According to the article in the OD, Laura Ruberto is the vice president of Ashford-Clinton Corp.
However, what the article didn't say is that Attorney Linda Romano and her husband Russell Petralia are owners of Ashford-Clinton Corp.
What makes this so interesting is that Ms. Romano, as a representative of Bond, Schoenick and King has been, and still is, bond counsel for New Hartford Central School.
In May 2009, we FOILed ALL agreements for legal representation for the New Hartford Central School District. Among the agreements we received was a letter from Ms. Romano to then Superintendent of Business Affairs, Robert Nole detailing the agreement between Bond, Schoenick & King & New Hartford Central School for bond counsel services for the A+ project bonding.
More recently, minutes of the July 13, 2011 NHCS Board Organizational Meeting, list Bond, Schoeneck & King [Ms. Romano] as a law firm currently retained by the school.
Documents found on the web regarding Ashford-Clinton Corp. list Ms. Romano as Vice President, Laura Ruberto as Senior Management and Russell Petralia as CEO/President.
Additionally, it has been our experience that if we submit a FOIL request to Oneida County Industrial Development, we receive an email from Ms. Romano identifying herself as legal counsel for OCIDA with a copy to Laura Ruberto. If we send an email to Ms. Romano as President of the New Hartford Public Library, we also receive an email from Ms. Romano with a copy to Laura Ruberto. Obviously, Ms. Ruberto and Ms. Romano are connected. At any rate, in both cases, emails are sent from Ms. Romano with a signature line of:
The property at 29 Oxford Road is assessed $119,600 with a market value of $147,654. On December 22, 2010. Ashford-Clinton Corp. paid $193,064 to purchase the property from Autumn Enterprises, LLC.
So total paid by Ashford-Clinton Corp. [Linda Romano] the two properties...$207,064. The article in the Observer Dispatch said:
The cost of purchasing the properties is not to exceed $270,000, including purchase price and estimated acquisition costs such as legal fees and site-work expenses...This is not the first time that Ms. Romano has purchased property only to turn around and sell it to the school. In July 2005, Ashford-Clinton [Ms. Romano] bought property [60 ft. by 133 ft. with a house that was eventually demolished] on Daly Place for $57,835. Six (6) months later, in January 2006, Ms. Romano sold the property to New Hartford Central School for $76,130.
According to the Observer Dispatch article, the purchase of the two properties will be on the May 15th ballot along with the budget vote.
5 comments:
Not to get off subject, but did the town cut into route 840 for the business park, and if so who's paying for it? Thanks for the info. I wanted it for Wednesdays meeting.
Joanne Bianco
Hi Joanne,
The cut into 840 and the Clinton Street extension were both done although we understand that they are not quite finished yet.
The town bonded for $600,000 and also included another $500,000 of Fees In Lieu of Mitigation paid by other developers for a total of $1.1 million.
Another PILOT/TIF agreement was reached where Larry pays taxes, but the taxes are used to pay back the bond with interest.
So essentially, the taxpayers in New Hartford once again financed infrastructure for a private developer.
THe city of Utica gets all the ink for its mismanagement and bad politics but, the town of New Hartford along with the NHCS are allowed a get out of jail free card.The spotlight rarely shines on their mismanagement and crony politics. In New Hartford anything is possible ( if you know the right people.)
George St property was a topic at many school board meetings, just before it was purchased by Ashford-Clinton Corp / Ms. Romano. Even at that time, it was discussed by then superintendent Gilligan as the school acquiring the land through third party, to avoid putting the acquisition up for vote by residents. After neighbors voiced concerns about school plans for acquisition of that piece of land, school board promised to put a limitation in the deed that the land is not to be developed, and is to be kept in "current vegetative state". This was an idea of Mr. Cully, a lawyer serving on the board at that time, and agreed on by the rest of the board, because their idea was supposed to be to acquire the land to serve as a buffer between the school and the residential neighborhood. All of those actions are contrary to the current story served to the public, that the property is being acquired for future expansions. Makes one wonder if the limitation that was promised to the neighbors was ever put in the deed. If it wasn't, why were the neighbors lied to?
Anonymous said:
This was an idea of Mr. Cully, a lawyer serving on the board at that time, and agreed on by the rest of the board, because their idea was supposed to be to acquire the land to serve as a buffer between the school and the residential neighborhood.
We believe you are referring to Mr. Calli, not Mr. Cully who is the town attorney now. Mr. Calli was on the school board at the time the property on George Ave was being discussed.
At any rate, we visited Mr. Nole who was in the Business Office at that time and he said he thought it was being purchased to serve as a buffer although he also said he didn't know who was purchasing the property.
It does appear that the school has other plans at this point.
Post a Comment