A Gentlemen's Agreement...

From the May 23, 2012 New Hartford Town Board Meeting...

If there is no voice after starting the video, click on the symbol in the lower right hand corner of the video to increase the volume.

A week ago at the May 16, 2012 Library Trustee meeting, the library treasurer boasted that the town would be making an additional $50,000 payment to the library. He even tried to goad Trustee Wiatr to wager a bet as to whether the monies would be forthcoming from the town.

It is apparent now that discussions took place behind closed doors...discussions that appear to have resulted in three (3) of the five (5) town board members promising to turn over $50,000 of sales tax revenue to the library. Councilman Reynold's can even be heard on this video saying there was a "gentlemen's agreement".

As you listen to this video, keep in mind that the Library books have NEVER been audited and they have NEVER filed the required Annual Update Document with the State Comptroller's Office even though the Library Treasurer received a letter from the State Comptroller a couple of years ago requesting compliance with General Municipal Law Article 3 - Report of Financial Condition:

§ 30 (3) An annual report of financial transactions shall be made by the treasurer of each public library and library service system established pursuant to section two hundred fifty-five of the education law, each county vocational education board established pursuant to section eleven hundred one of the education law and each board of cooperative educational services established pursuant to section nineteen hundred fifty-eight of the education law.

Keep in mind that over a million dollars is owed to the Consolidated Sewer District and the Police Fund still owes money due to interfund borrowings that took place during the Earle Reed administration.

On August 23, 2012, voters in the New Hartford Central School District will be asked to vote on a $ 996,975 library budget; more than double the taxes that are currently being collected to fund the library.

If the vote is favorable for the library to recharter as a school district library, it is projected to cost between $.55 to $.85 per thousand of assessed value in additional taxes on the 2013-14 school tax bill depending on where you live in the New Hartford School District. The total taxes will be based on your actual assessed value as STAR exemptions cannot be applied to other than school taxes.

Currently the town budget includes $400,000 to fund the library each year and those taxes are paid by everyone including the residents in the two villages.

With rechartering as a school district library, only residents in the New Hartford Central School District will be required to pay to fund the library.

Town Board Meeting Tonight...

Wednesday, May 23, 2012 starting at 7:00 p.m. in Butler Hall. Agenda now online!

Questions regarding NHCS property purchases...

It would seem that the more those involved with the purchase of these properties speak, the more questions need to be asked and answered.

In today's Observer Dispatch, regarding the purchase price of 29 Oxford Road, we are told:

Ashford-Clinton plans to sell it to the district for $187,160, Romano said.

How benevolent of them...but that is NOT what the Option to Purchase says.

Never mind the fact that under Education Law the school cannot sign a Option to Purchase; here is what the signed Option to Purchase says:

3. Purchase price. The total purchase price for the land described in Schedule "A" shall be determined at the time of closing as follows:

(a) Purchase Price shall equal the outstanding principal balance of the indebtedness (i.e. $192,594 amortized over 15 years at seven percent) at the time the option is exercised but in no event less than the amount owing as of the date of closing.

(b) Purchaser shall pay incidental costs for recording fees, carrying costs and necessary expenses incurred by seller during the term of the lease which have not otherwise been previously reimbursed.

The total purchase price, as shown above, shall be paid to Optionor in cash at the time of closing. In addition to the purchase price set forth above, Optionee shall pay Optionor's accrued interest in the amount of $336.85 per month from lease inception through closing (this is in lieu of and not in addition to a termination fee). Optionee shall receive credit against the purchase price for the amounts paid for this option and the principal pay down of Optionor's indebtedness (see Schedule "B"). Notwithstanding the foregoing, Optionee shall also pay Optionor in addition to the option price set forth above, its reasonable costs, disbursement expenses and attorneys fees associated with the underlying acquisition costs of the realty, exercise of the option, and sale of the realty (unless otherwise compensated) all of which shall be documented. [emphasis added by blogger]

So, it would appear that we need to see Schedule "B" to figure out how much the school has already paid Ashford-Clinton Corp.; however, the school failed to include that document as part of the Option document that was posted online.

One other point regarding the above part of the Option to Purchase agreement, just what does (i.e. $192,594 amortized over 15 years at seven percent) mean? Sounds like language in a mortgage. Here is what amortization is according to The Free Dictionary:

Amortization. Amortization is the gradual repayment of a debt over a period of time, such as monthly payments on a mortgage loan or credit card balance.

