He's going to do WHAT with the remainder of the 2012 budgeted Library monies?

The New Hartford Public Library met this evening and adopted a resolution to pursue re-chartering as a school district library.

According to the article on Observer Dispatch's website, Supervisor Tyksinski said in response to the possibility of the New Hartford Public Library re-chartering as a school library:

The 2012 town budget allocates $400,000 to the library, the remainder of which would be a savings to the town if the library changes over in May.

The amount saved would go to the town fund balance, Town Supervisor Patrick Tyksinski said.

Got news for you Supervisor, better check NYS Education Law:

§ 259 (1). All moneys received from taxes or other public sources for library purposes shall be kept as a separate library fund by the treasurer of the municipality or district making the appropriation and shall be expended only under direction of the library trustees on properly authenticated vouchers, except that money received from taxes and other public sources for the support of a public library or a free association library or a cooperative library system shall be paid over to the treasurer of such library or cooperative library system upon the written demand of its trustees.

You see, according to Education Law, once taxes are collected in support of a library, either by a municipality or a school, that money is due and payable on demand of the library board of trustees. The New Hartford Public Library Board of Trustees doesn't have to accept their money in quarterly payments like they have been receiving from the town for the past few years...they would be well within their right to ask for the entire $400,000 as soon as town taxes are levied.

According to a slide presentation that was prepared by the North Country Library System and annotated as being based on NYS Education Law derived from Public Library Law in New York State by Robert Allan Carter, July 2006, The University of the State of New York, The State Education Department:

Public funds designated for the library shall not be intermingled with other village or town funds but kept in a separate fund.

The library board of trustees has the right to have any or all funds from any or all public sources be paid over to the treasurer of the library board of trustees upon written demand.

Public funds designated to the library that have not been expended at the end of a fiscal year shall not revert back to the general village or town fund.

Public funds from any source shall be expended or invested at the sole discretion of the library board of trustees. The municipality that maintains the funds has no say over how or when library funds are expended or invested.

So unless Supervisor Tyksinski decides to ignore NYS Education Law, none of the $400,000 that will be collected for the library in 2012 town taxes will be put in the town's general fund balance in 2012. In fact, if the Library Board of Trustees so directs the town, the library may very well be receiving the entire $400,000 of library taxes sometime in January 2012...just saying!

Supervisor also said in that same article:

The following year’s budget no longer would be allocating funding to the library. Tyksinski said that if that occurs, the change would amount to a tax reduction in his proposed 2013 budget.

If you believe that, we have a bridge to sell you.

We will be posting tonight's Library meeting soon...we also have a few more revelations that might be of interest to the town, school and taxpayers before the library becomes a school district library!

Zoning Amendment procedures are...

outlined in Article XIV of the New Hartford Town Code.

According to § 118-86. Initiation, one of three ways that a zoning amendment may be initiated is:

"by petition duly signed and acknowledged from the owners of 50% or more of the acreage in any district or part thereof requesting an amendment, supplement or change in the regulations prescribed for such district or part thereof..."

Attorney Cully stated at the November 16, 2011 town board meeting that he would confer with the town assessor to verify that Larry Adler does own 50% of the acreage.

[Note: According to news articles, The New Hartford Office Group LLC, owner of some of the acreage in the business park, is an affiliate of the Cameron Group LLC.

Unless Larry Adler is the sole owner of New Hartford Office Group LLC, he will need a petition signed by the other owners of that group to even begin to qualify as "an owner of 50% or more of the acreage"...just saying].

When we visited the Town Clerk's office on Friday, November 18, 2011, she told us that to date nothing else had been filed for this zoning amendment other than the letter signed by Larry Adler that he submitted requesting the zone text amendment.

Petitions are FOILable and must be filed in the Town Clerk's office; if Larry doesn't own 50% of the acreage, a petition with the additional signatures will need to be filed in the Town Clerk's office before the amendment process can officially be started.

We will ask the Town Clerk again next week if a petition has been filed or if Attorney Cully has verified the owners of the property within the District and determined that Larry Adler meets the acreage requirement.

There is also a fee involved according to this same section of the Town Code:

Said petition shall be accompanied by the applicable fee in accordance with the fee schedule established and annually reviewed by the Town Board.

Was this fee collected?

According to § 118-88 [A][2] Town Board procedures; notice of the Public Hearing shall be given:

By providing a copy of such notice of any proposed change or amendment affecting property within 500 feet of any other municipality to the Clerk of such municipality at least 10 calendar days prior to the date of such public hearing.

Looking at the map of the Planned Development Park District [PDPD], notice will need to be given to the Town of Whitestown since they border the Town of New Hartford PDPD.

AND FINALLY...

According to § 118-88 [D]: Town Board action.

