would be able to provide this information.

We did not hear from the town clerk today, so either Superintendent Cleveland didn't have enough time to certify the information, the town clerk was out of the office for the day and didn't get to email us or perhaps the information is just not certifiable. Guess we will have to wait and see what tomorrow brings.

By the way, tonight is the town board meeting and we now have the agenda online. As you can see one of the items under New Business is New Hartford Business Park (Resolution). Guess they are going to pass a resolution even though it would appear that the information regarding where the $478,000 will come from is not available...or should we say that it appears to not be available to the general public.

Another day, another delay...

Yesterday, the town clerk and Concerned Citizens once again exchanged emails. The town clerk said that the bookkeeper was making copies of all Fees In Lieu of Mitigation that were targeted for land use. Apparently, the town wanted Concerned Citizens to look at the various accounts and make an "assumption" as to which ones the town will be using for the New Hartford Business Park.

The town clerk also invited us to send a copy of the slide that was presented at the New Hartford Business Park meeting on January 30, 2008. Apparently, the town still isn't sure what we are referring to. So we sent copy of the slide that was shown at the presentation.

Since we don't like to report based on "assumptions", we also asked for the town clerk to provide us with certification that the information we will be given is exactly what we asked for in our FOIL request. Anyone who submits a Freedom of Information Request to a government agency has the right to ask that the records are certified as being correct. That way there is no "misunderstanding" as to whether what you receive is indeed what you requested.

The town clerk has given Highway Superintendent Roger Cleveland until Tuesday, February 26, 2008 to come to her office and certify that the monies the bookkeeper has identified as "land use" Fees in Lieu of Mitigation total $478,000 and are the exact same monies that were referred to in the slide presented at the meeting and are the ones that will be used to make up the $478,000 needed for the New Hartford Business Park project "Assumptions" to work.

Doesn't it seem odd that they have publicly referred to a money source (i.e. $478,000, almost half a million) and yet they are unable or unwilling to let anyone know what accounts that money is coming from? What is the secret? Are they using FILM monies inappropriately or is the whole thing a ruse to make it appear like the "assumptions" used for this PILOT/TIF plan will work?

Remember, if any part of this New Hartford Business Park plan does not work or is misleading, YOU, the Town of New Hartford taxpayer will be making up the difference in the form of higher property taxes.

We will keep you posted as to what we receive...we also have a couple of "assumptions" of our own that have yet to be addressed. Stay tuned...

Robbing Peter to pay Paul...

Back on January 30, 2008, the town, school and county made a presentation regarding the planned New Hartford Business Park and the PILOT/TIF package that was put together so that "public improvements" could be paid for from the PILOT payments.

Part of that presentation was a slide that showed just where the money would come from. Part of the money, almost half a million, is supposedly going to come from Fees in Lieu of Mitigation. The number on their slide was $478,000 to be exact.

That's a mighty big number so Concerned Citizens thought that perhaps we should inquire as to just where those Fees In Lieu of Mitigation (FILM) were originally slated to be used (in other words, what developer actually paid those fees and for what project). So after returning home from the presentation on January 30, 2008, we FOILed the information. We thought since the dollar amount was right there in black and white, how difficult could it be to get the information from the town; Highway Superintendent Roger Cleveland spoke pretty convincingly at the presentation when questions were asked about the FILM monies.

However, since we sent our FOIL request, we have been trading emails with the town clerk. As you can see by reading the emails, it would appear that the town is pretending to be "clueless" as to what we are talking about.

Today, we get another email:

The Bookkeeper is making copies now. They will be available for review/purchase after 10 AM February 22, 2008.

Making copies...copies of what? We didn't ask for copies of ALL Fees in Lieu of Mitigation Accounts; we asked for information regarding the specific accounts that are being diverted to the New Hartford Business Park project. In other words, the information we receive should first of all total $478,000; the amount the town would like us to believe is already available and will not need to be added to the $2.9 million BAN.

Once again, so as not to jump to conclusions, we send off another email making it perfectly clear what we are looking for and offering to send a copy of the slide to the town clerk's office if that will help to clarify things.

Why is this important? Fees in Lieu of Mitigation are paid by developers to alleviate any potential problems as the result of their development such as traffic flow, stormwater, etc. If a developer has paid those fees, the money can't be used to mitigate problems caused by another developer; otherwise, there is no money available to address any problems that are caused by the developer that paid the fees. There are a few other points to be made regarding FILM money, but we will save that for another time.