To amortize a loan, your payments must be large enough to pay not only the interest that has accrued but also to reduce the principal you owe. The word amortize itself tells the story, since it means "to bring to death."

Why wasn't Schedule "B" made available to taxpayers? Might we find the "true" price being paid for 29 Oxford Road?

According to Superintendent Nole and School Attorney Anthony Hallak, they have only dealt with Russ Petralia, but Ms. Romano seems to be the one with all of the answers regarding these properties. We didn't find one quote or piece of information in the Observer Dispatch article that was from Russ Petralia.

We're also wondering...did they include repaying Autumn Enterprises for the cost of the handicapped porch that was added to 29 Oxford Road just a couple of months before it was made public that the school board agreed to lease the property to house the business office?

According to the minutes of the August 8, 2005 Village of New Hartford Trustee Meeting:

Jennifer Rust, 29 Oxford Road, handicapped ramp application. Upon recommendation by the Planning Board, the Village Board approved making 29 Oxford Road handicapped accessible. Zoning Officer Martin addressed the parking lot issue by stating that the number of parking spaces needs to be based on the square footage of usable office space, not including storage, therefore making 29 Oxford Road's seven parking spaces in compliance with the codes.

According to the Dept of State website, Autumn Enterprises is owned by the Rusts; they were the owner of 29 Oxford Road previous to Ashford-Clinton Corp.

According to NHCS Board Meeting Minutes, the school board agreed to lease 29 Oxford Road at the November 1, 2005 school board meeting.

Coincidence...two months after Ms. Rust applies for a building permit we learn that the school is going to lease the property? The school, as a government entity, has to make sure that their buildings are handicapped accessible; particularly if they are doing any remodeling.

Is it a coincidence that according to that a November 2, 2005 Observer Dispatch article, the school could have paid Autumn Enterprises $160,000 to purchase the property if done by October 30, 2010; yet Ashford Clinton paid about $193,000 for the same property in December 2010?

Did Ashford-Clinton Corp., and is the school now, indirectly paying for improvements to these properties; improvements that would have taken voter approval if the school were to undertake them?

We have also heard from school administrators that 29 Oxford Road is crowded because there are 9 people working there? Is that a subtle message that more bonding will be put on the table shortly?

Will the school be less "landlocked" if these two properties are purchased? At what point will New Hartford Central School officials be satisfied with their acquisitions?

It's troubling that there are so many versions of the details regarding these properties being put out by the school district and Ms. Romano; yet FOILed documents seem to contradict everything taxpayers are being told.

It is interesting to note that Edmund J. Wiatr, Jr. FOILed the Option to Purchase agreement along with other documents regarding the properties. In response he was told by Attorney Anthony Hallak that he could get them on the school's website. [See letter from Attorney Hallak here.] We have been told that Mr. Wiatr has since received yet another letter from Attorney Hallak.

The school actually retained School Attorney Hallak of the Felt Evans law firm to respond to Mr. Wiatr's FOIL requests even though Records Access Officer, Aurelia Greico, had already responded.

Why is it necessary for the school attorney to get involved in releasing documents that should have willingly been released to the taxpayers of New Hartford Central to justify the purchase of the properties on the May 15th ballot?

Responding to FOIL requests, except in extreme cases, need only be handled by the school record access officer. Taxpayers should ask how much money Attorney Hallak has received to delay FOILed documents that should be readily available to the public!

The FOI Law does not require a person to go to a website to retrieve the FOILed documents. FOIL requests are supposed to be supplied to the person who requests them either electronically or in paper format, according to the particulars of the request.

We have blogged about Attorney Hallak and his lack of understanding of [or should we say his disregard for] the Freedom of Information Law many times. It should be troubling to New Hartford Central School taxpayers that school administrators feel it necessary to hire an attorney to respond to simple requests for information.

However, as long as taxpayers are willing to put up with this, it will continue.

New Harford Central School - Conflict of Interest??

Would property purchase by N. Hartford schools be a conflict?...that's the question that an Observer Dispatch article has now posed.

Below are our answers to statements made to the Observer Dispatch by Superintendent Nole, Attorney Hallak and Attorney Linda Romano, owner of Ashford-Clinton Corp.

"District Superintendent Robert Nole said the school board was aware of Romano’s husband’s role with Ashford-Clinton Corp. but he said he did not know about her own relationship with the company."

Gee, Ms. Romano has referred to "her company", Ashford-Clinton Corp., many times at Library Board meetings; we're surprised she never mentioned it in the presence of Superintendent Nole or members of the school board.