The Town Board may approve any such proposed amendment by a majority vote of said Board, except that a favorable vote of at least four members of the Town Board, i.e., a majority plus one shall be required if:
(1) Action being taken is contrary to the advisory recommendation received from the Town Planning Board or from the County Planning Board under the provisions of § 239-m of the General Municipal Law.
(2) In accordance with the provisions of § 265 of the Town Law, a protest petition against such amendment has been duly signed by the owners of at least 20% of the land area included in such proposed change or of that immediately adjacent extending 100 feet therefrom or that directly opposite.

This is far from a done deal...we would advise those that are against this change to visit the Town Clerk's office to pick up petition forms, collect signatures and present them to the Town Clerk forcing an affirmative vote of 4 of 5 board members in order to adopt this zone text amendment.

"I don't see any harm in rezoning...

to have 20 percent retail,” he said. “To some extent, it does make sense.”

That's a quote from Supervisor Tyksinski in an article in today's Observer Dispatch regarding Larry Adler's request to re-zone the business park to allow for retail.

Let's start by clearing up a possible misconception.

It IS NOT 20% of the business park that Adler wants the town to rezone to allow retail...

It IS 20% of the acreage owned by an individual property owner or developer in the vicinity of and including the business park...in other words, every parcel that currently is in the district [which is comprised of not only the business park, but other parcels as well]; and, every parcel in the future that might be created by splitting a parcel in the Planned Development Park District into several parcels.

According to papers submitted by Larry Adler, he wants the language changed to:

Retail and services when such limited use occupies no more than 20% of the PDPD [Planned Development Park District zoning] acreage owned, controlled or developed by the Applicant.

With that language one would have to believe that Larry Adler can sell off parcels he owns, like he did with The Hartford parcel, and each separate parcel COULD then be developed with 20% retail.

If this is true, that means there COULD be a lot of retail in that area and not just 20% of the 100+ acres in the business park as one might be led to believe if not given all the facts.

There are several parcels included in the area to be re-zoned including residential properties not owned by Larry Adler.

Below is a reduced size jpg of the area that would be included [click on map to view a slightly larger version. Click here to see a full-size jpg.]:

The area highlighted in yellow is a map of the Planned Development Park District and is the area involved in Mr. Adler's proposed rezoning request.

After last week's town board meeting, we visited the town clerk's office to view the papers that were submitted by Larry Adler; we FOILed a copy of the documents. Those documents can be viewed here.

According to the Short Environmental Assessment Form filled out by Mr. Adler, question #9...What is the present land use in vicinity of project...Mr. Adler answers "commercial". Perhaps he might want to review the tax map because there is a lot of residential property owners who might have something to say about allowing retail businesses in their front and backyard.

Supervisor Tyksinski...this only makes sense if the people who will be most affected and the general public thinks it does...the business park zone code must have been written with limited use for retail [allowing only retail such as a cafeteria for only the workers in a building] for a reason. This smells of the tail wagging the dog!

The first step is for the request to go before the Planning Board and then on to the town board if approved by the Planning Board.

With Tyksinski obviously voting in favor, the town board would need two more votes to allow the change to the current zoning.

Backman has stated he is not in favor; Woodland is the Councilman for that area...how will they vote when they finally get to the table?

Krupa will be gone after December 31, 2011...so she may or may not have a vote depending on when the Public Hearing is finally set and when the vote is taken...how will she vote and how would her replacement, Paul Miscione, vote?

Then there's Councilman Reynolds who pushed for the business park creation during the previous administration. How will he vote?

Will they vote for the desires of Larry Adler or will they take in consideration the wishes of the people who reside in that area should they be against this change?

If you would like a say in this matter, be sure to attend the Public Hearing that is tentatively set for December 21, 2011. We will keep you updated as to the dates and times of meetings regarding Mr. Adler's request.

Happy Turkey Day...

So we have established that the revenue reports are computer-generated and the Town of New Hartford does not have a computer guru on board who programs one-time only reports. In fact, the "Statement of Actual and Estimated Revenues" report can be run at any time by someone who has access to the computer in the Finance Office.

We have also established the fact that “the report” is not devoid of numbers as Pat stated to the town board it would be during the discussion of Ms. Lawrence’s FOIL appeal. So obviously, the report contained information that someone must have thought necessary to enter into the computer.

So why did Ms. Lawrence FOIL the report…what was she looking for?

The last time the board was given a copy of the "revenue report" was September 2010; up until and including that month, the board received an expense-to-date report as well as the revenue-to-date report; each comparing budget to actual. That is exactly what a town board member who does not have regular access to the computer in the Finance Office needs to stay on top of the town’s finances.

Even Earle Reed knew the importance of this reporting; here is an excerpt from a memo he sent to the finance department May 29, 2008:

As per page 33 of Information for Town Officials, “Other reports could also be submitted monthly, such as comparisons of budget estimates with actual transactions, an analysis of investment activity, or a capital project status report.” I am requesting that each of these reports be prepared on a monthly basis and presented to the Town Board for their review. For example, a year-to-date Statement of Revenues and Expenditures should be prepared at the end of each month showing Budget vs. Actual amounts illustrating the amounts over and/or under budget.

