New Hartford Town Board Meeting...

tonight, Wednesday, April 27, 2011 starting at 7:00 p.m. in Butler Hall.

Agenda now online!

Can a school in NYS legally participate in Tax Increment Financing?

According to the NYS Conference of Mayors and Municipal Officers website:

Tax Increment Financing, often referred to as TIF, is a gap financing tool that taps the incremental increase in tax revenues resulting when a formerly vacant or underutilized property is redeveloped. The increased property tax revenues that would normally go into a municipality’s general fund are instead used to pay off the debt obligations that are issued to help finance the real estate development project. However, New York’s TIF law currently only permits the municipal portion of local real property taxes to be used to finance debt service for such projects. School districts’ real property tax revenues, which comprise approximately 61% of all property taxes levied in the State, are excluded from the TIF program.
[emphasis added]

Hmmm...isn't that how they described the bond to build the New Hartford Business Park? And isn't that what is planned to be used to build the right in/right out?

Shortly after the presentation, former Superintendent of New Hartford Central School Dan Gilligan [remember him?] provided us with a copy of the slide presentation presented to the public on January 28, 2008.

Here is the cover of that presentation:

We questioned Dan Gilligan regarding the use of Tax Increment Financing and we were presented with a letter from the law offices of Ferrara, Fiorenza, Larrison Barrett & Reitz, P.C. Attorney Joseph G. Shields reasoned that because they were using a PILOT with a deviation for Tax Increment Financing, that made it legal for the school to participate. Interesting concept...call it a PILOT with a deviation...what gives OCIDA the right to a deviation that is illegal?

If this is legal, how come other IDAs in NYS are not doing the same? Why is the NYS Conference of Mayors and Municipal Officers not considering using the same method of a PILOT with a deviation to help "spur economic development"?

How about the group Unshackle Upstate who in June of last year wrote a memo in support of TIF Financing?

Or how about Attorney Kamlet, an attorney with Hinman, Howard & Kattell of Binghamton, who recently wrote an article that appeared in the Ithaca Journal on January 14, 2011. He wrote, in part:

As a steadfast advocate of "brownfield" redevelopment and economic revitalization in Greater Binghamton and throughout upstate New York, my look back on the year just ended, and my wishes for the new year, are a bit different from those of the average overburdened taxpayer....

* It failed to enact (for at least the fourth year in a row) effective Tax Increment Financing (TIF) legislation.

Didn't anyone tell them how easy it is to circumvent the law?

We emailed Attorney Kamlet regarding the use of PILOT Increment Financing (PIF) instead of Tax Increment Financing (TIF). Attorney Kamlet was kind enough to respond to our email. According to Attorney Kamlet, who is very much in favor of Tax Increment Financing:

Some New York municipalities, in conjunction with local Industrial Development Agencies (IDAs), have used a complex financing mechanism known as "PILOT Increment Financing" to cobble together a substitute TIF-like procedure that can include school districts. It relies on the fact that, under the IDA law, IDAs (with the consent of the local taxing jurisdictions) can negotiate Payment In Lieu of Tax (PILOT) agreements with developers.

In other words, they found a way to circumvent the law, and until it is tested in court, it is legal much like the Fees In Lieu of Mitigation scenario.

Attorney Kamlet concludes his email with:

Taxing jurisdictions may be left with less residual revenue under PILOT Increment Financing than under TIF--but it may still be advantageous if it stimulates much-needed economic development, which generates a steady stream of future tax revenues.

IF, that is a big word.

This does leave a lot of questions that need to be answered before the project continues. We would love to hear from some New Hartford School Board members.

- Did you know that in NYS it was illegal for a school to participate in a TIF project?

- If you were told before you voted that a NYS school cannot take part in Tax Increment Financing, would you have still voted 'yes' for the New Hartford Business Park bonding proposal put before you in October 2008?