“The school district had its own representation in connection with the purchases,” Romano said.

"Bond, Schoeneck & King was not used in the purchasing process for these properties, Nole said."

Well, we should hope Bond, Schoeneck & King was not representing the school since Ms. Romano of Bond, Schoeneck & King is also one of the owner's of Ashford-Clinton Corp., the buyer.

However, Attorney Hallak, another school attorney was involved with the purchases by Ashford-Clinton. But why? Why was the school attorney involved with the purchase of properties being bought by another school attorney's company? Why was it necessary for Attorney Hallak to be present for the transactions if the school wasn't involved in the purchase?  Just who was he representing?

"As for Romano’s role in the proposed purchase, Hallak said he does not believe she had any. Hallak also said he does not believe Romano suggested the purchase to the district. “I’ve only seen Russ’ name in documents,” he said. “I don’t know that she has any financial interest in the purchase.”

Just because Ms. Romano's name is not on documents doesn't mean she doesn't have an interest. We have it from a good source that Ms. Romano was involved in the Daly Place property. Goodness..the New Hartford Village minutes even identify her as being involved.  Plus, the deed to 29 Oxford Road was to be returned to Bond, Schoeneck & King, 501 Main Street, Utica, NY 13501 after it was filed according to the recording page.  Isn't that the address of Ms. Romano's Bond, Schoeneck & King office?

The address on the lease is: THE ASHFORD-CLINTON CORP.,c/o Russell J. Petralia, 501 Main Street, PO Box 4969, Utica, New York 13504 ("Landlord").

According to Martindale.com, Ms. Romano's address for Bond, Schoeneck & King is: 501 Main Street, P.O. Box 4969, Utica, New York.

The same address, right down to the P.O. Box, but we are supposed to believe that Ms. Romano was not involved and the school board and Superintendent Nole had no knowledge of the connection.

"Romano said most of the work between Bond, Schoeneck and King and the New Hartford school district goes through attorney Paul Reichel, out of the company’s Syracuse office."

According to the Letter of Engagement for the Triple A project that we FOILed [for some reason the school failed to supply the signature page to the letter], it is clear that it was written on Ms. Romano's letterhead.  So either Ms. Romano was the signatory or Attorney Reichel used her letterhead to provide the school with a Letter of Engagement. It does seem strange that he would use her letterhead if he is the one making the agreement with the school? And it does seem quite coincidental that the signature page was not provided in answer to our FOIL request.

Copy of Engagement Letter to Robert Nole written on Ms. Romano's letterhead.

Further, the Official Statement for a 2009 bond sale clearly said:

"The Bonds are offered when, as and if issued and received by the Underwriters and subject to the receipt of an unqualified legal opinion as to the validity of the Bonds of Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Utica, New York [emphasis added]."

Why would the Official Statement mention Utica, New York if Attorney Reichel from the Syracuse office of Bond, Schoeneck & King was the one that provided the unqualified legal opinion? Ms. Romano must have been involved on some level.

As an aside, Attorney Reichel of the Syracuse office of Bond, Schoeneck King is also involved in the New Hartford Public Library's endeavor to become a school district library.  Library Board President Linda Romano has said more than once that Superintendent Nole is enthusiastic regarding the library re-chartering as a school district library with taxes to fund the library being levied on New Hartford Central School District tax bills.

In fact, Superintendent Nole is so enthusiastic he has agreed to have the school district pay the cost of the re-chartering referendum to be held in the library on August 23, 2012.

"Ashford-Clinton purchased the property in June 2009 from St. John the Evangelist Church, according to Oneida County real property records. Ashford-Clinton purchased the George Avenue property for $14,000 according to county records.The company invested $46,257, Romano said. The corporation plans to sell the property to the district for $55,713, she said."

What did they spend $46,257 for? The only thing we see is that someone put in shrubs and trees and built a berm after Ashford-Clinton bought the property.  However, it is unclear who did the work.

"The school currently leases the Oxford Road building for $28,000 a year, so purchasing the property would save money, Nole said. If the sale is approved by voters, the building will continue to house the business office, he has said."

As we have already noted, $28,000 is double the 5-year lease that the school originally signed. Please read the Lease and the Option to Purchase. The school had no authority to sign a Purchase Option...Education Law does not allow it.

We also would like to refresh everyone's memory of the property that the school was referring to as the home of the future Higby Park until we FOILed the information and learned that after it is developed, it will be known as Romano Park.