This is a service that must be performed in conjunction with the CPA Firm on a monthly basis and will assist the CPA Firm in identifying any weaknesses in the system of internal control and in the reporting and record keeping process. This will also assist with the annual budget process and with the audit of the financial statements.

Mr. Reed ended his email by saying:

If this cannot be accomplished immediately, other actions will be required to be taken to allow these changes to be implemented in a timely and efficient manner in conjunction with the CPA Firm. It is in the Town's best interest that we comply with all of these rules and regulations immediately. I thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

We all know the CPA Firm that Earle Reed refers to in his email.

At least three members of the Town Council were on the town board in May 2008 and were copied on this memo; and one of the three is a CPA. So, after not receiving the revenue reports for a year why didn’t anyone on the town board ask why they were no longer included as part of their monthly financial information?

Remember earlier this year when we blogged "Time to Pay the Piper?" regarding the stack of invoices on the board table awaiting approval for payment and some were actually from September 2010? Is it a coincidence that September 2010 is exactly the same time that the town board stopped receiving the revenue reports and only received the expense reports, half of the financial picture, each month?

To be continued…

"It's not a denial, we don't have it! But, if we had it...

I'd give it to you."

That's what Supervisor Tyksinski first said in response to the latest FOIL appeal written by Ms. Lawrence after her original FOIL request went partly unanswered.

Actually, let's back track. There used to be two financial reports made available each month after Supervisor Tyksinski took office; an expense report..."Statement of Expenditures, Encumbrances & Appropriations" and a revenue report..."Statement of Actual and Estimated Revenues".

Ms. Lawrence FOILed both reports as of September 30, 2011; the expense report was sent to Ms. Lawrence in a timely fashion, but the revenue report was never received and no explanation was given as to why it was not received. That prompted Ms. Lawrence to file a FOIL appeal with the town clerk.

The FOIL appeal was discussed by the town board at the November 16, 2011 town board meeting.

Town Attorney Cully meticulously read Ms. Lawrence's FOIL appeal, not once, but twice, pointing out each time that she asked for a particular report; he even noted that the title of the report was in quotes, and since Town Supervisor Tyksinski said there was no such report, there was no need to provide one, right?

Not so fast...that was Supervisor Tyksinski's reason until Ms. Lawrence commented that she had a copy of a 2010 report that was computer generated with that same title and made available from the time Tyksinski took office until October 2010...9 months of reports and then in October 2010, the report was no longer available. Ms. Lawrence even offered to bring a copy of said report to Supervisor Tyksinski's office.

When it became apparent that the excuse used by Town Attorney Cully and Supervisor Tyksinski was failing the "smell test", Supervisor Tyksinski said that the 2011 revenues haven't been posted yet and won't be until the end of the year when he sees where the revenues are needed. Really? So the 2012 budget, the one that Supervisor Tyksinski commented to the Observer Dispatch was "not a good budget" was based on what revenue figures, Supervisor Tyksinski?

At one point, Town Attorney Cully asked Ms. Lawrence if she would like to withdraw her appeal. ABSOLUTELY NOT! Ms. Lawrence requested that the FOIL appeal be sent to Robert Freeman, Director of the Committee on Open Government, as outlined by the NYS Freedom of Information Law.

That's when Supervisor Tyksinski suddenly said he would make the report [the one that he previously said he did not have] available to Ms. Lawrence.

Below is the video of Ms. Lawrence defending her appeal at the November 16, 2011 town board meeting. When will they ever learn?

By the way, here is the FOILed revenue report as of September 30, 2011...an unaudited computer-generated report titled "STATEMENT OF ACTUALS AND ESTIMATED REVENUES"; the exact same title as the reports in quotations requested by Ms. Lawrence in her FOIL request and appeal. The exact same report that Town Attorney Cully and Town Supervisor Tyksinski tried to say doesn't exist.

The FOILed Sept. 30, 2011 revenue report was received by Ms. Lawrence on November 18, 2011, two days after Supervisor Tyksinsksi stated that the report doesn't exist. Notice by the items outlined in red on the first page of the report that the report is a computer-generated report and not one that was specifically created for Ms. Lawrence.

We will be back after Thanksgiving to point out a few things in this report. Until then, Happy Thanksgiving!

Missed Opportunities?

We were copied on an email sent by Frank Montecalvo to the Utica Common Council regarding the North - South Arterial fiasco. Mr. Montecalvo wrote:

Dear Common Council Members:

It is my understanding that you have re-passed the legislation that had been previously vetoed by Mayor Roefaro with the following additional paragraph:

“BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Common Council hereby reinstates the original Master Plan Steering Committee's Infrastructure & Waterfront Development sub-committee for the sole purpose of meeting with the NYSDOT to establish a long term plan for the North – South Arterial and to present it's finding to the Common Council no later than January 31, 2012 ...”

