Questions New Hartford Central School hopes taxpayers never ask! Part 3 of many...

So why would the school pay $15,960 per year in 2005 and now Superintendent Nole states that the rent is $28,000 a year...almost double the yearly lease cost initially agreed to in 2005.

According to documents found on the NYS Education Dept. website a lease cannot include "the costs of heat, electricity, water or other utilities or the costs of operation or maintenance of the leased facility." So the rising costs of maintenance and utilities can't be used as an excuse for such a sharp increase in rent.

As a matter of fact, the same document states that an attorney representing the board of education must certify that these costs are not included; and that certification must be provided to the NYS Education Commissioner prior to the lease being approved by the Commissioner.

The attorney for the board of education also must certify that:

voter approval has been obtained where required by law (a) for a lease that is longer than five (5) years; (b) in the case of renewals; and (c) for any capital project to be undertaken in a leased building or facility;

The attorney also must certify that:

the lease does not include an option to buy; the lease includes a provision that the lease shall be void and unenforceable if entered into in violation of section 801 of the General Municipal Law or section 410 of the Education Law.

Section 801 of the General Municipal Law and section 410 of the Education Law are pertaining to conflicts of interest.

So who is the attorney for the board and did he/she provide such certification to the NYS Education Commissioner? If certification was provided, may we see a copy of that signed and dated certification?

We would like an explanation as to why taxpayers have been paying so much for a lease that was, according to news accounts, signed for $1,330 a month or $15,960 a year and is now costing taxpayers $28,000 a year.

Taxpayers deserve to know the facts before they agree to spend one more penny on property that is almost 100 years old and "may" have environmental issues.

On April 23, 2012, Edmund J. Wiatr, Jr., a candidate for NH school board, FOILed several documents including the lease for 29 Oxford Road. A copy of his FOIL request was sent to both Superintendent Nole and Aurelia Greico, the school board clerk.

On Friday, April 27, 2012, Mr. Wiatr received the following email:

April 27, 2012

Dear Mr. Wiatr:

On, Monday, April 23, 2012 this office received your request for records.

Consistent with Section 89 of the New York Public Officers Law, the District hereby acknowledges receipt of that request. Access to the requested records will be determined in accordance with this section of the law and the determination will be made within 20 business days (May 21, 2012).

If we are unable to make that determination within that time, you will be notified of the same and of the date by which the request will be granted in whole or in part.

Sincerely,

Aurelia R. Greico

Records Access Officer

Aurelia "Re" Greico
Athletic Dept. Assistant
District Clerk
New Hartford Central School District
33 Oxford Rd.
New Hartford, NY 13413
(315) 624-1296 - Fax (315) 624-1334
rgreico@nhart.org

Perhaps, Ms. Greico, who apparently is Records Access Officer; Athletic Dept. Assistant; AND District Clerk should spend some time on the Freedom of Information Law; her response is a blatant disregard of the Freedom of Information Law.

According to an Opinion Letter from Robert Freeman, Executive Director of the Committee on Open Government:

Based on the foregoing, an agency must grant access to records, deny access in writing, or acknowledge the receipt of a request within five business days of receipt of a request. When an acknowledgement is given, it must include an approximate date within twenty business days indicating when it can be anticipated that a request will be granted or denied. If it is known that circumstances prevent the agency from granting access within twenty business days, or if the agency cannot grant access by the approximate date given and needs more than twenty business days to grant access, however, it must provide a written explanation of its inability to do so and a specific date by which it will grant access. That date must be reasonable in consideration of the circumstances of the request.

The amendments clearly are intended to prohibit agencies from unnecessarily delaying disclosure. They are not intended to permit agencies to wait until the fifth business day following the receipt of a request and then twenty additional business days to determine rights of access, unless it is reasonable to do so based upon "the circumstances of the request." It is our perspective that every law must be implemented in a manner that gives reasonable effect to its intent, and we point out that in its statement of legislative intent, §84 of the Freedom of Information Law states that "it is incumbent upon the state and its localities to extend public accountability wherever and whenever feasible." Therefore, when records are clearly available to the public under the Freedom of Information Law, or if they are readily retrievable, there may be no basis for a delay in disclosure.

