New Hartford, N.Y. Online

The Next New Hartford Town Board Meeting...

2012-01-25T00:15:00.001-05:00

will not be held tonight, Wednesday, January 25, 2012.

In fact, there will no longer be two (2) town board meetings each month, at least not for the time being.

At the January 11, 2012 town board meeting, the organizational meeting for 2012, Supervisor Tyksinski asked the town board to agree to one meeting a month. Councilman Woodland asked that the topic be revisited in March and the board adopted a resolution to that effect.

Here is the video of the town board's discussion:

Once a month meetings were tried during the last administration back in January 2007, but they found it necessary to return to twice a month meetings in September of that same year.

When is the next town board meeting? Supervisor Tyksinski said the meeting dates would be determined and then posted on the town website.

As of today, there are no 2012 meeting dates posted on the town website; however, we visited the town clerk today and found out that the next meeting will be on Wednesday, February 8, 2012.

If at first you don't succeed...

2012-01-22T00:38:00.005-05:00

According to a story in the Observer Dispatch, Rezoning plan returns to New Hartford, a new petition to allow retail in the New Hartford Business Park was submitted by Larry Adler on January 9, 2012. The item never appeared on the January 11, 2012 town board agenda; however it was discussed that evening after Town Attorney Cully brought the request before the board.

You may remember that Attorney Cully brought a similar request to the town board on behalf of Mr. Adler last November; then, in December, he withdrew that request.

According to the OD article:

The reason the proposal was withdrawn, amended and resubmitted was to include input from the town’s comprehensive goals, Adler said.

Hmm...the town's 2007 Comprehensive Plan Update. We seem to remember that Mr. Adler was part of the Business & Economic Development Focus Group back in 2006-07 when the town's Comprehensive Plan was being updated.

We found some of the comments from that focus group to be quite interesting:

Sprawl − “a little bit of control of the sprawl”

More mini high tech kinds of businesses

When you have experience in developing here, you know how to do it

Planning Board: they’re not planners

This becomes a mini-city if everything comes together

Retail needs to slow down while the population catches up

Technology Parks and Business Parks needed

Town needs to be a leader and needs to be able to discuss issues such as the decay in the City of Utica; NH is a jewel in a rusting hulk

NH has shown a lot of leadership in spite of itself commercially and etc.

The retailers are going to tell you when there are enough stores

NH competes with Utica for offices; businesses are moving out but NH isn’t prepared with a nice business park

Back then, Mr. Adler was pitching his plans to develop the acreage as a business park with a doctor's office, hotel and The Hartford.

A business park was necessary according to town officials during the Reed administration. Town taxpayers were assured that once the PILOTs were in place, the business park would flourish. Tax revenues would more than offset the $3.4 million bonding costs associated with the building of the infrastructure in the park.

The Hartford moved in their new building in 2008, the hotel is supposedly going to be open in April 2012 and the doctor's office has since moved elsewhere. No further business park development has been made public.

Now...five years after the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, Adler says in today's Observer Dispatch article:

If approved, the amendments would make the area easier to develop, he said.

Since when was it deemed to be the town board's mission to change zoning to make it easier for a developer to succeed when his initial plans don't pan out? By the way, it is our understanding that the business park zoning was already changed once to allow the hotel.

Mr. Adler is scheduled to appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals on Monday, January 23, 2012 to ask for an area variance regarding signage for his hotel. The meeting is being held in the Library starting at 6:00 p.m.

According to the agenda:

The application of Mr. Larry Adler for New Hartford Office Group, LLC for signage at the Hampton Inn & Suites, 201 Woods Park Drive, New Hartford, New York.

Zoning in this area is Planned Development Park which allows a maximum of 40 square
feet for wall signs. Applicant is seeking two Area Variances for walls signs: east sign requiring a 99 square foot Area Variance, and northern sign requires a 49 square foot Area Variance. Tax Map #328.00037.1; Lot Size: 3.3 Acres; Zoning: Planned Development Park.

Here is the entire Business & Economic Development Focus Group section of the 2007 New Hartford Comprehensive Plan Update.

Be sure to read Strikeslip's blog for more on this story...New Hartford Development: Urban Cancer...

Here is the video of that portion of the January 11, 2011 town board meeting discussing Mr. Adler's request:

Say W-h-a-a-a-t?

2012-01-18T21:17:00.009-05:00

According to today's Observer Dispatch, New Hartford didn’t post board openings, referring to Planning Board appointments made at the January 11, 2012 Organizational meeting.

In the Observer Dispatch article:

Town Supervisor Patrick Tyksinski said the board passed a resolution at the meeting to override the provision requiring them to publicize the vacancies. “The board opted to bypass that,” he said.

Well, we just happen to have a video copy of the discussion that took place on January 11, 2012.

The board may have opted to ignore the procedures adopted by board resolution years ago, but there clearly was no such resolution adopted on January 11th to override the provision...see for yourself.

Here is a the video of that portion of the January 11, 2012 town board meeting:

In fact, if you look closely at about 1:05:13 minutes into the above video [we have a clip of just that portion of the video below], you can see and hear Deputy Supervisor Bohn saying something and showing a paper to Supervisor Tyksinski; the paper contains the organizational resolutions that were adopted at that same meeting and that has been adopted as part of the organizational minutes for the past several years.

One of the resolutions on that yellow piece of paper reads:

In the event of vacancies on the Zoning Board of Appeals or Planning Board, the respective Board shall receive and review applications, conduct interviews, and make written recommendation to the Town Board as to the person best qualified to fill the vacancy.

After Tyksinski reads the paper that Deputy Supervisor gives to him, Tyksinski flippantly tosses it back to Bohn and continues on with the meeting.

Here is the video:

The Observer Dispatch article goes on to say:

According to the Department of State, there is no law requiring the advertisement of those positions.

There's no law...but there is a resolution passed by the town board detailing the requirements for filling the Planning and Zoning board vacancies...requirements that were not met prior to the appointments being made on January 11, 2012.

The article goes on to say:

Technically, the board had discussed filling the positions at a meeting in December, Town Attorney Herbert Cully said.

Well, technically, at the December 14, 2011 town board meeting they discussed filling vacancies on the Library Board; decisions on the Planning Board vacancies were deferred until the January 11, 2012 meeting after Councilman Backman brought up the question as to whether or not it was proper to fill vacancies prior to the expiration of the term.

Here is the video of the December 14, 2011 discussion:

Then at the December 21, 2011 town board meeting, Town Attorney Cully explained that Councilman Backman was correct in stating that the library vacancies had to be postponed until after the first of the year. A vacancy cannot be filled until after the end of a term...after the vacancy occurs, in this case the terms ended on December 31, 2011. Here is the December 21, 2011 meeting with Town Attorney Cully's explanation:

Susan Lerner, executive director of Common Cause New York, a nonpartisan advocacy group for affective and accountable government, is quoted in the OD story:

“It’s bad practice, especially right now when people are skeptical about their government and we’re in a time of great budget challenge,” she said. “The public needs to be assured that elected officials put the public interest first. A more open application process is always a good option.”

Hmm...

A Decision not to make a Decision

2012-01-17T13:21:00.022-05:00

According to The Official Roberts Rule of Order website:

The phrase “abstention votes” is an oxymoron, an abstention being a refusal to vote. To abstain means to refrain from voting, and, as a consequence, there can be no such thing as an “abstention vote.”

According to the New Hartford Public Library by-laws:

8.1 The conduct of the Board’s affairs shall be in accordance with the most recent edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised when they are not inconsistent with the provisions of these bylaws.

A search on the web turned up the website of Adams Kessler, a corporate and litigation counsel to community associations throughout California, who has a whole webpage discussing abstentions according to Robert's Rule of Order.

Board President Romano says in her Letter to the Editor in today's Observer Dispatch:

No board member “refused” to say the Pledge of Allegiance.

However, according to the website cited above:

Abstention Defined.

When it comes time for directors to vote on an issue, a director [in this case trustee] may vote "yes" or "no." If a director abstains from voting, that means the director has not voted. An abstention is a non-vote, a decision not to make a decision. (Robert's Rules of Order, 10th ed., p 43.)

Negative Impact of an Abstention. An abstention may have the practical effect of a "no" vote since the motion may fail for lack of sufficient "yes" votes.

In effect, by abstaining, the motion to say the pledge was actually voted down. There were eleven (11) board members present and only two or three voted in the affirmative; not enough for a majority affirmative vote. The vote has to be recorded in the minutes as a 'nay' to saying the Pledge.

Adams Kesler continues:

When to Abstain.

Whenever a director believes he/she has a conflict of interest, the director should abstain from voting on the issue and make sure his/her abstention is noted in the minutes. (Robert's Rules, 10th ed., p 394.)

The other reason a director might abstain is that he/she believes there was insufficient information for making a decision. Otherwise, directors should cast votes on all issues put before them. Failure to do so could be deemed a breach of their fiduciary duties.

So why did the majority abstain? Conflict of interest or insufficient information in response to saying the Pledge? Or was it just more of the same rudeness and opposition that has been shown to Mr. Wiatr since he first was appointed trustee; opposition that once again backfired on this board which is made up of known professionals in the Town of New Hartford?

Board President Romano says in her Letter to the Editor in today's Observer Dispatch:

The board abstained from voting, leaving the decision in the hands of the president. An email was sent from the president to the entire board within one hour of the meeting clarifying the abstentions and stating that all future meetings would indeed start with the Pledge of Allegiance.

According to Roberts Rule of Order, unless the by-laws specifically give the power to the president to override a board vote, the "nay" vote stands. The New Hartford Public Library by-laws have no such wording. What makes Ms. Romano think that she has the power to override the vote?

The library board can make up any excuse they want for their misbehavior. It was clearly in an effort to go against anything that Trustee Wiatr brings to the table. Bottom line...there is no excuse for what took place at the December 14, 2011 library board meeting. For a library director to state that saying the Pledge "is a waste of time" and a trustee to state "it is only for show" is shameful no matter how you look at it.

Library trustees are appointed by the town board not only to carry out the goals of the library but also to represent the residents of New Hartford who fund this library with their tax dollars; we would venture to guess that the majority of New Hartford taxpayers do not feel that the Pledge is "a waste of time".

Sitting in the audience on December 14, 2011, it appeared that the entire "abstention scenario" was "choreographed" by some members of the library board prior to the meeting. Unfortunately, even though the Library Trustees should have waltzed through the discussion on saying the Pledge; the majority of the library trustees chose to do the hokey-pokey!

The next scheduled meeting of the trustees will be held at 7 p.m. Wednesday, January 18, 2012, at Butler Hall.

First Town Board Meeting of 2012...

2012-01-10T00:30:00.004-05:00

will be held this Wednesday, January 11, 2012 starting at 7:00 p.m. in Butler Hall. Agenda is now online!

While we are on the subject of town board meetings, Strikeslip wrote a blog a few days ago, A New Law for a New Year? regarding an update to the Open Meetings Law that was awaiting the signature of Governor Cuomo.

On January 4, 2012, Governor Cuomo signed the legislation mentioned in Strikeslip's blog, [A00072B] and [S 3255-B], into law that will require records, resolutions, laws, or all matters to be discussed at an open meeting by a public body [town board, library board, Oneida County Industrial Development, etc.] to be made available for review by the public prior to or at the meeting.

According to the Democrat and Chronicle, a Gannett Company:

The documents have to be posted online when possible if the agency's website is updated regularly and it uses a high-speed Internet connection.

There are some exceptions to making records available, such as documents that are submitted late or that would be too expensive or onerous to copy. An example would be a 1,000-page report.

Another online article at The Daily Ossining, state Assemblywoman Amy Paulin (D-Scarsdale), a sponsor of the bill, said:

“I think it will enhance public participation and transparency which is extremely important, to make the public confident in their government and to make the governments better.”

According to the legislation:

This legislation will actually decrease the burdens imposed on agencies. Making certain records available OR the agency website, or in hard copy at or prior to the meeting, greatly reduces the likelihood of FOIL requests for the records after the meeting is held. Additionally, posting the record on the agency's website imposes no cost to the agency, and eliminates the majority of administrative tasks necessary to process a FOIL request. Such proactive disclosure has been strongly recommended by the Committee on Open Government and comports with the movement toward transparency
in government taking place at the state and federal levels.

The law takes effect on February 3, 2012.

Stormwater Drainage Districts...

2012-01-07T15:49:00.005-05:00

On page 6 of the August 6, 2003 approved town board minutes

...On July 30, 2003 Petitions for the establishment of a special water district and stormwater drainage district within the Whitetail Meadows development had been received in the Town Clerk’s Office and Highway Superintendent Cleveland has now received the relevant metes and bounds description for these special districts.

According to the August 20, 2003 Approved Town Board minutes:

...WHEREAS, the improvements proposed consist of the installation of storm sewers, detention facilities, catch basins, appurtenances, and a connection point(s) for discharge to the existing New Hartford storm water transportation system within the Town of New Hartford to which the new storm water facilities shall be connected and which transport storm water to the Sauquoit Creek; and

WHEREAS, the facilities proposed to be constructed in the said proposed Storm Water Drainage District as shown on the said July 28, 2003 Plat Map, sheets "1" and "2", as revised accompanying the Petition are to be constructed at the sole expense of the Petitioner; [emphasis added by blogger]

Subsequent to that Town Board Meeting, as required by Town Law, on September 3, 2003, the town board held a Public Hearing to give residents an opportunity to speak for or against and a negative declaration [SEQRA] was presented to the town board by the Town Clerk. No one from the public spoke during the hearing; however, Councilman Backman had some questions for then Highway Superintendent Cleveland:

[from the Sept. 3, 2003 approved town board minutes] Addressing his remarks to the Highway Superintendent, Councilman Backman asked about work or deficiencies of the development. Highway Superintendent Cleveland replied there is a bond and some work that the developer needs to do and that will probably be done within a month. Councilman Backman would like the deficiencies taken care of before the district is created, not after. Attorney Rossi stated that the Town Board can require the developer’s attorney to provide written confirmation that the deficiencies have been taken care of or provide sufficient security for the Town to perform the work. Attorney Rossi had talked with Attorney Maya, noting that the Town can withhold accepting the roads as town highways until Attorney Rossi "…is sure that Roger (Highway Superintendent) is sure that everything’s been done according to the approved plans (and Town Code)."

At the conclusion of the Public Hearing, a resolution was proposed; the resolution outlined each step that had been taken in keeping with Town Law regarding the creation of a District by petition of the owners of at least 50% of the proposed area of the district. The resolution also once again reiterated the wording of the August 20, 2003 Order [Order No. 2 of 2003] that "the proposed improvement and all of the expenses thereof shall be paid for in full by the Petitioner". The vote of the town board was unanimous; the resolution was adopted; and the Whitetail Stormwater Drainage District was created.

What makes this so interesting is that the developer of Whitetail [the same developer that submitted the above petition to the town board] has been billing the town over $60,000 to include purchase of a lot in 2006; work done by his own construction company to create a detention basin within his development in 2007; plus interest because the invoice has not been paid.

According to discussions at town board meetings, the money to pay the developer is supposed to be taken from the remnants of the $2 million stormwater bond. When we questioned the town liaison to the Stormwater Group she stated that the Stormwater Water Districts were not created legally. Really? We suggested at the last Stormwater Group meeting that she check on that because town board minutes seem to tell a different story.

For those unfamiliar with the Whitetail subdivision, it is located on a hill off Oneida Street across from the intersection of Elm & Oneida Streets.

Funny, the proposal brought before the town board in 2003 when the petitions were submitted to the Town Clerk to create the district seemed to say that the developer would bear the costs of the stormwater basins, etc.

Funny, too, that no one has bothered to mention the creation and terms of the Stormwater District that was created in 2003 when the discussion to pay over $60,000 comes up at town board meetings.

Odd that the town's liaison to the Stormwater Committee would be told that the Stormwater Drainage Districts were not legally created.

The explanation at several town board meetings and Stormwater Committee meetings has been that these invoices are part of a "handshake deal" between the developer and the former Highway Superintendent.

At one town board meeting on September 28, 2011, Town Attorney Herb Cully addressed the town board and stated that former Highway Superintendent Roger Cleveland and former Town Planner Kurt Schwenzfeier provided a signed affidavit to the developer's attorney regarding this "handshake deal".

The town attorney advised the town that they should probably discuss this topic in Executive Session since it comes under "acquisition of property". Here is the video of that portion of the meeting:

Further making this payment seem questionable is that the NYS Comptroller in a document titled "Information for Town Officials" on page 55:

Town Law 117
In general, unless provision has been made in the annual budget or a supplemental appropriation has been provided, no officer, board, department or commission may expend, or contract to expend, any money or incur any liability or enter into any contract which involves the expenditure of money for any purpose, except leases or contracts as may have been entered into by the town for a term exceeding one year. Town Law, Section 117, provides that any contract, either verbal or written, made in violation of this prohibition is null and void.

This "wink and nod" agreement between the developer and former Highway Superintendent was never brought before the town board until well after the expense had been incurred; the work was was done by the construction company owned by the developer without bidding; the former Highway Superintendent had no authority to enter into a contract without town board approval; the expense was never budgeted; and no transfer of monies has been publicly approved by the town board to pay for these invoices prior to the expense being incurred. As far as we know, there is still no approval of the town board to pay these monies. It would seem to follow that this "agreement", according to Town Law 117, is null and void.

There are actually several Stormwater Districts within the Town of New Hartford as outlined in an email sent to former Highway Superintendent Cleveland from Town Clerk Gail Wolanin Young.

The previous town board used about $100,000 of the Stormwater Bond to create two (2) detention basins in Jubilee to alleviate problems downstream from that development and from Longworth Acres; two more fairly new developments that have a Stormwater Drainage District [Jubilee District...Longworth District].

Minutes of the May 15, 2002 Town Board Meeting note:

Stormwater Drainage Issues

Stormwater drainage is becoming an increasingly important issue in Councilman Waszkiewicz’s district as well as Councilman Backman’s District and he alluded to the Whitetail Meadows subdivision being constructed on a hill off Oneida Street, Chadwicks. Who pays for the original stormwater management plan? Who pays for maintenance? The Town Board should think about whether we, as a Town, should shoulder that burden. The Town should consider this matter for future conversation and what might be recommended.

Is this "discussion" what prompted the developer to petition the town board for the creation of the Whitetail Stormwater Drainage District?

Opinions please...what are your thoughts on using taxpayer dollars to purchase land from a developer; using taxpayer dollars to build stormwater detention basins, etc. to control stormwater runoff from said development; and using taxpayer dollars to maintain these basins, etc.; particularly when the developer was the one who petitioned the town board to create the district in the first place?

What happens when the $2 million for stormwater is gone and we have another storm like the one on April 28, 2011?

New Year's Eve Swearing In Ceremony...

2012-01-04T01:16:00.003-05:00

was held at the Town of New Hartford Court House at 12 noon on Saturday, December 31, 2011.

Sworn in were...William M. Virkler, Town Justice; Richard Woodland, Councilman, Ward 4; Paul Miscione, Councilman, Ward 2;.

Here is the video of the entire ceremony:

Town of New Hartford...

2011-12-27T22:06:00.003-05:00

Adopted 2012 Budget

Agreement Between the Town of New Hartford and the PBA...January 1, 2009-December 31, 2013

1970...

2011-12-26T00:19:00.009-05:00

• Paul McCartney announces that the Beatles have disbanded

• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA ) begins operation

• Boeing 747 makes its first commercial passenger trip to London

• Dow Jones drops to 631

• 1970 - American Top 40, hosted by radio personality Casey Kasem, becomes the first successful nationally syndicated radio program featuring a weekly countdown

• The floppy disc appeared in 1970, and the next year Intel introduced the microprocessor, the "computer on a chip."

• Atari produced the first low-priced integrated circuit TV games, and the videocassette recorder (VCR) changed home entertainment forever.

• US lowers voting age from 21 to 18

• In 1970 the average income per year was $9,350.00 and by 1979 was $17,550.00

• In 1970 a gallon of gas was 36 cents and by 1979 was 86 cents

• The 70's also saw the beginning of the Home Computer due to Intel creating the first cheap microprocessor - the Intel 4004, and other integrated circuits. In the beginning the computers were mainly for the hobbyists and included the Apple II, the TRS-80, the Commodore PET, and Atari 400/800 and with the growth of these home computers Bulletin Boards became a popular way for people to find others with similar interests.

AND, on June 17, 1970, the Town of New Hartford adopted their Code of Ethics. More than forty (40) years later, it remains the same, never updated or amended to reflect today's world. Pretty sad...