Please be advised that as Chairman of the Infrastructure and Waterfront Development Subcommittee (1) I was never, at anytime, consulted and asked my opinion on this proposal by either Mr. Zecca or any other Council Member and (2) that I did not receive a copy of this resolution and was unaware of its exact wording until after the Privilege of the Floor at last night's Council Meeting. Apparently, this resolution had been circulated among Council Members before the vote on overriding the Mayor's veto because it was cited as a reason for some council members to vote to not override. I do not understand why this resolution could not have been e-mailed to my subcommittee members and myself in advance.

Common courtesy should have moved the Council to first inquire of the Infrastructure and Waterfront Development Subcommittee members whether or not we are even available to take on this task.

As I pointed out to you in January, the Utica Master Plan is a fundamentally flawed document. Relative to the Arterial project, it contains no specific vision for the West Utica neighborhood and no discussion of the causes and consequences of sprawl. I requested that you return the Plan to the Steering Committee to fix these flaws. You chose to take no action on my request.

A few weeks later with other members of my subcommittee, we discussed with your economic development committee the Infrastructure Subcommittee's recommendations. I pointed out to you that the Subcommittee made several recommendations, including a Boulevard for the North-South Arterial and several street-connection proposals, that for some reason never appeared in the final draft of the Master Plan. I expressed to you my frustration that our recommendations seemed to be resisted by City Hall. You took no interest in this information, and you requested no changes relative to the Arterial or related street-connection projects.

As I noted at last night's Common Council meeting, under the law you are given a 60-day period after the State's plans are submitted to you to take action on the Arterial project, otherwise the State's plans are deemed approved. I do not know if this period has run yet or not. That is your responsibility to determine, not mine. If the time for response has passed, which official or officials dropped the ball? The Public has a right to know. Additionally you have already been told that Federal approval of this project is expected before the end of this year. Who are you trying to fool with a January 31 deadline?

You had the opportunity to issue a resolution asking the Governor to halt the current project and consider a boulevard-type of project as a substitute. Instead of taking a stand on the issue at hand, you chose to address “Phase 2” -- something that is years away and not currently an issue. It was my understanding, apparently mistaken, that last night you were going to reconsider Mr. Zecca's original resolution to halt Phase 1. Based on the news this morning, this was not done.

Instead, you have chosen to avoid taking a stand on the Arterial project's “wall,” street closures, property takings, and the consequences that will flow, by telling a group of volunteers to meet with the NYSDOT. You are all elected and paid to set policy for Utica – We are not. The Infrastructure and Waterfront Development Subcommittee has already met with NYSDOT and made its recommendations regarding the Arterial and street-connections, which were rejected by you and others at City Hall. Further meetings by us with NYSDOT, at this juncture, would be pointless.

The Infrastructure and Waterfront Development Subcommittee has already done its job.

When are you going to do yours?



Respectfully submitted,

Frank Montecalvo

Chairman, Infrastructure and Waterfront Development Subcommittee

Shortly after we received Mr. Montecalvo's email, Council Member Ed Bucciero copied us on an email he sent to Brian Thomas, City of Utica Director of Urban Planning. In that email, Mr. Bucciero stated that he had confirmed Mr. Montecalvo's belief that the Council had a 60-day period after the State's plans are received to take action on the Arterial project before the State's plans are deemed approved. Additionally, Mr. Bucciero's email requested that Mr. Thomas provide a copy of the dated NYSDOT’s official Arterial project submission correspondence to the City to determine if the 60-day period has lapsed.

What more can we say that Mr. Montecalvo hasn't already said except to reiterate...when does the Utica Council plan on doing their job?

Zoning text amendment requested by Mr. Adler...

Larry Adler and Cameron Group, LLC., developer of the New Hartford Business Park, has asked the town board to consider a zoning text amendment for the area around the business park that is now zoned Planned Development Park District.

According to New Hartford Town Codes:

PDP Planned Development Park District.

Planned Development Park District is intended to provide for a variety of professional office, commercial and light industrial uses. A PDP District has been designated on Woods Road.

Here is a link to the town code regarding Planned Development Districts.

Mr. Adler would like to change the limited uses currently allowed by Section 118.39 (D)(7)(b) of the New Hartford town code.

Currently, that section of the code reads:

(7) Limited uses. The following uses may be allowed in the Planned Development Park District (PDPD):

(b) Retail and services when part of a mixed business use development and provided that such limited use constitutes no more than 20% of the developed floor area of the project. Such limited uses shall be located, arranged and integrated within structures that also house primary uses to serve primarily the service needs of employees and businesses of the Planned Development Park District.