At this point, we can only conclude that either:

1. The money that the town is planning to divert to the New Hartford Business Park project in order to make the "numbers work" is actually money that should not be used and the town wants to keep it hush, hush so the developers who gave the money don't find out.

2. There really are no Fees in Lieu of Mitigation monies that can legally be used and taxpayers will actually be making up the additional $478,000 in the form of taxes. In other words, it was only added to the equation to make it look more appetizing to the taxpayers.

3. We suspect that if the $478,000 is added to the BAN that will be used to finance "the project", in other words they actually BAN for the whole $3.4 million needed, the assumptions they used will not work.

This PILOT/TIF plan is based on a lot of assumptions; if any of the assumptions are incorrect or any of the anticipated monies are "fabricated", the cost of this project will directly affect all taxpayers. When town officials cannot or will not back up statements made in a public presentation and taxpayer dollars are involved, it is time to start asking some "serious" questions; getting honest answers to those questions is the right of every single resident in the Town of New Hartford and should be the expectation.

This town board has a track record for not being entirely truthful; hopefully, this time they will prove us wrong and the information will be forthcoming in answer to our FOIL request.

So just how much does an "audit" cost?

After Concerned Citizens received the audit and read the Independent Auditor's Report, we had that very same question so we FOILed the invoices and all correspondence between the town and Barone, Howard & Co., CPA, PC.

In answer to our FOIL, we received a letter from Barone, Howard (signed by John F. Howard, CPA) dated December 20, 2006 acknowledging that they had been contacted by the town and asked to give "an estimate of the cost to the Town for audit and accounting services for calendar year 2006". The letter goes on to state that their "proposed fee for those services is estimated to be between $7,500 and $8,500".

Next contact with Barone, Howard & Co. for the 2006 audit is on June 5, 2007. They send the town their Letter of Engagement. This will state exactly what Barone, Howard & Co. plan to do for the Town of New Hartford. As you will see, they fully intend to do an audit for the year ended December 31, 2006.

As you will recall, Concerned Citizens kept trying to get a copy of the financials throught the FOIL process, but as of June 2007, we were told they were not available. We asked in July, August and so on and as you can see by looking at the date of the Independent Auditor's Report, the financials were not finished until October 15, 2007...almost a year after the December 31, 2006 closing date.

Next we receive the invoice from Barone, Howard & Co. along with the purchase order and voucher. Look at the invoice...Annual Audit of Your Financial Statements $17,900 with a "courtesy discount" of $5,900 making the total paid to Barone, Howard & Co. of $12,000 for their audit...ten (10) months after the closing of the fiscal year. $17,900...over double what they initially quoted for the audit...so what was the problem.?

One other little minor thing...the Letter of Engagement from Barone & Howard that was dated June 5, 2007 was NOT signed by Town Supervisor Earle Reed until November 13, 2007...after the audit was prepared. We've had some people with an accounting background look at that letter...their review was that this letter would appear to be extremely ambiguous...almost like it was written after the fact...now why would that be?

Are you outraged yet? Well, hang on. We thought you might want to see what the Town of New Hartford has been paying Mr. Frank Basile for his help with the budget and other accounting duties as needed per his contract. If you remember, he was hired in September 2007. Since then he has billed the town for:

$4,844.50 for the month of September (of course that is AFTER a 15% "APPRECIATION Discount")

$8,687 for the month of October

$5,200 for the month of November

for a total of $18,731.50 for 3 months

Thank goodness for "courtesy discounts" and "appreciation discounts". And to think that according to Town Law, the Supervisor is the Chief Financial Officer of the town:

5. The term "chief fiscal officer" shall mean:
(c) In the case of towns, the town supervisor; if a town has more than one supervisor, the presiding supervisor.

Remember the brochure that Supervisor Reed sent to everyone's home when he was trying to get elected? We are now just over the mid-point of his term. How's he doing?