Isn't it coincidental that every property the school desires to purchase would be bought by Ashford-Clinton Corp. first?  No conflict of interest?  Sorry...the statements in today's paper just don't add up...

We present actual documents FOILed from several governmental agencies to back up our assertions. You can read all of our blogs regarding the purchase of these properties here!

All voters will have the chance to make their own decision on Tuesday, May 15, 2012.  Please be sure to exercise your right to vote!

Note:  We have placed a permanent link to the Tentative 2012 Town of New Hartford Residential Assessment Database in an Excel spreadsheet at the top of the column on the right of this blog. We will be putting more assessment information online shortly.

Questions New Hartford Central School hopes taxpayers never ask! Part 8 of many...

Interesting sale of property at 5 Oxford Road on November 1, 2011.

First let's compare the inventory of 5 Oxford Road to the inventory of 29 Oxford Road; the property the school wants to buy.

The town's assessment database lists 5 Oxford Road:

• 2,586 sq. ft.

• effective year built of 1990 [obviously there was extensive remodeling in 1990 because the house is older]

• 2012 Tentative Assessment is $155,000.

The town's assessment database lists 29 Oxford Road:

• 2,304 sq. ft.

• built in 1920

• 2012 Tentative Assessment is $119,600.

Now let's compare the Actual 2011 sale price of 5 Oxford Road to the Proposed sale price of 29 Oxford Road...

Nov. 1, 2011 Sale price of 5 Oxford Road.....$139,500


Price New Hartford Central School wants to pay for just 29 Oxford Road...we are not really sure because the school hasn't been completely open, but the handout we received says they will be paying $244,000 for 29 Oxford Road to include a small parcel of vacant land [280 ft. by 100 ft.] on George Ave...plus they are asking taxpayers to approve an additional $36,000 just in case there are environmental issues.

Total cost of 29 Oxford Road and a small parcel on George Ave....not to exceed $270,000!!!

Does anyone see anything wrong with this picture?

We ask once again...Does Mr. Brown realize that the school used his two (2) year old Broker's Opinion to justify their proposition to purchase 29 Oxford Road when there are more recent sales available in close proximity to 29 Oxford Road that do not justify the sales price?

We also ask...where are the elected members of the Board of Education...they should be ashamed of themselves!!  We would be interested in knowing if the approval to purchase these properties for this price was by unanimous vote of the school board.

To be continued...If you have not read our previous blogs on this subject, they are available here!

Questions New Hartford Central School hopes taxpayers never ask! Part 7 of many...

In our last blog, we posted the Lease and the Option to Purchase.

Our next question is...was an attorney retained by the school to review these documents and provide guidance to school authorities and the school board?

We didn't have to look very far to find out the answer to our question...the answer is at the bottom of the last page of the Option to Purchase. It says:

L:\AGHALLAKWew Hartford Central School\Option to Purchase -Ashford -NH- 12-27-2010.wpd (revised 1/25/2011)

Obviously, the Option to Purchase is a document from the computer of Attorney Hallak of the Felt Evans Law firm; the same attorney that was noted on records for the George Ave vacant land purchase by Ashford-Clinton Corp.  George Ave is one of the properties currently being proposed for purchase by New Hartford Central School on May 15, 2012.

According to information we received, Attorney Hallak was involved with another purchase made by Ashford-Clinton Corp...8 Daly Place.

At the time of the sale of 8 Daly Place to Ashford-Clinton Corp. in 2005, it was rumored that the property was being bought by someone who was going to donate it to the school and that Attorney Hallak took part in negotiating the purchase of the property for Ms. Romano.

We cannot confirm or deny that fact without another trip to Oneida County to search the records, but we do have a copy of the August 9, 2005 New Hartford Central School Board minutes that say on page 5:

EXECUTIVE SESSION

Mrs. Ksiadz moved Mr. Shaheen seconded, that the Board go into Executive Session for the purpose of negotiations, acquisition of real property and specific persons at 7:34 p.m. with Attorney Hallak in attendance.

Ayes 6, nays 0, motion carried.

Since the only property the school was looking to purchase in 2005 was 8 Daly Place, it would seem to confirm the fact that Attorney Hallak was involved in the purchase by the school about a month AFTER Ashford-Clinton Corp. bought the property. Now why would the school be discussing the purchase of that property in August and put up a referendum to pay up to $95,000 in December when they could have bought it in July for under $60,000?