As explained at tonight's town board meeting, this currently would allow retail such as a cafeteria within a building for the employees of that building only and not a stand-alone retail business.

Mr. Adler would like to change the limited uses to allow retail and services in 20% of the total PDPD zone acreage in the Planned Development Park District, thus allowing retail businesses to set up shop in this area.

When asked, no one was able to define exactly what parcels are included in this zone. However, the area does include parcels in the vicinity of the New Hartford Business Park as well as the park itself. Supervisor Tyksinski drew a sketch of the area on the board behind him.

Mr. Adler did not appear at this evening's meeting and there was no discussion as to what plans he has for development, but it obviously has to do with retail development in an area that is already congested.

The procedure for making this zone text change was outlined by Town Attorney Herb Cully; the town has ninety (90) days to act on this according to Attorney Cully. The zone text change has to go before the Planning Board before it comes back to the town board and at the moment no Planning Board meeting has been scheduled for December.

Ninety (90) days would take us into February, plenty of time to act after the first of the year; however, it would appear that this is being "pushed along" for some reason.

The Public Hearing has been tentatively scheduled for December 21, 2011. Here is the video of that portion of tonight's meeting:

There was a lot of tension in the air at this town board meeting...we will be posting more shortly.

New Hartford Town Board Meeting and the 2012 Preliminary Budget

There will be a town board meeting tomorrow, Wednesday, November 16, 2011 starting at 7:00 p.m. in Butler Hall.

The agenda is now available!

The 2012 Preliminary Budget will also be discussed and it is expected that the budget for 2012 will be adopted by the town board at this meeting.

Here is a copy of the 2012 Preliminary Budget as it stands right now.

Oneida County Sewer District Rates

A legal notice was in the Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Observer Dispatch announcing that the Oneida County Sewer District will hold a public hearing on Friday, November 18, 2011, for the purpose of hearing and reviewing any comments on the proposed 2012 sewer use charges.

The hearing is to be held at the Oneida County Water Pollution Control Plant, 51 Leland Ave, Utica, NY at 11:00 a.m.

According to the legal notice, "written statements may be submitted at this time. Furthermore, the record shall remain open for a period of five (5) days following this public hearing for the purpose of receiving any additional written comments. Such comments may be filed up to the 28th day of November 2011. Comments can be mailed to OCSD, P.O. Box 442, Utica, NY 13503-0442."

The notice goes on to say that "the proposed sewer use charges will remain on file with the Clerk of the Board of the Oneida County Board and will be open to public inspection during regular business hours."

We obtained a copy of the rate schedule so that we could provide a pdf copy for everyone...now why couldn't they have done the same...just make the information readily available?

Here is a summary of the proposed 2012 fee schedule...

• the sewer usage rate for 2012 will be $3.31 per 1,000 gallons of water consumed. The 2011 rate is $3.25 per 1,000 gallons of water...in other words there is a proposed rate increase of $.06 per 1,000 gallons of water. Sewer districts are subject to the 2% tax cap and this increase represents a 2% increase.

• Customers who do not have water meters [in other words those with sewers who are on well water] will have a usage calculated based on an estimated water consumption rate of 50 gallons per person per day with a maximum usage based on 200 gallons per day.

• In addition to the above charges, cutomers whose discharge is tributary to the Sauquoit Creek Pumping Station will be assessed $1.05 per 1,000 gallons [the same rate as is presently being assessed for everyone except those in the town of New Hartford, although Supervisor Tyksinski has intimated on more than one occasion that Town of New Hartford users might have to start paying this additional charge in 2012...we'll will have to wait and see.]

Here is the entire proposed rate schedule that was provided to us including the fees for industrial customers, wastewater haulers, late charges, delinquent charges, uncompensated use of sewer district services, refunds and adjustments.

Incidentally, there is a New Hartford Town Board meeting on Wednesday, November 16, 2011. The 2012 budget will once again be discussed and will need to to be adopted by the town board at this meeting.

As of today, there is no agenda on the town's website, so tomorrow we will go to the Town Clerk's office and get one so that we can post it along with a copy of the 2012 Preliminary Budget.

Poetic justice? Irony?

The Public Hearing on the 2012 budget was held this evening. When it came time for questions/comments from taxpayers, Ms. Lawrence brought to the attention of the town board that parcels located in the Clinton Street Sewer District were actually being doubled-billed for the ad valorem portion of their sewer tax for Operation & Maintenance.

This wasn't the first time that Ms. Lawrence brought this to the attention of the town. This past August, Ms. Lawrence met with Town Attorney Herb Cully and Town Assessor Paul Smith to discuss problems in the assessment database. Apparently, that discussion fell on "deaf ears", because lo and behold when Ms. Lawrence looked at the 2012 budget, she could tell that the error had not been corrected.