We received an email letting us know that actually the town received an "Adverse Opinion", rather than an Unqualified Opinion; therefore they were technically audited. What is an Adverse Opinion? According to Wikipedia:

Adverse Opinion report
An Adverse Opinion is issued when the auditor determines that the financial statements of an auditee are materially misstated and, when considered as a whole, do not conform with GAAP. It is considered the opposite of an unqualified or clean opinion, essentially stating that the information contained is materially incorrect, unreliable, and inaccurate in order to assess the auditee’s financial position and results of operations. Investors, lending institutions, and governments very rarely accept an auditee’s financial statements if the auditor issued an adverse opinion, and usually request the auditee to correct the financial statements and obtain another audit report.

The wording of the adverse report is similar to the qualified report. The scope paragraph is modified accordingly and an explanatory paragraph is added to explain the reason for the adverse opinion after the scope paragraph but before the opinion paragraph. However, the most significant change in the adverse report from the qualified report is in the opinion paragraph, where the auditor clearly states that the financial statements are not in accordance with GAAP, which means that they, as a whole, are unreliable, inaccurate, and do not present a fair view of the auditee’s position and operations.

Policy...Smolicy...Plus a 4:30 p.m. update!

Concerned Citizens obtained a copy of the Town of New Hartford Procurement Policy; we have already posted it in one of our earlier posts.

Shortly after we reported on the "emergency" vehicle purchases, we thought maybe we should re-read that policy, checking it a little more closely this time. Perhaps the Town of New Hartford Procurement Policy is unlike any other town...perhaps there is fine print at the end that says "We can do it anyway we want, and you can't stop us!"

At any rate, according to the Purchase Policies and Procedural Manual, Town of New Hartford that was last updated January 1, 2006...(hey, isn't that when Supervisor Reed came into power?)...we found "Emergency Purchases":

"A permanent file for each emergency will be maintained of all memos, correspondence, police reports (if required), resolutions and vouchers in the Accounting Department."

So on January 21, 2008, we FOILed the permanent file for each of the "emergencies". We also FOILed information as to the whereabouts of each of the two vehicles that the town board declared needing an "emergency" replacement. In our FOIL request, we also reminded the town clerk that we first requested information on the whereabouts of the van on October 30, 2007, but to date no response from that FOIL has been forthcoming.

Last Friday, February 15, 2008, we got a response back from the town clerk:

The Highway Superintendent and Bookkeeper said there are no records; except Resolution #168 that I gave to the Bookkeeper after it was adopted in 2006.

The Police Chief's response will be forthcoming in a couple days.

For the sake of clarity, Resolution 168 was passed June 7, 2006:

WHEREAS, during the first week of June 2006, it had been determined by Mechanics in the Highway Department that the 1997 Ford Econoline Van [VIN 1FTEE1425VHB74499] with 140,000 miles, used by the Buildings and Grounds Department, the Traffic and Safety Department, the Sewer Department and the Highway Department, would require a minimum of Fifteen Hundred Dollars ($1500) plus labor to repair the engine; and

WHEREAS, this is the only vehicle of this type for use with the Highway Department, and due to the repair costs and mileage, it had been determined that the 1997 Ford Van should not be repaired and that an emergency replacement was justified;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of New Hartford does hereby recognize and declare the aforementioned circumstances as an emergency situation and does further authorize and direct the payment of Twelve Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty-two Dollars and Twenty-four Cents ($12,982.24), Purchase Order No. 76794, to Steet-Ponte Ford for the required replacement vehicle, a 2006 Ford E150, CarGoVan, VIN 1FTRE14W16VA40974.

The Resolution was declared unanimously carried and duly ADOPTED.

By declaring the replacement of vehicles an emergency, the town board circumvents the bidding process; not against the law, unless of course, there really wasn't an emergency. By the way, anyone have a problem with the fact that both of these vehicles were declared "emergency purchases" and were obtained from Steet-Ponte Ford without a bid?

The fact that the town clerk now says there is absolutely no paperwork kept in a file as required by the town's own Procurement Policy is astounding! So we guess we are to believe that no one knows where the van is...we have asked twice now. Just for good measure, we sent an email to the Town Clerk today to make sure that our request for the whereabouts of the town van wasn't "overlooked". We certainly wouldn't want to read more into her email than was intended. We will report back if we receive any information to the contrary.

And how about the Chief's 1999 Ford Crown Victoria...over a month to get a response to our FOIL for the whereabouts of that vehicle? We are still waiting...