According to an October 5, 2005 article in the Observer Dispatch:

"We won't spend that much, but we have to allow for that to be spent in case there are extra costs," Superintendent Daniel Gilligan said."

What extra costs? The house was already demolished by the time the school held a vote to purchase the property...the school actually only bought a vacant piece of property in January 2006.  The town's assessment database clearly identifies the purchase as vacant land.

 According to Board Member Calli in that same article:

The amount spent on the purchase will be taken from the district's reserve fund, Calli said.

Now where have we heard that same story recently?  Oh, $300,000 for the purchase of 29 Oxford Road and George Ave is going to be taken out of reserve funds...as soon as the voters approve it.

Here is the timeline of the purchase of 8 Daly Place:

• July 5, 2005 - Ashford-Clinton [Ms. Romano] bought property on 8 Daly Place to include a house in need of major repair and a lot [60 ft. by 133 ft.] for $57,835.

• Sept. 30, 2005 – Press Release by NHCS regarding possible purchase of 8 Daly Place

• Oct. 5, 2005 – News article regarding school board approval of purchasing 8 Daly Place with referendum scheduled for December 13 for approval of the purchase.

• Dec. 5, 2005 – Article in Observer Dispatch…NH land acquisition discussion set…We learn that it is only land that is being purchased because the house has already been demolished. Again, they reiterate:

  "District leaders have said the funds to purchase the property will come from its undesignated fund balance from the 2004-05 school budget and won't impact the 2005-06 school tax rate."

• Dec. 7, 2005 – Public hearing held on the purchase of 8 Daly Place.  Robert Nole tells the attendees that it will cost $64,000 plus an additional $15,500 for demolition costs and asbestos removal, for a total cost of $79,500.

• Supervisor Dan Gilligan confirms at the Dec. 7, 2005 Public Hearing that the house has already been demolished and a neighbor confirms that he watched as the building was torn down.

Note that at the December 7, 2005 Public Hearing, Robert Nole, then Assistant Superintendent For Business Affairs, says that the purchase price is $64,000 for the house plus an additional $15,500 for demolition costs and asbestos removal; yet, according to a December 5, 2005 Observer Dispatch article, voters are asked to approve spending up to $95,000.

• Dec. 14, 2005 – Voters overwhelming approved the purchase.

• Jan. 2006 - According to documents we obtained from FOIL, Ashford-Clinton [Ms. Romano] sold the property to New Hartford Central School for $76,130.

What is interesting to note is that according to Page 4 of the December 12, 2005 Village of New Hartford board minutes:

6. Superintendent Bathke notified the owners of 8 Daly Place, Ashford-Clinton Corp., that the contractors (Two Brothers) for the demolition of 8 Daley Place, are required to give us certification of the completed work. They have not responded to date. The Village was unaware of the demolition until its completion and the Village needs to verify the sewer lateral was properly capped and measurements of its location mapped.

Now why wouldn't Ms. Romano, an attorney, make sure that she obtained all the necessary permits; particularly since it was apparent that they knew there was asbestos in the building? We would like to believe that Two Brothers [who according to their website, "is a licensed General Contractor, Demolition and Environmental Management contractor"] would have made sure that all necessary permits for the demolition were obtained before the work was started.

Apparently, that was not the case. According to page 4 of the January 9, 2006 Village Board minutes, Ms. Romano obtained a demolition permit...AFTER the house with known asbestos problems was already demolished.

In essence, the voters approved paying up to $95,000 to purchase a piece of vacant property that isn't even a buildable lot by today's standards, yet Robert Nole stated at the hearing that the total cost was going to be $79,500; $64,000 for the property and $15,500 for demolition costs and asbestos removal. Why were voters even asked to approve the additional $20,000?

Obviously, the school knew there was asbestos that would have to be disclosed to the NYS Education Commission prior to their purchase; so did Ms. Romano step in to buy the house and have it demolished before the school bought the property thus eliminating the need to contact the NYS Education Commissioner?  That's what it appears...

Did the school get an actual appraisal before deciding to purchase the property or did they use another two (2) year old broker's opinion?  Would the outcome of the vote to approve $95,000 for a vacant lot have been different if all the facts were known prior to the vote?

We will leave you with this...some of the people involved with the purchase of 8 Daly Place are also involved with the purchase of 29 Oxford Road and George Ave.

However, Robert Nole is now District Superintendent, replacing Dan Gilligan who retired and left the area.