One of the things Ms. Lawrence tried to explain to Attorney Cully and Assessor Smith back in August was the double-billing error in the Clinton Street Sewer District. Attorney Cully asked Assessor Smith to bring it to Supervisor Tyksinski's attention and resolve the issue as necessary.

The problem initially occurred when it was brought to the town's attention that people in Woodberry were not being charged sewer maintenance fees at all even though they were supposedly added to the Consolidated Sewer District years ago.

Supervisor Tyksinski apparently thought that the same was true for the Clinton Street Sewer District, but supposedly when the problem was brought to the County who prints the town tax bills, they said it was too late to make the adjustment in the assessment database so to correct the problem Supervisor Tyksinski just increased the ad valorem fees [charge per thousand of assessed value] for the parcels in the Clinton Street Sewer District.

So for the 2011 Town Tax Bill instead of paying about $.40 per thousand to retire their debt for constructing the sewer lines, they were taxed $.80 per thousand; $.40 to retire debt and $.40 ad valorem.

Trouble is, the parcels in the Clinton Street Sewer District already actually were being charged the $.40 ad valorem maintenance fees as part of the Consolidated Sewer District because the correct sewer codes were placed on each parcel at the time the district was created. Of course, Ms. Lawrence would know that to be true because she has access to the assessment database through FOIL and she is able to use the information in the database to create reports.

Trying one more time to correct the error, Ms. Lawrence spoke at tonight's Public Hearing for the 2012 Town Budget on behalf of the taxpayers in the Clinton Street Sewer District:

However, Supervisor Tyksinski said they were being charged the correct sewer maintenance fee and acted as if Ms. Lawrence was wrong rather than accept the fact that perhaps a mistake had been made. "I fixed the problem", said Supervisor Tyksinski. "What is your definition of ad valorem?" he asked as if Ms. Lawrence just fell off the turnip truck earlier that day and had no idea what she was talking about.

So Ms. Lawrence, knowing full well she was right and realizing that some people are just too bull-headed to listen and accept the fact that they are sometimes wrong...decided to just keep quiet, although she had many more questions to ask regarding the proposed 2012 budget.

As an example of the overcharge to the Clinton Street sewer users, here is the 2010 tax bill for Marquee, the movie theater in The Orchards, before Supervisor Tyksinski "fixed" the problem:

Click here for a pdf with larger print

Looking at the above tax bill, SEWER CHARGES for 2010:
SW073 - the unit charge for sewers is $20.00
SW074 - the ad valorem charge for sewers is $1,408.42
SW083 - the debt reduction payment is $2,571.92

Total 2010 Sewer Charges for The Marquee - $4,000.34



Now let's look at the 2011 town tax bill for the Marquee...after Supervisor Tyksinski "fixed" it:

Click here for a pdf with larger print

Looking at the above tax bill, SEWER CHARGES for 2011:

SW073 - the unit charge is $20.00
SW074 - the ad valorem charge for sewers is $2,833.41
SW083 - the debt reduction payment is $5,132.16

Total 2011 Sewer Charges - $7,985.57, almost double the previous year's total of $4,000.34.



Actual 2010 Adopted Budget - Sewer Maintenance Tax - $20 unit charge and $.4019 ad valorem

Actual 2011 Adopted Budget - Sewer Maintenance Tax - $20 unit charge and $.4402 ad valorem; a slight increase per thousand; however the debt payment should have decreased slightly also.


So for both 2010 and 2011, the same unit charge has been budgeted [$20] and basically the same ad valorem [charge per thousand of assessed value] has been budgeted and there is no change in the assessed value of the property and yet The Marquee paid almost double the sewer maintenance fees in 2011 than they did in 2010. Now how could that be...it's mathematically impossible. And that's only one parcel in The Orchards...the rest of the parcels in the Clinton Street Sewer District are also overcharged for Sewer Maintenance Fees.

The same problem is going to surface when the 2012 Town Tax bills are prepared because the "fix" was never needed in the first place.

Supervisor Tyksinski said they will look at it...sure, just like they did in August. Oh well, Ms. Lawrence tried....

However, there may be some poetic justice and irony in all this...most of the parcels that are in the Clinton Street Sewer District are businesses, like the 99 Restaurant, the Marquee, Kohl's and other stores in the The Orchards managed by Cameron Group, LLC.

Supervisor Tyksinski, you didn't fix the problem...you f**cked it up! What's Larry gonna say?

Elections and Town Board Meeting tonight...

Wow...2 Democrats on the town board!

Democrat Paul Miscione is the apparent winner in Ward 2 beating incumbent Christine Krupa, a Republican.

Rich Woodland, the incumbent and also a Democrat, was challenged by Republican John D'Amore, but he won back his seat in Ward 4.

Congratulations to Paul and Rich!

The Tax Receiver position has also been abolished saving approximately $50,000 a year according to Town Supervisor Patrick Tyksinski.

