It's all in his head...

According to an Observer Dispatch article earlier this week, Tyksinski guarantees New Hartford will eliminate police deficit, reporter Bryon Ackerman wrote:

In a corrective action plan submitted to the state in response to the audit, Tyksinski, who took office in 2010, estimates any deficits in the police fund will be resolved by the end of this year. If not this year, then definitely in 2012...

The article went on to say:

The plan likely will be based on reallocating sales tax revenue toward the police fund, according to the corrective action plan. Expectations of higher than budgeted sales tax revenues for 2010 and potential other budget surpluses will assist with the goal, according to the plan.

Tyksinski declined to discuss further details of how he will address the deficits – saying the ideas will remain in his head for now.

However, during Public Comment at the January 26, 2011 town board meeting, former Town Supervisor Ralph Humphreys posed a few questions to Supervisor Tyksinski regarding the use of sales tax revenue to pay back any monies owed to other funds, including the police fund, due to "borrowing" between funds over the past few years. This prompted further discussion on the Town Supervisor's possible future plans for addressing the recommendations of the State Comptroller in their recently released State Comptroller's Audit for the Town of New Hartford.

Here is the video of that portion of the meeting:






The video of the entire January 26, 2011 town board meeting is below:

New Hartford Town Board meeting tonight...

Wednesday, January 26, 2011 starting at 7:00 p.m. in Butler Hall.

Meeting includes two (2) Public Hearings for Zoning Map Amendments for the Kelly/Jay-K property and the Sloan property.

Agenda now online!

Technology & Transparency at the New Hartford Public Library...

The New Hartford Public Library Board of Trustees held their first meeting of the year last Wednesday, January 19, 2011.

One of the topics on the agenda was assigning committee chairs and members for the coming year. Committee members can either be library trustees or members of the community. In fact, Ms. Romano said she welcomes members of the community to serve on these committees.

Prior to making the assignments, Board President Linda Romano instructed the board that they would have to be careful to not have a quorum of board members on each committee. Ms. Romano also stated that there are currently ten (10) members of the board; therefore, they could have no more than four (4) members on each committee in order to avoid a quorum. She stated that warning a couple of times during the meeting as they discussed committee assignments.

Here is short snippet of the meeting with Ms. Romano, in her own words:



Obviously, Ms. Romano, an attorney, is not well-versed on the Open Meetings Law; nor does she understand what a quorum means.

First of all, a quorum is defined in the NHPL by-laws as:

a majority of the current membership who must be present for valid transaction of business.

That means if you have ten (10) board members, a quorum [majority] would be six (6). Therefore, to avoid a quorum, you would need no more than five (5) trustees on each committee.

But why does Ms. Romano insist that a quorum of trustees cannot be on any committee? Obviously, she believes that without a quorum the meetings would not have to be open to the public.

Unfortunately, meetings of two or more trustees, even advisory committee meetings, must be open to the public if they are discussing public matters. Since the New Hartford Public Library depends on taxpayer funding, they are conducting public business!

The Committee on Open Government has written many opinions on the subject. It was the main reason why the Town of New Hartford had to open their Stormwater Committee Meetings.

Quoting from a 2008 Opinion Letter from the Committee On Open Government [this opinion letter was in response to a question posed by the Board of Trustees of the Guilderland Public Library]:

a "Public body" is now defined in §102(2) to include:

"...any entity for which a quorum is required in order to conduct public business and which consists of two or more members, performing a governmental function for the state or for an agency or department thereof, or for a public corporation as defined in section sixty-six of the general construction law, or committee or subcommittee or other similar body of such public body."

The opinion letter further states:

Additionally, with respect to the general intent of the Open Meetings Law, the first sentence of its legislative declaration, §100, states that:

"It is essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that the public business be performed in an open and public manner and that the citizens of this state be fully aware of and able to observe the performance of public officials and attend and listen to the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy."

The Opinion Letter concludes by saying:

Again, the amendments to the definition of "public body" suggest a clear intention on the part of the State Legislature to ensure that entities consisting of two or more members of a governing body (committees, subcommittees or similar bodies) are themselves public bodies falling with the coverage of the Law.