Here is Mr. Freeman's entire Opinion Letter dated May 5, 2006.

Access will be determined by May 21st...a week after the school vote...for documents that should be readily available in their files??? What are they hiding???

There's more...stay tuned!

Questions New Hartford Central School hopes taxpayers never ask! Part 2 of many...

According to news articles, the property at 29 Oxford Road was leased by the New Hartford Central School in November 2005; or about 6 1/2 years ago.

NYS Education Law is quite specific regarding leasing of properties by school districts.

According to New York Education - Article 9 - § 403-B Leasing of School Buildings and Facilities (a):

No such lease shall be for a period of more than five years, except that the term of such a lease may exceed five years if the approval of the voters of the school district which will become the lessee is obtained before the lease is executed. [emphasis added]

According to the November 2005 Observer Dispatch article that we referenced in our previous blog, the New Hartford school board voted to lease the property in November 2005 and the business office was scheduled to move into the property in December 2005.  Given those dates, there obviously was no vote to lease the property for more than five (5) years prior to executing the lease because that would have required a special election.  So we have to assume that the lease signed in 2005 was only for five (5) years.

New York Education - Article 9 - § 403-B Leasing of School Buildings and Facilities (d) further says:

Any such lease may be renewed, provided however that the approval of the voters of the school district which will become the lessee shall be obtained before such renewal is executed. [emphasis added]

That means that prior to November 2010, a proposition to renew the lease would have had to appear as a referendum on a school ballot.

Does anyone remember voting to renew the lease on 29 Oxford Road in 2010?

We looked through our files to review NH School budget brochures received in the mail from the district each year, but we couldn't find where a vote was held to renew a lease on 29 Oxford Road. We scoured newspaper articles...still couldn't find anything regarding a vote to renew a lease for property at 29 Oxford Road.

So the next question is...how can the school still have a enforceable lease for the property at 29 Oxford Road when the lease was first signed in 2005, more than five (5) years ago, without first getting voter approval?

Of particular interest is the fact that in December 2010, shortly after a five (5) year school lease would have expired, the building was purchased by Ashford-Clinton Corp. owned by the school's bond counsel, Ms. Romano.

Equally as interesting is the fact that the Oneida County recording page which was attached to the deed for 29 Oxford Road, has a notation at the bottom of the page stating that after the deed is recorded it should be returned to Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC., 501 Main Street, Utica, NY 13501. That is the business address of Ms. Romano who is counsel for Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC...AND bond counsel for New Hartford Central School.

We also note that the November 2005 Observer Dispatch article states:

The district will rent the two-story house at 29 Oxford Road for $1,330 per month, Assistant Superintendent of Business Robert Nole said.

On March 29, 2012, in an article that appeared in the Observer Dispatch, New Hartford school district looks to purchase properties, Superintendent Nole was quoted as saying:

The school leases the Oxford Road building for $28,000 a year, so purchasing the property would save money, Nole said.

Do the math...$1,330 per month equates to $15,960 per year in 2005 and now Superintendent Nole states that the rent is $28,000 a year...that's almost double the yearly rent cost initially agreed to in 2005. What occurred that would justify that kind of increase over 6 1/2 years?

We are also puzzled by a handout forwarded to us by some concerned individuals who attended a recent PTA meeting. The handout states:

"The proposition is presented for a cost not to exceed $270,000 to account for any unexpected developments and/or additional expenses due to environmental remediation [emphasis added] which are not anticipated but might occur."

Environmental remediation??? Where? at 29 Oxford Road? The school has been leasing that property for 6 1/2 years and now we find out that it MIGHT need environmental remediation!

We also remind everyone that our previous blog sited Education Law whereby the commissioner is supposed to approve the lease "after determining whether or not the building meets all applicable standards for the health, safety and comfort of occupants". Was the State Education commissioner made aware of the possible environmental remediation that might be needed prior to the lease being signed?