- When Mr. DiMeo presents the next proposal on behalf of Larry Adler for a PILOT-Tax Increment Financing for the right in/right out, will you once again be voting yes?

Wouldn't it be nice...

IF...the tax receiver's office was able to accept debit/credit cards for tax payments like many other towns do? There are actually companies who specialize in helping municipalities make this available to their residents with no loss in tax revenue to the town.

IF...the tax collector's office was open more hours...like tax receiver offices in most other towns? Almost all tax receiver offices in other towns in NYS at least have extended evening and Saturday hours just before taxes are due and during the time that taxes are received with penalty and many are actually full-time positions. Not in New Hartford...

According to reports filed with the NYS Comptroller's office, our tax receiver works on average 360 hours a year and the pay is $26,098 per year...that is without the 38% proposed pay raise during the 2011 budget discussions!

And wouldn't it be nice...

IF...elected officials who only work on average 360 hours a year did not receive health, dental and legal insurance all paid for by taxpayer dollars?

New regulations now require towns to file a report to the State outlining the standard work day for all elected and appointed employees for retirement purposes.

Here is the report adopted by the New Hartford Town Board at the May 26, 2010 town board meeting to satisfy this requirement. All highlighted positions receive town-paid employee benefits to include health, dental and legal:

[click on graphic to view in larger print]

Note: While, according to the Employee Handbook, the Highway Superintendent is eligible to receive paid health benefits, the current Highway Superintendent has opted to not receive them.

And wouldn't it be nice...

IF...tax bills were available online so you could print a copy at home if your tax bill was misplaced or for some other reason you needed a copy and you wanted to pay your taxes by mail instead of having to find time to visit the tax receiver's office when they are open just to get a copy of your tax bill?

Many towns in New York State have their tax bills online; in fact, all 2009 through 2011 town tax bills in Oneida County are already online on the Oneida County website, but they are in a pdf format with several tax bills on each page; you cannot print just one tax bill.

These are some of the ideas recently presented to the New Hartford Republican Committee by a member of Concerned Citizens.

By the way, have you read the State Comptroller's Audit Report regarding the Town of New Hartford Tax Receiver's office?

New Hartford boasts about how progressive the town is, but wouldn't a progressive town already be on board with these taxpayer conveniences? This isn't rocket science...

The Mexican Standoff...

After the March 23, 2011 town board meeting, we wrote a blog and presented the video where the town board adopted a resolution regarding the 2008 Shumaker invoices that are still outstanding. In fact that was one of several blogs on the subject.

A resolution was adopted on March 23, 2011 that was supposed to put the issue to bed once and for all. If you remember, Supervisor Tyksinski reluctantly changed his 'nay' vote on the resolution to an 'aye' at the last minute.

Basically, the resolution stated that Supervisor Tyksinski and Town Attorney Cully would review town records to determine the actual dollars spent out of the $2.3 million bond for the Business Park.

If the all the bond money for the New Hartford Business Park hadn't been exhausted, the town would use the bond money to pay the Shumaker invoices.

On the other hand, if all the $2.3 million was already spent, Larry Adler would be sent a letter by Attorney Cully requesting payment with a possible lawsuit to follow if the monies owed the town were not paid.

Not difficult, Town Board minutes and memos clearly reflect that former Budget Officer Heather Mowat addressed the previous town board several times in 2009 and stated that the $2.3 million was spent and additional monies [about $200,000] were owed the town by Larry Adler. Ms. Mowat's reasoning was that taxpayers should not pay Mr. Basile, Attorney Green and bond counsel for work they did exclusively for the New Hartford Business Park; that is an expense that should be paid by the bond or Larry Adler, the developer.

Fast forward to this Wednesday's meeting, April 13, 2011. Once again the subject of the still unpaid 2008 Shumaker invoice was brought to the table by Supervisor Tyksinski.