So all committee meetings of the New Hartford Public Library will need to be noticed to the public and must be held in a place that is accessible to the public unless there is only one (1) library trustee on each committee.

Why wouldn't they want the public to see what they are doing? They sit at these meetings and discuss ways to raise money from the public; they are even considering changing their charter to a school or special district library to get away from the town's input in their trustee appointments; they complain about the "bad publicity" they have gotten on this blog and yet they don't want the "average resident/taxpayer" involved. Just makes one wonder if they have taken a good look at themselves in the mirror lately?

Here is a list of the committees of the New Hartford Public Library. If you are interested in serving on any of these committees, please contact the library.

Financial
Publicity
Charter Revision/Long Range Planning
Building and Grounds
Policy & Procedure
Technology & Transparency

By the way, we sent a copy of Robert Freeman's Opinion letter to the newly-appointed Chair of the Technology & Transparency Committee.

Here is the video of the entire meeting:

The real "poop" on the Consolidated Sewer District in NH...

isn't all contained within the NYS Comptroller's audit.

On page 12 of the Comptroller's report, we learn that as of December 31, 2009, the unreserved, unappropriated balance of the Consolidated Sewer District was $1,237,666; considered excessive according to the audit.

According to the report:

Although the consolidated sewer district has an excessive fund balance, the reported cash in this fund was only about $224,000 at the end of 2009. This is due to the consolidated sewer district loaning its cash to other funds -reporting a net receivable due from other funds amounting to about $1.5 million at the end of 2009. A large portion of this relates to loans provided to the other funds, including the police fund which does not currently have the ability to immediately repay the sewer district.

So in addition to the $1 million owed by the police fund to the General Wholetown, there is also $1.5 million owed to the Consolidated Sewer District due to loaning monies to other funds including the police fund.

Once again, according to the Comptroller's Audit:

In recent years, the Board has adopted sewer fund budgets that over-estimated expenditures, which has resulted in an excessive fund balance.

Friends, when budgeted expenditures are overestimated; your tax bill is higher than it needs to be.

But let's take a closer look; beyond the pages of the Comptroller's audit. Their audit says:

The consolidated sewer fund is financed primarily with real property taxes.

This is true for people who live in the town proper; those who live in the two villages (New Hartford and New York Mills) do not pay for maintenance of the town sewers because the villages have their own sewer system and pay for it as part of their village tax bill.

However, what the Comptroller's Audit does not say is that due to errors and lost sewer agreements, not everybody who owns property situated in the Consolidated Sewer District has been paying a yearly sewer maintenance fee [the Sewer Fund] on their tax bill.

If you have sewers and want to see if you are paying Consolidated Sewer fees, look for a charge for N H Cons Sw1 and N H Cons Sw2 on your Town and County tax bill. That is unless you are looking at parcels in the Woodberry Hills development. As of 2011, residents in the Woodberry development are also now paying maintenance fees; however according to town board minutes they were supposed to have started paying them as far back as 1999, but somehow they "fell through the cracks".

How many parcels with sewer hook-ups haven't been charged maintenance fees...we estimate roughly 800 or more parcels have not been charged one or both sewer maintenance fees on their tax bill.

What this all means...some taxpayers who have sewers in the Consolidated Sewer District have been "over"-charged on their tax bill every year. Unfortunately, these same taxpayers are not only being overcharged for sewer maintenance fees by design [by overestimating expenditures]; but they are paying more than they should because others with sewer hook-ups pay nothing AND to top it all off, the money collected from those same overcharged taxpayers has been used to cover shortfalls in other funds [to include the police fund] in an effort to avoid a tax rate increase under the Earle Reed administration. More on that in another blog.

We have approached the town board numerous times regarding the inequities in the assessment database, [not only the past town board, but also the present members], here is a snippet of the January 12, 2011 town board meeting where the topic of sewer maintenance fees was once again brought to the table by Councilman Backman:



This video is only 10 minutes long, so you might want to take the time to view it, particularly if you are one of the "overcharged" sewer users. The town has absolutely no idea how to "fix" the problem and no idea when the "fix" might be made.

By the way, Oneida County's website has copies of all the 2011 Town and County tax bills for the Town of New Hartford and other towns are available on their website as well.


To be continued...

It's here....