According to today's Observer Dispatch editorial, Town Clerk Gail Wolanin Young said:

...New Hartford’s policy has been in place for a number of years, but she could not find it on the town website.

We found the policy online; there is a link to it from the town's website, but you have to know where to look. Amazing that the town clerk wasn't able to direct the Observer Dispatch to the link for access to town codes on the web; as town clerk, she is the "keeper" of the town codes.

However, the truth is, even if you knew where to find the Town of New Hartford Ethics Code, and you had concerns of a possible ethics violation, you would still need to figure out who to contact with your concerns. We tried to track that person down during the previous administration...here is what we found.

The first town board meeting of the year is an organizational meeting. During that meeting one of the resolutions that is passed is regarding the Ethics Board. The resolution is usually:

Ethics Committee
Presently, the Ethics Committee has one member, that being Councilman Woodland; two (2) positions are vacant and in the past the Town Board’s consensus was, in the event a situation arises, that the Town would use the County Ethics Committee.

Since town board minutes indicate that the County would be the place to voice our concerns, we headed down to the County Office Building. When we told the County's legal department that according to town board minutes, the County would take care of any ethics "situation" in the Town of New Hartford in lieu of the town having their own Ethics Committee, they said "News to us!"

So what do you do if you live in the Town of New Hartford and you feel there has been an ethics violation? We never did find out; although we have brought the subject to the town board more than once. Apparently, town officials prefer to be the lone fox guarding the hen house; they don't want to be bothered with resident complaints of possible ethics violation[s].

The town is allowed by law to use the County Ethics Committee; however, there should first be a mutual agreement between the town and county so that town residents have the ability to seek resolution to possible ethics violations of town officials. Instead, it appears to be yet another way to put up roadblocks and thus keep town residents from being able to seek resolution to allegations of possible official misconduct.

According to recent news articles, New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s office is requesting that town officials provide copies of their local code of ethics within 60 to 90 days. We are hopeful that, for New Hartford, it will mean updating their archaic Code of Ethics policy.

The Town of Whitestown updated their code in September 2007 to include an Ethics Board with town residents serving on the board.

The Town of New Hartford needs to follow suit. Update the Town of New Hartford Ethic Code and appoint interested town residents to serve on the board so that everyone has a place to go the next time an "issue arises".

According to the website of Harris Beach, PLLC, Attorneys At Law:
If the Comptroller’s March 2010 report is any indication of the upcoming review of municipal ethics codes, simply having an ethics code is not enough. Issues previously reviewed by the Comptroller that may be visited again include: the extent of issues addressed by an ethics code, the distribution and employees’ awareness of the code, whether ethics training is provided, the ability of municipal officials to understand and apply the code, how often the code is reviewed and updated, and the collection and review of financial disclosure forms.

In short, local governments should be prepared to either defend the sufficiency of their current ethics code and procedures, or proactively begin the process of reviewing their current code and procedures, and making the appropriate changes. Moreover, it is equally important that a municipality or board of ethics takes appropriate action when a complaint is made.
The Town of New Hartford would have a difficult time defending the sufficiency of their Ethics Code. Even if the town board decides to use the County Ethics Commission; at the very least, the town ethics code needs to be updated so that some of the "grey areas" in the present town code are eliminated to include how to register a complaint and with whom to register that complaint.

Here is a model code from the Office of the State Comptroller dated March 3, 2010.

New Hartford Public Library IRS 990 forms...full of fact or fiction?

2011-12-20T00:34:00.007-05:00

How many people does it take...to run the New Hartford Public Library? Guess it depends on what year you are talking about.

We recently blogged about some of the inconsistencies found in the IRS Form 990s filed by the New Hartford Public Library in regard to the salary paid to the Library Director...IRS Form 990 and the New Hartford Public Library...

Further review of the 990s give rise to even more questions that would be worth asking. Actually we find it hard to believe that a board made up of professionals has not asked these questions already starting with why was the board of trustees not provided with a copy of the 990 prior to it being filed? Why is Mr. Wiatr the only trustee that is concerned?

For example, according to their most recent 990s:

Click on graphic for a larger image.

In 2010, the town reduced the library funding from the $535,341 budgeted in 2009 to a 2010 budget of $475,000 due to the financial stress that the town found itself in. That's a reduction of about $60,000 per year.

In November 2009, during the town budget workshops which were held by Councilwoman Krupa and Councilman Woodland in preparation of the town's 2010 budget, members of the library board vehemently proclaimed that they could not manage to run the library with that amount of reduced funding.

Yet, according to their 990 filed for the year 2010, they reported that they actually increased their workforce by eight (8) people to their current level of 29 employees.

In 2011 and 2012, the town once again cut the library budget by another $75,000 to the current budget of $400,000. However, in answer to the town's further reduced funding, they chose to close the library one day a week rather than reduce their staff...so now they are open fewer hours, but with the same number of employees as they had in 2010.

What we really find interesting is that each month this year, according to reports distributed at board meetings, their usage statistics have consistently shown a 24% reduction over last year's totals when compared month to month. When this is mentioned at their meetings, they try to blame it on the closing of the library on Wednesdays.

There are seven (7) days in a week; if your usuage declines by 24% due to being closed one day [Wednesday] a week, could it be that you chose to close on the wrong day? Or could there be something else at play here?

Mr. Wiatr wanted to try to analyze the usage to see if another day might be a better choice to close so he asked for usage reports from previous years. He was told that they had been destroyed and were no longer available. So what did they base their Wednesday closure decision on if the usage reports are no longer available?

What is interesting is, on page 6 of the 2010 IRS 990 form, under Section B. Policies...it says:

Does the organization have a written document retention and destruction policy? Answer: YES

Wonder what that policy is...or for that matter where it is stored?

We are also wondering what happened to their volunteers between 2008 when they reported 150 volunteers and now when they are reporting only 40 volunteers. The 990 says to estimate if necessary...but really, that is quite a range of volunteers. Is there a reason that their "estimate" of volunteers is that far apart over the course of a year?

Here's another example of the 990 reporting that doesn't make any sense when you compare the numbers year-to-year:

Why is the insurance expense for 2009 only $2,822 when the other years it is roughly $10,000-$11,000?

Here, for those that are interested, are the New Hartford Public Library 990s:

2007

2008

2009

2010

Next, we will report on their 2012 budget, not the one you will be voting on, but the budget they put together in the interim. We cannot believe that they "balanced" their budget by anticipating additional revenue from both the town and county...revenue that they have been advised will not be forthcoming.

To be continued...

I Believe...

2011-12-18T14:56:00.006-05:00

Video courtesy of...Video From Pictures

Shortly after our last blog was posted, emails started flying between some of the library trustees. They tried to justify their "abstentions" by saying they didn't have a problem saying the pledge, they just didn't want to pass a resolution to make it mandatory at every meeting. Bullpucky...

Mr. Wiatr didn't ask for a resolution, nor was one required. These trustees simply do not want to say the pledge. This was not the first time that Mr. Wiatr has suggested that the Pledge should be said before the meeting starts. The first time he asked, one of the members of the Friends of New Hartford Public Library actually got up and left the meeting!

Bottom line...we videotape at each and every meeting...in plain view! The trustees have full control over how they appear to the public...obviously, they don't care how the public feels. All they care about is receiving OUR tax dollars to support their fiefdom!

Strikeslip says it very well in his blog...A Pledge of Allegiance...but not at the New Hartford Town Library!

Zoning Text Amendment Request Withdrawn...

2011-12-15T00:12:00.004-05:00

According to Town Attorney Herb Cully at tonight's town board meeting, Larry Adler has withdrawn his request for a zone map amendment for the Planned Development Park District. Attorney Cully also stated that he doesn't have it in writing at this time.

At any rate, it is our understanding that the December 21, 2011 Public Hearing has been cancelled.

We blogged about the zoning text amendment request by Mr. Adler here; here; here; here; and here.

Majority of New Hartford Library Board abstained...

2011-12-14T14:47:00.007-05:00

from voting to include the Pledge of Allegiance as the opening item on their agenda...only two (2) trustees voted in the affirmative.

One of the items that Board Trustee Edmund J. Wiatr, Jr. placed on the December 14, 2011 New Hartford Public Library Board of Trustees agenda was to consider starting each meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance.

The reaction and comments from the other nine (9) trustees and their decision to abstain from voting was shocking and quite frankly disgusting.

The Library Director actually had the chutzpah to say that the pledge was a "waste of time". As Library Director, he doesn't even have a vote on the board...he would do well to keep his opinions to himself. The Board President also abstained and ended the vote with "Not carried". And don't miss the comment of the Treasurer of the Board who often times think his "barbs" are funny...they aren't.

Here is the video of that portion today's meeting:

We decided to do some research on the web to see whether or not other libraries start their meetings with the Pledge. Frankly, we couldn't find one that didn't include the Pledge...truly New Hartford Public Library seems to stand alone on this issue.

We found a slide show presented by Library Trustees Association of New York State titled "Holding Effective Public Library Board of Trustee Meetings".

On page 14, under "Typical Agenda", they list Pledge of Allegiance right after Call to Order.

What is wrong with this group of people that they think saying the Pledge is "for show" and "a waste of time"?

Look around the table...these are all educated people who are well-known in the community. They should all be embarrassed of this video...we certainly were embarrassed to have to sit there and witness their disgraceful behavior and lack of patriotism!

As far as this board goes, they would all do well to read the presentation by the Library Trustees Association of NYS to see how a "real" Library Board of Trustees is supposed to work!

p.s. There appears to be some "behind the scenes" emailing back and forth between members of the library board in an effort to defend the board's action today.

We welcome the Library Board President to submit a statement to us [for publication in it's entirety] defending the board's reaction to Mr. Wiatr's proposal to include the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of every board meeting.

Public Hearing has been scheduled...

2011-12-13T10:03:00.004-05:00

according to the Sunday, December 11, 2011 Observer Dispatch legal notices:

Notice of Public HEARING – TOWN OF NEW HARTFORD N. Y.

LOCAL LAW INTRODUCTORY "H " OF 2011

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at their regular meeting held November 16, 2011 the New Hartford Town Board introduced Local Law Introductory “H" of 2011 entitled A Local Law to amend the Code of the Town of New Hartford, Chapter 118 thereof entitled ZONING, by repealing Section 118-39 (D) (7) (b) and replacing it with new language pertaining to limited uses in a Planned Development Park (PDP) District. Said legislation, if adopted would allow retail and services when such limited use occupies no more than twenty percent (20%) of the PDPD acreage owned, controlled or developed by the applicant. Said Local Law Introductory is on file in the New Hartford Town Clerk’s Office, 48 Genesee Street, New Hartford, NY, where it is available for public inspection during regular business hours or may be viewed at www.newhartfordtown.com.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that a Public Hearing upon said Local Law Introductory will be held at Butler Hall, New Hartford, NY on the 21st day of December, 2011 at 7:00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as reached in the regular course of business, and that an opportunity to be heard in regard thereto will then and there be given. Butler Memorial Hall has a barrier-
free access for the physically handicapped and any such handicapped person seeking transportation to said Public Hearing should contact Town Supervisor Patrick Tyksinski at 733-7500, Ext.2331 during regular business hours.

Date: December 8, 2011
Gail Wolanin Young
Town Clerk
OD:12/11/2011.

As of Friday, December 9, 2011, the town assessor was still working on the list of names and addresses of property owners that by law need to be notified of the Public Hearing in writing.

It is our understanding that the Oneida County Planning Dept. has yet to be sent any information on the request; per Town Code their approval is required otherwise a 4 of 5 town board vote is needed for the law to be adopted.

As evidenced in our previous blog, no petitions were filed with the town clerk prior to the request being brought before the town board as required by Town Code; Mr. Adler does not own 50% of the acreage and needs petitions signed by other owners; currently, there are no valid petitions on file in the town clerk's office; and there will be no Planning Board Meeting until after January 1, 2012.

And still the beat goes on...somebody is obviously pounding those drums and everyone appears to be marching to the music!

And one more thing, according to Town § 118-88 E:

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.

We can't wait to see how they cover their butts on this one!

The town attorney will be consulted...the sequel

2011-12-09T17:57:00.009-05:00

Back on December 3, 2011, we wrote our blog, The town attorney will be consulted....

At that time, we were awaiting a decision from the town attorney as to whether or not proper procedure had been followed regarding zoning amendments in the Town of New Hartford; in particular a request made by Mr. Larry Adler to change the zone text in the Planned Development Park District [PDPD].

We hadn't received anything further from the town clerk so we decided to makes some stops this afternoon to get an update on the zone amendment request.

First stop, the assessor's office where we learned that Mr. Adler does not own 50% of the land in the PDPD zone. Guess that settles it...regardless of whether the town wants to "bend" the rules and call his letter the same as a petition; without the signatures of 50% or more property owners, Mr. Adler's request cannot go forward; town code is very clear in this respect.

The assessor also stated that some property owners in Whitestown were close enough to the zone so that they [along with the Whitestown Town Clerk] would have to be notified by mail of the Public Hearing on the zone text amendment request.

The assessor seemed to believe that Mr. Adler had indeed filed a petition with the town clerk, so our next stop was in the Town Clerk's office to once again inquire as to whether or not petitions had been filed.

Sure enough, she had just received signed petitions from 3 other property owners along with one from Larry Adler. Interestingly enough, the petitions were FAXed to the town clerk from Attorney Cully's office on December 7, 2011.

That brings up a question...if Attorney Cully had them, why didn't he present them to the town board at the November 16, 2011 town board meeting in compliance with Town Code? Certainly Attorney Cully is familiar with Town Code; we have been told that he was a member of the Planning Board in a previous administration.

The answer as to why he didn't present them is obvious once you look at the petitions. The dates of the petitions are...November 28, 2011; November 17, 2011; November 19, 2011; and November 22, 2011...all AFTER the November 16, 2011 town board meeting. That being the case, it is safe to say the town attorney was not in possession of the petitions when he introduced Larry Adler's request to the town board.

But that still doesn't answer the question as to why he allowed Adler's request to proceed. Town Code is very clear...the property owners of 50% of acreage in the zone have to bring a petition to be filed in the town clerk's office before it can be brought to the table for town board discussion. Why, then, did the town attorney bring the request to the November 16, 2011 town board meeting in the first place when he clearly was not in possession of the signed petitions and he must have known that the petitions have to be filed with the town clerk to be valid?

When we questioned the town clerk as to where the process stood as of today, she said that a legal notice for a December 21, 2011 Public Hearing was sent to the Observer Dispatch today for publication.

We then questioned how a public hearing could be held without the timely filing of a petition and without a Planning Board meeting as prescribed by Town Code. All she said that she was "told" to move it along...we understood her to mean that the town attorney had told her to publish the legal notice regardless of whether proper procedures were being followed.

So we pointed out to the town clerk that § 118-87-A of the Town Code specifically says:

Report of Planning Board.

All proposed amendments, supplements or changes originating by petition or by motion of the Town Board shall be referred to the Planning Board for a report and recommendation thereon.

So how can there be a Public Hearing before the report is received back from the Planning Board? There is very specific criteria in town code as to the role of the Planning Board and the inquiries they are tasked to make prior to their final recommendation to the town board. Don't the people who will potentially be affected by this change have a right to view the decision making process of the Planning Board and the answers to the questions that are delineated in Town Code as needing to be answered as part of their decision making process?

The town clerk just shrugged her shoulders and said she had been told to move on the Public Hearing. However, she indicated that she was going to confer with the town attorney after we left.

Here's the part we find interesting, Town Code § 118-87 B says:

The Planning Board shall submit its report within 45 days after receiving such referral. Failure of the Planning Board to report within the required time shall be deemed to be a recommendation of approval of the proposed amendment.

But, according to the secretary in the Planning Office, there is no Planning Board meeting scheduled until January...the town clerk's office even called the Planning secretary while we were there so we could be certain that no meeting was to be scheduled.

Let's count...the resolution by the town board was adopted and referred to the Planning Board on November 16, 2011...December has 31 days so that would mean that January 1st is about 45 days from the November adoption of the resolution to refer the request to the Planning Board. So what happens when the required Public Hearing is held, but no Planning Board meeting is scheduled until AFTER the 45 days passes...does it constitute a failure of the Planning Board to report and thus the zone text amendment automatically takes place. Hmmm...was this part of the plan all along?

But, that's not the only problems we have with this request...

Three (3) of the petitions we received were notarized by Thomas J. Valenti. Mr. Valenti just happens to be a principal of Cameron Group, LLC, the parent company of New Hartford Office Group LLC, the owner of record for the business park property.

According to the NYS Dept. of State, a notary is disqualified if:

Though a person may be eligible to hold the office of notary the person may be disqualified to act in certain cases by reason of having an interest in the case. To state the rule broadly: if the notary is a party to or directly and pecuniarily interested in the transaction, the person is not capable of acting in that case.

In New York the courts have held an acknowledgment taken by a person financially or beneficially interested in a party to conveyance or instrument of which it is a part to be a nullity;

Mr. Valenti, as principal owner of Cameron Group, LLC clearly has a pecuniary interest in the zoning text change. Therefore, three (3) of the four (4) petitions that were notarized by Mr. Valenti [Ronald Wargo, member Woods 840, LLC; Michael Paladino; and Larry Adler] would appear to be null and void.

So basically, no petitions were filed with the town clerk prior to the request being brought before the town board as required by Town Code; Mr. Adler does not own 50% of the acreage and needs petitions signed by other owners; currently, there are no valid petitions on file in the town clerk's office; and there will be no Planning Board Meeting until after January 1, 2012.

Yet, according to the town clerk, the notice of the December 21, 2011 Public Hearing was sent to the Observer Dispatch today for publication because she was told to "put it through anyway."

Why?

IRS Form 990 and the New Hartford Public Library...

2011-12-08T01:20:00.007-05:00

What is a 990?

Even though tax-exempt nonprofits do not pay federal taxes, they do have to file an information form with the IRS.

IRS Form 990 is the tax document that tax-exempt nonprofit organizations file each year with the IRS. The 990 allows the IRS and the public to evaluate nonprofits and how they operate.

The New Hartford Public Library is required to file a 990 each year. For the last few years, the report has been prepared by Dan Dreimiller, a former library trustee and the current Town of New Hartford Finance Officer, an appointment of Supervisor Tyksinski.

The absolute deadline to file the 990, if extensions are asked for and granted, is November 15th. Since November 15th had come and gone, Library Trustee Edmund J. Wiatr, Jr. was concerned that the document had not yet been presented to the library board of directors either electronically as an email attachment, or a paper copy at a library board meeting so he FOILed a copy of the 2010 IRS 990.

After asking again at the November 29th library trustee meeting, Mr. Wiatr was told that a copy was placed in his mailbox at the library.

After the meeting, Mr. Wiatr stopped by the library office to retrieve the copy of the 990 and noticed that the 2010 Form 990 was actually dated November 8, 2011 listing Dan Dreimiller, CPA as the preparer.

It should be noted that on page 6 of the IRS 990, question 11a asks...Has the organization provided a copy of this Form 990 to all members of its governing body before filing the form? The answer that Mr. Dreimiller provided to the IRS is YES.

Also, on page 22 of the 990, there is supplemental information typed in that states:

PT. VI-B, Line 11a FORM 990 is reviewed by the Board of Directors prior to filing. This review process has not changed from prior years.

At least the second sentence is right, the review process hasn't changed from prior years as far as we can determine. At least since we have been videotaping their meetings, the Form 990 has never been reviewed by the board of trustees prior to filing and this year was no exception.

There are several questionable items reported not only in the most recently filed Form 990 for the year 2010, but also the 990s of previous years which is one of the reasons why Trustee Wiatr has repeatedly asked for certain financial information that has yet to be given to him. At one point, he was told that most of the items he wants are stored in boxes at Ms. Du Ross' home and it would be difficult and timely to get the items he was requesting. We can't help but wonder...just why are library documents being stored at a trustee's home?

In reviewing the 990s, one thing we find puzzling is the reported salary for the Library Director. According to the 2008 form, his salary was $41,492; in 2009, it was reported as $46,600 and now in 2010 his salary is reported as $36,470.

Each year, according to the 990, he was being paid for 40 hours a week. Additionally, according to documents provided to Mr. Wiatr by the Treasurer, the Library Director is scheduled to be paid $48,000 in 2012. [see chart below]

Adding to our confusion is the fact that we are in possession of a document dated December 20, 2007 and handwritten by the Library Treasurer that states that the Library Director is scheduled to be paid a salary of $45,285 effective January 1, 2008; not the $41,492 that was reported to the IRS for 2008.

