The knee bone's connected to the...

Anyone seen this van parked at Sangertown Square while the driver is doing landscaping and maintenance work around the mall?

On several occasions, Concerned Citizens has photographed this van. Why were we interested in this van, you might ask? Because it seemed rather odd that a van sold by the Town of New Hartford in November 2006 would still have 'official' license plates on it as recently as Monday, October 29, 2007.

On Thursday, October 25th we hand-delivered a letter with all the particulars to Mr. Earle Reed, Town Supervisor. We not only questioned the license plates which we had traced back to the Town of New Hartford using DMV records, but we also questioned whether or not the vehicle was still being insured by the Town of New Hartford.

Saturday, October 27, 20007, we received a letter in the mail from the Town Clerk's office saying that the vehicle is longer being insured by the Town, but no mention of the reason why Town of New Hartford license plates were still on a vehicle that was sold almost a year ago.

Interestingly enough, Monday, October 29th, the vehicle was still spotted in Sangertown Square with a town license plate (By the way, Sangertown Square is owned by Pyramid Management Group). So even after our alerting the town supervisor to the situation last Thursday, October 25th, nothing was done about retrieving the town license plate. So we sent an email to the Town Clerk on October 29th asking why are the plates still on the vehicle and requesting a copy of the DMV license surrender receipt and Bill of Sale for the van in question.

Today in response to our email FOIL request for the DMV license surrender receipt along with a copy of the Bill of Sale, we received the following email from the Town Clerk's office:

Your Oct 29 FOIL for DMV license surrender receipts or its equivalent along with the Bill of Sale for the 1990 Chevrolet G10 Van will be referred to the appropriate department for response; I anticipate an answer not later than November 14, 2007.

That's funny...we thought we had the right department. In checking town board minutes regarding the sale of another town vehicle, we noted that in the April 5, 2006 town board minutes:

After the license plate for the 1995 Jeep (‘646389) has been turned in to the State Department of Motor Vehicles, the Highway Superintendent will deliver the DMV receipt to the Town Clerk’s Office so that this vehicle (‘646389) can be removed from the Town’s insurance policy.

So isn't it the town clerk's office that keeps these records? How did anyone know to take the van off of the town insurance if the town clerk's office doesn't have the DMV license surrender receipt? Just what is the procedure regarding the sale of town vehicles and turning in Town of New Hartford license plates...do we even have a procedure? Perhaps the town should start by obeying the LAW...

It has been reported to us that the person who purchased the van in question with the town license plates still attached is related to a town board member. Wonder if that is the reason for the 'oversight' and lack of concern by town officials? Guess the law really doesn't mean much in the Town of New Hartford...at least, not if you are 'connected'.

Stay tuned! There is more to follow... You won't believe some of what has been uncovered...

Who is that masked man, anyway?

The Lone Ranger?

Note: Emphasis placed on certain words in the town board minutes were done by this blogger and in no way reflect the opinions of the town board!

Excerpt from the "APPROVED" town board minutes of:

REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING
October 10, 2007
Page 9

PUBLIC PRESENTATION

Jerome Madden Justice Building:

A New Hartford firefighter stated he recently responded to a medical call at the Jerome Madden Justice Building where an individual was lying on the floor and people were almost stepping on him because of the overcrowding and there was no place to move. He believes this overcrowding is a danger to people who work and visit the building, which he believes “…is bulging at the seams.”

Referring to the firefighter’s remarks, Mr. Wiatr would like the Town Board to look at this in a prudent manner. He’s “…all for a new police building under the right circumstances” and thinks the Town Board should bring in citizens for their input.

Doesn't it seem kind of odd that the 'firefighter' is not referred to by name and yet the town minutes refer to Mr. Wiatr by name? Could it be that the town board didn't know the 'Firefighter'...and they only knew Mr. Wiatr? Perhaps, the 'Firefighter' was wearing a mask..."The Lone Firefighter".

Highly unlikely that the town board didn't know 'the firefighter', because the firefighter was Roger Reynolds, brother of Dave Reynolds, Councilman in Ward 3. Difficult to believe that they didn't know Roger Reynolds, a member of the Planning Board...I think he was just appointed by this administration. And for the record wasn't Roger Reynolds also Mayor of the Village of New Hartford at one time? I wonder if there is some reason why the official minutes don't identify Mr. Roger Reynolds as the 'firefighter'?

