A dollar and a dream...

except in this case it will be $600,000 bonding by the Town of New Hartford and $500,000 taken from other developers' Fees in Lieu of Mitigation...all to help a private developer's dreams come true.

Of course, if you listen to Tyksinski and Adler, all OUR dreams will come true soon too. The Observer Dispatch reported:

Once the access is improved with the two projects, the business park will help the town, Tyksinski said.

“You’ll see some new development going up there,” he said.

We can hardly wait...there has already been so much benefit from The Hartford moving in the business park...about a mile from where they were previously located. Isn't the building previously occupied by The Hartford now owned by a non-profit that pays no real estate taxes?!!

Supervisor Tyksinski brought the subject of going out to bid at the July 13, 2011 town board meeting. A copy of the 2008 adopted town board resolution to bond for $600,000 was presented by Tyksinski to bolster his case for going out to bid.

The 2008 resolution was passed around the table. Each of the four council members silently studied the bonding resolution looking like "deer caught in headlights". However, when all was said and done, they all said 'aye' to Supervisor Tyksinski's proposal.

Imagine...Supervisor Tyksinski was able to convince 4 other elected officials to vote to spend additional public money for a private developer even though as of today there is no current independent report on the financial condition of the town and there hasn't been one since 2008!

To top it off, we have blogged numerous times about Adler's refusal to make the town whole on some of his debt from the last bonding. Our elected officials are certainly looking out for us, eh?

Anyway, an article posted on the Observer Dispatch website tonight and probably to be in tomorrow's print edition says:

The Clinton Street extension project has been estimated to cost $200,000 to $300,000, and the Route 840 ramp has been estimated to cost somewhere between $700,000 and $800,000, Tyksinski said.

That's amazing! If you believe Tyksinski, Adler should have no costs over and above the $1.1 million town contribution.

However, we have to wonder who gave Tyksinski the "new" cost projections...because when the Public Hearing was held on November 5, 2009...almost two (2) years ago, the costs were projected to be $800,000 for the Route 840 ramp and $480,000 for the Clinton Street Extension:


For larger image, click on graphic!

Just in case you didn't attend the November 5, 2009 Public Hearing or even if you did, here is a copy of the slideshow presentation.

We have much more on the subject. To be continued...

New Hartford General Fund in the Black...by whose standards?

The Town of New Hartford's last independent financial audit was as of December 31, 2008.

On January 26, 2011, the town board voted to retain D'Arcangelo and Co. to perform an independent audit of the Town of New Hartford for 2009 and 2010; the audit was to be completed by March 31, 2011. We have a copy of the Engagement Letter between the town and D'Arcangelo dated February 2, 2011.

The completion date of March 31, 2011 has come and gone. We have FOILed copies of the audit, the management letter, etc. twice; once on April 28th and most recently on July 28th. Each time we have been told that:

"...the Town does not have this document yet, as the report is not completed. However, it is expected to be completed within a couple of weeks."

It is well past the time that the town is required by law to have an independent financial audit performed, although when it was time to hire an outside auditor for the 2009 Financials, Supervisor Tyksinski and Town Attorney Cully disagreed with the NYS Comptroller on the interpretation of town law and one was not done; that is why D'Arcangelo & Co. was hired to do a 2009 and 2010 audit of the books.

Since the time of the last independent financial audit [December 31, 2008] prepared by Barone, Howard & Co., we have learned that:

The 'rainy day' fund was depleted to the tune of $2.8 million and there has been no clear-cut explanation as to where it went.

The police fund owes the General Wholetown Fund money [the exact amount depends on who you ask].

The Sewer Maintenance Fund is owed over $1 million because it was used to 'plug the holes' in other accounts.

According to a recent Observer Dispatch article, the General Fund is now in the black; however, we have no documentation to substantiate that other than the Supervisor's Report to the State Comptroller [AUD] that was supposed to be filed by May 1, 2011 and wasn't filed until a couple of months later.

Again, according to the July Observer Dispatch article:

The town’s 2010 annual finance report was due to the state Comptroller’s Office by May 1 but was completed just recently. Tyksinski said the delay was largely because he wanted the report to be in line with the town’s outside audit for 2009 and 2010 by D’Arcangelo & Co.

The 2010 annual finance report supposedly has been filed, so what is the excuse now?

According to the AUD, the General Fund has a balance of $266,052; however, that report is not an independently audited report; it is merely the Supervisor's report to the State Comptroller.

According to the State Comptroller's instructions for filing the AUD:

Notes to the Financial Statements
The Notes to the Financial Statements should represent specific disclosures necessary for a fair and complete presentation of the financial statements. Notes to the Financial Statements are required to be filed with the Annual Update Document (AUD).