Don't forget the town board meeting tonight, Wednesday, November 9, 2011 starting at 7:00 p.m. in Butler Hall; there will be a Public Hearing for the 2012 Budget as part of the agenda.

Agenda is now online!

Proposition #1 - To Abolish Receiver of Taxes Office

On Tuesday, November 8, 2011, New Hartford residents will have decisions to make regarding their town government.

On the ballot will be:

Proposition #1 - Shall the office of receiver of taxes and assessments for the town of New Hartford be abolished effective Dec. 31, 2011, with all powers and duties of that office to be transferred t the office of town clerk effective Jan. 1, 2012?

A vote to abolish the Receiver of Taxes will save approximately $50,000 a year. Several other towns in New York State have abolished this office and it has been a very successful transition saving the taxpayers money without disruption of services.

Here is a link to the blog where we posted Supervisor Tyksinski's letter in the Town Crier regarding abolishing the Receiver of Taxes position.

Also on the ballot:

Council, Ward 2 - Ward 2 covers town residents who live in the Village of NYM and those living in what is referred to as the "Hills" - the southern end of New Hartford. If you do not live in Ward 2, this race will not appear on your ballot.

Christine Krupa - the incumbent - Republican, Conservative

Paul Miscione - Democrat, Working Families, Fix Oneida County

Council, Ward 4 - Again, this will only appear on the ballot of those living in that part of town.

Richard Woodland - the incumbent - Democrat, Working Families

John D'Amore - Republican

Tax Receiver
Kathleen Glenn - Republican, Conservative

Justice
William M. Virkler - Republican, Conservative

Strikeslip's has an excellent blog regarding the County Executive race and the Utica Mayoral race - Time for Change?

Please take the time to vote...tomorrow, November 8th.

Question...When is a mistake no longer just a "mistake"?

The budget process...Tentative budget which is basically the Supervisor's budget; then the town board has input to create the Preliminary budget [which is the budget that is given to the public and discussed at the Public Hearing] and then the vote of the town board to accept the Preliminary Budget which if a favorable board vote becomes the Adopted Budget.

Last year, at the October 27, 2010 town board meeting, the Tentative Budget for 2011 was discussed by the town board so that a Preliminary Budget could be prepared and made available to the public prior to the November 2010 Public Hearing as required by Town Law.

Ms. Lawrence spoke at the end of that board meeting and questioned a $20,000 expense to the General Wholetown for the annual insurance payment for Corr. She noted that the expense was also listed in the Police Fund as it should be since it is not a General Wholetown expense.

In the video clip of the October 27, 2010 town board meeting below, Supervisor Tyksinski can be seen acknowledging that Ms. Lawrence is correct; a mistake had been made and would be corrected. It was also noted in the official town board minutes [although Ms. Lawrence did not say General Fund Part-town; the two funds in question were the Police Fund and the General Wholetown as you can hear on the videotape]:

REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING
October 27, 2010
Cathy Lawrence brought to the Board’s attention that the Corr Health Insurance line item appeared in two places in the budget; in the General Fund Whole-Town and the General Fund Part-Town. The Town Supervisor will correct this.

We received a copy of the Preliminary Budget to ensure that the correction had been made; it was indeed corrected as of October 28, 2010.

However, somewhere between the Preliminary Budget, the Public Hearing and the adoption of the 2011 budget by the board, the $20,000 was placed back in the General Wholetown Fund as you can see here.

The problem with this is twofold...first, all taxpayers were taxed twice for the same budget item; second, taxpayers in the Village of New York Mills were taxed for a police expense when by Town Law, a village with a police force of more than five (5) cannot be taxed by a town for police expenditures; such is the case with town taxpayers living in the Village of New York Mills. This is the same Town Law that was the basis for the NYS Comptroller to report in the audit that over $500,000 was borrowed from the General Wholetown Fund to cover shortfalls in the Police Fund and it had to be repaid.

A mistake is forgivable...the budget process is arduous. However, when a mistake is pointed out, acknowledged and corrected, there is no excuse for the same "mistake" to be placed back in the adopted budget unless it wasn't a "mistake" in the first place but rather a means of trying to pad the budget.

Speaking of the budget, one of the good things that Supervisor Tyksinski began after he took office was to give the board members a monthly statement of expenses and revenues. However, about October 2010, the revenue report stopped being given to the town board so that they now only have half the picture regarding the financial status of the town. Apparently, the board members either don't realize the importance of having both expenses and revenues or they don't bother to review the reports anyway so they never noticed.

On October 21, 2011, we decided to FOIL both the expense and revenue reports as of September 30, 2011. Through our FOIL request, we've been provided with the expense report [pdf copy available here], but not the revenue report and our SECOND REQUEST FOIL email went unopened by the Town Clerk last week.