By the way according to the Procurement Manual, all documentation is supposed to be kept in the Accounting Department so if bookkeeper says she doesn't have anything, what are the chances the Police Department that discards routine documents will have anything on file for the 1999 Crown Victoria previously the Chief's car? And why would it be in the Police files when it is supposed to be in the Accounting Department files?

Another page from the Procurement Manual is regarding Fixed Assets and Inventory. It says:

A physical inventory will be done on or before June 30th of every other fiscal year. ..

A fixed asset perpetual ledger will be maintained in the Accounting Department...As purchase orders are processed, any item charge to a .02 account (equipment) is entered into a fixed asset ledger, maintained by the Accounting Department. Any additions or deletions are also noted...

You can read the rest of the policy on Fixed Assets here.

So then, if records were kept according to policy, how difficult would it be to give us the FOILed information?

Ah, but then, isn't this part of the problem with the annual audit? Recording of Fixed Assets...we will be reporting on this some more. Concerned Citizens thinks you should know how much the town has paid for an audit where the auditors state "we did not audit the information and express no opinion on it".

UPDATE: As we stated, we emailed the town clerk for clarification. Part of the response:

The Highway Superintendent said there is no surrender receipt as the plates were transferred to the 2006 replacement van and that the Town no longer has the 1997 Econoline van.

After searching the 2006 and 2007 Town Board minutes, I found no declaration of surplus vehicle for the 1997 van and have no record of how it was disposed.

That's interesting, they have no record of how the van was disposed, no record of what was wrong with it, no memo from the Highway Department to the Town Board...nothing... What else did the town own and now there is no record of disposing of it? Wonder if someone's name would come up if we run the VIN# 1FTEE1425VHB74499?

And you know what else is funny? According to the equipment list we received in March 2007 (see the date at the top of the pdf document), the same van with the same VIN number is noted as "Plates being turned in to DMV and in the process of being removed from town insurance". Now, Highway Superintendent Roger Cleveland says that the plates were actually transferred to the new vehicle in June of 2006 and never turned in. Notice something else? The VIN numbers from the town board minutes don't quite match the equipment list...that's another quinky dink we have found when comparing records on some vehicles in the Highway Dept. Something smells pretty fishy to us.

Concerned Citizens is wondering...just how many vehicles have to be missing from the Highway Department before someone steps in and puts an end to it?

Fighting Back...Appealing Your Property Tax Assessment

You've probably already heard about local resident Joe Pacini's NEW book, "Fighting Back...Appealing Your Property Tax Assessment",
from his interviews on the "Common Cents" radio & TV program.

For more information on Joe's complete how-to guide, click here!

If you haven't heard about Joe Pacini's new book, don't miss his latest "Common Cents" interview. It will be broadcast at the following times this week:

Sunday, February 17th on the radio:

9:00 a.m. - on 96.9 FM, 94.9 FM
and 102.5 FM

12:30 p.m. - on 13:50 AM and 13:10 AM

This week on TV Channel 99:

Tuesday, Feb. 19th 10:30 p.m.

Wed., Feb. 20th 5:00 p.m.

Thurs., Feb. 21st 1:00 p.m.

Fri., Feb. 22nd 1:00 p.m.

PILOT/TIF...it's what they aren't saying...

Concerned Citizens FOILed a copy of the school board resolution that was unanimously approved by all school board members at the February 5, 2008 board meeting agreeing to the PILOT-TIF plan for the New Hartford Business Park.

Several things "jumped out" at us as we read the school board resolution. First:

Mr. Robert Calli was the school board member that introduced the resolution. Considering that Mr. Calli is a member of the Oneida County Industrial Development Agency, wouldn't it have been smarter for someone else on the school board to introduce the resolution? Just saying...

Then the first WHEREAS in the resolution says:

WHEREAS, the Cameron Group LLC has proposed developing a 126.5 acre parcel of road and business park loacted in the Town of New Hartford and known as the New Hartford Business Park;...