Concerned Citizens played back our tape recording of the town board meeting and the town clerk even asked for Mr. Roger Reynolds to identify himself for the record that evening. And you know what else? In our recording, the words spoken by Mr. Wiatr didn't sound like the same words reported in the 'official' town board minutes either...the official minutes seem to be missing some of the finer points of Mr. Wiatr's statement. That's probably why there is an ellipsis (...) or omission mark in the minutes. However, the part that was left out is the part that really says how Mr. Wiatr feels. In other words, the "official" minutes seem to not tell the "whole" story of Mr. Wiatr's comments, yet I don't think they left much out of Mr. Reynolds comments...except his name, of course. And, Mr. Reynolds probably wasn't named because perhaps the town board was afraid that by identifying Mr. Roger Reynolds it would make his statement look a little biased and/or embellished.

We feel that perhaps the town board should change the 'official' minutes to reflect the truth in case the minutes are needed in the future to provide an 'official' statement. Even the Lone Ranger was ordered by the Supreme Court to take off his mask. How about it Mr. Reynolds. Will the real firefighter, please come forward and state your name for the record?

"Hi, Yo Silver, Away!"

Kind of gives you that warm, fuzzy feeling...

...NOT!!

New press release from the Mr. Earle C. Reed, Town of New Hartford Supervisor.

The press release says:

The New Hartford Town Board has announced tentative dates for Public Hearings to encourage resident participation in the 2008 budget process. The first hearing will take place on Wednesday, November 7, 2007 at 6:00 PM prior to the regular board meeting at Butler Hall.

Isn't that nice? This year they are seeking public input to the budget.

They have set TENTATIVE dates? Mr. Reed you were at the meeting on October 24th weren't you? The Town Board passed a resolution to hold a public hearing on the TENTATIVE Budget on November 7, 2007. It is the budget that is TENTATIVE, not the date of the hearing. Of course, the town board (or someone) has been working on the TENTATIVE budget to 'tidy it up a bit' and now it is actually the Preliminary Budget that will be presented to the public. By law, you have to have the public hearing on the budget by the Thursday after election day. In other words, this year the Town Board has to hold a public hearing by November 8th...it's the LAW. And by the way, the press release says:

The second [meeting] will be held on Thursday, November 8, 2007 at 7:00 PM at a location to be announced.

However, at the October 24, 2007 town board meeting the decision was that a public hearing would be held on November 7th and they would hold another one on November 8th IF NEEDED. When will they announce WHERE the November 8th meeting will be held...at 5 PM on November 8th by posting a sign on the bulletin board outside the Town Clerk's office in Butler Hall?

Actually, Mr. Reed, for the record, I was surprised that your press release is dated October 18, 2007...the town board just passed the resolution to set the date of the public hearing at the October 24th board meeting. How can you send a press release almost a week before the information is even approved by the board? Perhaps if you had waited until after the board meeting, your press release would have been more accurate.

According to the press release:

On September 28, 2007, the New Hartford Town Bookkeeper filed the tentative budget with the Town Clerk's office and provided copies of it to each of the Town Board members. Copies of this public document can be obtained from the Town Clerk.

Don't bother requesting the tentative budget, we did and it is full of holes.

Again, according to the press release:

The legal mandate required the Town Clerk to formally present the tentative budget to the Town Board at a meeting on or before the 5th day of October. A special meeting was held on the morning of October 5, 2007 at 7:00 a.m. for this purpose. The presentation could not wait until the next regularly scheduled Board meeting on October 10, 2007 due to the legal requirement.

Mr. Reed, it's not like the legal mandate came down from above via "special delivery" on October 4, 2007...I do believe the LAW has been on the books for some time now. To hold a special meeting at 7:00 a.m. on the last day allowed by law is like putting your middle finger up to the public...something that seems to happen on a regular basis from this town board. Obviously, our elected officials have forgotten who they were elected to serve.

Last paragraph of the press release:

According to Town Supervisor, Earle C. Reed, "This year we have scheduled two hearings to encourage public input and make it more convenient for all residents to participate in our Town's budget process.

What a crock! Remember the Observer Dispatch article back on September 19, 2006:

"New Hartford dissolves citizens budget panel - 'I thought we had some impact', a former panel member says".

I guess it must have been little "too much" impact for the town board!

Concerned Citizens will be requesting a copy of the Preliminary Budget on Monday, October 29th since the press release states that it will be made available to the public by that date. We encourage ALL residents to attend these public hearings.

By the way, Mr. Reed's press release told us about the bookkeeper's part and the Town Clerk's part...the only person whose name we don't see mentioned is Mr. Frank Basile, the person who just signed a contract with the town to provide help with the budget for $150 hour. So did Mr. Basile have any part in preparing this budget? More importantly, is he willing to admit that he had any part in preparing this budget?