It was just a couple of days ago that the Town sent us an official denial of our FOIL request for a copy of the DRAFT audit report; the denial was received from the Town Clerk on Wednesday, January 19, 2011. In their denial they offered to give us the final audit once it is released or we could appeal their decision to deny us.

No need to appeal their decision to not release an audit that has already been reported on in the Observer Dispatch a couple of times over the past week or so and that according to rumor is in the hands of many people! No need to send us a copy of the final audit either!

Today, Friday, January 21, 2011, the final audit is on the Comptroller's website and we now have a copy.

A quick glance through the report reveals that there is much more than what has already been reported in the Observer Dispatch. We will be blogging on this report over the next few days.

For now, we are making it available for everyone to read.

By the way, here are the links to the Observer Dispatch articles in case you missed them:

Audit: New Hartford failed to collect tax penalties;
Official didn’t charge herself, draft report states

Audit: Some NY Mills taxpayers paid for 2 police departments

Our view: New Hartford needs sound fiscal manager
AT ISSUE: Latest fiasco with receiver of taxes demonstrates need for oversight

The bandaid approach...

The Observer Dispatch is once again reporting on the DRAFT Comptroller's Report.

Today's paper reports that the General fund [supported by taxes also collected from the town residents who live in the Village of New York Mills] is owed roughly $1 million for money transferred from the General Fund to cover police overruns. The problem is that taxes are only supposed to be collected from the tax base that receives the benefit. New York Mills has their own police department.

Over the course of the Reed administration we blogged about year-end transfers many times. However, for there to be $1 million of misappropriation of funds there had to be other transfers that never came before the board for approval. [another no-no]

The editorial in today's Observer Dispatch, Our view: New Hartford needs sound fiscal manager, suggests that it might be prudent for the town to hire a financial manager. Not to worry...one is on the way.

Just posted on the town website...

Here is a pdf of the job description with larger print.

Part-time Director of Finance who is experienced with municipal accounting; has an Accounting or Finance degree [preferably a licensed CPA]; for an annual salary of $10,400 [probably about all we can afford to pay right now].

Problem solved...that should definitely fix New Hartford's financial problems...Ohhh yeahhh!

UPDATE:

The Observer Dispatch just posted their "First In Print" article, Audit: Some NY Mills taxpayers paid for 2 police departments.

According to the article regarding the repayment to the General Fund:

Board member Christine Krupa said that could occur through using sales tax revenue and curbing police costs through contract negotiations currently taking place with members of the police union.

Could you explain to us how that sales tax revenue repayment thing works Councilwoman Krupa?

Utica Master Plan Committee Meeting January 12, 2011

Below is the entire video of the January 12, 2011 committee meeting to discuss the Master Plan:



Since these meetings tend to be long [over 2 hours], we will be putting highlights of the Master Plan videos on YouTube...click here!

On Wednesday, January 19, 2011 at 6:00 p.m., Emmett Martin will address the Democratic Caucus regarding the Utica Master Plan. Here is a copy of the agenda for that evening's caucus and Council meeting!



CHANGE OF TIME FOR TOMORROW'S NEW HARTFORD PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING

On another note, we have been informed that the time of the New Hartford Public Library meeting scheduled for noon tomorrow [January 19, 2011] has been changed to 7:00 p .m. The meeting will still be held in the lower level of Butler Hall.

Housing projects in Utica...

Yesterday's Observer Dispatch story, The pros and cons of Utica's housing projects, dove-tails with our recent blog Housing Visions...between $500,000 to $600,000 per 2 family unit...

According to the article:

Utica Councilman Jerome McKinsey, whose fifth district covers Cornhill, said he’s inclined to view the subsidized housing projects around Cornhill as a positive development.

Whereas Councilman-At-Large Ed Bucciero thinks that single-family affordable housing that makes low-to moderate-income individuals homeowners is the way to go.

Councilman Bucciero was quoted in the Observer Dispatch as saying:

“Why are we infusing back into these neighborhoods multi-family homes again when history should have taught us a lesson?”

Councilman Bucciero has provided us with a copy of his recommendations which he presented to the Utica Democratic caucus on January 5, 2011. Click here!