If an environmental review wasn't done in 2005, shouldn't the school now obtain an environmental review BEFORE asking voters to purchase the property...just to protect the taxpayers in the district in case the remediation is more extensive that they think?

Let's face it...29 Oxford Road is an old house; according to the Town of New Hartford assessment database, the house was built in 1920. Shouldn't taxpayers know what they are buying?

The handout also states:

"The property is being conveyed for lower than its appraised value."

So we guess our next question is...Could we see a copy of the appraisal for 29 Oxford Road and the vacant George Ave. property?  

Oh, it gets better...stay tuned!

To be continued....

Questions New Hartford Central School hopes taxpayers never ask! Part 1 of many...

 “Lucy! You got some ‘splainin’ to do!”

Question #1...Could we see a copy of the current lease for the property at 29 Oxford Road?

According to an November 2, 2005 Observer Dispatch article, School board OKs lease of property:

The board Tuesday also agreed to a purchase option on the property.

If the district decides to buy the property between now and Oct. 31, 2006, the cost of the house will be $150,000, Nole said.

Between Oct. 31, 2006, and Nov. 1, 2008, that price rises to $155,000, he said.

If the district chooses to buy the property between Nov. 1, 2008, and Oct. 31, 2010, the cost will be $160,000, he said.

Those costs do not include about $42,000 in repairs and improvements, Nole said.

The option to purchase means the district now is able to put the purchase of 29 Oxford Road up for a public vote if the district decides to go forward with the building project, Gilligan said.

Minutes of the November 1, 2005 New Hartford School board meeting confirm that a lease with an Option to Purchase was approved after an Executive Session that lasted over two (2) hours:

Approval to Lease Premises at 29 Oxford Road and Execute Lease Agreement
Mr. Shaheen moved Mr. Pardi seconded that the Board approve a resolution authorizing the
approval to lease premises at 29 Oxford Road and execute a lease agreement.

Option to Purchase
Mr. Shaheen moved Mr. Pardi seconded, that the Board adopt a resolution authorizing the
Option to Purchase 29 Oxford Road.

[Note:  Mr. George Shaheen is hoping to regain a seat on the school board this year.]

In looking over Education Law, and after an exhaustive online investigation, we found that there is a section of Education Law that allows a school to enter into a lease with an option to buy if a building is constructed on property they already own; however, several documents [you can view one document here] we found online state that "a school may not enter into leases with an option to buy".

Also Education Law Article 9 - § 403-B Leasing of School Buildings and Facilities (f) states:

The term "lease", as used in this section, shall not include a lease with an option to purchase.

With that in mind, we would like to know...under what authority did the school board agree to a lease with option to buy?

Education Law Article 9 - § 403-B Leasing of School Buildings and Facilities (c) might provide the answer to our question. It says:

Such lease shall not become effective until the commissioner shall have approved the same. In approving such leases, the commissioner shall determine: (i) that the leased facility meets all applicable standards for the health, safety and comfort of occupants; (ii) that the leased facility is educationally adequate as determined by the commissioner for new construction or rehabilitation, and (iii) that district has a current five-year facilities plan, or other long-range facilities plan as applicable, that is consistent with the regulations of the commissioner, and includes the proposed lease as well as all other planned acquisitions, disposals and leasing of buildings or facilities for school purposes during the period of the plan.

Could it be that the commissioner didn't approve the lease with option to purchase because schools aren't allowed to sign such a lease? Could it be that the school actually only has a lease...period...with no purchase options? That would certainly explain why the purchase options were never exercised.

A copy of the signed lease in satisfaction of Mr. Wiatr's FOIL request would quickly answer that question, but it would also open up another whole set of questions that we will get into whether or not we get a copy of the lease.

If you missed our first blog, Full Disclosure., we hope you will take the time to read it.

Superintendent Nole has recently been asked more than once by Edmund J. Wiatr, Jr., a candidate for the New Hartford school board, to name the owners of Ashford-Clinton Corp., the current owner of both the George Ave. and 29 Oxford Road properties that the school wishes to buy.  However, Mr. Nole has stated he does not know.