126.5 acres? This blogger met with Mr. Gilligan in his office yesterday, February 14, 2008 and asked about the difference in acreage between Mr. Adler's application and the school board resolution. Memos from Kurt Schwenzfeier, Town Planner to the Planning Board, one in January 2006 and one in September 2006 also state that the proposed project by Larry Adler is on 115 acres...tax map number 328.000-3-7 and tax map number 316.000-2-41.1. Why the discrepancy? Mr. Gilligan was not sure...thought maybe it was because of the 17 acres donated to the school by Larry Adler. We do believe that 115 and 17 do not add up to 126.5. So...either the school board voted on something they don't even know about or Mr. Gilligan is just not at liberty to say what is really on the drawing board!

Probably if we look at one of the slides presented at "the meeting" at the High School on January 30, 2008, it might shed some light. PAR Technology actually owns about 15 acres of land within the PILOT-TIF designated area. Isn't that interesting! Could it be that PAR Technology will be the next company "threatening to leave" the area in hopes that a tax break will be sent their way or is PAR Technology just a good neighbor and "donating" that land to Larry Adler for the Business Park? Why else would they include the vacant land owned by PAR as part of the PILOT plan?

Then there's this part...WHEREAS number 5:

WHEREAS, the Town of New Hartford has approved the project and the agreement allocating PILOT payments.

Come to think of it we did see it on the February 13, 2008 town board agenda under NEW BUSINESS, but we specifically remember (and we do have it videotaped and audiotaped) Supervisor Reed said that there was no new business to discuss regarding the New Hartford Business Park. It makes one wonder why it was on the agenda in the first place. Members of Concerned Citizens stayed until the very end...we even waited out in the hall until after the executive session was over, but they never mentioned anymore about the New Hartford Business Park.

Incidentally, at the yesterday's meeting with Mr. Gilligan, Superintendent of the New Hartford Schools, he even made reference to the fact that the resolution was passed at the February 13, 2008 town board meeting. Interesting...

If you believe the resolution passed by the school board is correct, you would have to conclude that the town board already voted on the resolution or is this just what you might call "window dressing" for the school board resolution...in other words...it just sounds good?

You don't think that the town board did already vote on a resolution in private....naw, they would never do that...would they?

Updated Assessments Online Program...

We have now updated our Online Assessment Program to include the history of ALL parcels in the Town of New Hartford from 2001 to 2007.

Here is an example of the information you will find by using our program.

You may use the link above and there are also links on the main page of both of our websites, New Hartford, N.Y. Online, and Concerned Citizens for Honest & Open Government as well as on the right hand side of this blog under "Helpful Links for Town of New Hartford Residents". Don't forget to bookmark the site!

We will update with the 2008 database as soon as it becomes available.

Town Board Meeting...

Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at 6 p.m. in Butler Hall...agenda is now online.

At the start of the meeting, there will also be a Public Hearing on the proposed ...Public Nuisance Abatement Law. Anyone in attendance can speak either for or against the law at this hearing.

The Days of our Lives...

It's turning into a soap opera...

Back on December 21, 2007, Concerned Citizens FOILed a copy of the New Hartford Teachers Contract after an article appeared in the December 19, 2007 Observer Dispatch regarding the contract being approved by the school board. Shortly thereafter, on January 9, 2008, the Observer Dispatch reported that the New Hartford Employees Union Contract had also been approved. So, we amended our FOIL request to include the employees union contract.

Yesterday, we receive an email from Aurelia Greico, Records Officer at New Hartford Central School saying that the contracts are not available at this time, but they will be forwarded to us as soon as they are available.

On Feb 7, 2008 8:43 AM, Re Greico wrote:

In response to your recent appeal:

1. I have been advised that the contracts in question are presently in the process of being prepared by BOCES. As soon as we have copies ready for distribution you will be notified and we will honor your request.

Still being prepared by BOCES???!!! So, are they telling us that almost two (2) months later no one at the school has a copy of either signed contract? NO ONE??!!! That's almost as bogus as telling us yesterday the school is unable to supply an electronic version of a signed document. Anyone reading this believe that the New Hartford Central School does not have scanning capabilities?