BAN...in other words, a BOND except that...

only a majority vote of the governing body is needed to BAN vs. the issuance of a BOND to purchase real estate where a permissive referendum is required.

Did you happen to catch the legal notice in the Observer Dispatch on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 regarding the Village of New Hartford seeking bids from financial institutions for a $425,000 BAN "for purchase of property (72 Genesee Street) and subsequent demoliton of existing structure on such property"? BAN is short for a Bond Anticipation Note.

Although there is nothing that can be done to prevent the Village from purchasing the property with a BAN since it is perfectly legal for any governing body to BAN without going to a referendum, we have a few questions:

1. We notice that the $425,000 BAN is to be issued by 16 November 2007 and the maturity date is 16 November 2008. According to the legal notice "Such BAN are to be payable from amounts which shall annually be levied on all the taxable real property in said Village..." So we can deduce a couple of things. Either:

(a) the Village will be paying back the BAN plus one (1) year interest and the entire cost will be on Village tax bills next year, or

(b) the Village Mayor will decide to extend the BAN...a BAN can be renewed for up to 5 years, but at the end of 5 years, the BAN must either be paid or converted to a bond, or

(c) the BAN will be paid off by the issuance of a BOND before the year is up in which case at that time it would be subject to a permissive referendum.

Remember last October when the Town passed bond resolutions and Concerned Citizens collected signatures to bring the bonding to a vote of the people...two of the bond resolutions were to extend the maturity dates of BANs. If that is what the Village decides to do, the Village residents would have to collect signatures if they don't want to extend the maturity of the BAN by issuing a bond.

2. The legal notice says that they are going to demolish the current building...can we assume that it will then be a parking lot or is there something else going on? According to the tax map, 72 Genesee Street is directly in front of 14 Woodland Rd.; the property that the Village paid $265,000 to purchase in 2003 (where Heller's Upholstery was located).

So, could it be that the Village will be demolishing 72 Genesee Street to make way for a parking lot? If you add the purchase prices of the two properties...the Heller's for $265,000 plus 72 Genesee for $425,000...that is one mighty expensive parking lot that is approximately 80 wide by 450 feet deep.

Only time will tell...

Just for the record...

Ms. Christine Krupa, who is currently running against Russ Cerminaro for the Town of New Hartford Ward 2 Council seat has filed her financial reports.

Out of a total of five (5) donations (including 2 donations she made to her own campaign)...Ms. Krupa's two (2) largest donors were...Earle Reed & Tim Reed with $ 982.50 each...and she also got support from Peggy Rotton, a New Hartford Republican Committeeperson. As of October, Ms. Krupa also has an outstanding debt from last July to a Florida firm for her signs...(who do we know that spends a lot of time in Florida...Town Supervisor Reed?).

What did you say Ms. Krupa...you weren't hand-picked? Sure...and the moon is made of swiss cheese just like your story. Wondering who you would be owing your allegiance to if you win...huh?

Monies spent since July 21, 2004 for the Kellogg, Tibbitts stormwater issues...

$57,800...the current town board's rhetoric...PRICELESS! The fact that they are still in the 'talking and paying for studies stage' should be telling. Their position as to why they have placed this area at the top of the list as written by Highway Superintendent Cleveland:

"One criteria he (Ed DeSanctis) mentions for prioritizing projects is the health, safety and welfare of the resident populations in that there are situations where flooding can interrupt the providing of emergency services.

Both this location (Woodberry/Beechwood) and the Oxford/Kellogg Rd. location has the capability of disrupting emergency services during severe storm events, and were believed to be high on any prioritization list."

Well, if it is such a critical area, how come we have been studying it since 2004 and we still haven't started the work?

Concerned Citizens thought we would provide you with a detailed accounting of the stormwater situation in the Oxford-Kellogg-Tibbitts Road area...the area that has been given a priority rating by the Highway Superintendent, Earle Reed & Ed DeSanctis, a member of the Stormwater Advisory Group. Read our collection of the discussions that have taken place at the the town board minutes from July 2004 to present on this subject for yourself...

The past town board seemed to feel that the problem was caused by the developers and even wondered if Longworth Acres would add to the problems. Additionally, in August 2004, the town board decided that Jubilee Estates should pay for a study at approximately $5,900 because the problem was a direct result of poor stormwater management by the developers. The people in Jubilee were assessed for their share of the cost. By the way, this $5,900 is not included in the total spent so far for "studies" in this area!