Most of the board members in 2005 are no longer on the school board, but George Shaheen has hopes of being re-elected next week at the May 15th budget vote.  Lisa Philipson, who wasn't on the board in 2005, but is an incumbant and was involved in the two (2) current purchase propositions, also hopes to regain her seat on the school board on May 15th.

Perhaps it might be worth noting an old adage...Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me!!

To be continued...

By the way, we now have a copy of the 2012 Tentative Assessment Roll for all properties in the Town of New Hartford.

As we always do, we will be making a spreadsheet of all residential properties available to assist those who wish to grieve their assessment. It should be online by Saturday, May 12, 2012.

Grievance Day is Tuesday, May 22, 2012.

Town Board Meeting Tonight...

starting at 7:00 p.m. in Butler Hall.

Agenda now online!

Questions New Hartford Central School hopes taxpayers never ask! Part 6 of many...

Last week, New Hartford Central School posted the Lease and Option to Purchase on their website. These signed documents have raised yet further questions as to what deal was struck between the school and Ashford Clinton Corp. [owned by Russell J. Petralia [Ms. Romano's husband] and Ms. Romano [bond counsel for NHCS].

We find it curious that, according to the lease, under 2. Term:

2. Term: The original term of this Lease shall be for a period of two (2) years and shall commence on the first (1st) day of December, 2010, and shall terminate at midnight on the 30th day of November, 2012 (unless ended sooner as mentioned in this Lease).

How can a lease term start on December 1, 2010 when Ashford Clinton did not own the property until December 29, 2010?

We FOILed a copy of the RP-5217 Real Property Transfer Report, a form that is required to accompany all deed filings. According to the instructions for filling out the RP-5217:

12. Date of Sale / Transfer - Enter the date on which the seller conveyed the title of the real property to the buyer. Generally, this will be the date of the closing or, if there is no formal closing, the date within the text of the deed.

The Date of Sale on the signed RP-5217 for the property at 29 Oxford Road is clearly 12/29/10; almost a month AFTER the lease is supposed to commence. The last we knew, until title is conveyed, you don't own the property. How can you collect rent on property you don't own?

We further ask, doesn't Part 155.12 Regulations (8 NYCRR) published by the Department of State clearly define the termination date of a lease...both an annual lease and/or a multi-year lease must terminate no later than June 30th?

If that is true, the option to renew the lease with the previous owners, Autumn Enterprises, should have been a proposition on the May 2010 school budget vote because, under NYS Education Law Article 9 Section 403-b (d) the school has no authority to renew a lease that has already run for 5 years without voter approval prior to the renewal being executed.

Was the school occupying a building without benefit of a signed lease or was there a lease renewal with Autumn Enterprises that was not presented for voter approval prior to its termination on June 30, 2010?? Under what terms did the school occupy the premises between July 1, 2010 and December 29, 2010 when the sale of the property to Ashford Clinton Corp was finalized???

Here is a copy of the signed and dated Lease. We have many more questions regarding this document.

We also are making available the Option to Purchase signed by Superintendent Nole and Russell Petralia as President of Ashford-Clinton Corp.

Several Decisions of the State Education Commissioner clearly state that a school cannot enter into a Option to Purchase under Section 403-a or Section 403-b of Education Law.

Further, the commissioner states in his decisions that Section 1726 of State Education Law allows a lease/purchase; however, it must be in relation to a building on property owned by the school district. The New Hartford Central School technically does not own 29 Oxford Road although language in the lease infer that the school for all intent and purpose is the owner.

State Commissioner Decision No. 13,862 deals with a lease. The commissioner writes:

Moreover, the transaction proposed by respondents is essentially a lease with option to purchase arrangement, and Education Law §403-b(f) specifically excludes such leases from that statute's ambit.

Further, according to his decision:

the Senate sponsor's memorandum states, in part: "The bill authorizes public school districts to enter into leases for needed school facilities rather than constructing new facilities . . . This measure will provide school districts with flexibility to adjust to expanding enrollment which is projected to be temporary. I believe enactment of the bill will permit school districts to avoid unnecessary construction costs when it is more cost-effective to enter into a lease arrangement . . . (emphasis added)." Thus, it is clear that the Legislative intent of the amendment to §403-b was to afford school districts the flexibility to meet temporary conditions through the lease of facilities located off school district property...

We also found State Education Commissioner Decision No. 14,857. The facts of this case are quite similar to the facts in the Lease/Option to Purchase agreements signed by New Hartford Central School. The Commissioner's Decision is here.