In fact, according to that same handwritten document, it was noted that the Library Director was paid a salary of $43,965 in 2007...over $2,000 more than was reported in the 2008 Form 990. So, did he take a cut in salary in 2008 too?

Does this make sense? We have to ask several more questions...

Why the discrepancy in the Library Director's 2008 salary between what was reported to the IRS by Mr. Dreimiller and what was reported to the library board?

What about 2010...did the Library Director take a $10,000+ decrease in salary from the previous year?

We don't have salary information for 2011, but according to the Treasurer there are no raises scheduled for 2012 so it would have to be assumed that his salary for 2011 is the $48,000 listed by the Treasurer as the Library Director's salary for 2012. Why did his salary increase almost $12,000 in 2011 especially since some members of the board are crying that there is a lack of funds available to operate the library, thus necessitating the closing of the library on Wednesdays?

Is there any wonder why Trustee Wiatr has been asking for financial documents?

All public libraries are required to conform to the Open Meetings Law and the Freedom of Information Law. However, why does Mr. Wiatr, a trustee, even have to resort to FOILing them in the first place; clearly as a trustee it is his right and his obligation to review the financial records of the library.

To be continued...

The year is 1947...

2011-12-04T04:27:00.014-05:00

...A Public Hearing is held on the possibility of zoning the Town of New Hartford. Not all are in agreement...

In our research, we ran across this news article and thought it might be fun to post.

Utica Observer Dispatch
Thursday, September 11, 1947

Zoning Plan Strongly Opposed

A lively public hearing on the matter of zoning the Town of New Hartford ended last night in no formal expression of opinion although the majority of the 55 present were opposed to the project. Another meeting will be called by the Town Planning Committee and then the matter will be submitted to the Town Board for final decision, it was announced.

"This is a free country and I should like to keep it that way. I think zoning is unnecessary.” Thus Dr. Herbert N. Squier, Third Ave., voiced the majority opinion of those in the Highway Building, Washington Mills.

“New Hartford is a free and very lovely township. None in our residential areas would sell property to anyone wanting to start a honky-tonk or beer joint. We are protected by a natural pride in our community”. Dr. Squier added “We are not going to be free with a lot of zoning restrictions established.”

ELMER ROBERTS, Tilden Ave., asked, “Who started this business? This is a free country. Let’s keep it that way. If we have zoning and a board of appeals, we will have just one political mess after another.”

“Zoning”, he continued, “becomes a political football. It is accompanied by higher taxes. Many people have moved from Utica to New Hartford to escape these high taxes. Most residential developments already are restricted. Let’s leave the rest of the people alone.”

Roberts suggested the estimated costs of administering the proposed zoning program be presented at the next meeting. W. D. Morgan, serving as chairman of the Planning Committee, repeated several times that the proposed zoning plan is still open to changes. He said: “This is not our baby. The committee has been appointed to investigate the proposition. We are here to obtain a cross-section of your opinions. It may well be that the proposed map will be changed as a result of factors that have been brought out here tonight. By law, there must be another meeting on this matter. The final decision rests with the Town Board.”

FREDERICK H. BAIRD, senior planning technician, State Department of Commerce, pointed out ''Zoning cannot change the present physical features of your property over night. Zoning will provide that the better qualities are retained. But there is no way a use which is already established can be thrown out.

Stephen Bogner, 1126 Pleasant, asked, “What affect will zoning have on the assessment of our property? Is there a possibility that zoning will result in higher assessment? We are o.k. as we are now.”

P. D. McCormack, surprised many when he said, "I maintain winter quarters for lions, tigers, elephants and other animals on Third Ave., just above Sedgwick Park. We have never had trouble. Your zoning plan would classify us as residential.' Then we would have trouble. Zoning means gravy for somebody, — the architects, the lawyers, or somebody."

AMONG THOSE who spoke were: A. J. Scully, third Ave; W. Elmer Bedford, Chadwicks: a representative of Dr. H.F. McDonald, Burrstone Rd. and Champlain Ave; Frank Dingle, Park Blvd.; Henry Brown, Utica; Walter J. Brown, Seneca Turnpike; John Moyer, Chadwicks; and W. S. Garrett, Higby Rd. and Valley View; J. J. Scatko, New Hartford; and Theodore Burek, Utica.

Chester Roberts, Valley View Rd., and several residents of Sedgewick Park spoke in favor of zoning, especially in their area. Mark Barlow, Washington Mills, pointed out that for a small fee property owners could have restrictions written into their deeds regardless of zoning.

Serving with Morgan, a lawyer on the Planning Committee, are Nicholas Kauf, a farmer; Wendell Sawyer, an industrial engineer; Irving Wood, a chemical engineer; and William Downs, a merchant.

Here is a link to the actual page from the September 11, 1947 Utica Observer Dispatch.

The town attorney will be consulted...

2011-12-03T00:01:00.011-05:00

that's what we were told would happen, if the town clerk felt it was necessary.

A few days ago we blogged about the zone text amendment request made by Mr. Adler and received by the town clerk's office at 12:49 p.m., just hours before the 7:00 p.m. town board meeting scheduled for November 16, 2011.

We noted in our blog that a couple of days after the town board meeting we visited the town clerk's office and asked for a copy of the petition submitted by Mr. Adler...according to the town clerk there was none on file. There were only some papers requesting the change in the zone text in the Planned Development Park District [PDPD].

Today, more than two weeks after the zone text amendment request was brought before the New Hartford Town Board, we called the Town Clerk to again ask for a copy of the petition that was presented on behalf of New Hartford Group, LLC. The Town Clerk once again said all she has on file is a letter; a letter that is merely signed "Larry Adler" on what appears to be Cameron Group, LLC letterhead.

The town clerk said she did not believe that a petition was necessary for a zone text amendment; she believed it was only necessary for a zone map amendment. She then asked what section of Town Code we were referring to so she could look at the code herself. She further stated that after reviewing the Town Code if she found it necessary, she would ask for an opinion from the town attorney as to whether or not the code referred only to a zone map amendment and did not apply to a zone text amendment which is what Mr. Adler had requested.

Let's take a look at Chapter 118 of New Hartford Town Code titled "Zoning".

Chapter 18, Article XIV - Amendments; § 118-85. Statutory authorization states:

This chapter or any part thereof, including the Zoning Map [emphasis added by this blogger], indicating the various district boundaries, may from time to time be amended, supplemented, changed, modified or repealed by the Town Board in the manner provided by § § 264 and 265 of the Town Law.

Sounds pretty straight forward to us. The operative words in this section of the Town Code are..."this chapter or any part thereof...including the Zoning Map...may be amended, supplemented, changed, modified or repealed by the Town Board." It doesn't say the code is referring only to zone map amendments...in fact by the very wording "including the Zoning Map" one would be led to believe that zone map changes are only part of the equation.

The next section of Article XIV, § 118-86 states there are only three (3) ways that a zoning amendment can be initiated:

A. By the Town Board upon its own motion.

B. By resolution of the Planning Board, filed with the Town Clerk, wherein certain changes to or repeal of specific provisions of this chapter are recommended, in which case, it shall be the duty of the Town Board to act on such proposed amendment within 90 days of the time such resolution is filed by the Planning Board with the Town Clerk.

C. 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, in which case, it shall be the duty of the Town Board to act upon such petition for amendment within 90 days of the time such petition is filed by the petitioners with the Town Clerk. Said petition shall be accompanied by the applicable fee in accordance with the fee schedule established and annually reviewed by the Town Board.

We know for sure that A & B didn't happen so in order for the process to begin someone must have been relying on C...so why is the town unable to provide us a copy of a "duly signed petition"?

We have numerous concerns regarding the process being used by town officials as it pertains to Mr. Adler's request...

First, there is a specific process for initiating zoning amendments...that's why a law was adopted...to outline the process so that everyone would be treated in a 'fair and like' manner. A letter does not constitute a petition, at least that's what we've been told when we have had occasion to file petitions. We have been told that we had to follow strict rules in order for the petition to be recognized as legitimate.

Secondly, Mr. Adler didn't sign his "letter" as a duly appointed representative of New Hartford Office Group, LLC or as the principal owner of acreage in the zone where he is requesting the text to be changed...he just signed it Larry Adler.

According to the town assessment database, neither Mr. Adler nor Cameron Group, LLC [the letterhead used by Mr. Adler to submit his request to the town clerk] are the owner(s) of any of the business park acreage. As a matter of fact, according to the town assessment database, neither Mr. Adler as an individual nor Cameron Group, LLC are listed as owners of ANY property in New Hartford. New Hartford Office Group, LLC is listed as the owner of part of the business park and Cameron Housing, LLC, apparently another subsidiary of Cameron Group,LLC. owns property near Sitrin.

Additionally, the map of the PDPD zone we were provided by the town is outdated; the town actually owns some of the land for the roads servicing the business park; and the property that The Hartford building is situated on is not owned by Mr. Adler or New Hartford Office Group, LLC.

Third, the town attorney is already on video acknowledging that he would have to confer with the town assessor to confirm that Mr. Adler owns at least 50% of the acreage in the zone. So if this section of the Town Code doesn't apply to zone text amendments, what part of the town code is Attorney Cully relying on when he states that he and the assessor would have to determine whether or not Mr. Adler owns at least 50% of the acreage in the zone that is to be amended?

Is there another section of the town code that applies or are we to believe that the New Hartford Town Code is meant to be applied "buffet-style"...pick and choose the section of code that best suits the individual applicant's "wants and needs"?

Without a petition duly signed and acknowledged from 50% of the owners of the acreage, we would like to know how the Hell this ever got to the town board table in the first place and what basis was used by the Town Supervisor and Town Attorney to ask the town board to approve sending this request on to the New Hartford Planning Board and the Oneida County Planning Board; one of the first steps in the process for the approval and adoption of a local law for a zone text amendment; of course, that would be right after a "duly signed petition" is filed in the town clerk's office along with the applicable fee...we still don't know if the fee has been received from Mr. Adler.

But we will wait for an opinion from the town attorney...this should be interesting to say the least.

Funny you should say that, Mary...

2011-12-01T10:32:00.015-05:00

At the November 29, 2011 Library Board of Trustees meeting, Trustee, Edmund J. Wiatr, Jr. pointed out that the trustees need to be mindful of the 2% tax cap as it does apply to libraries.

Trustee Mary DuRoss interrupted and said that she was told that the libraries no longer were held to the 2% tax cap and another trustee agreed with Ms. DuRoss. Trustee Wiatr then asked to see the documentation that Ms. DuRoss was relying on and he was told to get the information for himself.

Here is Ms. DuRoss in her own words [about a minute and a half runtime]:

Well...as luck would have it, we received an email just yesterday from the Empire Center for New York State Policy and it contained a link to "New York State's Property Tax Cap: A Citizen's Guide".

According to that guide:

The cap applies to all counties, cities, towns and villages outside New York City, and to all fiscally independent school districts. It also applies to the property tax levies of special districts established to finance fire departments, libraries [emphasis added], sewer and water systems and other purposes.

While the tax cap does not apply to the library now because it is part of the town's budget and the tax cap is the town's responsibility, it would apply to them if they become a school district library.

Incidentally, this article is dated November 30, 2011, the day AFTER the Library Board of Trustees meeting, so one would have to suspect that the library trustees can believe it to be current and in effect. Looks like Mary's sources were incorrect. Perhaps trustees should be more careful before they speak rather than to just speak out against things they don't want to hear and board members they would rather not hear from!

What does the tax cap mean to the library? It will force them to make a tough decision. Do they low-ball their first budget request so that taxpayers will pass their referendum? Might not be the prudent thing to do knowing that they are forced to a 2% tax cap in future budgets. They would need a simple majority vote of the trustees to override the tax cap. The publicity from an override vote of the board, depending on how much the library tax would increase, might make voters reject future budgets and then by law they would be forced to adhere to that first budget that they low-balled.

OR...

do they ask for what they REALLY think they need hoping that voters agree that the library is worth spending their tax dollars on? This year's budget is set for $596,200..... and that budget appears to be a deficit budget if you look at where they think they can get revenue. More on this soon.

Keep in mind, this is not the budget that they will be presenting to the taxpayers in May 2012, they have yet to present that budget to the Library Trustees or the public; however, they have said that the budget that is presented for the taxpayers to vote on will include sufficient monies so that they can be open on Wednesdays, a day that they are now closed.

Decisions, decisions, decisions...but ignoring the facts or "tuning out" some of their trustees is not the way to go.

By the way, Trustee Wiatr, a member of the Library Finance Committee was given a handwritten note from Library Trustee and Treasurer Earl Cunningham on November 23, 2011. According to Cunningham [and this is a direct quote]:

"Ed,

Hans Plambeck and I have prepared the proposed budget for 2012. Enclosed is a copy for your advance review--I plan on giving it to the Library Board at our next meeting.

I do not intend to have a Finance Committee meeting since you are the only other member of the committee and I assume that you will not be in favor of this proposed budget and will want to submit your own proposed budget."

Actually, since Mr. Wiatr was named to the Finance Committee over a year ago, he has never been invited to a meeting of that committee. In fact, Mr. Wiatr has repeatedly asked for financial information and has even resorted to FOILing the information, but little is forthcoming. Ms. Romano at the end of the above video says that there is absolutely no issue with giving Trustee Wiatr the information he asks for? Really?

Who is keeping an eye on the financial status of the library if the Finance Committee never meets...who sees to it that your tax dollars are being wisely spent. Is the Finance Committee meeting behind closed doors in defiance of the Open Meetings Law...doors that are even closed to their own Library Trustee who is a member of that committee? As taxpayers, this is upsetting to say the least.

In May 2012, this library will be asking taxpayers of the New Hartford Central School District to vote on re-chartering to become a school district library; to vote on the trustees who will be making future decisions regarding the library; and to vote on the budget that your 2012-2013 school library taxes will be based on and yet their books are closed even to a member of their board who asks questions that ALL board members should be asking.

We will have more on the vote to re-charter soon. However, at that meeting one of the trustees asked Mr. Wiatr...Are you going to sabotage the efforts of this board to re-charter? From where we sit, Mr. Wiatr doesn't need to sabotage their efforts...they are doing a fine job all by themselves!

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

2011-11-29T23:46:00.009-05:00

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...

2011-11-25T18:23:00.012-05:00

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...

2011-11-25T09:45:00.013-05:00

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...

2011-11-24T08:04:00.005-05:00

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...

2011-11-22T10:46:00.008-05:00

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?

2011-11-17T21:31:00.004-05:00

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...

2011-11-17T01:35:00.011-05:00

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

2011-11-15T23:05:00.002-05:00

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

2011-11-14T23:41:00.005-05:00

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?

2011-11-09T22:46:00.034-05:00

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...

2011-11-09T02:01:00.009-05:00

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

2011-11-06T11:34:00.008-05:00

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"?

2011-11-05T11:38:00.016-05:00

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....

2011-11-03T00:30:00.005-05:00

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...

2011-11-01T21:58:00.005-05:00

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...

2011-11-01T11:38:00.005-05:00

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.

New Hartford School Superintendent Robert Nole...

2011-10-26T13:41:00.019-05:00

has accepted an invitation to attend a meeting of the New Hartford Library Board of Trustees according to Board President Linda Romano at today's Library Board of Trustees meeting.

Town Supervisor Patrick Tyksinski has also been invited to attend the meeting which is being held in the library on Monday November 7, 2011 at noon in order to discuss the feasibility of changing the library charter so that operating expenses are paid directly by taxpayers in New Hartford rather than as a line item in the town budget.

According to New Hartford Library Board President Linda Romano, the November 7th meeting will not be open to the public because it is a workshop and no action will be taken by the board.

As an attorney, Ms. Romano knows better...the Open Meetings Law says that the if a majority of the trustees are summoned to meet to discuss public [in this instance library] business regardless of whether or not action will be taken is a meeting that is open to the public.

Library Trustee Edmund J. Wiatr, Jr. spoke up at the meeting and stated for the record that closing this meeting to the public most definitely would be against the Open Meetings Law; however, the other library trustees cited many reasons why the meeting needs to be closed...none of which are legitimate reasons under the Open Meetings Law.

One trustee stated that it should be closed because they don't want the public to be confused and it's 'for the good of the library' that it be closed. We disagree. The good of the library will be better served if they follow the Open Meetings Law.

Library Trustee Mary DuRoss told the library board that she had contacted Robert Freeman, Executive Director of the Committee on Open Government and he said the meeting did not have to be open to the public. She even agreed to ask him to send a signed letter confirming their conversation.

No need to bother Mr. Freeman Mary because he already has two opinions online...neither one agrees with the conversation you state you had with him. One is dated March 6, 2002 and the other is dated August 18, 2008. Both opinions concur that:

The decision rendered by the Court of Appeals was precipitated by contentions made by public bodies that so-called "work sessions" and similar gatherings held for the purpose of discussion, but without an intent to take action, fell outside the scope of the Open Meetings Law. In discussing the issue, the Appellate Division, whose determination was unanimously affirmed by the Court of Appeals, stated that:

"We believe that the Legislature intended to include more than the mere formal act of voting or the formal execution of an official document. Every step of the decision-making process, including the decision itself, is a necessary preliminary to formal action. Formal acts have always been matters of public record and the public has always been made aware of how its officials have voted on an issue. There would be no need for this law if this was all the Legislature intended. Obviously, every thought, as well as every affirmative act of a public official as it relates to and is within the scope of one's official duties is a matter of public concern. It is the entire decision-making process that the Legislature intended to affect by the enactment of this statute" (60 AD 2d 409, 415).

The court also dealt with the characterization of meetings as "informal," stating that:

"The word 'formal' is defined merely as 'following or according with established form, custom, or rule' (Webster's Third New Int. Dictionary). We believe that it was inserted to safeguard the rights of members of a public body to engage in ordinary social transactions, but not to permit the use of this safeguard as a vehicle by which it precludes the application of the law to gatherings which have as their true purpose the discussion of the business of a public body" (id.).

Based upon the direction given by the courts, if a majority of a public body gathers to discuss public business, any such gathering, in our opinion, would ordinarily constitute a "meeting" subject to the Open Meetings Law. Since an “informal” meeting or a “work session” held by a majority of a public body is a “meeting”, it would have the same responsibilities in relation to notice and the taking of minutes as in the case of a formal meeting...

Mr. Freeman's opinions leave no doubt that this meeting is to be open to the public. So just what is it that some of these library trustees are trying to hide anyway?

Why not let the public participate in the planning so they can get all the facts before they have to vote on funding for the library at the next school budget vote in May 2012?

We have to wonder...does New Hartford School Superintendent Robert Nole and Town Supervisor Patrick Tyksinski know that this meeting will be closed to the public in violation of the Open Meetings Law? Will they take part in a meeting that is in violation of the Open Meetings Law? Our camera will be rolling...

How many lame excuses for not obeying the Open Meetings Law can you count in the video below?

By the way, they confirmed at today's meeting that there have been several meetings all year long regarding the re-chartering...none of them have been advertised to the public. These people just don't seem to get it...

Court of Appeals hearing on the Pork Lawsuit

2011-10-25T23:46:00.001-05:00

Town of New Hartford Budget workshop..

2011-10-19T00:55:00.004-05:00

The town board will be holding workshops to go over individual department budgets for 2012; the first one is scheduled for tonight [Wed., October 19, 2011] starting a 7:00 p.m. in Butler Hall.

Here is a copy of the Tentative Budget.

Corporate Welfare...Bordeleau v. State of NY

2011-10-14T20:57:00.002-05:00

Capital Tonight with Liz Benjamin

Bordeleaux v. State of New York...

2011-10-12T19:36:00.006-05:00

...or, the Pork Lawsuit as it is often referred to, was the subject of one of our recent blogs...Pork Lawsuit...".

Shortly after 2:00 p.m. this afternoon, both sides presented their case in front of the NYS Court of Appeals. We were actually able to listen to a Live Webcast of the proceedings and it was quite interesting to listen to both sides. The video will be available online next Monday; we will post a link for those that are interested.

Fifty (50) taxpayers, represented by Attorney Jim Ostrowski, sued the state, its Urban Development Corp., Erie Canal Harbor Development Corp. and six companies, including IBM and computer chip maker Global Foundries.

Earlier today, the Observer Dispatch ran a short story on their website, New York Group Challenges grants to business; however, this story could affect the Mohawk Valley more than the six (6) sentence story in the Observer Dispatch might lead one to believe.