We find that amazing since one of the owners is bond counsel for New Hartford Central School and the other is her husband. Perhaps Mr. Nole should read Full Disclosure... he might find it enlightening!

We have many more questions regarding the purchase of properties by New Hartford Central School. Our next few blogs will focus on our questions and the lack of response thus far from Superintendent Nole.

Stay tuned....

Rezoning on the table at tonight's town board meeting...

Town board meeting tonight, Wednesday, April 25, 2012 starting at 7:00 p.m. in Butler Hall. On the agenda are two zone map amendment requests.

Larry Adler's zone map amendment is once again on the agenda. This time, Mr. Adler wishes to only rezone 206 acres of the business park to Planned Development Mixed Use (PDMU). If you remember, we blogged about the letter written by PAR on behalf of Larry's rezoning; PAR for the course.... Turns out that PAR had no idea what they were agreeing to and they now want to take the 10 acres their facility occupies out of the mix.

If this rezone plan is adopted by the New Hartford town board, in essence we will be left with a 10 acre business park zone that has no plans for future development because it already is the site of PAR. That seems quite contrary to the 2007 Comprehensive Plan that mentions:

3.5.1 Proposed Business Park

The development of a business park has been proposed for over 100 acres at the intersection of Wood Highway and Seneca Turnpike. The Planning Board approved Phase I of the project in 2006. The project would provide over 500,000 square feet of building space.

According to Town Code, one of the requirements for a zone map amendment is:

"Conformance with Town Comprehensive Plan. In all cases where the Town Board shall approve an amendment to the Zoning Map, said Board shall find, for reasons fully set in its resolution, such amendment to be in conformity with the Town Comprehensive Plan."

The 2007 Comprehensive Plan is over 5 years old and needs to be updated; the process was never completed after the last update because codes were not brought into conformance with the adopted plan. Supervisor Tyksinski mentioned the need to update the Plan at the last town board meeting, but...will that be before or after everyone gets their zone map amendments adopted by this town board? Isn't the fact that so many rezone requests are being filed and adopted by this town board reason enough to update the Comprehensive Plan?

The second rezone request is the Husted property behind the New Hartford Library. They are asking for that property to be rezoned for high density residential to allow an 80 unit senior complex.

Edmund J. Wiatr, Jr. also has a very interesting FOIL appeal on the table.

The agenda and supporting documentation are now available online!

"Unearthing" the New Hartford Business Park...

According to the Office of Real Properties Services [ORPS], there are several land type classifications that assessors use for assessing purposes to include primary, secondary, undeveloped and pasture just to name a few.

More specifically, there is a land type called residual.  According to ORPS, residual:

...describes all excess land on a site which is not coded as Primary, Secondary, Undeveloped, Waterfront, or Leased Land. It should be used primarily to describe any excess land on a commercial site which is not considered suitable for development [emphasis added] purposes.

We have been told at town board meetings that a lot of the property being considered for re-zoning is extremely wet and swampy so we decided to  check out the land type as determined by the town assessor.

Using the town's online assessment program, we looked up each of the properties identified in Mr. Adler's zone change request documents as being the 246.77 total acreage currently zoned Planned Development Park [PDP or business park].

From the information found in the Town of New Hartford assessment database, we then developed a spreadsheet and found the following to be true according to town records:

• According to town records, there are three (3) different land types in the PDP zone; primary, undeveloped and residual.

•  18% of the PDP is primary land, some of that land has already been developed for residential, The Hartford and PAR Technologies

•  35% of the 246.77 acres is undeveloped, but could be developed

•  Of the 246.77 acres currently zoned PDP, 47% or almost half the property is listed as residual [undevelopable]

We then decided to create another spreadsheet looking specifically at the 212.7 acres owned by the five (5) who are listed as in favor of the zone map amendment change and have signed petitions in support of Mr. Adler's request.

•  10% of the 212.7 acres is primary land, with some already developed

•  39% of the 212.7 acres is undeveloped, but could be developed

•  Of the 212.7 acreage of those wishing to change the zoning, 51% or more than half the property is listed as residual [undevelopable]

So like our first spreadsheet, half the acreage of those that are in favor of a zone map amendment is identified in town records as being residual land...undevelopable!