We will be in the Town Clerk's office on Monday to check on the status of our FOIL request for the Revenue report. If it's still not avaiable, we will be preparing a FOIL appeal for the November 9, 2011 town board meeting.

There are a couple of reasons we can think of why the revenue reports are not forthcoming; however, we cannot think of any reason why a year later no one on the town board has questioned the Supervisor or his appointed Director of Finance as to the whereabouts of the revenue reports. How can anyone diligently judge the financial picture of a town without looking at both expenses and revenues?

By the way, the Director of Finance is scheduled to receive an increase in pay from $10,400 to $36,000. For this he is scheduled to work more hours.

Here is an interesting video clip from the October 26, 2011 town board meeting...listen as the town board opines on the fact that no one on the board knows this person, has ever met him or has ever spoken to him either in person or on the phone though he was appointed to the position by Supervisor Tyksinski on January 26, 2011.

The Public Hearing for the 2012 budget is set for November 9, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. How many extra $$ are in the 2012 budget? We will post the agenda as soon as it is made available.

Etc., Etc....

If you attend New Hartford Town Board Meetings you will notice two things; Supervisor Tyksinski starts rocking in his chair when he is getting perturbed and Supervisor Tyksinski usually ends explanations to town board members questions with "etc., etc." rather than give a complete answer.

Such was the case when Councilman Backman questioned him regarding the money owed to the Consolidated Sewer Fund.

According to the 2010 NYS Comptroller's audit, the Consolidated Sewer Fund is owed about $1.5 million because excess money in the sewer fund has been used to cover shortfalls in other funds.

From the 2010 NYS Comptroller's Audit Report [click here for the full Comptroller's report on the Sewer Fund]:

OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER

Consolidated Sewer District

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. If Town officials take corrective action by reducing the excessive fund balance in the consolidated sewer district without also addressing the weak financial position of the police fund, the Board may have to resort to issuing short term borrowing, such as revenue anticipation notes, in order to meet its cash flow needs.

Basically, sewer users have been bankrolling unbudgeted expenditures in other funds. And that money has not been paid back yet.

By Town Law, the town has to prepare an assessment roll for each Special District [Consolidated Sewer, Lighting, Fire, Water, and Drainage Districts] that is to be made available at a Public Hearing so that anyone may view the information and question the town board if they disagree with the district charges. The Public Hearing for the 2012 budget is set for November 9, 2011.

We FOILed a copy of the assessment roll for the Consolidated Sewer District that is supposed to be filed in the Town Clerk's Office...it did not comply with Town Law in that several bits of information were missing...such as the name and address of the sewer user and the amount of sewer tax that each parcel will be required to pay on their 2012 Town Tax bill; information that is required according to a January 19, 2006 memo from ORPS.

As an aside, in the past we have pointed out several parcels in the Consolidated Sewer District that have never paid sewer tax on their Town Tax bill because their parcel was never properly tagged in the assessment database.

Also, according to the 2010 NYS Comptroller's Audit of New Hartford:

The Board’s failure to adopt budgets with realistic estimates for expenditures has caused the Town to levy more real property taxes than needed and to accumulate the excess fund balance.

The Town has actually been taxing sewer users more than they planned to expend each year. Town Law states that "the town board shall annually prepare detailed estimates in writing of the anticipated revenues and expenditures for such district and special improvement for the purpose of determining the amount of money required to meet the expense of maintaining the improvement for the fiscal year commencing on the first of January next succeeding". Town law only allows for a contingency of 10% over the expenses necessary to maintain the system. The town is not supposed to "sit" on district monies and use them as a "slush" fund.

On October 12, 2011, we FOILed the 2012 budget worksheets for the Consolidated Sewer District so that we could see what expenses are budgeted for next year...as of today, we have yet to receive the information.

Here is the discussion on the Consolidated Sewer District, "etc. etc.":

Preliminary 2012 budget discussions got a little heated...

at the October 26, 2011 town board meeting.



Public Hearings for the 2012 New Hartford Town Budget will be held on November 9, 2011.

OPEN TO THE PUBLIC...

The New Hartford Public Library Re-chartering Informational Meeting of the Library Board of Trustees is open to the public.

From their website:

The library is an important asset to our community, but direct government funding is dwindling due to the economic times we live in...new sources of monies need to be explored to keep the library running at its current level. That might include becoming a library district with library taxes being collected at the same time as school taxes, or perhaps there are other options.

Residents and taxpayers need to be involved in decisions that will impact how taxes are levied to fund our library and we are pleased that the Library Board of Trustees has decided to make this important meeting open to the public as required by the Open Meetings Law.

While we understand that noon is a difficult time for most residents to attend a meeting, we would encourage your attendance on November 7th if at all possible. We are also hopeful that future meetings on this important topic will be scheduled in the evening at a time that most working people can plan to attend.

Don't just sit at home and complain after the fact...show your support for our library by being a part of the solution.