If some of these names in the lawsuit sound familiar, they were recently in the news...High hopes for high tech: 450 more jobs promised for Marcy.

Stargazette.com, an online newspaper owned by Gannett, reported in their story, Updated: NY group challenges government grants to business:

Global Foundries said it is building a $6.8 billion semiconductor factory in upstate New York, expected to employ more than 1,500 people. The state Legislature has approved $650 million for costs associated with research and development, funded by bonds issued by the Empire State Development Corp.

The article goes on to say:

The company argued that those bonds are separate and don't involve the state's general fund.

"Even if the grant to Global Foundries was funded by the state, the grant was not a 'gift' in any sense of the word," attorney Harold Iselin wrote. "The ESDC is authorized by state law to provide financial and technical assistance to promote job opportunities, urban renewal and economic
development."

Another online news source, BuffaloNews.com, reports in their story...Court hears arguments in suit challenging state subsidies for business:

The group says Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo is continuing the corporate subsidy program done by generations of governors. They are zeroing in on his recent deal with IBM, Intel and others in which $500 million will be steered through the state university as part of a nanotechnology package based in the Albany area.

Ostrowski said such subsidies -- whether indirectly made through the state university or direct, such as the $600 million to a chip manufacturing facility near Saratoga Springs -- all violate the state constitution.

This should be interesting...we will keep you informed.

If your house doesn't need painting, wallpapering or wallpaper removal...

2011-10-07T14:08:00.009-05:00

you probably missed the "Important Message to New Hartford Residents from the Town Supervisor" that was included as an insert to the October issue of the New Hartford Town Crier.

It seems odd that the message didn't get posted on the town's regular news page in the Town Crier, but instead shared a half page with J's Painting; which is a regular monthly insert that is probably only of interest to people needing home repairs.

So we have to wonder...is the New Hartford Town Crier playing politics? Or, did the Town Supervisor request that his "IMPORTANT MESSAGE" be placed on this insert that probably ends up in most people's recyclables without being read?

Supervisor Tyksinski has said at several town board meetings that the elimination of the Receiver of Taxes would save about $53,000 a year. That's a very nice savings. We commend Supervisor Tyksinski and the town board for their efforts to contain costs in town government by eliminating unnecessary spending without sacrificing services. We also commend them for taking the initiative to introduce online tax payment and lockbox options making it more convenient than ever for residents to pay their tax bill.

Eliminating the office of Receiver of Taxes is not something new. Several area towns have already voted in favor of eliminating their Tax Receiver office; the latest being Camillus, NY, that on September 20, 2011 overwhelmingly decided by a vote of 914 to 401 to eliminate the job.

According to CNYcentral.com, Camillus voters abolish tax receiver position:

"The proposal could save the town up to $60,000 in the first year. That's doing away with the position and eliminates the salary, the benefits that go along with it. The town clerk would then streamline the office and it would save money all the way around,” said Mary Ann Coogan, Camillus Town Supervisor.

This past summer, at a town board meeting, members of the New Hartford Republican Committee let it be known that they were not in favor of eliminating the Receiver of Taxes position even though it would be a tax savings. In fact, it has been rumored that they plan to fight vigorously to keep the position that is on average a 360 hours a year job that pays $26,098 per year.

So, New Hartford voters it's in your hands...if you are in favor of the elimination of this elected position and want to shave about $53,000 off the budget for 2012, it is imperative that you get out on November 8th and vote "YES" for Proposition #1.

At any rate for those who missed this "Important Message", we are including it in its entirety along with a link to a pdf copy of the message that was included in the Town Crier.

AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO NEW HARTFORD RESIDENTS FROM THE TOWN SUPERVISOR

Since taking office in January of 2010 I have consolidated many departments within the Town. The result of this effort has been a reduction in Town expenditures of over $ 1. 3 million for the 2011 tax year and an 8% tax rate reduction. We are continuing to seek advantages and efficiencies through combining and consolidating departments in an effort to again cut your tax rates. W e will however, continue to maintain the level of services, which our residents are entitled to. In this effort to reduce expenditures the Town Board and I are proposing another consolidation of Town services.

On November 8th New Hartford residents will be given the opportunity to vote on Proposition #1. The purpose of Proposition # I is the consolidation of the tax collecting function. Passage of Proposition # I will eliminate the office of Receiver of Taxes and integrate this function into the Town Clerk's office.

The Town Board has unanimously voted to move forward with this process, which requires a public referendum in order to implement. There are several reasons why the board has proceeded with this project. The following are some of the issues, which were considered by the board in making this decision:

1. The current Receiver of Taxes, Hilarie Elefante, is retiring after thirty years of service. As this is an election year for this position and as the current receiver is no longer running it was felt to be an opportune time to look at consolidation.

2. In order to consolidate this office it needs to be done this year. Under State law elimination of the tax collector position can only occur at the end of the official's term of office, which is this year. If the process were not put forward this year then the Town would have to wait another four year before the proposition could be brought up again.

3. By consolidating these two offices it will save the Town approximately $50,000 a year. This amounts to over $200,000 over the next four years.

4. For the majority of Town taxpayers the new system will not mean any changes in how they pay their taxes. For those that pay their taxes through a mortgage escrow account there will be absolutely no change at all and these people represent over half of the taxpayers. Those of you that mail in your tax payments the only change will be the address of where it should go. And, for those taxpayers that wish to pay at Butler Hall we will still be able to accommodate you.

5. This new system will bring some advantages to our taxpayers such as;

a. The ability to pay your taxes online, through the Town website.
b. The ability to pay your taxes with the use of a credit or bank debit card.
c. Extended service hours for routine matters. The Clerk's office is open 5 days a week, 7 hours a day, 52 weeks a year.

So please vote November 8th.

Sincerely,

Patrick M. Tyksinski, Town Supervisor

Meetings this week...

2011-09-25T23:54:00.003-05:00

Stormwater Committee meeting, Monday, September 26, 2011 starting at 7:00 p.m. in Butler Hall. Open to the public.

Town Board Meeting, Wednesday, September 28, 2011 starting at 7:00 p.m. in Butler Hall. Agenda now online.

Eminent Domain...The Vote

2011-09-13T00:07:00.008-05:00

As required by law, a Public Hearing was held on August 11, 2011 giving the public a chance to voice their opinion on the use of eminent domain to secure the Yager property. At the hearing, a show of hands clearly indicated that everyone in the room, except for Larry Adler and some town board members/officials, was opposed to the use of eminent domain.

A week later, at the August 17, 2011 town board meeting, the vote was taken as to whether to invoke eminent domain to acquire the property needed for the Clinton Street extension.

Even though, in the end, it would appear that the Yagers managed to come out "smelling like a rose", not everyone on the town board voted in favor. Woodland and Backman both voted no; each with their reasons that can be heard on the videotape below.

Voting for the eminent domain was Reynolds, Krupa and Tyksinski.

According to the discussion that evening and Observer Dispatch accounts, the negotiations to obtain the property without the use of eminent domain have been ongoing for the past eight (8) years.

To believe that to be true, one would have to believe that the negotiations to secure the Yager property for the Clinton Street extension were ongoing during the Ralph Humphreys administration. That is highly doubtful since it was during Humphreys administration that the town stopped paying a yearly option to purchase the business park [Beckerman] property. [Note: It may seem longer, but Tyksinski has only been in office less than two (2) years and Earle Reed the prior four (4) years.]

Perhaps they meant to say that the negotiations have been on and off for about the last four (4) years due to "bad feelings" between some prior town officials, a school administrator, a developer and the Yagers.

At any rate, we thought you might be interested in the town board discussion that was tense at times; it will give you an idea of how your council person might vote on the next eminent domain proceeding that may be closer than everyone might guess. The phrase was already mentioned in this same video regarding another property.

In fact, eminent domain was discussed at the Planning Board level during the Earle Reed administration and is mentioned as a possibility within the Southern GEIS that has yet to be adopted by the town board.

With the recent flooding of Sauquoit Creek in Chadwicks, one has to wonder if the possibility will once again be put on the table; that is, if the town is able to figure out how to "eliminate the potential elitist Persephone" regarding the use of eminent domain in Chadwicks.

At any rate, here is the segment of the August 17, 2011 town board meeting where the use of eminent domain to secure the Yager property was discussed and voted on:

The next town board meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, September 14, 2011 starting at 7:00 p.m. in Butler Hall. The agenda is now online.

Audited Financial Statements...

2011-09-08T10:40:00.003-05:00

are now available for 2009 and 2010.

These reports were prepared by D'Arcangleo & Co. and are qualified opinions:

Auditors that deem audits as qualified opinions are advising whomever is reading the document that the information within the audit is not complete or that the accounting methods used by the company do not follow GAAP.

The auditors issued a qualified opinion because:

1. The auditors were unable to audit the fixed assets because the town has not kept their records up-to-date.

2. The New Hartford Library is a component of the town; however, the town has not included them in their annual audit reports.

A representative of D'Arcangelo & Co., the accounting firm that conducted the audit, discussed the audit at the August 17, 2011 town board meeting.

These reports are very thorough regarding the financial situation of the Town of New Hartford; we urge everyone to read through them and/or listen to the videotape of the discussion from the August 17th board meeting.

The video of that discussion:

OCIDA and PILOTs for New Hartford...

2011-09-06T00:13:00.005-05:00

According to the legal notices in the August 23, 2011 Observer Dispatch, Oneida County Industrial Development is holding a Public Hearing on Thursday, September 8, 2011 in Butler Hall at 9:00 a.m. regarding a PILOT for Affordable Senior Housing Opportunities of New York, Inc. who proposes to construct a three-story building comprised of approximately 126 one- and two-bedroom independent living units at 4752 - 4756 Middle Settlement Road, Town of New Hartford, Oneida County, New York for the purpose of providing affordable independent senior housing.

Affordable Senior Housing only asks that Oneida County Industrial Development provide:

...financial assistance in the form of issuance of a lease term of approximately (5) years;

...exemptions from mortgage recording tax and;

...abatement of real property taxes for a period of (5) years.

According to the notice the benefits of this PILOT represents a deviation from the Issuer's [OCIDA] Uniform Tax Exemption Policy.

A representative of OCIDA will be on hand at the Public Hearing to "hear and accept written comments from all persons with views in favor of or opposed to either the proposed financial assistance to the Company or the location or nature of the Facility."

This is the same property, you may recall, that the Zoning Board of Appeals turned down the request for a zoning variance. At that time, numerous residents in the Middlesettlement Road area attended the ZBA meeting to speak out against the project.

However, shortly after the ZBA turned the application down, the town board voted to amend the zoning to allow the building of a senior housing complex.

At the last town board meeting on August 14, 2011 Supervisor Tyksinski was videotaped saying [in reference to the construction of the right-in/right-out and the Clinton Street extension in support of the business park]:

"...New Hartford is the Number One area in Upstate New York that developers are looking to put commercial and retail into!"

Hooray for us...[sarcasm intended]

Here is a copy of the Legal Notice for the Public Hearing on the PILOT for the senior housing complex on Middlesettlement Road as it appeared in the August 23, 2011 Observer Dispatch.

By the way, OCIDA held a Special Board meeting on August 12, 2011 to consider a final authorizing resolution for several PILOTS...to include two (2) more in New Hartford....Burrstone Energy Center, LLC and New Hartford Office Group [Hampton Inn - NH Business Park].

The August 14th town board meeting was over 3 hours long...we will be dissecting the videotape and bringing you the highlights over the next few days.

Pork Lawsuit...

2011-08-17T00:15:00.012-05:00

From Tea Party Coalition of the United States

In a State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division decision dated June 24, 2010 that will send shockwaves throughout New York State, the Third Department Appellate Division revived a citizens’ lawsuit that seeks to outlaw billions of dollars in cash grants to private firms for alleged “economic development.”

Download decision.

The Court agreed with the plaintiffs’ main contention that the State may not funnel its funds through public benefit corporations such as Empire State Development Corporation as a means to avoid the Constitution’s ban on gifts to private firms.

The case now goes to the New York State Court of Appeals. Should the plaintiffs win the case, the current practice of giving billions of dollars of tax money to private firms, many of which then kick back campaign donations to politicians, will abruptly end. The briefs were filed on February 26, 2011.

James Ostrowski, a solo practitioner and tea party activist from Buffalo, New York, is counsel for the plaintiffs. Ostrowski said his group will now file a class action suit against every municipality in the state that provides cash grants to private firms under a similar but separate clause in the state constitution.

We wrote to Jim Ostrowski this evening and he replied to our email:

"The Court of Appeals is hearing the State's appeal on October 12th in Albany. We are having a large rally on that date.

Please see the webpage.

Hope to see you there."

Jim

For more information on this important court case, put 'Pork Lawsuit' in Google.

Don't cry for me...

2011-08-13T20:47:00.011-05:00

Last Thursday evening, at 6:00 p.m., a Public Hearing was held regarding the "taking" of the Yager property by eminent domain.

Many members of the agricultural community as well as other interested parties attended the hearing to voice their opinion of the town's use of eminent domain. A show of hands tallied twenty-two [22] against the use of eminent domain and one [1] for [that hand would be Larry Adler's].

Everyone thought it was terrible that a piece of agricultural land could just be taken from a long-time resident and business owner in the Town of New Hartford.

However, as the evening progressed we heard from the Yager's attorney who told those in attendance that, now that the town has changed the "S" shape of the proposed road to a "J" shape, and the fact that a developer is now interested in buying part of the Yager property on one side of the proposed road, the Yager's are now willing to sell the 2 acres to the town to build the road, they just don't like the price the town is offering.

Hmmm...a developer is interested in buying some of the Yager property....hmmm.

Turn back the clock a little over a year ago. We were looking for information regarding the personnel policy of other towns...at Supervisor Tyksinski's request.

We FOILed Employee Handbooks from several neighboring towns, but one town in particular sticks out in our mind because we received an email from that particular town's attorney:

We received your FOIL request and will produce anything we have. I believe I have had the opportunity to view your web site when dealing with an incredibly painful experience with New Hartford government for a private client. I have a few questions about New Hartford, and would appreciate some straight answers. When you have an opportunity, please give me a call at (315) ***-****.

Thank you

He seemed so genuine, so sincere and helpful. We answered that email and had several conversations with that attorney; he was even going to meet us for coffee but then he all of a sudden he stopped communicating with us. That would be right before his boss [the Town Supervisor of the town he represented] made a presentation to the New Hartford Town Board.

His boss, you see, happens to be the owner of the company that administers the Willowvale Fire Company, Inc. Service Award Program (SAP). Guess Mr. Attorney decided he didn't need anymore information from us particularly if a friendship with us could interfere with his boss's livelihood.

Anyway...his beef with the Town of New Hartford was regarding a project proposed by BG New Hartford LLC the then owners of Consumer Square. According to the October 15, 2007 Zoning Bord minutes:

The application of BG New Hartford LLC, c/o Developers Diversified Realty. The intent for this application is to create a separate lot for an existing WalMart store and associated fuel station to allow separate ownership of those facilities.

The Zoning Board voted to approve the application...next to the Planning Board.

However, it seems, according to Planning Board minutes dated October 29, 2007:

Discussion revolved around existing site deficiencies regarding the traffic signal and the main entrance driveway. The Board Members asked the Town Planner if there was any opinion on this application by the Town Attorney as it relates to these deficiencies and potential legal ramifications for correction if the Planning Board proceeds with action on this application and what it means for the responsibility for correcting those deficiencies. The Town Planner indicated that no opinion by the Town Attorney has been sought yet.

Motion was made by Board Member Ellen Rayhill to table this application until the Town’s Legal Council determines that any further action by the Planning Board will not impede any responsibility for required site corrections (regarding the Traffic Signal and main entrance driveway) either by BG New Hartford, LLC, Benderson Development, or other parties that maybe involved...

The January 14, 2008 Planning Board minutes state:

WalMart Subdivision – Update.

We have been advised by the Town Attorney [Gerald Green] to not act on this pending the resolution of traffic improvements inside Consumer Square. To not do that could be splitting that access road creating one owner on one side and one on another. We now have a traffic scope of engineering services that the Highway Superintendent and the Town Planner received to do a final evaluation of that and a Town of New Hartford recommendation of a fix for that road. Town Planner Schwenzfeier said we are going to be use a part of the retainer from Benderson to pay for it, but that our traffic consultant will look at the existing situation for a long term fix. It would take about six to eight weeks at a maximum to address this.

Chairman Arnold said he was informed that Consumer Square wasn’t built according to Final Approval Plans.

To the best of our knowledge, nothing more ever came of that application.

At the time, it was rumored around town that a Sam's Club might be coming to New Hartford. Maybe because the request was to put in a fuel station and Walmart generally does not have such a thing, but their Sam's Clubs do.

Now fast forward to the June 13, 2011 town board meeting where we learned that Benderson Development Co. had filed a Notice of Claim against the Town of New Hartford in 2010 and had now followed through with a lawsuit. Their stated cause was that the town had violated the Pre-Development Agreement by improperly using the Fees in Lieu of Mitigation funds paid by Benderson and they wanted those fees returned.

We also learned that a meeting took place between town officials and Benderson officials sometime in late June 2011 or July 2011, shortly after the lawsuit was filed. Since then, nothing has been said...not a word. We were told that "fireworks" would happen in August when the news broke about the lawsuit. But it has been completely quiet on the home front.

We are now suddenly hearing that a Sam's Club may be coming to New Hartford. Could it be?

Could it be that to put an end to a lawsuit that would be devastating to the Town of New Hartford a deal was struck whereby the Fees in Lieu of Mitigation paid by Benderson will be the very same fees that will be used to build the Clinton Road Extension, except now it will not only benefit Mr. Adler, but also Benderson because their fees will be used to put a road in front of their new development to be located on land purchased from the Yagers...namely a Sam's Club? Could it be that Benderson has decided to drop their lawsuit?

Happy days! Do the Yagers get to sell off more of their property to another developer, plus get to use the eminent domain proceedings to their advantage to get the biggest buck for their property where the road will be built? Is Sam's Club coming to New Hartford? Is it a win-win for everyone?

We have been at this for some time now...about six (6) years to be exact. We have learned a few things along the way. Like the fact that "political friendships" are much like serial bonds...they both have a Period of Probable Usefulness or PPU. Once that PPU expires, and sometimes before, the bond is done. However, these "political friends" always leave us with a few pieces of the puzzle..the challenge is putting the pieces together. We will have to wait to see how the pieces fit together this time.

By the way, according to a 1994 letter we stumbled across that was written to Joe Timpano who was then Town of New Hartford Comptroller...

"there is no stated enablement in Environmental Conservation Law or under SEQRA for "fees in lieu of mitigation"' nor has there been a reported court case in NYS affirming the legality of a developer mitigating its environmental impacts of significance (off-site) through the payment of a fee in lieu of mitigation...

The possibility exists, therefore, that a Court proceeding could determine mitigation under SEQRA through the payment of fees in lieu of mitigation...is illegal...Such a Court determination would require the repayment of the fees from developers in lieu of mitigation."

Guess there may be a good reason to keep our "developer friends" happy...the town can't afford to piss them off! Wonder what the PPU for "developer friends" is...!

Gifts and Loans...

2011-08-10T20:05:00.006-05:00

Article VIII of the NYS Constitution:

§1. No county, city, town, village or school district shall give or loan any money or property to or in aid of any individual, or private corporation or association, or private undertaking...

§2. No county, city, town, village or school district shall contract any indebtedness except for county, city, town, village or school district purposes, respectively...

Tomorrow, at 11:00 a.m. according to Fiscal Advisor's website, the Town of New Hartford is selling $1,048,000 Bond Anticipation Notes to include $600,000 of Bond Anticipation Notes to fund the right-in, right-out along State Route 840 and to build the Clinton Street Extension [to include the taking of the Yager property].

Also being pledged is $500,000 Fees In Lieu of Mitigation fees paid by other developers.

The bid announcement for the construction of Route 840 Eastbound Ramps to the New Hartford Office Park was in this Sunday's Observer Dispatch [08/07/11]; the pre-bid meeting was held this morning and the bids will be opened on August 17, 2011, the date of the next town board meeting.

According to the NYS Dept. of Transportation website, New York Highway Law Article 52...no construction can take place on a state highway except in accordance with the terms and conditions of a work permit issued by the commissioner of transportation or his duly designated agent.

The right-in, right-out is on a state highway. We contacted the NYS DOT and FOILed a copy of the work permit that was issued for the work on State Route 840.