In essence, the Commissioner lays out a case where if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...it's a duck! The commissioner ends his decision with:

IT IS ORDERED that the “Lease Agreement” between respondent board and respondent development corporation is annulled.

Similar to the case in the Commissioner's Decision 14,857, the lease for 29 Oxford Road states that the school shall pay all utilities, "real estate taxes and other charges assessed or imposed upon Landlord's land and the buildings and other improvements thereon", insurance on the premises and at least Ten Million Dollars for injury or death to any one or more persons and damage to property, naming the Landlord as insured, all repairs of pipes, furnace, heating and plumbing, the roof, light fixtures, etc. including any expenditures made by the Landlord, etc., etc.

Imagine, taxpayers are paying the real estate taxes, to include, village, town and county taxes, on property that if owned by the school, would be tax exempt. According to the lease:

10. Real Estate Taxes: (a) Landlord shall, in the first instance, bear, pay and discharge punctually during the term all real estate taxes and other charges assessed or imposed upon Landlord's land and the buildings and other improvements thereon. (b) Landlord may also charge, and Tenant shall pay in addition to the rent, the actual real property taxes and other charges assessed or imposed incurred by Landlord. Tenant shall pay Landlord for the taxes within 30 days of receipt of notice of said tax bill and request for payment by Landlord. (c) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this lease, Tenant has the right to apply for any tax abatements and exemptions which it might be entitled to and benefit from as the lessee of the premises.

These agreements appear to be standard commercial lease agreements without taking into consideration NYS Education Law. Where was the school board during the signing of these documents? Were they aware of what was being proposed and eventually signed? Were they aware of State Education Law regarding school leases?

We have much more information to provide and many more questions...stay tuned!


Just a reminder, the Public Hearing for the 2012-13 budget and the purchase of these properties is scheduled for Tuesday, May 8, 2012 starting at 7:00 p.m. in the High School Library.

Questions New Hartford Central School hopes taxpayers never ask! Part 5 of many...

Are they serious???

A couple of days ago, the New Hartford Central School District decided to put the "appraisal" for 29 Oxford Road on their website, probably because that was one of the items that Mr. Wiatr FOILed.

According to the handout the school has been passing out:

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

Problem is...the school hasn't made an appraisal available...it's a Broker's Price Opinion.

According to The Free Dictionary:

Broker Price Opinion
An estimation of the value of a property by a real estate broker. A broker price opinion may take into account the quality of the property, values of surrounding properties and market conditions in the area. However, the estimation is not as detailed or as definitive as a full appraisal. A BPO may be done at the request of a bank when the owner of the property is attempting to refinance a loan or when it is attempting to find an alternative to foreclosure. It also may be done to help a seller determine the best asking price for his/her property.

We have no way of knowing why Mr. Brown only provided a Broker's Price Opinion for this property, but we can say with certainty that it is not a recently done Broker's Price Opinion.

Here's the "appraisal" [and we use that word loosely only because that is what New Hartford Central School wants taxpayers to believe it is...] that was posted on the school district' website.

Notice the cover letter addressed to New Hartford Central School and signed by John Brown of Caldwell Banker. It clearly states that it is a Broker's Price Opinion.

Also, oddly enough; there is no date on the cover letter.

However, one thing gives away the date of this Broker's Price Opinion. Look at the bottom of each of the MLS Listings...they were date-stamped as being printed August 13, 2010!! That would mean that this Broker's Opinion is almost two year's old. There is no way this broker's opinion was done to justify the current asking price.

Now why would a Broker's Opinion be addressed to New Hartford School District in 2010 when it supposedly was Ms. Romano's company that bought the property in 2010?

We did a spreadsheet of the properties that are included in Mr. Brown's price opinion using the information on the MLS listing included with the Broker's Price Opinion.

To view a larger version of this spreadsheet, click here!

Interesting choices...two commercial properties and one residential property [one bought by a local realtor, one bought by the same realtor to convert to some kind of commercial business and the third, 71 Oxford Road, bought after a 3,200 sq.ft. addition was added]. Usually, appraisals don't mix commercial and residential properties...how can an analysis of market value be ascertained when the uses are different?

According to the MLS listing for 71 Oxford Road:

EXQUISITE!! COMPLETE RE-MODEL PLUS 3200 SQUARE FT ADDITION IN THIS 4 BDRM, 3 BATH Village Home. It will leave you breathless. THIS Dream Home boasts 2 STALL TANDEM 30X30 GARAGE. cherry kitchen, gorgeous woodwork, 4 zone gas boiler, Central air., Vinyl Fencing, Basketball Court. Deck, much, much more!