We will post the contracts on our website as soon as they are received from the school...maybe after the school board gets done coaching the town board as to how to run the town, they will have time to track down these signed contracts and see to it that our FOIL requests are honored in compliance with the Freedom of Information Law! Perhaps the town and school should read up on that law:

According to the Committee on Open Government - Explanation of new time limits for response (June 2005):

"...The amendments clearly are intended to prohibit agencies from unnecessarily delaying disclosure. They are not intended to permit agencies to wait until the fifth business day following the receipt of a request and then twenty additional business days to determine rights of access, unless it is reasonable to do so based upon "the circumstances of the request." From my perspective, every law must be implemented in a manner that gives reasonable effect to its intent, and I point out that in its statement of legislative intent, §84 of the Freedom of Information Law states that "it is incumbent upon the state and its localities to extend public accountability wherever and whenever feasible." Therefore, when records are clearly available to the public under the Freedom of Information Law, or if they are readily retrievable, there may be no basis for a delay in disclosure."

Stay tuned...we will have more information on the New Hartford Business Park...

Open Mouth; Insert Foot...

Well, yesterday we blogged about how the town and school wanted to make sure that Woods Highway residents were "accommodated". Supervisor Reed was quoted in the Observer Dispatch as saying "the town will bear the expenses." "It has been kind of a rural area. We need to get a sense of it."

Today, it appears that the town consulted their Town Law book and found out that they cannot create a water district for the Woods Highway residents (to include the New Hartford Business Park) and have the whole town pay the costs. Oops!

According to today's Observer Dispatch article, the town can legally create or expand water districts...yes they can, but only the benefited parcels in the district can legally be charged for the cost of the improvements.

The Woods Highway residents who don't particularly want the water/sewers or the added cost on their tax bill can gather signatures on a petition and force the town to hold a referendum just like what happened with the Higby Road water district. That way the residents (i.e. the taxpayers) can decide by a majority vote if they want the water and sewers and don't mind paying for it. It is important to note that if a district is created, even if you don't hook up to the water/sewers, you will be required to pay the cost if you have property in the district. Petitions can be obtained from the Town Clerk's office. A public hearing will be necessary before the district is created.

Or residents can hope that the town finds some federal grant monies. Maybe while they are at it they can find some grant money for the Higby Road residents and the Snowden Hill residents.

According to the Observer Dispatch:

Several years ago, the town had looked into the possibility of creating a water district on Woods Highway. But it wasn't heavily populated then, said Woodland, the councilman for that area.

O.K. so we counted 18 residences and 7 vacant lots on the town's assessment roll...what's your definition of heavily populated?

Welcome to Earle-Ville...

According to today's Observer Dispatch article, the school board approved the "collaborative effort" with Larry Adler, the town, and the county. But the school board wants to make sure that the people on Woods Highway are taken care of since they have been without a water or sewer connection. The people on Woods Highway spoke at the January 30, 2008 meeting at the High School when the town, school, and OCIDA outlined the project for residents. The main concern of the people who live on Woods Highway was getting water and sewer hook-ups and they thought the town should pay for it.

In today's Observer Dispatch Supervisor Earle Reed is quoted as saying:

" if a water district needs to be created, it will be the town that will bear the expenses."

Well, wonder how that makes the people in the newly created Higby Road water district feel knowing that they pay about $425 a year to pay off the bond for creating their water district. And how about it Snowden Hill people, haven't you been without a water and sewer connection too? Since the town and school are being so generous this might be your opportunity to get water for your area.

Is it even legal for the whole town to finance the cost of a water district? Aren't districts set-up so that the people who will receive the benefit are the people that pay for the benefit.

School board member Robert Calli, who is also a member of the Oneida County Industrial Development Company (OCIDA) said that an additional resolution as part of the project to the town of New Hartford should be made requesting it to "not forget the Woods Highway residents." School Superintendent Gilligan was quoted as saying:

"Respective of cost factors, every effort should be made to accommodate those residents."

Since when did it become New Hartford Central School's role to decide what the town will provide to its residents?

And developer Larry Adler is going to help to pay for some of these improvements. Wow! First he gives 17 acres of land to the school and now he even wants to help pay for a water district for Woods Highway residents.

Again, according to today's article in the Observer Dispatch, Earle Reed is also quoted as saying:

"I think we can do a lot of nice things." "It has been kind of a rural area." "We need to get a sense of it."

Supervisor Reed, Concerned Citizens thinks you need to get a sense of reality!!! Taxpayer's dollars are not infinite!

PIFs, TIFs and Urban Sprawl...

The original intent of the Tax Incentive Financing Statute was:

Under New York's TIF statute, two criteria must be met before a municipality can implement a TIF project. First, TIF can only be used to redevelop "blighted areas." Second, TIF can only be used when "the redevelopment of such areas cannot be accomplished by private enterprise alone."