Oh, and one more thing...

•  Of the undeveloped, but developable acreage of those wishing to change the zoning, 95% of the property is currently identified in the town's database as being owned by New Hartford Office Group, LLC [Larry Adler]!

There are many ways one could analyze the data, but one thing is for sure...it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that land with no improvements that is tagged as residual [undevelopable] in the town's records is assessed far less than land that is tagged as undeveloped, but developable.

So...we ask, is it the assessor that has incorrectly identified these parcels as undevelopable in the assessment database and therefore, it is very probably that these parcels have actually been under assessed for years...OR...are the taxpayers in the Town of New Hartford being sold "a bill of goods"?

To be continued...

Town Board Agenda now online...

The agenda for tonight's town board meeting is now available online!

It appears the only thing that has changed is...

...Tyksinski's focus.

We found a 2005 Observer Dispatch article with questions posed to the then two candidates for Town Supervisor...Earle Reed and Patrick Tyksinski. Below is a portion of that article.

Candidates speak out on growth

Observer-Dispatch (Utica, NY) - Monday, August 29, 2005

This is the first in a series of Observer-Dispatch stories looking at the issues in Mohawk Valley communities as the Sept. 13 primary approaches.


By ALLISSA KLINE

Observer-Dispatch

NEW HARTFORD-- Booming growth in Oneida County's biggest town has saturated just about every part of this town, and candidates for town supervisor have their own views.

Two men vying for the leadership of this retail wave meet in a Sept. 13 Republican primary: Earle Reed and Patrick Tyksinski . The winner will face no Democrat in November, so the race is an important one.

Oxford Townhouse resident Mary Chapin said she wants future leaders of New Hartford to consider the town's master plan when thinking about new development.

"I occasionally ask myself, 'Is there a point beyond which we cannot handle anything more?'" Chapin said Thursday. "Does it stretch the services like fire and police too thin?"

Reed has said he wants to bring more chain retailers and restaurants along the town's main corridors. Tyksinski said he'd like to see an increase in light industry.

"The increased number of new retail centers is burdening our infrastructure, highway department, police department and fire departments, and these costs are being picked up by the taxpayers of New Hartford," Tyksinski said.

The current administration established a fourth police zone just to take care of the increased growth in the commercial corridor on Commercial Drive, he noted, a cost borne by New Hartford residents.

"What we need to do is to plan our growth better, bring in non-retail businesses which do not have a heavy impact on our infrastructure, and keep in mind that we must maintain the quality of life in our town and keep its charm in place," Tyksinski said.

Reed said the town leadership needs to be conscious of environmental considerations and conscious of existing merchants the town's had for more many years, such as the New Hartford Shopping Center.

"I believe it's got to be strictly managed growth," he said.

The town has not posted the agenda for tonight's meeting; however, Larry Adler's zoning map amendment is on the agenda as far as we know. The town board meeting starts at 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, April 4, 2012, in Butler Hall.

Adler's Zone Map Amendment...

Information available in today's Observer Dispatch article, Concerns linger over New Hartford Business Park rezoning, were long overdue.

The responses of each of these agencies should have been made available to the public prior to the public hearing, but there seemed to be a "rush" to get this through the system. So much so that even though the application wasn't complete and the fee for the requests were not paid until days after the February 8, 2012 town board meeting, the town board passed a resolution to start the clock ticking anyway.

Here are the comments in today's OD article regarding the recommendations of some of the reporting agencies:

Town police Chief Michael Inserra said the impact on police services depends on the type of businesses or companies moving in. “Office buildings generally have less impact on police services than retail,” he said.

In 2009, about 55 percent of the arrests in the town were made in Zone 4, which runs along the Commercial Drive and Seneca Turnpike areas, Inserra said. That forced the police department to expand. “Our commercial district has been expanding for a number of years now,” Inserra said. “If we continue to grow, at some point the manpower issues have to be addressed.”