Add to that the fact that Oxford, Kellogg & Tibbitts are county roads and one has to wonder what the HELL is going on. Why is the town's $2 million stormwater bond monies even being used to fix problems on county roads? Not saying there aren't problems in this area, but who caused the problems and why has this area all of a sudden become a priority?

Got stormwater problems...the fact that the town board has 'locked' the public out of the Stormwater Advisory Meetings should be of concern to you. The fact that they are now trying to justify their vote by promising a public hearing before any projects get underway does not make their illegal closing of the meetings legal. According to Mr. Reed's statement regarding the Storm Water Management Committee:

A time and place for public involvement will always be provided and never overlooked in the administration of Town business.

By the way, where does Ed DeSanctis live you ask...Woodberry Road. And why did the town board vote to 'lock' residents out of the Stormwater Advisory Meetings? Hmm, I wonder...

What Will It Take....

for people to realize that they have to WAKE UP and to be an active participant in the future of our democracy?

Gear at CNY Snakepit has announced that he and his significant other are moving just outside Austin, Texas. That is truly a shame...Gear shed light on many 'situations' that needed to be brought to people's attention in our area.

A lot of things influenced our final decision, but the most telling was the increasing dysfunction of both our local and state politics. Put simply, our political class is totally devoid of even the most rudimentary leadership ability.

Gear, you are so right, but what also disturbs Concerned Citizens is the willingness of the public (i.e. the voters) to allow these things to go 'unchecked'.

Recently, Concerned Citizens received an email from Fred Flanagan of Rohnert Park,CA:

Dear Citizens;

here is the link to: My America ...Is Democracy Floundering?
This online book can be saved, printed and shared at no cost. A citizen's view of the current political environment in America. Please share, My America.

Sincerely,
Fred Flanagan

Concerned Citizens encourages everyone to take the time to read Fred's book. Let me quote part of the Introduction in Fred's book:

We all have a responsibility to participate in our American political process. Challenge yourself to ask questions about what you hear. Listen for what is not being said by political candidates and elected officials. Ask yourself why questions aren't answered. Evaluate the use of fear and patriotic symbols to silence opposing views.

My purpose in writing this book is to encourage those not participating in the political process to embrace their responsibility as citizens in a democracy.

More from Fred Flanagan's book:

We cannot allow government leaders to ignore the people who elected them nor can we ignore our responsibility to be involved citizens.

Concerned Citizens has been working hard to 'shed some light' on the politics in New Hartford. We will continue to question and make information available to New Hartford residents...at no charge. However, nothing will be accomplished until each and every eligible person registers to vote, makes it their DUTY to ask questions, looks for answers and makes sure to vote in all elections.

In America, we love our freedoms. Brave men & women fight for us so that our freedoms will never be taken away. However, every time an individual decides to not ask questions or not make their voice heard on election day, we come a little bit closer to relinquishing the rights that have made this country so great. In other countries people will risk death in order to get a chance to vote and yet in America we see it as a 'bother' or we talk ourselves out of taking the time to vote because 'our vote doesn't count anyway' besides the fact 'that we are too busy'.

Let me quote Fred's book one more time:

The American people can no longer sit back and trust that all the elected representatives will do what is right for the American people who elected them, unless we hold their feet to the fire.

The American people have not only the right to question those they elect, but they have an obligation to participate in the political process. A democracy can only survive with honest dialog and citizen involvement.

November 6, 2007...do your DUTY...get out and VOTE...and then hold the elected officials feet to the fire! They are supposed to be working for THE PEOPLE, not just for their own political agendas...don't let them forget it!

Gear, I hope you will check in from time to time. I also hope that you will see that The Times, They are A-Changin and maybe someday you will decide that Central New York is the place you want to call 'home'.

Best of luck to you and your significant other. We will miss you!

There seems to be enough arrogance to go around...

in the Town of New Hartford.

Mr. Zurek's Letter to the Editor in the October 20, 2007 Observer Dispatch:

Regarding an Oct. 7 letter:

The Open Meeting Law speaks for itself. It serves the public well and does not shut anyone out from information of record, upon request.

The voices of New Hartford and New York Mills people were heard on Primary Day, when they chose Attorney Christine Krupa to represent them on the Town Board.

STEPHEN ZUREK
New York Mills

Our response:

Mr. Zurek, your statement would be assuming that the only Ward 2 people who reside in New Hartford and New York Mills are Republicans…in case you are not aware, the September 18 Primary was only a Republican Primary—I don’t believe that qualifies as the people being heard—less than half the registered voters in Ward 2 are Republicans.