The town, county & school have stated that The Hartford would have left the area and the developer would not have developed the land if they did not broker this deal. However, if you look at page 5 & 6 of the January 23, 2006 Planning Board minutes they tend to paint a different picture. Mr. Adler states that he bought the land in 2005...what did he buy it for if not to develop. He also stated that he "will look into a future road".

To our knowledge the "deal" hasn't been signed yet so why is the steel already going up on the building for The Hartford if Larry Adler isn't going to develop the proposed Business Park without the PILOT-Tax Increment Financing? Has the vote of the town board, county legislators and the school board already been counted privately...or did Larry Adler "lock in" the votes by his donation of 17 acres to the New Hartford School? Quid pro quo?

According to information we FOILed from the Town of New Hartford Planning Department, Mr. Larry Adler approached the Planning Board and started the project application process back in 2006, right after Supervisor Reed was elected. A letter dated April 10, 2006 from Highway Superintendent Roger Cleveland to Mark Silo, Regional Director of NYSDOT outlines the "need" for the business park.

We also obtained a copy of a report regarding the New Hartford Business Park that contains a summary from the December 1994 New Hartford Business Park Study; the Par Technology Park - Feasibility Study of September 1995; and the Environmental Impact Statement of August 1999. PAR actually owns some land included in the New Hartford Business Park. Interesting to note that the Par Technology Feasibility Study suggests "a satellite fire station has been included in the development to service this portion of the town."

And the August 1999 Environmental Impact Statement says:

Development within the Business Park district and subject to the FGEIS. Developers will be required to mitigate the environmental impact of significance identified in the FGEIS with the alternative mitigation by the offering of payments in lieu of mitigation to be available to such developers.

Fees in lieu of mitigation are monies paid to the town to offset the costs of any negative impacts as a result of development. Funny, when we asked if fees in lieu of mitigation fees would be paid by the developer of the New Hartford Business Park...Highway Superintendent Roger Cleveland didn't seem to know at this point. According to the Full Environmental Assessment Form (we will be posting that tomorrow along with additional information obtained through FOIL regarding the Business Park and another stormwater study) that was filled out for the New Hartford Business Park, the predominant soil types are 15% well drained, 15% moderately drained and 70% poorly drained...do we see stormwater issues in the future?

In case anyone is wondering, yes, the town will be adding the roads within the Park to the town highway inventory system, in other words, the town will be maintaining the roads in the Business Park once they are dedicated according to a letter sent to Mr. Larry Adler from Highway Superintendent Roger Cleveland.

Concerned Citizens also obtained a copy of the 1992 GEIS for the area to include Seneca Turnpike (NYS Rt 5) - Commercial Drive (NYS RT 5A) - Middlesettlement Road (NYS RT 5B CTY RT 30). Interestingly enough, back in 1992, the GEIS noted that the school enrollment was declining, we have an aging population and population in general was declining. It was felt that we needed to encourage development in this corridor of New Hartford; according to the GEIS:

Implications of Future Land Use Projections for the Population of New Hartford

• The projected development of commercial land use will yield additional property tax revenues which will benefit New Hartford overall and older residents with more limited incomes in particular.

• Additionally, commercial development will create new jobs and housing demand. Both of the factors will work to the benefit of the community.

So after the development of Consumer Square, The Orchards, expansion of Sangertown Square Mall, what do we now have...an aging population (if you remember the Observer Dispatch did a whole article on this), school enrollment is dropping (remember this article) and people are leaving (we hear this all the time...it seems it has become our mantra.

Perhaps there are reasons why all this development has produced no significant changes in New Hartford. Are we really bringing in new, high-paying jobs or are we merely relocating the same jobs we always had from one area to another? Who really is benefiting from all this development? The Hartford will bring no new jobs to the area...the doctor's office likely will not bring many "new" jobs...Dr. Costello already has an office in New Hartford. The hotel, if it comes to fruition, will supposedly create "new" jobs, but let's face it, the majority of those jobs will not be high-paying jobs.

It is important to support incentives aimed at creating "new" jobs, but incentives so that businesses and developers can just "relocate" to another site at taxpayer expense is not going to do one thing to change the aging population, declining school enrollment or the declining population in general. We can keep hoping, but at some point we must be realistic...