There is also supposed be a page where the Supervisor certifies that the information provided in the report is "true and correct to the best of my knowledge" along with the date of filing the report to the NYS Comptroller.

There were no Notes to the Financial Statement or certification attached to the copy of the AUD report that we were provided when we FOILed.

The Observer Dispatch also reported Supervisor Tyksinski as saying:

Tyksinski said 2011 will end with another budget surplus, and he plans to cut property taxes in 2012.

Bold statement to make when budget time is right around the corner and the independently audited financial statements for 2009 and 2010 are yet to be "in the hands of the town".

How long will it be before Town of New Hartford residents receive an independent report on the financial condition of the town. We started the clock on December 31, 2008, the "as of" date of the last report.

Nine hundred and forty two [942] days and counting...

Town Board Meeting tonight...

Wednesday, July 13, 2011 starting at 7:00 p.m. in Butler Hall.

Agenda now online!

On tonight's agenda is a Public Hearing to discuss Local Law Introductory “F” – Rec’r of Taxes Office. The Local Law states:

This article is to abolish the Office of the Receiver of Taxes and Assessments in the Town of New Hartford, New York and to transfer all powers and duties of that office to the Town Clerk.

If adopted by the town board this evening, there will be a mandatory referendum for approval of the qualified voters of the Town of New Hartford, New York at the General Election to be held Tuesday, November 8, 2011. If the voters approve, the office will be abolished as of December 31, 2011.

If you remember, we blogged about the Tax Receiver Office and pointed out that according to documents submitted to the State Comptroller for pension purposes, the Tax Receiver works about 360 hours a year and receives a salary of $26,098 plus full benefits. Supervisor Tyksinski has acknowledged that about $50,000 would be saved by abolishing the office.

The public is welcome to attend tonight's public hearing and give their thoughts on the subject prior to the vote of the town board.

Here is a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing that appeared in the June 29, 2011 Observer Dispatch.

Is the Aldi store at the Jay-K intersection...

a boon - noun
...welcome benefit; blessing?

OR
a boondoggle - noun
...a wasteful or impractical project or activity often involving graft?


Shortly after the Zoning Board of Appeals denied the use variance that was needed in order for the Aldi project to begin, the Kellys presented a request to the town board for a zoning map amendment change.

After a public hearing was held, the zoning change was unanimously approved by the town board with one abstention [Krupa who gave no reason for her abstention] thus allowing the Aldi store project to progress to the Planning Board for review.

At the June 13, 2011 Planning Board meeting, the Aldi project was approved with one dissenting vote...Jerome Donovan who felt that the board should place more importance on the DOT recommendation to base the traffic study on a potential full build-out of the entire property – not based just on the Aldi store.

The DOT representative at the June 13th Planning Board meeting stated that there have been 81 traffic accidents recorded at that intersection July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2010.

According to the Observer Dispatch:

"the DOT sent a letter to the Planning Board recommending that the board base the traffic study on a potential full build-out of the entire property – not based just on the Aldi store."

The Planning Board, however, approved the plan with a traffic study using projections based on the addition of only Aldi.

According to the Observer Dispatch, Planning Board Chair Elis DeLia said:

Planning Board Chairman Elis DeLia said he felt “very comfortable” approving the Aldi store based on the traffic studies provided because he has no reason to doubt what Kelly and his attorney told the board.

“We all know that intersection presents problems,” DeLia said. “I believe the property owner and DOT will ensure that the development impacts on that intersection will be as safe as possible.”

With the Planning Board approval on record, there remain many concerns over the potential impact on additional traffic generated by yet another retail business at the already congested intersection.

But, bottom line, the project was approved at the June 13, 2011 Planning Board meeting based on the Kellys assurance that they have no further projects planned at this time.

Only time will tell if that is the case; however, the Kellys and Sloans [who are related] own most of that corner to include parcels along Middlesettlement Road and it seems doubtful that they will not be looking for further development of their properties sooner or later.

The Aldi project is in the final stages of approval; the next step is to apply for a highway work permit from the DOT. Two DOT employees were at the June 13th Planning Board and expressed concerns regarding the project. Hopefully, their review process will require mitigation measures that will alleviate more traffic congestion at an intersection that is already on overload.

Here is the portion of the June 13, 2011 Planning Board meeting where the Aldi's application was being reviewed by the board and comments were made by the two DOT workers:

By the way, it was learned at the June 13th meeting that the landscaping business that occupies space at the entrance to the Jay-K Lumber store is actually situated partly on State owned land.