Mr. Zurek, you seem to be forgetting the other 2,000+ registered Ward 2 voters in New Hartford and New York Mills. Last time we looked at the voter registration database (which, by the way, was just a couple of minutes ago), there are Democrats, Conservatives, Right to Life, Libertarian, Green Party, Independents, etc. Do they not count in your book? And for the record, Ms. Krupa won by 19 votes. Considering that Russ Cerminaro went against the New Hartford Republican 'machine', I would hardly call a 19 vote win a mandate! Voter turnout was extremely low...so what about the other 1,000+ registered Ward 2 Republicans that didn't vote the Primary, Mr. Zurek? Are they left out of the picture too?

You seem to fit in with the rest of the current ‘leaders’ in New Hartford; they also seem to think they are the only ones that count. What happened to democracy? Government for the people by the people…that means all people, Mr. Zurek, even you!

By the way, funny you should mention the Open Meetings Law. Not quite sure how that fits into the election results; however, you are right, the Open Meetings Law does speak for itself…unfortunately, the present town government doesn’t seem to be listening. And we don’t understand why we haven’t heard Ms. Krupa, the attorney, speak out on that one. Just where does she stand on that issue, Mr. Zurek? Her silence seems to indicate that she agrees with her supporters…Earle Reed & Co.

And while we are on the subject, just where would it be that Ms. Krupa practices law…at Pyramid Management Company where she works? How come she never mentions where she works, Mr. Zurek?

We must admit that most of the members of Concerned Citizens are Republicans; however, we will not support an arrogant and corrupt administration. Concerned Citizens chooses to believe that many others in Ward 2 feel the same way, but how about we leave that up to the voters in November...ALL Ward 2 voters...not just the few Republicans that voted on Primary Day?

Regardless of your party affiliation, ALL registered voters in Ward 2 who agree with us will find Russ Cerminaro on row 10-F. Russ would appreciate your support. For a list of streets that are in Ward 2, visit Russ Cerminaro's website.

Concerned Citizens is a bi-partisan group of people who believe in the democratic process; we will await the final count!

Together we can make a change!

Let's look a little closer...

at Roger Cleveland's letter to Robert Maciol dated July 25, 2007.

On page 2 Mr. Cleveland states:

"Has there been a buildup of sediment in Mud Creek over the years? Presumably yes, as not all past construction activities used a system of silt control, and as the Creek is much flatter than the main body of Sauquoit Creek, sediment will tend to drop out along the flow path, as opposed to the carrying of gravel downstream in Sauquoit Creek proper."

Concerned Citizens can confirm that there clearly is a buildup of sediment in Mud Creek...and asks why didn't all past construction activities use a system of silt control? And, Mr. Cleveland we want to try to understand that "state of the art stormwater management design was required of the developers" and "each project conforms to those designs, yet collectively something else has happened to at least make it appear that the designs don't function, or at least don't function sufficiently to attenuate downstream flooding", but I have to tell you, Mr. Cleveland, it doesn't make any sense. Why the HELL wouldn't it be the job of each developer to make sure that the stormwater management design they install is designed so that it works properly with the existing designs? Who is 'minding the store'?

According to Mr. Cleveland's letter:

"The Town has taken two steps that should improve the situation...The first was done in 1992, that being a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)...one of the mitigation projects identified was an enhancement of wetlands and stormwater detention in the area between Jay-K Lumber and the Presbyterian Home. We have stuttered a copy of times in starting this project, but the Town is committed to install it. It will take a significant amount of hydraulic analysis and cajoling of both DEC and the ACOE, as this is not something they see everyday. We have had a preliminary report done for the Town and will shortly be authorizing additional survey and design work."

"Secondly, the Town recently passed a Bond issue for Town-wide stormwater management improvements. In our initial thinking we had not factored in any additional work (emphasis by Concerned Citizens) on Mud Creek, as improvements were to be installed under the project described previously."

So, no work was scheduled for the residents on Mud Creek from the $2 million bond issue. I wonder how many of them voted for the $2 million bond hoping that they would not be flooded out again this coming Spring? That is exactly why Concerned Citizens fought to get information from the Town Board as to who would see relief from the bond issue. We were not trying to stop the bond from being passed, but we were trying to help residents realize that in all probability most people would not see their stormwater problems fixed. We felt that residents deserved to know if they were on the 'list'. Concerned Citizens saw the writing on the wall when we attended the 'informational meetings' that were held to explain the bonding and the town board was not willing to share any information on where they intended to fix the problems. Listen again to Councilman Reynolds at the October 10, 2007 Town Board meeting in regards to stormwater.