According to the NYS DOT, in an email received today:

No Highway work permit has been issued at this point and will not be done until the Town has initiated work on the Clinton Street Extension.

Interesting...

In addition to business park property which is to be used to build the Clinton Street Extension [currently private property owned by Mr. Larry Adler], some of Mr. Yager's property is also needed to build the Clinton Street extension. The Yager property is slated to be taken in an eminent domain proceeding commenced by our town 'leaders', some of whom for some reason seem all to willing to do Larry Adler's 'dirty work'.

That brings us to the Public Hearing on the taking of the Yager property...a hearing that will be held tomorrow evening starting at 6:00 p.m. in Butler Hall. Without Mr. Yager's property, the Clinton Street Extension cannot be built and therefore; the right-in, right-out according to the DOT, is at a standstill.

Has anyone noticed that so far we have not mentioned any property that the $600,000 will be used to improve includes land owned by the Town of New Hartford? That is because, right now none of it is town property...it is private property and state property.

That brings us back to Gifts and Loans and the $600,000 Bond Anticipation Notes that will be sold tomorrow at 11:00 a.m.

Again, according to the Fiscal Advisor's website, the Notice of Sale says:

The Notes are general obligations of the Town and the faith and credit of the Town are pledged for payment of the principal of and interest on the Notes. All the taxable real property in said Town will be subject to the levy of ad valorem taxes, sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the Notes subject to the statutory Limitations of Chapter 97 of the Laws of 2011...

At this stage of the game, how can the "faith and credit" of our town be pledged to bond for work on property we neither own nor possess a work permit from the NYS DOT to begin construction?

On July 18, 2011, a letter was sent to the town board, the town attorney, and the town clerk. No responses were ever received from anyone...which, of course, is their choice and SOP [standard operating procedure] in the Town of New Hartford.

We urge all town residents to read our letter to the town board...it is definitely an eye-opener and you will probably learn things that you will be amazed to know.

Please attend the Public Hearing on the taking of the Yager property tomorrow evening at 6:00 p.m. in Butler Hall.

Notice of Public Hearing - Village of New Hartford, NY...

2011-08-03T23:17:00.002-05:00

From the Sunday July 31, 2011 Observer Dispatch Legal Notices:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that pursuant to Section 21-2100 of the Village Law of the State of New York, the Village Law of the Village of New Hartford, New York and Article 13-D of the General Municipal Law of the State of New York, the Village Board of the Village of New Hartford, New York will hold a public hearing on August 8, 2011 at 7:30 pm at Butler Memorial Hall, 48 Genesee St., New Hartford, regarding the application of The Sunset Home of Utica ("Sunset") regarding its premises and improvements located in the Village of New Hartford, commonly known as The Community at Sunset Wood ("Project") for designation under Section 290 of the General Municipal Law as a community facility with programs for the elderly, with Sunset as operator thereof.

The application further requests that the Village of New Hartford assist Sunset to defease all tax exempt bonds currently outstanding concerning the FHA-insured Mortgage Loan for the Project, to thereby accept title to the Project and lease the Project to The Sunset Home of Utica on a non-recourse basis in connection with a proposed FHA insured refinancing of the Project.

Janet Durr, Village Clerk

OD 7/13/2011.

Where's the outrage?

2011-08-03T08:21:00.006-05:00

We have to laugh, although it's not really very funny...

Don't take away my curbside trash program, but silence on the town bonding for millions so that a private developer can build his business park.

According to Supervisor Tyksinski and some council members, people have been writing, calling and stopping them on the street to voice their opposition to the curtailing of the curbside trash program due to financial problems created during the Earle Reed administration.

Hell, we've even heard some people at town board meetings speaking out and letting their elected representatives know how they feel about the loss of curbside trash pick-up. To quieten the masses on this issue, the town has now developed a tag system for those who desire curbside trash pickup.

But where is the outrage at the spending of tax dollars to finance Mr. Adler's business park...not only town tax dollars, but school and county too. Where is everyone on an issue that will impact them until 2023 and possibly beyond?

Most people in town we have spoken to don't even seem to know the story behind the PILOT Allocation Agreement that will be in effect until 2023. Or the moving of the Empire Zone boundary so that property taxes paid by The Hartford and other future tenants in the business park can be recovered through the state program for up to ten (10) years making them whole on property taxes while taxpayers are left funding the infrastructure costs associated with increased development.

Now for the second time, our elected officials are willing to bond to cover the cost of Mr. Adler's private development even trying to convince us of 'future benefits' to the town and at the same time telling us that no independent audit of town finances is available and hasn't been since 2008.

Remember in 2009 when we were all told 'Vote YES' and taxes will not increase. How did that work out for everyone when they got the 46% increase? What do you think caused the increase...where do you think the money was spent?

Have we become so apathetic that we only care about our own 'wants and needs' at any given point in time?

Imagine if some of that outrage on the curtailing of the curbside trash program were to spill over to the eminent domain issue at hand. Imagine if our elected officials were sent a clear message that we don't want to continue to fund a private developer.

It is pretty sad when our elected officials do the bidding of a private developer to invoke eminent domain against a long-time town resident and business owner. What will be next, will Mr. Adler NEED some more property on Woods Highway? Will he NEED some property on Seneca Turnpike?

We only hope that people will attend the Public Hearing in Butler Hall on August 11th at 6:00 p.m. and stand up in support of the Yagers and in support of requiring private developers to put their OWN PRIVATE money on the table to fund their private projects.

By the way, the council members representing the areas in closest proximity to Mr. Adler's development are up for re-election this year and they each have an opponent. Perhaps residents in Ward 2 & 4 should begin by questioning them on where they stand on the eminent domain/taxpayer bonding for private development issue.

Ward 2 - Christine Krupa Phone 315-733-7500, Ext. 2332
Email: ckrupa@town.new-hartford.ny.us

Ward 4 - Rich Woodland Phone 315-733-7500, Ext. 2332
Email: rwrich94@aol.com

Everyone, YOU have the power!

A dollar and a dream...

2011-07-31T20:59:00.009-05:00

except in this case it will be $600,000 bonding by the Town of New Hartford and $500,000 taken from other developers' Fees in Lieu of Mitigation...all to help a private developer's dreams come true.

Of course, if you listen to Tyksinski and Adler, all OUR dreams will come true soon too. The Observer Dispatch reported:

Once the access is improved with the two projects, the business park will help the town, Tyksinski said.

“You’ll see some new development going up there,” he said.

We can hardly wait...there has already been so much benefit from The Hartford moving in the business park...about a mile from where they were previously located. Isn't the building previously occupied by The Hartford now owned by a non-profit that pays no real estate taxes?!!

Supervisor Tyksinski brought the subject of going out to bid at the July 13, 2011 town board meeting. A copy of the 2008 adopted town board resolution to bond for $600,000 was presented by Tyksinski to bolster his case for going out to bid.

The 2008 resolution was passed around the table. Each of the four council members silently studied the bonding resolution looking like "deer caught in headlights". However, when all was said and done, they all said 'aye' to Supervisor Tyksinski's proposal.

Imagine...Supervisor Tyksinski was able to convince 4 other elected officials to vote to spend additional public money for a private developer even though as of today there is no current independent report on the financial condition of the town and there hasn't been one since 2008!

To top it off, we have blogged numerous times about Adler's refusal to make the town whole on some of his debt from the last bonding. Our elected officials are certainly looking out for us, eh?

Anyway, an article posted on the Observer Dispatch website tonight and probably to be in tomorrow's print edition says:

The Clinton Street extension project has been estimated to cost $200,000 to $300,000, and the Route 840 ramp has been estimated to cost somewhere between $700,000 and $800,000, Tyksinski said.

That's amazing! If you believe Tyksinski, Adler should have no costs over and above the $1.1 million town contribution.

However, we have to wonder who gave Tyksinski the "new" cost projections...because when the Public Hearing was held on November 5, 2009...almost two (2) years ago, the costs were projected to be $800,000 for the Route 840 ramp and $480,000 for the Clinton Street Extension:

For larger image, click on graphic!

Just in case you didn't attend the November 5, 2009 Public Hearing or even if you did, here is a copy of the slideshow presentation.

We have much more on the subject. To be continued...

New Hartford General Fund in the Black...by whose standards?

2011-07-31T09:18:00.017-05:00

The Town of New Hartford's last independent financial audit was as of December 31, 2008.

On January 26, 2011, the town board voted to retain D'Arcangelo and Co. to perform an independent audit of the Town of New Hartford for 2009 and 2010; the audit was to be completed by March 31, 2011. We have a copy of the Engagement Letter between the town and D'Arcangelo dated February 2, 2011.

The completion date of March 31, 2011 has come and gone. We have FOILed copies of the audit, the management letter, etc. twice; once on April 28th and most recently on July 28th. Each time we have been told that:

"...the Town does not have this document yet, as the report is not completed. However, it is expected to be completed within a couple of weeks."

It is well past the time that the town is required by law to have an independent financial audit performed, although when it was time to hire an outside auditor for the 2009 Financials, Supervisor Tyksinski and Town Attorney Cully disagreed with the NYS Comptroller on the interpretation of town law and one was not done; that is why D'Arcangelo & Co. was hired to do a 2009 and 2010 audit of the books.

Since the time of the last independent financial audit [December 31, 2008] prepared by Barone, Howard & Co., we have learned that:

The 'rainy day' fund was depleted to the tune of $2.8 million and there has been no clear-cut explanation as to where it went.

The police fund owes the General Wholetown Fund money [the exact amount depends on who you ask].

The Sewer Maintenance Fund is owed over $1 million because it was used to 'plug the holes' in other accounts.

According to a recent Observer Dispatch article, the General Fund is now in the black; however, we have no documentation to substantiate that other than the Supervisor's Report to the State Comptroller [AUD] that was supposed to be filed by May 1, 2011 and wasn't filed until a couple of months later.

Again, according to the July Observer Dispatch article:

The town’s 2010 annual finance report was due to the state Comptroller’s Office by May 1 but was completed just recently. Tyksinski said the delay was largely because he wanted the report to be in line with the town’s outside audit for 2009 and 2010 by D’Arcangelo & Co.

The 2010 annual finance report supposedly has been filed, so what is the excuse now?

According to the AUD, the General Fund has a balance of $266,052; however, that report is not an independently audited report; it is merely the Supervisor's report to the State Comptroller.

According to the State Comptroller's instructions for filing the AUD:

Notes to the Financial Statements
The Notes to the Financial Statements should represent specific disclosures necessary for a fair and complete presentation of the financial statements. Notes to the Financial Statements are required to be filed with the Annual Update Document (AUD).

There is also supposed be a page where the Supervisor certifies that the information provided in the report is "true and correct to the best of my knowledge" along with the date of filing the report to the NYS Comptroller.

There were no Notes to the Financial Statement or certification attached to the copy of the AUD report that we were provided when we FOILed.

The Observer Dispatch also reported Supervisor Tyksinski as saying:

Tyksinski said 2011 will end with another budget surplus, and he plans to cut property taxes in 2012.

Bold statement to make when budget time is right around the corner and the independently audited financial statements for 2009 and 2010 are yet to be "in the hands of the town".

How long will it be before Town of New Hartford residents receive an independent report on the financial condition of the town. We started the clock on December 31, 2008, the "as of" date of the last report.

Nine hundred and forty two [942] days and counting...

Time Elapsed Since

Town Board Meeting tonight...

2011-07-12T23:58:00.005-05:00

Wednesday, July 13, 2011 starting at 7:00 p.m. in Butler Hall.

Agenda now online!

On tonight's agenda is a Public Hearing to discuss Local Law Introductory “F” – Rec’r of Taxes Office. The Local Law states:

This article is to abolish the Office of the Receiver of Taxes and Assessments in the Town of New Hartford, New York and to transfer all powers and duties of that office to the Town Clerk.

If adopted by the town board this evening, there will be a mandatory referendum for approval of the qualified voters of the Town of New Hartford, New York at the General Election to be held Tuesday, November 8, 2011. If the voters approve, the office will be abolished as of December 31, 2011.

If you remember, we blogged about the Tax Receiver Office and pointed out that according to documents submitted to the State Comptroller for pension purposes, the Tax Receiver works about 360 hours a year and receives a salary of $26,098 plus full benefits. Supervisor Tyksinski has acknowledged that about $50,000 would be saved by abolishing the office.

The public is welcome to attend tonight's public hearing and give their thoughts on the subject prior to the vote of the town board.

Here is a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing that appeared in the June 29, 2011 Observer Dispatch.

Is the Aldi store at the Jay-K intersection...

2011-07-04T22:34:00.009-05:00

a boon - noun
...welcome benefit; blessing?

OR
a boondoggle - noun
...a wasteful or impractical project or activity often involving graft?

Shortly after the Zoning Board of Appeals denied the use variance that was needed in order for the Aldi project to begin, the Kellys presented a request to the town board for a zoning map amendment change.

After a public hearing was held, the zoning change was unanimously approved by the town board with one abstention [Krupa who gave no reason for her abstention] thus allowing the Aldi store project to progress to the Planning Board for review.

At the June 13, 2011 Planning Board meeting, the Aldi project was approved with one dissenting vote...Jerome Donovan who felt that the board should place more importance on the DOT recommendation to base the traffic study on a potential full build-out of the entire property – not based just on the Aldi store.

The DOT representative at the June 13th Planning Board meeting stated that there have been 81 traffic accidents recorded at that intersection July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2010.

According to the Observer Dispatch:

"the DOT sent a letter to the Planning Board recommending that the board base the traffic study on a potential full build-out of the entire property – not based just on the Aldi store."

The Planning Board, however, approved the plan with a traffic study using projections based on the addition of only Aldi.

According to the Observer Dispatch, Planning Board Chair Elis DeLia said:

Planning Board Chairman Elis DeLia said he felt “very comfortable” approving the Aldi store based on the traffic studies provided because he has no reason to doubt what Kelly and his attorney told the board.

“We all know that intersection presents problems,” DeLia said. “I believe the property owner and DOT will ensure that the development impacts on that intersection will be as safe as possible.”

With the Planning Board approval on record, there remain many concerns over the potential impact on additional traffic generated by yet another retail business at the already congested intersection.

But, bottom line, the project was approved at the June 13, 2011 Planning Board meeting based on the Kellys assurance that they have no further projects planned at this time.

Only time will tell if that is the case; however, the Kellys and Sloans [who are related] own most of that corner to include parcels along Middlesettlement Road and it seems doubtful that they will not be looking for further development of their properties sooner or later.

The Aldi project is in the final stages of approval; the next step is to apply for a highway work permit from the DOT. Two DOT employees were at the June 13th Planning Board and expressed concerns regarding the project. Hopefully, their review process will require mitigation measures that will alleviate more traffic congestion at an intersection that is already on overload.

Here is the portion of the June 13, 2011 Planning Board meeting where the Aldi's application was being reviewed by the board and comments were made by the two DOT workers:

By the way, it was learned at the June 13th meeting that the landscaping business that occupies space at the entrance to the Jay-K Lumber store is actually situated partly on State owned land.

Stormwater Meetings in New Hartford...

2011-06-27T07:15:00.005-05:00

Stormwater meeting tonight [Monday, June 27, 2011] starting at 7:00 p.m. in Butler Hall.

According to Brian Sanders, the coordinator for the Stormwater Meetings:

"The meeting will be a working session with a shortened agenda. The intention is to prepare committee comments on a few items for next month's Town Board meeting. The proposed stormwater legislation will be one of the topics."

Meetings are open to the public.

Here is the video of the last Stormwater Meeting held June 20, 2011:

Property Tax Cap...A tax cap breach in the works?

2011-06-24T08:47:00.012-05:00

Special Alert! Dated June 24, 2011

From The TORCH:

The New York State Assembly this evening followed the Senate’ lead in passing a teacher pension bonding option that would undermine a property tax cap while generating more risk for taxpayers — but a leading State Capitol reporter has tweeted that Governor Cuomo’s “quick comment” on the bill suggests “strong opposition.” Cuomo certainly should be opposed.

An egregious fiscal abuse on its own terms, the bill (S.4067-A) would allow school districts across the state (except for New York City) to issue 15-year bonds to cover a portion of their rising teacher pension costs over the next several years - at least $1 billion in all, by one estimate...

For the full post, click here.

According to the NY Post in a June 25, 2011 article by E.J. McMahon, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute's Empire Center for New York State Policy:

The passage of a 2 percent cap on local property-tax growth in New York should have been the crowning achievement of Gov. Cuomo's first legislative session -- complementing an austere budget to set a more fiscally responsible tone for the Empire State.

But even before the tax cap finally came to a vote in Albany yesterday, the Legislature was making a mockery of the governor's objectives. Lawmakers approved a bill that would allow school districts to borrow money to cover a portion of their growing teacher-retirement costs -- the same costs that will be partially excluded from the tax cap, under a concession Cuomo made last month to secure the support of Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver.

Read more of Mr. McMahon's article: Stabbed in the Back

And, according to the Americans for Prosperity New York Chapter facebook page:

The Senate and the Assembly have proven they are not serious about mandate reform and property tax relief by passing the Pension Borrowing Bond bill. Now we will have to see how serious the Governor is. Will he veto the bill? Call Gov. Cuomo at (518) 474-8390 and tell him to VETO S.4067A!

New Hartford Public Library and the Open Meetings Law...Part 2

2011-06-22T20:25:00.027-05:00

In a March 18, 2011 opinion letter also written by Camille Jobin-Davis, Assistant Director of the Committee on Open Government, in response to an inquiry regarding the Board of Education of the Massena Central School District, several additional questions regarding the Open Meetings Law are addressed.

Even though the opinion letter is based on a question posed by another entity, we thought the information is worth mentioning since they may very well be questions that the New Hartford Public Library Trustees might have at some point in time:

Does the applicability of the Open Meetings Law change if a committee consists of three members of a governing body, and in addition, a fourth or fifth person, not a member of the governing body, is designated to serve on the committee?

What if each committee of the Board consisted solely of its own members, plus the Superintendent as an ex officio member?

Although that is not exactly the case here, what if additions of that nature were made to evade the applicability and intent of the Open Meetings Law?

The answer given in the Opinion Letter:

From our perspective, when the core membership of an entity consists of members of a governing body, the kinds of additions or actions described in those questions would not change the essential character of the entity.

In this case [Board of Education of the Massena Central School District], the core membership of such a committee includes three Board members, plus “at least two or more members of the school administration.” The core members, typically having been designated by means of a resolution approved by the Board, presumably may be removed only by action taken by the Board. Their status on the committee is likely permanent, unless and until the Board as a whole takes action to remove them or until they no longer serve on the Board.

The fact that committees of the New Hartford Public Library are comprised of current board trustees as well as members of the general public makes no difference. The mere fact that two (2) or more members of the governing body serves on the committee makes any meetings held by that committee an open meeting.

According to several written opinions of the Committee on Open Government:

With respect to the general intent of the Open Meetings Law, the first sentence of its legislative declaration, §100, states that:

"It is essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that the public business be performed in an open and public manner and that the citizens of this state be fully aware of and able to observe the performance of public officials and attend and listen to the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy."

With that in mind, the question town residents should be asking is...

The New Hartford Public Library is primarily funded by public tax dollars...why is the Board President, who also happens to be an attorney, and other members of the Library Board of Trustees continually trying to circumvent the Open Meetings Law so they can continue to conduct business behind closed doors?

One more thing, on the tape of yesterday's library trustee meeting, Mary DuRoss is heard recounting the events of the June 9th Re-Charter Committee meeting. Linda Romano asked Mary, for the record, to clarify who was at the June 9th meeting.

Mary DuRoss responds...Connie Stephens, Kevin Kelly, Earle Cunningham, Virginia Emmert, Ed Wiatr, Jr. and of course Mary was there.

By Mary's own recollection, we count six (6) members of the Board of Trustees present at that committee meeting. The total Library Board of Trustees is eleven (11), wouldn't six (6) trustees who gather to conduct library business be considered a quorum and therefore wouldn't the meeting be required to comply with the Open Meetings Law?

There are only three (3) board members appointed to the Re-Charter Committee...were the other three (3) trustees who are not appointed members of the committee merely there to sit in the audience?

Trustees, other than those appointed to a committee most certainly can attend committee meetings; however, if a quorum of trustees is in attendance at a committee meeting, in order to avoid a violation of the Open Meetings Law, those who are not committee members must sit as part of the audience, not at the board table and they cannot take part in any discussions or votes.