Concerned Citizens will be watching and we will post the town, county and school votes on our blog so you can how everybody voted. Strikeslip has more on this "deal" on his blog...

By the way, we encourage your input on all topics...send a comment to our blog, email us privately or if you prefer to write a private message to us anonymously, use our tip line.

PILOTS and Tax Increment Financing

So, just what is a PILOT Tax Increment Financing Plan?

As part of the PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) agreement with the OCIDA, the OCIDA purchases the land from the developer thus removing the land from the tax rolls because OCIDA is a tax-exempt entity. The developer then makes payments in lieu of regular property taxes to the OCIDA for the life of the PILOT agreement. Normally, the PILOT payment would be sent to each of the taxing entities (school, county & town) on a percentage basis. In the case of PILOT-TIF, each taxing entity will receive no money towards their budget. The OCIDA will funnel the money to the town who is responsible for paying the interest and principle of the bond. At the end of the contract period, the OCIDA will return the land to the developers and the developers thereafter will pay taxes to the town, county and school rather than making payments to the IDA. WHowever, while the PILOT agreement is in effect, the school, town and county will receive money toward their budget only if and when there are monies leftover after the town pays on the bond payments. By the slides presented Wednesday evening, the town won't even receive enough money to cover the debt until year 6!

The proposed Tax Increment Financing is a plan whereby the town will issue bonds based on the revenue the planned development is expected to generate, in this case, 15 years down the road. The bonds will total $2.9 million and carry an interest of approximately $1 million. Let's put it in perspective. If you have a child that is just starting school this Fall, the Town of New Hartford will still be paying off this bond when your child graduates from high school, if all goes well. The town, not the school, not the county, not the OCIDA...THE TOWN will be in debt and solely responsible for any revenue shortfalls.

They make it look so wonderful, but what are the pitfalls of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) or as they were "splitting hairs" Wednesday evening by referring to it as PILOT Increment Financing (PIF)?

First of all, the numbers on the slides presented at the meeting are projections of future revenues and costs and based on assumptions. If the projections are inaccurate and there is not enough PILOT money generated to pay back the bond, the Town of New Hartford is obligated to make up the difference each year, either by using current taxes i.e. raising the tax rate or further borrowing.

Anything that delays the projected completion time of the project will cause the projected revenues to go down and possibly the costs to go up. For example: labor strikes, changes in market conditions, interest rate increases 5 years down the road when they decide to bond to pay off the BAN, or weather conditions that may temporarily halt or delay the development. Remember, this plan is all based on each project being completed at a certain point in time.

The numbers are based on projected assessed values and as we all know assessed values are not set in concrete. They are based on the current market value. Are we on the cusp of a recession...did they take into consideration the fact that in 2007, the equalization rate of the town was 87% and therefore all new development was assessed at 87% of their market value and that rate is likely to decrease again this year?

Cost overruns...what happens if the project ends up costing more than originally planned?

The cost of additional demand for government services that taxpayers will be required to support, such as police, fire, highway services.

In short, a Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) based Tax Increment Financing (TIF) plan...wow, that's a mouth-full...is totally based on ASSUMPTIONS. We all know what can happen when we make assumptions!

After the meeting Wednesday evening, Concerned Citizens had some questions to ask of Steve DiMeo from Oneida County Industrial Development.

Has either the hotel or Dr. Costello signed any agreements obligating them to build on this property. Answer: No

Is the town obligated to repay the debt even if the business park is not successful or say, one of the three (The Hartford, Dr. Costello, the hotel) decide to leave the area before the debt is paid or if Dr. Costello or the hotel building plans never come to fruition? Answer: Yes, the town is responsible for repaying the debt, regardless of anything.

Where can we get a copy of the PILOT agreement? Answer: You should be able to get it from the Town or School. Really, well we already asked the town,they say they don't have a copy...Mr. Gilligan do you have one?

At that point, Mr. DiMeo said he is only the go-between and couldn't really answer all our questions, but he was kind enough to give us his business card.

We will have a couple of more comments this weekend...Stay tuned!

By the way, we encourage your input on all topics...send a comment to our blog, email us privately or if you prefer to write a private message to us anonymously, use our tip line.