We'd like to see the adjusted values when using 71 Oxford Road for comparison purposes for a "real appraisal" for 29 Oxford Road!

We also verified the sales information using the Town of New Hartford online assessment database.  Everything matched, except, we found no sale on April 17, 2008 for 132 Oxford Road in the assessment database. In fact, we found no 2008 sale on that property. Perhaps the sale didn't pan out...we don't know.

At any rate, according to the town's assessment database, there were only two (2) sales for 132 Oxford Road; one on August 1, 1990 for $150,000 and the most recent on April 12, 2011 for $107,500.

If this Broker's Price Opinion was a current opinion, we doubt that Mr. Brown would have chosen the 2008 MLS sales sheet for 132 Oxford Road as a comparable since it sold for $107,500 in 2011 and that would represent the current market value to be used for appraisal purposes.

Our final questions today are:

Why would the school try to pass off a 2010 Broker's Price Opinion as an appraisal for a property they want to purchase in 2012?

Does Mr. Brown know that his 2010 Broker's Price Opinion is being distributed on the web and being touted as a valid appraisal to justify a 2012 purchase by the school district?

If this is such a good deal for New Hartford School District taxpayers, why is the school using misleading information?

We're not done yet...stay tuned!

Questions New Hartford Central School hopes taxpayers never ask! Part 4 of many...

New Hartford Central School also wants to purchase vacant property on George Ave.

Back in July 2008, we blogged about that same piece of property, I cannot tell a lie...I believe it is for a buffer zone...

At that time we had been receiving tips on our Anonymous Tip Line regarding a piece of vacant land in the Village of New Hartford that was, at the time, owned by St. John's Church. Reportedly, someone, who was not being named at the time, was going to buy the church property on George Ave and donate it to the school.

After we received the tips, we made an appointment with Mr. Nole to get confirmation of the possible donation straight from the "horse's mouth".

Mr. Nole admitted that something like that was in the works. When we asked what the school plans to use the property for, he said it was his understanding that it will be a buffer zone between the school and the homes in the area of Bohling Road, Graham Ave, and Bonnie Lane.

We have since learned that Ashford-Clinton owned by Ms. Romano, counsel for Bond, Schoeneck & King and bond counsel for New Hartford Central School, bought the property for $14,000 on June 24, 2009...almost a year after we asked Mr. Nole about the property.

Now we learn that the property is not being donated, but rather the school intends to purchase the property, along with 29 Oxford Road, for a total cost of $244,000.

Hmm...Total paid by Ashford-Clinton Corp. [Linda Romano] for the two properties...$207,064 and they are now being sold to the school for $244,000.

What is more interesting is the recording document from the Oneida County Clerk's Office for the sale of the George Ave property to Ms. Romano. That document states that the deed, after being recorded, was to be returned to: Felt Evans Law Firm, 2-6 N. Park Row, Clinton, NY 13323.

Even more interesting is that Attorney Hallak, one of the partners of the Felt Evans Law Firm, is also an attorney for New Hartford Central School District. We happen to know that because we have done battle with Attorney Hallak many times over our Freedom of Information requests and the lack of responsiveness from the school.

This isn't the first time that Attorney Hallak has been involved with a piece of property that was reported to be a donation to the school and ended up being SOLD to New Hartford Central School by Ashford-Clinton, but we will get to that in another blog.

Anyway, it's rather odd that Ashford-Clinton and Felt Evans Law Firm would be involved in a land purchase that would eventually be sold to the school; particularly when both are doing business with the school as legal counsel.

By the way, Edmund J. Wiatr, Jr., a candidate for New Hartford school board, contacted Superintendent Nole by email yesterday morning to provide him with a copy of Robert Freeman's Opinion Letter that we included in our blog over the weekend. As you may recall, Mr. Freeman made it quite clear that "the amendments clearly are intended to prohibit agencies from unnecessarily delaying disclosure".

Superintendent Nole replied to Mr. Wiatr with the following:

Mr. Wiatr,

Your requests have been provided to the Records Access Officer and are being processed in accordance with the NYS FOIL Statute. Information is forthcoming and a response was submitted to you indicating same.

Regards,

Robert Nole

We don't expect that the documents FOILed will be provided in a timely fashion, but we will release them on our blog as soon as they do become available.

To be continued...stay tuned!