In other words, taxes will have to be raised to meet the demand for more police.

New Hartford Fire Chief Thomas Bolanowski:

"...continued development in that area of the town will have a “cumulative effect on increasing our frequency of responses and delivery of emergency services.”

In other words taxes will increase to meet the demand.

Jo-Anne Humphreys, an Oneida County Soil and Water Conservation District water quality specialist:

"...said the potential conversion of woods to paved surfaces will “almost certainly have an impact on flooding in the Oriskany and Sauquoit Creek watersheds.”

More flooding...just what New Hartford and our neighboring communities need.

Mark Laramie, deputy commissioner of engineering for the Oneida County Department of Public Works:

“Small offices and retail generate much different traffic patterns,” he said. A letter to the board the Oneida County Planning Department stated concerns over the potential for increased traffic, specifically in the Middle Settlement Road and Clinton Street intersection. The planning and public works departments suggested revised traffic studies.

As we reported in an earlier blog, two (2) GEIS update studies were done by peter j. smith & co. in 2008 at the cost of $30,000 each.

We talked to a few town officials...however, we were unable to find anyone who admitted to knowing about these reports. The town spent $60,000 for reports that have never been discussed publicly since they were created. Both of these reports talk about stormwater, traffic, and other issues in each of the GEIS areas; Seneca Turnpike/Middlesettlement Road and Burrstone/French Road. These updates were completed AFTER the business park development started. We note that Mr. Adler used information from the 1991 GEIS study to support his zoning change request; in 1991, there was a much different use planned for the business park than is currently under way.
We found an eighteen page booklet online printed by the NYS Dept. of State regarding on the topic of Zoning and the Comprehensive Plan. In conclusion, it states:

During the 1990's the zoning enabling statutes were amended to provide a process for adoption of a comprehensive plan--a formal planning document that can provide goals and objectives for the community. Once the plan is adopted, the community’s land use regulations must be consistent with it. [emphasis added by this blogger]

In 2007, the town's Comprehensive Plan was finished and adopted by the town board.
In 2007, the town also bonded for $75,000 to update the zoning regulations to be consistent with the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan as is required. Taxpayers have been paying the principle and interest on this bond since 2007; however, the money was never spent for its intended purpose...the zoning regulations were never updated.

At the March 14, 2012 town board meeting, after just about everyone in the audience left, Supervisor Tyksinski addressed the fact that the zoning regulations were never updated to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Listen to the discussion between Supervisor Tyksinski and Codes Officer Joe Booth.



Click on the arrow in the blue box to start the video; then by clicking on the button at the far right bottom, you will be able to control the volume.

Additionally, according to the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, it is recommended that the plan be updated in five (5) years...that would be this year.

By Supervisor Tyksinski's own words, we need to update our Comprehensive Plan, and the zoning regulations were never updated as is required. The Planning Board voted 6 to 1 that the proposed amendment is NOT consistent with the underlying objectives of the Town Comprehensive Plan and each agency has reported that there are known factors that could impact not only New Hartford residents, but also neighboring communities.

Larry Adler has requested a zoning map amendment request for over 216 acres which according to the developer in today's Observer Dispatch article:

“I don’t have any definitive plans at the moment,” he said Thursday. “I’m not focused on the retail for the zone-change area.”

Wait a minute, didn't he first come to the town board to get a zone text amendment to allow retail? Who does he think he's kidding?

Taking all that into consideration and referring to Town of New Hartford Codes, Article XIV. Amendments:

§ 118-88 E. Town Board procedures. Conformance with Town Comprehensive Plan. In all cases where the Town Board shall approve an amendment to the Zoning Map, said Board shall find, for reasons fully set in its resolution, such amendment to be in conformity with the Town Comprehensive Plan.

There have been several zone map amendments allowed during Tyskinski's administration and there are more waiting to be acted on. If this zoning map amendment is adopted by our town board prior to updating the comprehensive plan and updating zoning ordinances to be consistent with that plan, it will make it difficult to turn down further requests and leave little doubt as to whom the town board feels obligated to serve.