Whether the project is good for Utica remains to be seen; according to the Observer Dispatch article "the effects of those projects remain largely unquantified".

Question is, and should be, how does it all fit into the Utica Master Plan that is yet to be finalized?

The cost of health care benefits...

According to today's Observer Dispatch article, Municipalities, unions face off over benefits:

Town Supervisor Patrick Tyksinski is trying to negotiate a wage freeze for his union employees, and wants them to contribute to their health care benefits for the first time.

We recently FOILed Health Care contracts for all non-union and union employees:

The cost to Town of New Hartford employees for Health Care [to include providing coverage for legal expenses for some employees] ....$0.

VS.


The current cost to taxpayers [to include providing coverage for legal expenses for some employees, where noted] ...

Non-Union Employees - including legal coverage [each employee per week] Policy Contract

Single.........$148.70
2-person.....$283.10
Family........$383.90

Highway - including legal coverage [each employee per week] Policy Contract

Single.........$148.70
2-person.....$285.20
Family........$387.70

Parks - Non-Bargaining - Legal Coverage Only [each employee per week] Policy Contract

Single.........$17.33
2-person.....$17.33
Family........$17.33

Parks - Bargaining Unit - including legal coverage [each employee per week] Policy Contract

Single.........$148.70
2-person.....$285.20
Family........$387.70

Police - Full Time - including legal coverage [each employee per week] Policy Contract

Single.........$148.70
2-person.....$285.20
Family........$387.70

Police - Part Time - Medical & Rx only [each employee per week] Policy Contract

Single.........$75.00
2-person.....$150.00
Family........$206.20

According to the gray sidebar in the Observer Dispatch article, of the six (6) municipalities contacted by the reporter, New Hartford is the only municipality with zero cost to employees for health care benefits.

New Hartford Public Library...

The terms of two (2) library trustees ended on December 31, 2010; Kevin Kelly and Shell Storrier.

Since the town board has the authority to appoint library trustees for terms that have expired, the discussion of filling the two openings was on the table at the January 12, 2011 town board meeting.

Kevin Kelly was re-appointed for another term. The second trustee opening was not filled; the consensus was to table the discussion until the next town board meeting on January 26, 2011.

Here is the portion of the meeting discussing the library appointments.

On another note, the Library Board of Trustees met at noon on December 15, 2010; however, with all the hustle and bustle of the Holidays, we did not have a chance to put the video online.

Here is the video of that meeting:





Please note...the next library trustee meeting will be held this Wednesday, January 19, 2011. It is once again being held at noon in the lower level of Butler Hall.

The cat is out of the bag...

but according to information that has been floating around the Town of New Hartford...this is just the tip of the iceberg!

According to the Observer Dispatch...

NEW HARTFORD AUDIT: A state Comptroller’s Office audit of the town found that Receiver of Taxes Hilarie Elefante failed to collect more than $2,500 in penalties for late tax payments from herself and other town residents, according to a draft of the audit obtained by the Observer-Dispatch.PAGE 1A.

We also FOILed a copy of the DRAFT audit, but it appears that for some reason our copy is not yet available.

UPDATE:

We contacted the Town Clerk's office this morning and were told that she has requested that the FOILed document be sent to her office by January 21, 2011. We will keep you updated as to whether or not it is sent to us.

In the meantime, the Observer Dispatch has just added the "First in Print" story to their website, Audit: New Hartford failed to collect tax penalties...Official didn’t charge herself, draft report states.

Housing Visions...between $500,000 to $600,000 per 2 family unit...

that was the figure used by Utica Councilman-At-Large Edward Bucciero at the Democratic Caucus meeting on January 5, 2011 regarding the proposal by a non-profit, Housing Vision Consultants, Inc., to build low income and senior housing in the vicinity of Oneida and Hobart Streets in Utica.



After doing his calculations, Mr. Bucciero figured there would be a $1.5 million profit which calculates to a 19% profit margin. Mr. Bucciero asked "when somebody from the community comes to me and says how could you spend a half a million on a two family, what should I say to them...here's the budget, you figure it out?" He added that he could not support the project.

Of course, in defense of the project, the usual excuses were heard from some council members...no local taxpayer dollars are being used [only Federal money]; if we don't use the money it will go somewhere else; it is not perfect, but its a very good thing for the community.

