New Hartford NY Online YouTube Channel

To find videos of Town Board, Planning Board, and Zoning Board Board meetings, click here!

Sunday, February 3, 2019

Regarding the purchase of land from Larry Adler...

...Supervisor, you might want to put down your prospectors digging tools; sit for a spell and take a few steps backward. This is taxpayer money; not your own private venture money that you are spending!

A town cannot invest in land where they might build a firehouse (a town can't own a firehouse unless they get the o.k. of the state legislature); or put in a pad at some point to maybe lease to a bank or other commercial venture; nor can a town make the purchase in hopes of perhaps selling the property at some point down the road to make money nor for any other non-town purpose.

Town Law 64 and Town Law 220 makes that very clear. A town board can:
"Purchase, lease, construct, alter or remodel a town hall, a town lockup or any other necessary building for town purposes [emphasis added by me] , acquire necessary lands therefor, and equip and furnish such buildings for such purposes, or to demolish or remove any town building.'
Notice the law says for town purposes! That law is noted in a pamphlet found online from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP />
"A town, village or city cannot be in the landlord business as an investment, but it can acquire a property needed for a valid municipality purpose that is larger than current need as long as the entirety is reasonably expected to be needed by the town or village in the “foreseeable future.” Such temporary use by others if at fair market value is permissible, but if the property is bond-financed, “private activity” considerations are paramount and should be considered prior to leasing to the private user."
"Private activity" in the above quote refers to Federal restrictions on tax-exempt financing.

As of now, taxpayers have not been given a definitive "need" for the extra parcel. Given that the "need" to purchase this parcel is one-year after the Gander Mountain purchase, one has to wonder why the land was not purchased at the same time. What "need" is there now that wasn't apparent in 2018?

It was discussed that this purchase would be alleviating a safety concern because it would give rescue personnel access on both sides of the building. Shouldn't the Planning Board have brought that point out in the open during their review of the Gander Mountain purchase?

This sudden need appears to actually be a little "too sudden"; what is the real purpose for this land purchase? Do we really need to take another commercial property off the tax rolls?  The Gander purchased already took $2.9 million off of next year's tax roll!

The other troubling problem is that the one and only appraisal that the town sought really isn't an appraisal at all. The first line of the letter states:
"I have completed a preliminary value for a section of land that surrounds the new town office building (former Gander Mountain building).

One of the last sentences states:
"The above results are subject to change based on actual survey and exact parcel size and completion of full appraisal."
Subject to change??? Actual survey and exact parcel size were not part of the appraisal??? Are you kidding me???

Here is a pdf of the "appraisal" I was provided when I requested it.

Another point, having retired from the non-profit world, I am very familiar with donations and IRS requirements for a tax write-off. I will guarantee everyone in this town that no one at the IRS will take the word of Supervisor Paul Miscione and the Town of New Hartford as to the value of the property that Larry Adler is supposedly "donating" to the town purely based on the opinions in the town's so-called "appraisal".In fact, in their eyes, it isn't even an appraisal.

According to the IRS:
Real Estate

Because each piece of real estate is unique and its valuation is complicated, a detailed appraisal by a professional appraiser is necessary.

The appraiser must be thoroughly trained in the application of appraisal principles and theory.
This whole thing is hilarious...where do they think they are going with this proposal?

Will Supervisor Miscione keep his word and take this land purchase off the table until he is willing to give taxpayers a better understanding of why this property is so urgently needed and until he gets two or three "real" appraisals and other data to satisfy the requirements of the IRS?

I do believe he has no other choice!

"The promises of yesterday are the taxes of today."
--William Lyon MacKenzie

"William Lyon Mackenzie (March 12, 1795 – August 28, 1861) was a Scottish–born Canadian–American journalist and politician. His strong views on political equality and clean government drove him to outright rebellion in 1837 after a career as mayor of Toronto and in the colonial legislative assembly of Upper Canada (Ontario). He led the 1837 Upper Canada Rebellion and during its bitter end he set up a small rebel enclave named "Republic of Canada," where he served as president December 13, 1837 to January 14, 1838. After a period of exile in the U.S., he returned to Canada and served as elected member of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada from 1851-1858."


Anonymous said...

I see conflict of interest? Or am I getting this all wrong?

What is the connection between Donato Appraisers and Miscione Realty?

Is Joseph Booth, broker for Miscione Realty, the same Joseph Booth, head of New Hartford’s Department of Codes Enforcement?

So when Miscione Realty negotiated the deal with Larry Adler, was it in reality the town supervisor and the head of codes ‘negotiating’ with the developer, giving him special considerations?

Or, do I hear music and there’s no one there?

Anonymous said...

Where does Atty Cully stand on all this. Is he just ignorant or the law?

Anonymous said...

Valid questions. And how can Miscione Real Estate have negotiated deal for land acquisition? Is that not a clear conflict of interest? Does that not mean his business benefited or will benefit from the purcha$e?

New Hartford, NY Online said...

I spoke to Paul Miscione tonight; the land purchase will be rescinded at the next meeting on Wednesday, February 6th.

Anonymous said...

I wondering if the whole building purchase was a conflict of interest. Maybe the State needs to take a peek at the the transaction.