Once again, according to Mr. Cleveland's letter:

"I would suggest at this point that we get the "Green Belt" project installed between Jay-K and the Presbyterian Home and determine its impact on the downstream properties. It may be sufficient to reduce both the frequency and magnitude of flooding in the Village. If not, and because DEC has determined Mud Creek to be a classified trout stream, there may not be a lot of options left..."

It may be sufficient? So we start the "project" that borders Preswick and hope that the residents downstream will get relief, but if not, oh well! Concerned Citizens asks again, how come The Meadows can get the o.k. from DEC to "remove built-up gravel from approximately 450 feet of Mud Creek to reestablish a low flow channel and to alleviate flooding to an adjacent housing complex during high flow conditions" (see legal notice dated 10/12/2007) and the people on Royal Brook Lane are told they live on a classified trout stream (the same Mud Creek as runs by The Meadows) and no dredging can be done? Does anyone think it might be because the Town has already started the necessary "cajoling of both DEC and the ACOE"? What 'behind the scenes' cajoling do you think might be taking place?

Why did three members of the Town Board (Reed, Reynolds & Payne), ignore the Open Meetings Law, and vote to 'block' Concerned Citizens from attending the Storm Water Advisory Meetings?

This story is not over yet...there is more 'dirt' to be dug up and more to be told.

Mudd Creek...

Several weeks ago while we were campaigning for Russ Cerminaro, we talked to some residents on Royal Brook Lane. Their main concern was the flooding they have been experiencing for some time now...they seem to recollect that it has been since Consumer Square was built. We have pictures of their flooded backyards that they graciously provided to us.

We did some investigating and found out that both the Village of New York Mills and the Town of New Hartford were well aware of the situation. We FOILed several documents from the Village of New York Mills and the Town of New Hartford. The difference between the two governments is that New York Mills gladly provided us the information within two (2) days. The Town of New Hartford gave us a line that "our request was too vague" and we would "need to be more specific before they could honor our FOIL request".

Mr. Cleveland...we would like a copy of your letter to Robert Maciol dated July 25, 2007 along with a copy of the letter to the two residents on Royal Brook Lane that you mentioned in your July 25, 2007 letter to Robert Maciol. Ah, never mind! We already have them; the Village of New York Mills had nothing to hide so they gave them to us in response to our FOIL request; the same FOIL request we sent to the Town of New Hartford...you know, the FOIL request that wasn't specific enough!

Our investigation of the Mudd Creek situation started off with a slide presentation we found online regarding the realignment of Mudd Creek when Consumer Square was being built. According to slide #57 the fish that once swam in Mudd Creek seem to be disappearing just as the residents of Royal Brook Lane told us when they explained how they were told that the D.E.C. won't allow dredging of Mudd Creek because it is a trout bed. Not a trout bed according to the slide we found...that appears to be the furthest thing from the truth.

Two residents of Royal Brook Lane contacted the Town of New Hartford in regards to the most recent flooding. They received a response back from Roger Cleveland, Town Highway Superintendent stating that the D.E.C. would not allow the dredging and the town would be undertaking a project that they hoped would alleviate the flooding. That project would be the Greenbelt Study we wrote about yesterday. And if you read the legal notice we noted in our blog yesterday, you will notice that the D.E.C. seems to have no problem allowing The Meadows to dredge Mudd Creek to alleviate their flooding. Guess it is a matter of who you know or maybe how much of a lawsuit you can afford to file against the town.

Also of interest to Concerned Citizens was another letter provided to us through our FOIL to the Village of New York Mills; the letter is written by Roger Cleveland, Town Highway Superintendent to Robert Maciol, Mayor of the Village of New York Mills. In the letter Mr. Cleveland states:

"As you are aware from our mutual dealings with the Sauquoit Creek Basin Intermunicipal Commission, dredging is not a word in the DEC's vocabulary when it comes to the Sauquoit Basin, and because Mudd Creek is a tributary to the Basin, not in their vocabulary for the tributary either."

It's not? Then DEC must have gotten a new dictionary because the legal notice in the October 12, 2007 Observer Dispatch sure said they would be dredging part of the creek to alleviate flooding near The Meadows.

And here is the joke for the day...According to the same letter written by Mr. Cleveland to Robert Maciol:

"You should be aware that starting with the Sangertown Square project in the 1970's, each and every economic development project has undergone scrutiny by the Planning Board as regards stormwater management. In each case, state of the art stormwater managment design was required of the developers. Individually, each project conforms to those designs, yet collectively something else has happened to at least make it appear that the designs don't function, or at least don't function sufficiently to attenuate downstream flooding."