A recent YNN story Cornhill housing project one step closer to reality shows Tim Trent talking to a reporter regarding the project.

According to this evening's WKTV news story, Debate over low-income housing proposal in Utica, the City Council's Urban and Economic Development Committee met tonight to discuss the project [01/10/11]; the full Council will vote on the project at their meeting this Wednesday evening.

WIBX has more on the story here!

Also discussed at last week's meeting [at the beginning of the videotape], was a 20-year Payment in Lieu of Taxes [PILOT] agreement that is to be signed with Housing Visions giving them property tax benefits that will, according to their representative that attended the meeting, make the project feasible for them to undertake.

Here is a copy of the agenda for the January 5, 2011 Democratic caucus listing the other topics that were discussed.

On another note, the first meeting of the New Hartford Town Board for 2011 will take place Wednesday, January 12, 2011 in Butler Hall starting at 7:00 p.m.

Agenda now online!

Utica's Master Plan...hidden agendas?

Last evening Frank Montecalvo, who chaired the master plan’s Infrastructure and Development Committee, was invited by Mrs. Arcuri to speak at the Utica Democratic Caucus in regards to the proposed Master Plan for the City of Utica.

Mr. Montecalvo, who is well-qualified to give an opinion on the subject, wanted to share his thoughts on the parts of the Master Plan he feels need to be given further thought. Topics addressed by Mr. Montecalvo include The “Living Document” Problem; “Intrusive Government Control”; Failure to Recognize Sprawl and Its Causes as a Major Economic Development Problem and Failure to recognize that Utica’s population base carries the region.

Concerned Citizens videotaped his presentation which was approximately 15 minutes long:



We are providing a pdf version that Mr. Montecalvo shared with us. He makes some valid points that are well worth taking the time to read and pass on to others that might be interested.

As reported in the Observer Dispatch, Council to hear from committees on master plan not everyone was open to listening to Mr. Montecalvo.

Councilman Zecca certainly took the opportunity to publicly voice his opinion; he made it quite obvious that he preferred that no one heard what Mr. Montecalvo had to say. He wanted Mr. Montecalvo's concerns addressed "in committee"...meaning that he didn't want it done during an open meeting where people could be in attendance to hear what was said and some of those in attendance could videotape and rebroadcast Mr. Montecalvo's comments:




Then there was Tim Trent, another member of the Utica Master Plan Steering Committee, who was also mentioned in the Observer Dispatch article:

Timothy Trent, who served on the master plan Steering Committee, said Montecalvo, who doesn’t live in the city, does not speak for everyone.

Mr. Trent was visably disturbed by Mr. Montecalvo's comments. At one point during the meeting, he walked over to us and demanded to know where Mr. Montecalvo resides. He stated "he doesn't live in Utica...he has no business getting involved."

Is this the same Tim Trent that is a Communication Specialist at Community Planning and Environmental Associates located in rural Schoharie County? This company worked with the Village of Whitesboro to update their Comprehensive Plan in 2004. Mr. Trent doesn't live in Whitesboro so what is his point in worrying about where Mr. Montecalvo lives?

We looked up the list of names of people involved with the Utica Master Plan Steering Committee...a lot of names look very familiar as not being residents of Utica. What is the real reason for Mr. Trent's behavior?

What makes this more amusing...if that is the term to be used...is that Councilman Zecca and Tim Trent were instrumental in bringing Robert Freeman, Executive Director of the Committee on Open Government, to Utica last November. Guess open government means different things to different people!

One last thing...Mr. Trent...when you next decide to be obnoxious and get in someone's face, best NOT to do it when the person is videotaping, the camera picks up everything that is said:



We will be sharing a videotape of the rest of the Caucus meeting next.

The Silent Majority...

Only 41% of the Village of Whitesboro registered voters took the time to "voice" their opinion at the polls yesterday, for or against, the possible dissolution of the village according to the Observer Dispatch article, Whitesboro dissolution votes updated.

The weather was fine, the polls were open until 9 p.m. and the vote was highly publicized. Pretty sad that more than 50% of the registered voters (the "silent" majority) couldn't find the time to vote.

You get the government you deserve!