If the (3) trustees who are not members of the committee were not there in their official capacity as library trustees but merely as a member of the audience just like any other member of the public, then it must have been a meeting open to the public...you can't exclude some people and allow others to be part of the audience.

So, was the violation of the Open Meetings Law on June 9th based on the fact that a quorum of the Library Trustees met to conduct library business or a committee comprising three (3) members of the Board of Trustees met to conduct library business? Either way, the meeting was in violation of the Open Meetings Law because no prior notice of the time and place of the meeting was given to the public.

The Open Meetings Law clearly states such a meeting IS to be open to the public. The meeting was held in a public building; we were openly videotaping; we have every right to be there to videotape. Once we videotape, we own the video and we are free to do what we wish with that video.

Here is a short videotape posted by villageofvictory on Youtube with Robert Freeman, Executive Director of the Committee on Open Government answering questions regarding videotaping.

If we can be so bold as to quote Robert Freeman, a very humorous speaker, regarding videotaping people at a public meeting even if they don't like being videotaped:

"People should grow the Hell up!"

Sounds like sage advice from someone who is well versed in the all the little nuances of the Open Meetings Law!

New Hartford Public Library Trustee recuses himself...

2011-06-22T14:53:00.012-05:00

after confirming that today's [June 22, 2011] Library Trustee meeting was held in violation of the Open Meetings Law.

At the start of the June 22, 2011 New Hartford Public Library Trustee meeting, Trustee Edmund J. Wiatr, Jr. asked Board President Linda Romano whether or not the meeting had been properly noticed to the public.

Prior to the meeting, we checked...The notice on the library website clearly stated that the next board meeting is to be held on June 15, 2011...not today, June 22nd.

There was a meeting scheduled for June 15th; however, the meeting was cancelled at the last minute and board members were notified by email that the meeting would be re-scheduled for today. The change was never noted on the library website and it appears that no notice was sent to the Observer Dispatch.

Board President [Attorney] Linda Romano referred Mr. Wiatr's question to other board members who sat in silence. No one seemed to know whose duty it was to see that meetings are properly noticed...the Library Director? the Board President? the Board Secretary? anyone? No one claimed responsibility...

According to the Open Meetings Law, if a meeting is not properly noticed to the public, the meeting is in violation of the law.

At the conclusion of the discussion when it became apparent that the meeting was in violation of the Open Meetings Law, Mr. Wiatr recused himself and sat in the audience for the remainder of the meeting.

Discussion ensued regarding the June 9th library committee meeting that we videotaped and posted on our blog.

More than once, Ms. DuRoss requested that the blog and video be removed, even threatening a lawsuit against the owner of the blog for slander if it was not removed. Slander for making an unedited videotape of a public meeting available? Now that's interesting. Perhaps Ms. DuRoss should read up on the law before making any more ridiculous statements.

Board President [Attorney] Romano then presented the board with a 1989 court case that she says backs up her contention that committee meetings do not come under the purview of the Open Meetings Law. Unfortunately, Attorney Romano fails to recognize the difference between a committee/working group made up of citizens and a committee/working group made up of 2 or more board members with governing powers.

According to the Committee on Open Government website, the court case provided by Library Board President [Attorney] Linda Romano centers around a committee made up of representatives of City, federal, state and local agencies, not a board or other public body with governing powers:

Poughkeepsie Newspaper v. Mayor's Intergovernmental Task Force on New York City Water Supply Needs, 145 AD2d 65 (1989) --

Task force created by the Mayor of New York City was directed to make recommendations concerning the City's long range water supply needs and consisted of representatives of City, federal, state and local agencies. Court held that it is not a public body, for it has no power or authority, but rather gives advice, and performs no governmental function, i.e., does not "exercise the power of the sovereign."

However...

When members of a governing body make up the core of a committee or sub-committee, work group, task force or whatever name is attached to the group, Robert Freeman has opined many times that:

In view of the amendments to the definition of "public body", we believe that any entity consisting of two or more members of a public body, such as a committee, a subcommittee or "similar body" would fall within the requirements of the Open Meetings Law when such an entity discusses or conducts public business collectively as a body [see Syracuse United Neighbors v. City of Syracuse, 80 AD 2d 984, 437 NYS 2d 466, (4th Dept. 1981), appeal dismissed 55 NY 2d 995, 449 NYS 2d 201 (1982)].

In a July 31, 2008 opinion letter written by Camille S. Jobin-Davis, Assistant Director of the Committee on Open Government written in response to the Board of Trustees of the Guilderland Public Library:

My research reveals that committees of public bodies made up solely of members of the public body are always advisory in nature. Cases that require committees of this type to comply with the Open Meetings Law include Lewis v. O’Connor, Supreme Court, Lewis County, January 21, 1997 (standing committees of the county hospital, made up entirely of members of the hospital’s board of managers, with no power to take final action nor bind the board of managers, are public bodies subject to the OML): “To keep their deliberations and decisions secret from the public would be violative of the letter and spirit of the legislative declaration as stated in the Public Officers Law.” Lewis, pp 4-5.; Bogulski v. Erie County Medical Center, Supreme Court, Erie County, January 13, 1998 (subcommittee of county hospital’s board of managers required to comply with OML); Glens Falls Newspapers, Inc. v. Solid Waste and Recycling Committee of the Warren County Board of Supervisors, 601 NYS2d 29 (3d Dept 1993) (committee of the county board of supervisors required to comply with OML)

In addition to the court case provided by Board President [Attorney] Linda Romano, Trustee and Board Secretary Mary DuRoss provided a copy of a 2004 Opinion Letter from Robert Freeman, Executive Director of the Committee on Open Government. Supposedly, in a phone call today, Camille S. Jobin-Davis, Assistant Director of the Committee on Open Government referred Mary to this particular opinion on their website; Mary was sure that the Opinion Letter supported Attorney Romano's stance on the subject.

Unfortunately, Ms. DuRoss either didn't read the Opinion Letter or did not understand what it says.

According to the Opinion Letter provided by Ms. DuRoss:

In this regard, by way of background, the Open Meetings Law is applicable to meetings of public bodies, and §102(2) defines the phrase "public body" to mean:

"...any entity for which a quorum is required in order to conduct public business and which consists of two or more members, performing a governmental function for the state or for an agency or department thereof, or for a public corporation as defined in section sixty-six of the general construction law, or committee or subcommittee or other similar body of such public body."

Based on the foregoing, a public body is, in my view, an entity required to conduct public business by means of a quorum that performs a governmental function and carries out its duties collectively, as a body. The definition refers to committees, subcommittees and similar bodies of a public body, and judicial interpretations indicate that if a committee, for example, consists solely of members of a particular public body, it constitutes a public body [see e.g., Glens Falls Newspapers v. Solid Waste and Recycling Committee of the Warren County Board of Supervisors, 195 AD2d 898 (1993)]. For instance, in the case of a legislative body consisting of seven members, four would constitute a quorum, and a gathering of that number or more for the purpose of conducting public business would be a meeting that falls within the scope of the Law. If that entity designates a committee consisting of three of its members, the committee would itself be a public body; its quorum would be two, and a gathering of two or more, in their capacities as members of that committee, would be a meeting subject to the Open Meetings Law. [emphasis added]

Right on, Mary! We wholeheartedly agree with the opinion you provided in support of our position [albeit accidentally]...we thank you!

The Opinion Letter goes on to say:

Several judicial decisions, however, indicate generally that advisory bodies, other than those consisting of members of a particular governing body [emphasis added], that have no power to take final action fall outside the scope of the Open Meetings Law.

It is fair to say that neither Ms. DuRoss nor Attorney Romano seem to understand that there is a difference in the eyes of the Open Meeting Law. Committee meetings where the members of the committee are not board members/trustees do not come under the Open Meetings Law. That's not to say that those meetings can't be open, just that they are not required to be open if the committee members are not part of a governing body.

On the other hand, ALL committees of the New Hartford Public Library are comprised of at least two board members that are named to the committee by the Board President...that makes them public meetings under the NYS Open Meetings Law.

Without further ado, here is a video of today's Library Trustee meeting:

To be continued. Stay tuned...

Stormwater Meeting...

2011-06-20T00:52:00.001-05:00

tonight, Monday, June 20, 2011 starting at 5:30 p.m. in Butler Hall.

Meeting is open to the public.

Hydrofracking...

2011-06-16T21:50:00.002-05:00

At Wednesday's [June 15, 2011] New Hartford Town Board meeting, a Public Hearing was held on a proposed local law "imposing a moratorium on the activity known as hydraulic fracturing and/or hydrofracking in the Town of New Hartford".

Residents from New Hartford and neighboring towns spoke against hydrofracking and in favor of the proposed moratorium; no one appeared in opposition to the moratorium.

At the conclusion of the Public Hearing, the New Hartford Town Board unanimously voted to adopt the local law that will impose a 6-month moratorium on hydrofracking in the Town of New Hartford.

Here is the moratorium adopted by the New Hartford Town Board. Below is the videotape of the Public Hearing:

For more information on hydrofracking, please visit Hydro Relief Web.

Town Board Meeting Tonight...

2011-06-15T02:02:00.003-05:00

Wednesday, June 15, 2011 starting at 7:00 p.m. in Butler Hall.

Agenda now online!

Grown-ups behaving badly...

2011-06-09T21:51:00.007-05:00

The New Hartford Public Library Charter Revision Committee held a meeting tonight. Committee Members are Mary DuRoss, Chair; Connie Stephens, Virginia Emmert, Kevin Kelly, all Board Trustees; James Kirkpatrick and Albert Moretz, former Trustees and Mary Lou Caskey from Mid-York Library System. Other library trustees were also in attendance.

According to the Open Meetings Law, when two or more board members, in this case trustees, appointed to a sub-committee of the governing board gather to discuss business, the meeting is open to the public. As such it should be advertised to the public and videotaping is allowed.

In an Opinion Letter dated December 7, 2006, Robert Freeman, Executive Director of the Committee on Open Government opined:

...a governmental entity, i.e., a municipal or school district library, I believe that committees and subcommittees consisting of two or more members of the Board would be required to comply with Open Meetings Law.

However, some members of the New Hartford Public Library Board objected to our videotaping because they do not want to share information with the public regarding discussion of a possible re-charter of the library as a school library whereby the funds needed to run the library would be a separate line item on the New Hartford Central School tax bill rather than included in the town budget. According to one board member, they would have a better chance of the vote passing if there were less information available to the public beforehand. Another board member said he didn't care about the Freedom of Information Law and the Open Meetings Law...he had no intention of complying with either.

We say hogwash...taxpayers have a right to know what they are being asked to fund...the pros and the cons. The Open Meetings Law is there for a purpose; it is to prevent public business from being done behind taxpayers backs.

After some of the board trustees and committee members walked out, it was decided to adjourn the meeting because it was being videotaped rather than to continue the business that they came together to do.

It is truly sad that some members of the library board feel that 'outsiders' are not welcome and should have no say in these discussions even though the point of these meetings is to start making plans to ask voters/taxpayers in the New Hartford School District to agree to fund a $500,000 library budget as a separate line item on their school tax bill.

It is unfortunate, but it appears that the "movers and shakers" behind the New Hartford Public Library didn't learn their lesson from the 1994 bond vote for the building that was rejected because voters/taxpayers felt 'left out in the cold' with not enough information given to the public beforehand.

What is it that they say...history has a tendency to repeat itself? Unless the library trustees get their act together and start to recognize the need for public involvement, history may very well repeat itself. Then who will be 'left out in the cold'?

Here is tonight's shameful meeting:

Where's the beef?

2011-06-08T00:41:00.018-05:00

Recently the Observer Dispatch reported:

The audit, which was released in late January, estimated that the town’s police fund at the end of 2009 owed other town funds – primarily the general fund – about $1 million due to police budget deficits from 2004 through 2009.

Tyksinski said his review in response to the state audit isn’t finalized, but the total is closer to $300,000.

Shortly after the article appeared in the Observer Dispatch, a request was sent to the town clerk for information from the Supervisor as to:

...what records (evidence) the town supervisor has in his possession that support an opposite point-of-view with that of the NYS Comptroller who stated that $1,000,000 is due payable from the Police Fund.

Please have him provide all records supporting his claim of only $300,000.

In reply to the request, the town clerk said:

...any amount which may have been given to the newspaper was an estimate and Patrick said he'd made that clear to the reporter. Upon determination of the final figure, Patrick will be happy to provide the calculations, which substantiates the final number. At this point there is no final number.

Interesting, particularly when you review the Corrective Action Plan which was submitted to the NYS Comptroller as the town's response to the audit of town records.

As part of the audit, the NYS Comptroller's recommended that "the Board should determine what portion of the general town-wide fund balance related to police operations and account for it in the newly-created police fund."

The town stated in the their Corrective Action Plan prepared in response to the Comptroller's audit that was released in January 2011:

"The determination of the Police Fund Balances, as of the date of this report is nearly completed. The correct fund balance will appear on the 2010 Annual Report submitted to the State Comptroller's Office."

The 2010 Annual Report would be the Annual Update Document [AUD] that is supposed to be filed with the State Comptroller's Office no later than May 1 each year as required by General Municipal Law Article 3 - (30 - 39) REPORT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION § 30.

A copy is also supposed to be on file in the Town Clerk's office for review by the public. So we phoned the town clerk to request a copy for our review. Incidentally, this is the document that the Observer Dispatch reviewed and was the basis for their article that reported that the "rainy day" fund was depleted by $2.8 million.

In response to our phone call, the town clerk replied that she knew that she was supposed to have a copy on file, but she did not have one.

She didn't have one because the town had not filed the report as of June 1, 2011...one month after the due date!

According to the NYS Comptroller's website:

Effective immediately all cities and counties, and those towns or villages with populations of 20,000 or more according to the 2000 federal census, now have up to 120 days after the close of their fiscal year to file their AUD. However, this is now a firm deadline [emphasis added]; there is no longer any flexibility given to OSC to extend the filing date beyond this period.

It is now June 8th, there was no Comptroller's AUD filed by May 1; we have been advised that the town is supposedly not in possesion of the 2009 and 2010 town financial audit that was supposed to be completed by D'Arcangelo by March 31, 2011; and Supervisor Tyksinski has no final figures as to the money that is owed to the General Fund in satisfaction of the money that was used to cover previous cost overruns in the New Hartford Police Fund.

In that same Observer Dispatch article previously mentioned, Supervisor Tyksinski is quoted as saying:

“To shift over some sales tax, I don’t think it’s going to hurt us,” he said.

When questioned for the article, Councilman Backman said:

...that would be a “questionable use of sales tax money.” He said the deficit needs to be made up by directly reducing expenses in the police budget – even if it takes a longer period of time.

We agree with Councilman Backman because according to note 8 on the bottom of page 13 of the State Comptroller's audit:

Because the police fund includes one village, it would not be considered a parttown fund.

That makes it questionable as to whether or not sales tax can be applied to the Police Fund.

The time to start working on the 2012 town budget is fast approaching. It's time to let taxpayers in on the financial condition of the town...we don't need any more surprises.

Where IS the beef Supervisor Tyksinski?

Financial Condition of New Hartford??

2011-05-29T10:26:00.011-05:00

Last week Town Supervisor Pat Tyksinski proposed the town hire a Comptroller. Actually it was Tyksinski's plan to hire Mr. Dreimiller who was Tyksinski's appointee for Finance Officer in January 2011, but the idea was voted down by the town board in a 3-2 vote. The discussion ended with only Tyksinski and Krupa voting "aye".

At the start of the town board discussion, Tyksinski made a pitch for the cost savings that might be realized with a comptroller...though it might not be apparent to some, we certainly realized that his figures were slightly skewed. He even took a couple of 'pot shots' at the Observer Dispatch.

After Tyksinski finished, it was time for town board discussion. Councilman Backman mentioned Town Law Article 3, Section 34 [Powers and Duties of Town Comptroller] whereby according to that law, the Comptroller "shall be the town board of the town during the continuance of such office" as far as the auditing of the bills. Meaning the town board would no longer have any say as to what bills get paid...Larry Adler/Shumaker.

Our opinion...The last thing this town needs right now is a Comptroller who has the power to usurp the town board regarding finances! What we need is a budget officer that is believable and above reproach...much like the one we had prior to Supervisor Tyksinski taking office.

Tyksinski tried to sway the board members to his way of thinking using arguments that only became more ridiculous as the discussion continued; even Town Attorney Cully tried to convince members that Councilman Backman was not fully aware of the law...that is until Councilman Reynolds stated that he agreed with Councilman Backman after a conversation he had with the Association of Towns. If you read Observer Dispatch reporter Bryan Ackerman's blog, you will note that even the State Comptroller agreed with Councilman Backman.

Here is the comptroller discussion portion of the meeting:

Back in January 2011, shortly after Tyksinksi took office, D'Arcangelo was hired by the town board to complete the 2009-2010 town audit by March 31, 2011 in accordance with Town Law.

On April 28, 2011, almost a month after the audit was supposed to be finished, we FOILed the Town Audit for 2009 & 2010 so that we could get a clue as to the financial condition of the Town of New Hartford.

According to the Town Clerk, we were to be given an answer to our FOIL no later than Friday, May 20, 2011...three weeks response time for a report that is supposed to be on file in the Town Clerk's office and turned over to anyone who walks in her office and requests it. No FOIL is needed to review financial documents that are on file in the town clerk's office.

But we decided to wait anyway. We waited...no answer was forthcoming. On May 20th, we were in the town clerk's office on another matter and we inquired as to the status of our FOIL request for the town audit. It was clear that the town clerk did not have a copy on file; she said she would get back to us.

We waited some more...May 26th, we were again in her office on other business and asked again. This time she called the Supervisor's office and his secretary said the audit was not done so we requested that the town clerk respond to us in writing as she should have already done prior to our visit.

The next day [May 27, 2011] we received an email from the town clerk stating:

Per your recent inquiry because the date of May 20th has passed for the Town Clerk's Office to obtain a copy of the referenced audit, this is to inform you that the Town does not have possession of such document as of this date and therefore, cannot provide you with same at this time.

You may wish to re-submit your FOIL request in the near future.

Gail Wolanin Young

Very craftily worded...not that the audit is not done as the Supervisor's secretary told the town clerk, but that "the Town does not have possession of such document"...a document that by law and by contract to D'Arcangelo is supposed to be completed by March 31, 2011. Almost sounds like the email was written by an attorney.

Fact is, other than the recently released State Comptroller's audit which was less than stellar, the town has not released town financial statements audited by an outside firm since the 2008 Financial Audit that was done by Barone & Howard. By the time of the release of the 2008 Audited Financials, we already learned that our "rainy day fund" was depleted to the tune of $2.8 million.

Given the track record of some town officials in recent weeks...we, as taxpayers, should be concerned...starting right now!

New Hartford Town Board Meeting...

2011-05-25T00:57:00.001-05:00

tonight, Wednesday, May 25, 2011 starting at 7:00 p.m. in Butler Hall.

Agenda now online!

Stormwater damage...

2011-05-19T23:49:00.000-05:00

was the topic of discussion at tonight's meeting held at the Donovan Community Center in Chadwicks.

Residents turned out en masse to voice their frustrations over stormwater damages suffered in recent storms; they wanted answers from officials in attendance tonight as to what plans are in the offing to help alleviate their persistent stormwater problems.

Town Supervisor Patrick Tyksinski presided over the meeting. Also on hand were Don Backman, Ward 1 Councilman whose constituents suffered considerable damage; Elisbetta DeGironimo, Town Stormwater Coordinator; Brian Sanders, newly appointed town stormwater consultant; Richard Sherman, Highway Superintendent; Matt Bohn, Town Deputy Superintendent; and Town Attorney Herb Cully.

Noticeably absent was Ward 2 Councilwoman Christine Krupa whose constituents in the South Hills area sustained considerable stormwater damage.

County Legislators Brian Miller, Jim D'Onofrio and Fred Sadallah were also there to share some information regarding the County's part in the clean-up and also talk about their conversations with FEMA representatives who recently toured the damaged areas of town.

Concerned Citizens videotaped the meeting; it is quite lengthy, but well worth the watch particularly if you were affected by the recent storms but were unable to attend tonight's meeting.

"I requested the town attorney to do this"...

2011-05-14T22:30:00.000-05:00

that's what Supervisor Tyksinski said after Concerned Citizens co-founder, Catherine Lawrence, read a prepared statement to the town board at Wednesday evening's town board meeting.