This time, in response to the March resolution, Supervisor Tyksinski presented the board with his theory that the $2.3 million bond had not been completely spent; well, that is if you take out the invoices for Frank Basile, Attorney Green and bond counsel. The very same expenses that Heather Mowat told the town board should not be paid by taxpayers.

Discussion ensued and Councilman Backman pointed out that the town would have incurred none of those expenses if not for the New Hartford Business Park PILOT. However, for some reason, Supervisor Tyksinski doesn't believe that Ms. Mowat's opinion is valid; he seems to believe that taxpayers should be responsible for these costs.

It's really quite funny...Supervisor Tyksinski keeps reminding everyone that he is a CPA, but then again so is Ms. Mowat. However, Supervisor Tyksinski is supposed to be watching out for the taxpayers, but it appears that he is not!

Watch the video for yourself and notice Supervisor Tyksinski's body language...listen to Councilwoman Krupa and Councilman Reynolds who seemingly have no clue as to what went on during Earle Reed's administration. Friends, this is the problem we face because everything was done behind closed doors.

Unfortunately for taxpayers, it would appear that Supervisor Tyksinski is going to do everything in his power to make sure that Mr. Adler pays nothing. We hope we are wrong.

We just have to ask again, who is Supervisor Tyksinski working for anyway?

Breaking news...

[picture courtesy of Elsie, member of the New Hartford Chapter of Bovine International]

New Hartford - We have just received word that Supervisor Tyksinski apparently raised the ire of some of New Hartford's finest bovines by recent comments made to an Observer Dispatch reporter.

In an Observer Dispatch article last week, What's the future for southern New Hartford?, Tyksinski was quoted as saying:

“I’m not here to say that we’ve got to blacktop the entire town of New Hartford and put in shopping centers and homes,”

“On the other hand, is it crucial that the town of New Hartford has farms? Not to the town of New Hartford.”

Apparently shortly after the article appeared, a bovine sit-in was staged closing Genesee Street in New Hartford to traffic for hours. Supervisor Tyksinski, who was at a loss for words, gazed out of the window of Butler Hall in total disbelief. It was 'udder' chaos for hours as Elsie and her friends showed their support for agriculture in New Hartford.

Reportedly, several of the protesters were interviewed but their only response was "Moo-oo".

In hopes that the Supervisor was merely misquoted in the Observer Dispatch, Brymer Humphreys, a long-time member of New Hartford's agricultural community, attended last evening's town board meeting to ask Supervisor Tyksinski for clarification regarding his statement that seemed to downplay the importance of agriculture in New Hartford.

Supervisor Tyksinski didn't recall making the statement to the reporter, but several members of the town board and audience concurred with Mr. Humphreys that the statement as reported did seem to imply that agriculture was unimportant to New Hartford. Tyksinski categorically denied that he made any statement to the reporter that could possibly be offensive to the agricultural community in New Hartford and pressed the reporter, who was in attendance at the board meeting, for answers.

Normally, we might tend to believe that someone could have been misquoted in the Observer Dispatch; it sometimes happens, but Tyksinski has a track record of opening his mouth and inserting his foot. It does seem a little far-fetched to believe that the above statement was concocted by the Observer Dispatch reporter particularly since Supervisor Tyksinski seems to have no problem with the taking [eminent domain] of agricultural property from the Yagers on behalf of Larry Adler, a private developer.

Come on Supervisor...we think you need to apologize to a whole segment of the population in New Hartford who have lived here with their families, farmed their land and paid taxes for years. Man up and do the right thing! Own your wisecrack and apologize!

Obviously, the sit-in didn't really happen...it is our way of pointing out to Supervisor Tyksinski that he needs to learn to keep his wisecrack comments to himself and being Town Supervisor is not just about serving the needs of his developer friends.

Here is that portion of the April 13, 2011 New Hartford Town Board Meeting:

New Hartford Town Board Meeting tonight...

April 13, 2011 starting at 7:00 p.m. in Butler Hall. Agenda now online!