HUH??!! Did he just say what we think he said? So the DEC won't allow dredging except for The Meadows, owned by Presbyterian Homes who also own Preswick Glen. Each economic development project has stormwater management designs that work by themselves but it only appears that they don't work with each other and we have a $2,000,000 stormwater bond where the Town Board has closed the Advisory meetings to the public. Does anyone wonder why they don't want anyone to know what they are doing?

And listen to this that was recorded (you will need Windows Media Player to listen) at the last town board meeting on September 10, 2007. If you have stormwater issues affecting your property, were you counting on getting it fixed with this $2,000,000? You better stand in line and think some more! We don't think they are trying to keep Concerned Citizens out of the Stormwater Advisory meetings because we might misunderstand and report the wrong thing...we think they were afraid that Concerned Citizens would get the facts out to the people. Guess they are FOILed again!

All Trails may lead to...

Preswick Glen.

Because of some investigating that Concerned Citizens was doing, we became interested in a resolution that was passed at the March 15, 2006 town board meeting regarding an agreement between the Town of New Hartford and Shumaker Consulting Engineering & Land Surveying, PC regarding Mudd Creek.

REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING
March 15, 2006
Page 3

Agreement –Mudd Creek/Greenbelt Wetland Mitigation Feasibility Assessment
Shumaker Consulting Engineering & Land Surveying, PC, has submitted a proposal to start the green belt corridor study, identified in the 1992 GEIS Findings Statement, the cost of which the Highway Superintendent said could be paid from Fees In Lieu of Mitigation (FILM). Councilman Waszkiewicz presented the following Resolution for adoption; seconded by Councilman Woodland:

(RESOLUTION NO. 73 OF 2006)
RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of New Hartford does hereby authorize and direct the Town Supervisor to enter into and to execute an Agreement between the Town of New Hartford and Shumaker Consulting Engineering & Land Surveying, PC, to begin the Mudd Creek/green belt corridor study (downstream of the Presbyterian Home/Seneca Turnpike) at a cost not to exceed Twenty-five Hundred Dollars ($2500).

The foregoing Resolution was duly put to a vote upon roll call:

Councilman Waszkiewicz - Aye
Councilman Reynolds - Aye
Councilman Woodland - Aye
Councilman Payne - Aye
Supervisor Reed - Aye

The Resolution was declared unanimously carried and duly ADOPTED.

We FOILed a copy of the study, dated October 23, 2006...

It would appear that "approximately 2001, Presbyterian Homes of Central New York donated approximately 13 acres of land to the Town. This donated land was north of the future Preswick Glen senior living complex." It "was also adjacent to a 10-acre parcel obtained by the Town in 1995."

According to the study, "It is anticipated that the Mud Creek wetlands will be comprised of a combination of open water pools and wet meadow and marsh type habitats. Also envisioned at the site is a series of hiking/biking trails which would allow access in and around the created wetlands." "Access to the trail system could be accomplished at a trailhead near the end of Fawncrest Boulevard, and connections to Preswick Glen and the residential neighborhood southeast of the site could be made, if desired."

"In addition to these local benefits, some regional benefits have also been identified." "This may relieve some of the combined sewer overflow issues at the Sauquoit Creek Pump Station, which as the potential for significant, regional financial implications."

Further, "because of the regional nature of the project, it may be desirable to seek out funding partners to share the cost of construction based on the benefit potential. Some of these partners may include the Sauquoit Creek Basin Steering Committee and the Oneida County Sewer District, both of which stand to benefit from this proposed project."

"Based on the information obtained by SCE (Shumaker), it is evident that there is both local support and conceptual regulatory approval for the proposed project."

Hmm! Report paid for by 'Fees In Lieu of Mitigation'...wonder whose Fees in Lieu of Mitigation those might be? Preswick Glen?

We have the entire report online for you to review. We just thought everyone would want to know what is going on behind the scenes and it looks like this could very well affect the pocketbooks of many people---not just Town of New Hartford residents!

And just in case you missed the legal notices in the October 12, 2007 Observer Dispatch, you might want to read this regarding the Meadows--another complex owned by Presbyterian Homes in close proximity to Preswick Glen!

Concerned Citizens will be blogging more on this topic in an effort to 'connect the dots', particularly for those residents downstream in the Royal Brook Lane area.

Let's set the record straight...