Supervisor Tyksinski even went so far as to again state that Robert Freeman, Executive Director of the Committee on Open Government, told Attorney Cully that they do not have to give us anything that is already available on the town website even though he was well aware that Concerned Citizens also contacted Robert Freeman who denied ever saying that to the town attorney.

In fact, by searching on on the web, we found a 2007 decision from Robert Freeman's office, that says in part:

...you requested a “file containing information about all mortgages and deeds filed in the City during the immediate past year.” For more than a decade, the City has maintained an electronic file of such information and has provided it in response to yearly requests from your company, Genesis Computer Consultants, Inc. This year, in response to your request, the Department denied your request and indicated: “... we believe that posting information on our Web site constitutes reasonable compliance with our obligation to make our records ‘available for public inspection and copying’.” You further indicated that “[s]uch data is of little or no use to you unless you have access to the entire file electronically so that you can make lists of various sorts and make comparisons of sets of data.” It is our opinion that if the Department continues to have the ability to make one year’s worth of data available to you in an electronic file, it is required to do so. [emphasis added]

If asked for the assessments on a cd and we are willing to pay for the cd, the town is required to provide the cd to us...is exactly what Robert Freeman told us when we contacted him last week and exactly what Robert Freeman told us he conveyed to the town attorney when the town attorney contacted him last week.

Here is the portion of the meeting where Ms. Lawrence read her statement and Supervisor Tyksinski responded:

When an elected official starts trying to take away citizens' rights by twisting the FOI Law to suit their own desire to keep information from the public, it is time to re-examine whether they are the person for the job. The fact that the town attorney was involved makes it even more reason for concern.

But wait, that is not all that went on at this meeting. More to follow...

Section 8 - Wholly Exempt Properties...

2011-05-14T12:29:00.007-05:00

in the Town of New Hartford.

We have divided this spreadsheet into two sections. The top section is for residential properties that are wholly exempt from property taxes; the bottom is for other than residential.

Section 8 Wholly Exempt

Exempt total $ 290,228,552.00

One of the wholly exempt properties, The Hartford located in the business park, is now owned by AXNY Office LP and is assessed at $10,800,000. The purchase price was $20,500,000.00, about half of what it is assessed...sale date December 22, 2010.

The Hartford is actually paying property taxes to the Oneida County Industrial Development Corporation on the $10,800,000 assessed value. However, under the terms of the PILOT/TIF agreement, OCIDA then gives the money to the town to pay the principal and interest on $2.3 million bond that was sold by the town to pay for the infrastructure in the business park.

According to information we obtained when the bond was purchased, it will be six years before the town gets enough money to fully pay off the bond costs each year. Until that time, Larry Adler supposedly has given the town a Letter of Credit to hopefully cover the difference. If there is not enough money left in the Letter of Credit to cover the shortfalls...taxpayers will have to make up the difference.

More spreadsheets to follow...

Recent property sales in New Hartford

2011-05-12T01:13:00.001-05:00

We are now making available an Excel spreadsheet with recent property sales in New Hartford.

Recent Property Sales

We have sorted the sale parcels by address.

If you look carefully, you will see where property values must have increased dramatically on Main Street in the Village of NYM. Although, we are not quite sure why someone would pay that much for a 3 family home with 1 bath and 1 kitchen particularly when it is only assessed for $75,000. Could it be a mistake?

Yes, this information is right out of the assessment database...the one that we FOILed and they initially denied us. The same database that is used for assessing properties in New Hartford!

According to Supervisor Tyksinski at tonight's meeting he was the one that directed the town attorney to find a reason to deny our FOIL request. You don't want to miss that videotape...it will be online this weekend.

Grieving Your Assessment...

2011-05-11T00:00:00.008-05:00

The Office of Real Property Services now has a pdf version of the Grievance Form that can be accessed on their website using the link below.

This is a fill-in form...just type in the required information and print out two (2) copies of the completed form; one for the assessor and a copy for your files. Be sure that both copies are timestamped by the Assessor's Office for proof that the form was received on time.

Fill-In Form

The directions for filling out your Grievance is also available on the ORPS website:

Directions for filing complaints

You do not need to meet in person with the Board of Assessment Review; however, you must file a completed Grievance with the Assessor's Office in order to continue on to Small Claims or a Certiorari.

Remember...your grievance must be received in the Assessor's Office no later than the day the board of assessment review meets to hear complaints which this year is Tuesday, May 24th.

Town of New Hartford Residential Assessments...

2011-05-10T10:07:00.012-05:00

for 2011 are now available in an Excel spreadsheet. These are all parcels in the 200 property class sorted by address and do not include agricultural parcels in the 100 class. That will be a separate spreadsheet.

Where you see blank spaces for sq. ft, number of beds, baths, etc., it is because the information has not been entered in the database by the assessor's office.

Residential - property class 200s

For more information on the different property class descriptions, please visit the ORPS website.

Next town board meeting is tomorrow, Wednesday, May 11, 2011 starting at 7:00 p.m. in Butler Hall.

Agenda is now online!

What were they thinking?

2011-05-05T17:22:00.006-05:00

We now have the FOILed copy of the assessment database containing the information for the 2011 Tentative Assessment Roll. It was given to us late this afternoon when we appeared at the town clerk's office with a Notice of Claim in hand.

We will be posting several Excel spreadsheets this weekend to provide property information to those who wish to grieve their assessment.

We have been told by the town clerk that even though we have received the cd, our FOIL appeal will be on the next town board agenda. Believe us...one way or another it will be discussed in the next open meeting on Wednesday, May 11, 2011.

At this point, residents of New Hartford should be asking what is so wrong with the assessment database that the town supervisor and his appointed town attorney would try to pull a stunt like this in an effort to keep us from posting the database in an Excel spreadsheet?

We have been openly blogging about some of the problems with the database; other problems we have communicated directly to the town board in hopes of working them out behind the scenes. The reassessment program was a disaster. The unfortunate part is that it will take a considerable amount of money to correct the deficiencies in the current assessment database.

We cannot stress enough that if you feel that your assessment is "too damn high" and that your property is being unfairly assessed in relation to comparable properties, you should file a grievance with the assessor. You do not necessarily have to appear in person on May 24, 2011 to present your case for a reduced assessment. All grievance applications are reviewed by the Board of Assessment Review whether you have an appointment to appear in person or not. But remember, you must file a grievance in the assessor's office by the end of the day on May 24, 2011 in order to file a small claim or certiorari if you are unsuccessful to get your assessment lowered at the BAR.

So...what were they thinking? It is unfortunate that some of the people running our town government felt they could bully us. Guess all the talk from Pat about an open government was just that...talk because it was what we all wanted to hear.

Did they really think that we would just go on our merry way without a fight? Did they think we would not call Robert Freeman to confirm what he told them regarding FOILing the assessment database? Did they think we are not fully aware of the FOI Law regarding assessment data?

As an officer of the court, Attorney Cully has a duty to uphold the law, not try to circumvent it to satisfy the town supervisor.

Shame on them...

Tyksinski, the Reformer...

2011-05-04T12:01:00.011-05:00

some of our New Hartford town "leaders" have just denied our request for the FOILable assessment data disk that by the NYS Freedom of Information Law is readily available from the town assessor and was even routinely provided to us by the Earle Reed administration, once we advised them of the law.

This denial is clearly in an attempt to prevent us from posting it in an Excel spreadsheet in time for residents to grieve their assessment.

Now why would they want to do that? Perhaps because we pointed out several parcels in the Willowvale Fire Department that were not being charged fire tax? Or was it the parcel that was so screwed up that the owner was only paying a little over $200 total taxes on a home assessed for almost $200,000 and also received a Veteran's exemption on a vacant parcel. Or could it be that there is a lot of grumbling about applying for reduced assessments due to the recent flooding problems? Or was it any other myriad of problems we have brought to the attention of the town board? Or just perhaps because they found out that we cannot be "bought" and will not "play ball with them".

Town Attorney Herb Cully told a member of our group that he supposedly had a phone conversation with Robert Freeman, Executive Director of the Committee on Open Government, in which Attorney Cully said that Robert Freeman told them they don't have to release it to us.

We knew better, the FOI Law is something we are extremely familiar with and have used many times...isn't that what they complained about in an Observer Dispatch article several months ago?

Funny, when we called Robert Freeman, he denied that he told Attorney Cully that the town didn't need to release the information...he stated that it is definitely available for the cost of the cd which, in the Town of New Hartford, has always been $1.80.

This morning, upon the advice of the town attorney, Herb Cully, the town clerk sent us a denial letter.

We immediately submitted an appeal and we have requested that it be put on the next town board meeting agenda for discussion.

In the meantime, we have the 2010 assessment database that they provided us with in answer to our FOIL request last year. We will be making the information available in an Excel spreadsheet this weekend.

If you have suffered stormwater problems or you feel that your assessment is "too damn high", please be sure to contact the assessor's office and schedule an appointment for Grievance Day, May 24, 2011.

We are also offering to provide help with assessment information to any town resident who contacts us.

"Reform Town Management"...how's it working for you people?

Stormwater...

2011-05-02T13:59:00.004-05:00

Town Supervisor Patrick Tyksinski has announced that he has declared a state of emergency in response to the storms of last week.

If you have suffered property damage from the storm, contact the town Highway Department at 724-4300 to find out if you qualify for assistance.

New Hartford Town Board Meeting...

2011-04-27T00:20:00.002-05:00

tonight, Wednesday, April 27, 2011 starting at 7:00 p.m. in Butler Hall.

Agenda now online!

Can a school in NYS legally participate in Tax Increment Financing?

2011-04-25T11:54:00.019-05:00

According to the NYS Conference of Mayors and Municipal Officers website:

Tax Increment Financing, often referred to as TIF, is a gap financing tool that taps the incremental increase in tax revenues resulting when a formerly vacant or underutilized property is redeveloped. The increased property tax revenues that would normally go into a municipality’s general fund are instead used to pay off the debt obligations that are issued to help finance the real estate development project. However, New York’s TIF law currently only permits the municipal portion of local real property taxes to be used to finance debt service for such projects. School districts’ real property tax revenues, which comprise approximately 61% of all property taxes levied in the State, are excluded from the TIF program.
[emphasis added]

Hmmm...isn't that how they described the bond to build the New Hartford Business Park? And isn't that what is planned to be used to build the right in/right out?

Shortly after the presentation, former Superintendent of New Hartford Central School Dan Gilligan [remember him?] provided us with a copy of the slide presentation presented to the public on January 28, 2008.

Here is the cover of that presentation:

We questioned Dan Gilligan regarding the use of Tax Increment Financing and we were presented with a letter from the law offices of Ferrara, Fiorenza, Larrison Barrett & Reitz, P.C. Attorney Joseph G. Shields reasoned that because they were using a PILOT with a deviation for Tax Increment Financing, that made it legal for the school to participate. Interesting concept...call it a PILOT with a deviation...what gives OCIDA the right to a deviation that is illegal?

If this is legal, how come other IDAs in NYS are not doing the same? Why is the NYS Conference of Mayors and Municipal Officers not considering using the same method of a PILOT with a deviation to help "spur economic development"?

How about the group Unshackle Upstate who in June of last year wrote a memo in support of TIF Financing?

Or how about Attorney Kamlet, an attorney with Hinman, Howard & Kattell of Binghamton, who recently wrote an article that appeared in the Ithaca Journal on January 14, 2011. He wrote, in part:

As a steadfast advocate of "brownfield" redevelopment and economic revitalization in Greater Binghamton and throughout upstate New York, my look back on the year just ended, and my wishes for the new year, are a bit different from those of the average overburdened taxpayer....

* It failed to enact (for at least the fourth year in a row) effective Tax Increment Financing (TIF) legislation.

Didn't anyone tell them how easy it is to circumvent the law?

We emailed Attorney Kamlet regarding the use of PILOT Increment Financing (PIF) instead of Tax Increment Financing (TIF). Attorney Kamlet was kind enough to respond to our email. According to Attorney Kamlet, who is very much in favor of Tax Increment Financing:

Some New York municipalities, in conjunction with local Industrial Development Agencies (IDAs), have used a complex financing mechanism known as "PILOT Increment Financing" to cobble together a substitute TIF-like procedure that can include school districts. It relies on the fact that, under the IDA law, IDAs (with the consent of the local taxing jurisdictions) can negotiate Payment In Lieu of Tax (PILOT) agreements with developers.

In other words, they found a way to circumvent the law, and until it is tested in court, it is legal much like the Fees In Lieu of Mitigation scenario.

Attorney Kamlet concludes his email with:

Taxing jurisdictions may be left with less residual revenue under PILOT Increment Financing than under TIF--but it may still be advantageous if it stimulates much-needed economic development, which generates a steady stream of future tax revenues.

IF, that is a big word.

This does leave a lot of questions that need to be answered before the project continues. We would love to hear from some New Hartford School Board members.

- Did you know that in NYS it was illegal for a school to participate in a TIF project?

- If you were told before you voted that a NYS school cannot take part in Tax Increment Financing, would you have still voted 'yes' for the New Hartford Business Park bonding proposal put before you in October 2008?

- When Mr. DiMeo presents the next proposal on behalf of Larry Adler for a PILOT-Tax Increment Financing for the right in/right out, will you once again be voting yes?

Wouldn't it be nice...

2011-04-17T00:31:00.007-05:00

IF...the tax receiver's office was able to accept debit/credit cards for tax payments like many other towns do? There are actually companies who specialize in helping municipalities make this available to their residents with no loss in tax revenue to the town.

IF...the tax collector's office was open more hours...like tax receiver offices in most other towns? Almost all tax receiver offices in other towns in NYS at least have extended evening and Saturday hours just before taxes are due and during the time that taxes are received with penalty and many are actually full-time positions. Not in New Hartford...

According to reports filed with the NYS Comptroller's office, our tax receiver works on average 360 hours a year and the pay is $26,098 per year...that is without the 38% proposed pay raise during the 2011 budget discussions!

And wouldn't it be nice...

IF...elected officials who only work on average 360 hours a year did not receive health, dental and legal insurance all paid for by taxpayer dollars?

New regulations now require towns to file a report to the State outlining the standard work day for all elected and appointed employees for retirement purposes.

Here is the report adopted by the New Hartford Town Board at the May 26, 2010 town board meeting to satisfy this requirement. All highlighted positions receive town-paid employee benefits to include health, dental and legal:

[click on graphic to view in larger print]

Note: While, according to the Employee Handbook, the Highway Superintendent is eligible to receive paid health benefits, the current Highway Superintendent has opted to not receive them.

And wouldn't it be nice...

IF...tax bills were available online so you could print a copy at home if your tax bill was misplaced or for some other reason you needed a copy and you wanted to pay your taxes by mail instead of having to find time to visit the tax receiver's office when they are open just to get a copy of your tax bill?

Many towns in New York State have their tax bills online; in fact, all 2009 through 2011 town tax bills in Oneida County are already online on the Oneida County website, but they are in a pdf format with several tax bills on each page; you cannot print just one tax bill.

These are some of the ideas recently presented to the New Hartford Republican Committee by a member of Concerned Citizens.

By the way, have you read the State Comptroller's Audit Report regarding the Town of New Hartford Tax Receiver's office?

New Hartford boasts about how progressive the town is, but wouldn't a progressive town already be on board with these taxpayer conveniences? This isn't rocket science...

The Mexican Standoff...

2011-04-16T23:33:00.000-05:00

After the March 23, 2011 town board meeting, we wrote a blog and presented the video where the town board adopted a resolution regarding the 2008 Shumaker invoices that are still outstanding. In fact that was one of several blogs on the subject.

A resolution was adopted on March 23, 2011 that was supposed to put the issue to bed once and for all. If you remember, Supervisor Tyksinski reluctantly changed his 'nay' vote on the resolution to an 'aye' at the last minute.

Basically, the resolution stated that Supervisor Tyksinski and Town Attorney Cully would review town records to determine the actual dollars spent out of the $2.3 million bond for the Business Park.

If the all the bond money for the New Hartford Business Park hadn't been exhausted, the town would use the bond money to pay the Shumaker invoices.

On the other hand, if all the $2.3 million was already spent, Larry Adler would be sent a letter by Attorney Cully requesting payment with a possible lawsuit to follow if the monies owed the town were not paid.

Not difficult, Town Board minutes and memos clearly reflect that former Budget Officer Heather Mowat addressed the previous town board several times in 2009 and stated that the $2.3 million was spent and additional monies [about $200,000] were owed the town by Larry Adler. Ms. Mowat's reasoning was that taxpayers should not pay Mr. Basile, Attorney Green and bond counsel for work they did exclusively for the New Hartford Business Park; that is an expense that should be paid by the bond or Larry Adler, the developer.

Fast forward to this Wednesday's meeting, April 13, 2011. Once again the subject of the still unpaid 2008 Shumaker invoice was brought to the table by Supervisor Tyksinski.

This time, in response to the March resolution, Supervisor Tyksinski presented the board with his theory that the $2.3 million bond had not been completely spent; well, that is if you take out the invoices for Frank Basile, Attorney Green and bond counsel. The very same expenses that Heather Mowat told the town board should not be paid by taxpayers.

Discussion ensued and Councilman Backman pointed out that the town would have incurred none of those expenses if not for the New Hartford Business Park PILOT. However, for some reason, Supervisor Tyksinski doesn't believe that Ms. Mowat's opinion is valid; he seems to believe that taxpayers should be responsible for these costs.

It's really quite funny...Supervisor Tyksinski keeps reminding everyone that he is a CPA, but then again so is Ms. Mowat. However, Supervisor Tyksinski is supposed to be watching out for the taxpayers, but it appears that he is not!

Watch the video for yourself and notice Supervisor Tyksinski's body language...listen to Councilwoman Krupa and Councilman Reynolds who seemingly have no clue as to what went on during Earle Reed's administration. Friends, this is the problem we face because everything was done behind closed doors.

Unfortunately for taxpayers, it would appear that Supervisor Tyksinski is going to do everything in his power to make sure that Mr. Adler pays nothing. We hope we are wrong.

We just have to ask again, who is Supervisor Tyksinski working for anyway?

Breaking news...

2011-04-14T10:20:00.019-05:00

[picture courtesy of Elsie, member of the New Hartford Chapter of Bovine International]

New Hartford - We have just received word that Supervisor Tyksinski apparently raised the ire of some of New Hartford's finest bovines by recent comments made to an Observer Dispatch reporter.

In an Observer Dispatch article last week, What's the future for southern New Hartford?, Tyksinski was quoted as saying:

“I’m not here to say that we’ve got to blacktop the entire town of New Hartford and put in shopping centers and homes,”

“On the other hand, is it crucial that the town of New Hartford has farms? Not to the town of New Hartford.”

Apparently shortly after the article appeared, a bovine sit-in was staged closing Genesee Street in New Hartford to traffic for hours. Supervisor Tyksinski, who was at a loss for words, gazed out of the window of Butler Hall in total disbelief. It was 'udder' chaos for hours as Elsie and her friends showed their support for agriculture in New Hartford.

Reportedly, several of the protesters were interviewed but their only response was "Moo-oo".

In hopes that the Supervisor was merely misquoted in the Observer Dispatch, Brymer Humphreys, a long-time member of New Hartford's agricultural community, attended last evening's town board meeting to ask Supervisor Tyksinski for clarification regarding his statement that seemed to downplay the importance of agriculture in New Hartford.

Supervisor Tyksinski didn't recall making the statement to the reporter, but several members of the town board and audience concurred with Mr. Humphreys that the statement as reported did seem to imply that agriculture was unimportant to New Hartford. Tyksinski categorically denied that he made any statement to the reporter that could possibly be offensive to the agricultural community in New Hartford and pressed the reporter, who was in attendance at the board meeting, for answers.

Normally, we might tend to believe that someone could have been misquoted in the Observer Dispatch; it sometimes happens, but Tyksinski has a track record of opening his mouth and inserting his foot. It does seem a little far-fetched to believe that the above statement was concocted by the Observer Dispatch reporter particularly since Supervisor Tyksinski seems to have no problem with the taking [eminent domain] of agricultural property from the Yagers on behalf of Larry Adler, a private developer.

Come on Supervisor...we think you need to apologize to a whole segment of the population in New Hartford who have lived here with their families, farmed their land and paid taxes for years. Man up and do the right thing! Own your wisecrack and apologize!

Obviously, the sit-in didn't really happen...it is our way of pointing out to Supervisor Tyksinski that he needs to learn to keep his wisecrack comments to himself and being Town Supervisor is not just about serving the needs of his developer friends.

Here is that portion of the April 13, 2011 New Hartford Town Board Meeting:

New Hartford Town Board Meeting tonight...

2011-04-13T00:15:00.002-05:00

April 13, 2011 starting at 7:00 p.m. in Butler Hall. Agenda now online!

Here we go again...

2011-03-27T09:53:00.003-05:00

Payment of an 2008 outstanding invoice owed to Shumaker Engineering for work at the New Hartford Business Park was once again the topic of discussion at the March 23, 2011 New Hartford Town Board meeting.

It really seems that Supervisor Tyksinski feels that taxpayers should foot the bill for the work; while town board members have a different take on the situation [although Supervisor Tyksinski did change his vote to 'aye' at the end when he was the only 'nay' vote about to be recorded], that is after he amended the resolution...a stall tactic to be sure.

The agreement between the town and Larry Adler, developer of the business park, clearly states that he is to pay for any 'incidentals' once the $2.3 bond money is exhausted. In 2009, then Budget Officer Heather Mowat, stood before the town board and informed them that the $2.3 million bond money had been spent thereby making the remaining expenses 'incidentals'.

Supervisor Tyksinski seems to feel that taxpayers should pay for some, if not all of the overruns. To date almost $200,000 has been determined to be owed to the town by Mr. Adler...we just don't understand where Tyksinski is coming from.

As Councilman Backman pointed out at the March 23, 2011 town board meeting, Mr. Adler's present plans to build the hotel would require that the town use Fees In Lieu of Mitigation collected from other developers to pay for the eminent domain issue with the Yager property. Adler's plans also include a PILOT whereby the town [taxpayers] would incur further indebtedness in the form of additional bonding to build the Clinton Street Extension and the right-in, right-out option for the hotel in his business park; yet, Mr. Adler apparently feels he has no obligation to honor his prior agreement. How can this board in good conscience allow that to happen?

Here is the discussion at the March 23, 2011 town board meeting:

If you missed the other two times this 2008 invoice has recently been the topic of town board discussions, here are the links:

Almost slipped through the cracks...

Filling in the "cracks"...

Town of Paris Assessments...UPDATED 3/26/11

2011-03-22T23:27:00.004-05:00

In light of the recent Town of Paris property revaluation for the 2011 roll year, Concerned Citizens was requested to obtain a copy of the assessment database and post the information online. We are presenting the assessment information in an Excel spreadsheet that can be downloaded and sorted however you choose; we started out by sorting the parcels according to address.

According to the town assessor, the assessment database information is as of March 10, 2011.

For each parcel, we are giving you the 2010 assessed value [with a blue column heading] and all 2011 information with yellow column headings. This should help you in determining the increase in assessed value for each parcel. In some instances, there is no 2010 assessed value either because the home was built in 2010 or because the parcel was split into two separate parcels in 2010 and a new record was created.

We are starting by listing all properties identified as being Agricultural [Property Class in the 100s]. Please note that not all parcels in the Agricultural Property Class have living accommodations; however, where applicable, we have listed the number of kitchens, baths, 1/2 baths and bedrooms.

We are also posting all Property Class 200s...they are primarily One, Two and Three Family.

Since Property Class 105 in the Agricultural class does not permit a residence, no detail is listed for the number of bedrooms, baths, etc. Any other missing information is due to either the data never being entered in the database or problems with the information that has been entered.

UPDATE:

Here are the rest of the Town of Paris assessments:

Vacant Land

Apartments over 3 units

Commercial, Utilities and Government-owned

Section 8 - Wholly Exempt

For more information on specific property class definitions, please visit the Office of Real Property Services website.

Town Board Meeting...

2011-03-21T22:51:00.002-05:00

Wednesday, March 23, 2011 starting at 7:00 p.m. in Butler Hall.

Agenda now online!

Town of New Hartford Planning Board meeting...

2011-03-14T04:19:00.002-05:00

tonight, Monday, March 14, 2011 starting at 5:30 p.m. in the lower level of the New Hartford Public Library.

Agenda now online!

Councilman Zecca...

2011-03-12T01:55:00.015-05:00

apparently took umbrage at a comment made by a member of CCHOG in reference to Utica's Master Plan and the fact that some people [such as Councilman Zecca] don't seem to want to hear opinions that don't mimic their own, particularly when the opinions come from someone deemed by Councilman Zecca to not to be a stakeholder.

Councilman Zecca took the opportunity at the February 23, 2011 Utica Master Plan Committee Meeting to speak out; once again calling us "guests from New Hartford".

We have yet to figure out just what Councilman Zecca's problem is...our videotaping meetings; our commentary on the meetings; or the fact that we started out as a small group from New Hartford.

Got news for you Councilman Zecca, check the Utica Assessment database that we recently provided...bet you will find some names of people from New Hartford on there just as there are names of people from Utica on our assessment database. We are ALL stakeholders and we are ALL in this together...it's your kind of parochial thinking that does nothing to resolve issues in our community.

Here is the portion of the video with Councilman Zecca's remarks and also Concerned Citizens for Honest & Open Government responding to Councilman Zecca's remarks.

It ain't over 'til it's over!

2011-03-11T01:08:00.011-05:00

The Utica Master Plan was once again the topic on Wednesday, March 9, 2011. According to the Observer Dispatch article, the City’s master plan remains priority for Roefaro.

Concerned Citizens as usual videotaped Wednesday's meeting. We have to say that after perusing the City of Utica assessment database, we were amused to learn that some of the most outspoken critics against our videotaping and reporting on the Utica Master Plan don't even appear to own property in the city [and they say that we don't have a stake in the City of Utica?].

Anyway, Mr. Montecalvo, chair of the Infrastructure and Development subcommittee, spoke at Wednesday's meeting. Here is Mr. Montecalvo's commentary:

Mr. Montecalvo was kind enough to provide a pdf version of his comments for our readers.

Below is the videotape of Wednesday's meeting in its entirety:

The city is still accepting public comments on its Draft Master Plan at City of Utica Master Plan.

Incidentally, we also videotaped the February 23, 2011 Master Plan discussion and we will have the video of that session online this weekend.

Town Board Meeting tonight...

2011-03-09T00:30:00.002-05:00

Wednesday, March 9, 2011 starting at 7:00 p.m. in Butler Hall.

Agenda now online!

City of Utica Residential Assessment Information...UPDATED

2011-02-27T15:09:00.006-05:00

All properties in the 2010 City of Utica Assessment database are now online.

Concerned Citizens recently FOILed a copy of the City of Utica 2010 Assessment database and we are making the information available in an Excel spreadsheet.

We started by sorting the information according to address. If you are familiar with sorting information contained within an Excel spreadsheet, you will be able to sort according to square feet, assessed value, etc. If you need help sorting the information, please email us and we will provide assistance.

Total assessed value, along with assessed value used to compute county, city and school taxes for each parcel is available. We also added a column for School Assessed Value after STAR. Any difference in value between these columns indicates whether or not the property is receiving a reduced assessment due to an exemption.

The following spreadsheets are available for download to your computer:

Residential - one, two, and three family. We also included the inventory [sq. ft., number of baths, bedrooms, etc.] for each residential address. Blank fields means that the database does not contain the information.

Property Class 411 - Apartments with more than 3 units

All Vacant Land - Property Class in the 300s

Commercial - Property Class higher than 411

City owned property - All property classes; these are also contained within the other files by property class. [includes schools, playgrounds, etc.]

Roll Section 8 - Wholly Exempt

Please feel free to download any or all of these spreadsheets to your computer.

For information regarding Property Class and a description of what is included in each class, the list is on the Office of Real Property website.

From another town or city and would like to see assessment information online? Email us!

Filling in the "cracks"...

2011-02-25T11:06:00.022-05:00

A few days ago we blogged about the Shumaker invoice, unpaid since 2008, that seemed to have slipped into the stack of bills that were awaiting town board approval for payment at the February 9, 2011 town board meeting.

In that blog we reported:

Councilman Backman questioned whether or not the voucher/invoices for work on Woods Highway should be paid by taxpayers or Larry Adler. It was Councilman Backman's belief, after reviewing signed agreements between the town and Larry Adler, that Mr. Adler is responsible for all "incidentals".

In the end, the invoice was not approved for payment at the February 9, 2011 town board meeting, but instead was handed over to Town Attorney Herb Cully to figure out who should pay.

Well, the topic was once again on the table for last Wednesday's [February 23, 2011] town board meeting. Town Attorney Cully reported on his findings and presented a resolution that was approved at a May 13, 2008 town board meeting.

According to Attorney Cully, the resolution and town board minutes were rather vague as to the intentions of the board. No kidding! That is exactly why we started videotaping...we noticed a long time ago that the minutes don't seem to always reflect what actually happened. There's nothing like an actual recording of events...if nothing else, it makes it a little more difficult for anyone to "pull the wool over someone's eyes".

We just happen to have the video of the May 13, 2008 town board meeting referenced by Town Attorney Cully...here is the portion of that meeting where the discussion lead to the adoption of Resolution No. 128 of 2008 that was referred to by Town Attorney Cully:

That's former Highway Superintendent Roger Cleveland talking and he answered "yes" when then Town Supervisor Earle Reed asked, not once, but twice, whether the money is to be paid out of the PILOT as an expense of the business park. Dave Reynolds, Christine Krupa and Rich Woodland, you were all there...what did you think you were voting on when you adopted that resolution? Sounds to us like the contract was in furtherance of the New Hartford Business Park project and was intended to be paid from the $2.3 million bond.

The agreements signed by Larry Adler obligated him to make good on all cost overruns...due to poor budgeting there were cost overruns and the fact that there were insufficient monies from the bond associated with the PILOT is a problem for Larry Adler; NOT town residents!

Which brings us to our next story...

In 2009, when Heather Mowat was hired as Budget Officer to find the missing $2.8 million, she identified several invoices that were paid by town monies that she felt should be paid by the developer. They totalled about $188,000...or more. At the last town board meeting, the question was asked by Councilman Woodland as to whether or not Larry Adler had ever paid back the town for those expenses. The answer from Town Attorney Herb Cully was "No" further stating that he believes that they [Mr. Adler et al] are disputing the charges."

Supervisor Tyksinski, unable to control his frustration and appearing to let his personal feelings regarding Ms. Mowat show in his voice and body language, stated that it was merely numbers put together by the Budget Director...a "wish list".

Personal feelings aside Supervisor Tyksinski, Ms. Mowat is well qualified to make those determinations and she spent a lot of time talking to town employees and sifting through documents. Publicly calling her work a "wish list" is uncalled for no matter what differences you may have with her.

Our question is to Supervisor Tyksinski...At this point, town taxpayers have paid for expenses from a private developer that, according to signed documents, are really the responsiblity of that private developer; that private developer feels no obligation to make good on the agreement he signed with the town; however, for some reason you seem to be defending his failure to keep his side of the bargain and, to top it all off, shortly you plan to introduce another bond resolution to finance another portion of that same private developer's business park. What are you thinking? Who are you working for...town residents or "friends" who make political contributions?

Here is the portion of the February 23, 2011 town board meeting regarding the 2008 unpaid Shumaker invoice, and the failure of Mr. Adler to pay the money that is owed to town taxpayers.

For those that are interested, here is Ms. Mowat at the December 9, 2009 town board meeting discussing the monies she feels are due from Mr. Adler to the town taxpayers:

Town Board Meeting Tonight...

2011-02-23T10:54:00.002-05:00

starting at 7:00 p.m. in Butler Hall. Agenda now now online!

Creating a Police District...

2011-02-22T11:46:00.008-05:00

was the topic of a recent Observer Dispatch article, Police presence could grow in region’s commercial hub...New Hartford may add officers, charge businesses more.

Supervisor Tyksinski discussed that same topic at the February 9, 2011 Town Board meeting. Here is a video of that discussion:

There are a lot of 'ifs, ands, & buts' to be resolved in connection with this plan...definitely will be an interesting topic to follow.

Utica's Master Plan...

2011-02-17T22:26:00.006-05:00

Last Wednesday evening, February 9, 2011, Concerned Citizens videotaped the Utica Common Council's Economic Development Committee at which the "recommendations" of the "Infrastructure and Waterfront Development" subcommittee (which Frank Montecalvo chaired) of the Utica Master Plan steering committee were presented.

We asked Mr. Montecalvo if he would mind giving us an overview of the presentation to go along with our videotape. Mr. Montecalvo's comments are as follows:

When viewing this presentation, note where it is pointed out that in several places the language of the draft of the Master Plan has been changed from that originally proposed by the subcommittee. Unless one was paying close attention, the changes would be easy to miss. The changes, however, are significant.

For example:
"Acknowledge and follow the 1968 Comprehensive Water Supply Study as the official regional planning policy for meeting water supply needs."

became---
"Formally request that the MVWA update the 1968 Comprehensive Water Supply Study so as to provide a new regional planning policy for meeting water supply needs."

While updating the Study might be a good idea (the locations of water resources and municipalities have not changed) , having the MVWA do this is putting the "fox in charge of the hen house" and was never recommended by the subcommittee. MVWA is only one of a multitude of water purveyors in the Oneida, Herkimer and part of Madison Counties covered by the state-sponsored Study. It would be illegal to give MVWA the power to reallocate the state's water resources in this region because the power of allocation belongs to the state. It also would not be fair to other parts of the region. It should be noted that the 1968 Study was done at a time when Oneida County was one of the fastest growing places in the nation and there was a real fear that the Greater Utica area (primarily Utica's suburbs because they were growing the fastest) would run out of water. Recent MVWA proposals to extend service to Verona and other places in central and western Oneida County run counter to that Study's recommendations and could conceivably lead to a water shortage if prior growth rates were to resume.

Several of the Master Plan's changes which are objectionable involve the Water Authority, Sewer District, and new "regionalization" efforts which, essentially, preserve and extend the policies that have encouraged "urban sprawl" -- which raises taxes in Utica and suburbs alike -- as well as preserve a "power structure" that is insulated from voter control.

A number of the subcommittee's recommendations were left out, while things that we had not discussed were inserted. It was enough to make one think "Who's Master Plan is this?"

Frank Montecalvo

Below is the video of the meeting:

New Hartford Business Park Update...

2011-02-16T00:30:00.005-05:00

After the discussion at the February 9, 2011 town board meeting on who [Larry Adler or town taxpayers] should pay for the Shumaker engineering invoice that was among the vouchers to be approved by the town board, Supervisor Tyksinski decided to continue the discussion of the business park since it was on the evening's agenda anyway.

This time the discussion centered around the PILOT that Larry Adler "needs" for the hotel that is supposedly going to be built in his New Hartford Business Park. Since the board resolution for the business park was passed in 2008, Steve DiMeo from Oneida County EDGE asked that the board confirm that they are still interested in pursuing the PILOT arrangement for the hotel.

According to Supervisor Tyksinski, the PILOT monies will be used to build the Clinton Street Extension and the right in, right out access to Route 840. The amount needed to for this project is estimated to be about $1.2 or $1.3 million.

The PILOT payments are expected to cover the repayment of $600,000 of bonds including the interest. The town has also authorized $500,000 of Fees in Lieu of Mitigation to be used for a total of $1.1 million. Any expenses over that amount is expected to be paid by Mr. Adler although Supervisor Tyksinski did say that the hotel would be expected to pay mitigation fees that could also be used to cover any cost overruns.

Supervisor Tyksinski, who has long been a proponent of the business park [from when he was comptroller and the business park was going to be a town project] says it won't cost taxpayers a dime! Now...where have we heard that before?

[Click on graphic for larger print!]

Funny how this discussion took place right after a voucher that was supposed to be paid by Mr. Adler somehow got mixed in with the vouchers to be paid by the town.

Of course, since the business park is in an Empire Zone; more than likely the tax dollars paid by the hotel and used to build the roads will be reimbursed to the owners of the hotel so basically, taxpayers are footing the bill no matter how you slice it. Not to mention the additional cost of police and infrastructure maintenance after the hotel is built and occupied.

Then again, if the business park is part of the proposed police district, the additional cost for policing won't matter to residential taxpayers...right? More on that subject in a couple of days.

No one wants to see the business park fail; however, it is high time that Mr. Adler start paying his own way. If the development is not worth the risk then perhaps Mr. Adler shouldn't have undertaken the project in the first place.

The town board vote was 4 'ayes' in support of the PILOT and 1 'nay'; Councilman Don Backman, voted nay stating that he was not willing to ask his constituents to pay for a bond for more infrastructure for the business park that should be paid by the developer.

New Hartford Central School and Oneida County Legislators will now also have to vote either against or in support of another PILOT for the business park. Take any bets on how that will turn out?

Here is that portion of the February 9, 2011 town board meeting:

Almost slipped through the cracks...

2011-02-15T19:45:00.011-05:00

Vouchers were piled on the table waiting for Supervisor Tyksinski to present them to the town board for approval at the February 9, 2011 Town Board meeting.

Everyone seemed to be in agreement on the vouchers to be paid...except for one for Shumaker Engineering in regards to the Business Park.

Councilman Backman questioned whether or not the voucher/invoices for work on Woods Highway should be paid by taxpayers or Larry Adler. It was Councilman Backman's belief, after reviewing signed agreements between the town and Larry Adler, that Mr. Adler is responsible for all "incidentals".

An interesting conversation ensued. Apparently, Roger Cleveland, without town board approval, hired Shumaker to do some engineering work on Woods Highway. Wow...Shumaker Engineering and no board approval...we're shocked!

It was obvious that Supervisor Tyksinski was annoyed with the discussion. However, in the end, the voucher was held back for further review.

Here is the video of that portion of the meeting (less than 5 minutes long):

The invoice was actually from 2008; there was no explanation as to why it had yet to be paid, but that voucher should have never been presented for payment using town funds in the first place; who was Supervisor Tyksinski trying to fool? It was probably one of the expenditures brought to the board by Heather Mowat in 2009 and already determined to be the responsibility of Mr. Adler.

TO BE CONTINED...

New Hartford Planning Board meeting....

2011-02-13T21:36:00.002-05:00

tomorrow, Monday, February 14, 2011 starting at 5:30 p.m. in the lower level of the New Hartford Public Library.

On the agenda is the Messrs. James & Harold Julian property located at 4752-4756 Middlesettlement Road for recommendation to Town Board for Zone Map Amendment from RB3 Office Business to Planned Development Mixed Use. The Julians would like to sell the property so that a senior housing project can be built.

Agenda now online!

Time to pay the piper?

2011-02-10T22:21:00.010-05:00

Through the end of December 2010, the general whole-town fund had an almost $1.7 million surplus for the year...according to an article in the Observer Dispatch; New Hartford expects to close 2010 budget with surplus...

...BUT, the Observer Dispatch article continues:

...by the time final receivables and payables are accounted for, the total is likely to be closer to $400,000, Tyksinski said.

So...we have plenty of money...if we don't pay our bills. What kind of smoke screen is that?

It became apparent that the town is still in financial distress after we heard the conversation between town officials just before the start of the January 12, 2011 town board meeting.

All the councilpeople were gathered around the table initialling what seemed to be an endless number of vouchers waiting to be presented and approved for payment later that evening. One councilman asked why there were so many. Supervisor Tyksinski answered that some of them were from September 2010 and just hadn't been paid yet.

Here's a picture of the vouchers on the table:

According to the DRAFT copy of the January 12, 2011 town board minutes, the vouchers totalled $825,473.80.

Here is ...a pdf of the minutes with a listing of the vouchers to be paid.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why vouchers from September 2010 were just being reviewed and approved for payment on January 12, 2011...there was no money available at that point until after the town property tax revenue started rolling in. The town simply did not have the money to pay their bills when they were due and some of those bills were 90 days past due!!!

By the way, an August 2, 2010, Observer Dispatch article, New Hartford's fund $350,000 in the red at end of ’09 stated:

‘Pay the piper’

The town has been managing its cash flow this year by borrowing between funds when necessary, Tyksinski said. But that can only work for so long.

“It’s not like we can just sit back and say, ‘That happened last year and let’s move forward,’” Tyksinski said. “Some place along the line, you have to pay the piper.”

The questions everyone should be asking are...how close to $400,000 does Supervisor Tyksinski think the ending fund balance will be? And is that guess based on the 'sales tax revenue windfall' touted by Supervisor Tyksinski? And is it before or after the borrowing between funds is paid back?

If the town is not in a position to pay their bills on time in September, perhaps it's merely a matter time before we are forced 'to pay the piper'!

New Hartford Town Board meeting tonight...

2011-02-09T01:17:00.002-05:00

Wednesday, February 9, 2010 starting at 7:00 p.m. in Butler Hall.

Agenda now online!