Back on September 28, 2007, we reported that the Observer Dispatch was incorrect in stating that Mr. Basile would be paid $80 per hour.

Here is the Town Board Resolution from the September 26, 2007 Town Board meeting confirming that what Concerned Citizens reported is correct:

REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING
September 26, 2007
Page 13

MATTERS SUBMITTED BY TOWN SUPERVISOR

Financial:

Retention – Financial Advisor
Upon recommendation of the Town Supervisor, the following Resolution was introduced for adoption by Councilman Reynolds and duly seconded by Councilman Payne:

(RESOLUTION NO. 227 OF 2007)
WHEREAS, the Town of New Hartford has completed the following procedures with regard to retaining the services of a financial advisor:

• advertised for the position in the Observer Dispatch on August10, 11 and 12, 2007
• posted the position on the Town’s Website
• advertised the position on Career Builders from August 9, 2007 through September 8, 2007
• mailed approximately fifteen (15) direct-mail requests to local accountants
• conducted three (3) interviews with prospective hirees;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the New Hartford Town Board does hereby retain the services of Frank J. Basile, CPA’s, P.C., 4305 Middle Settlement Road, New Hartford, New York 13413, for the sixteen- (16) month period beginning September 10, 2007 and ending December 31, 2008 for the following consultation services:

• Assistance with the annual budget process
• Advice and guidance on financing and/or expensing various highway, planning and administrative costs
• Updating accounting and record-keeping procedures and bookkeeping systems
• Other accounting and management advisory services as requested by the Town Supervisor or Town Board.

And be it

FURTHER RESOLVED that the hourly rate for services rendered by Frank Basile is hereby approved at One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150), and the hourly rate for his associates is hereby approved at Eighty Dollars ($80).

Discussion included the number of hours expected to be worked, and municipal experience. Thereafter, the foregoing Resolution was subject to a vote upon roll call:

Councilman Waszkiewicz - ABSENT
Councilman Woodland - Aye
Councilman Payne - Aye
Councilman Reynolds - Aye
Supervisor Reed - Aye.

This Resolution was declared unanimously carried and duly ADOPTED.

Let's also set the record straight regarding the "efforts" made by the Town Board to supposedly retain a 'Financial Advisor'. Here is a copy of the ad that was run in the August 10, 11, & 12 Observer Dispatch, and a copy of the ad that was placed on the Town website. Here is a 'screenshot' of the cached version of the ad placed on Career Builders.

It doesn't appear that the town was looking for a Financial Advisor at all. They were looking for a full-time Comptroller (in other words, an employee) and the deadline for applications was October 1, 2007 so how come Mr. Basile's contract started on September 10, 2007? The discussion regarding the number of hours worked was brought up by Councilman Woodland...the answer from Supervisor Reed was "we don't know yet". Concerned Citizens has learned that the town and Mr. Basile were in negotiations as early as mid-August. That might be why such a small ad was placed in the Observer Dispatch...they were hoping no one would see it. Yes, it does appear that our 'illustrious leaders' are "Closing the Barn Door" once again.

Concerned Citizens has submitted a FOIL request for Mr. Basile's contract and we will post it as soon as it is received.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly....(cont'd)

So is it a matter of the town "leaders" not knowing the law....let's look at the town board minutes from last year...easy to do with our "searchable" town board minutes:

REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING
October 4, 2006
Page 9

Town Clerk:
2007 Tentative Budget
Town Clerk Gail Wolanin Young acknowledged that the 2007 Tentative Budget had been filed with her office on Friday, September 29, 2006 and that the Bookkeeper had furnished the Town Board with copies.
Public Hearing – 2007 Preliminary Budget
Supervisor Reed inquired about calling for a Public Hearing; the Town Clerk responded that she’d initially placed this matter on the Agenda but removed it because she thought it might be premature. Supervisor Reed believed it would be okay to proceed with scheduling the Public Hearing and introduced the following Resolution for adoption; seconded by Councilman Reynolds:

(RESOLUTION NO. 292 OF 2006)
RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of New Hartford will conduct Public Hearings to commence at 6:00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as reached in the regular course of business, on Wednesday, November 1, 2006 in Butler Memorial Hall, 48 Genesee Street, in said Town, to consider the following matters:

- the adoption of the 2007 Preliminary Budget as the 2007 Annual Budget; and

- the establishment of the ad valorem charges for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2007 for the following special districts/improvement areas:

Higby Road Water District
Water Fund
Fire Protection Districts No. 1 through No. 5, Inclusive
Various Street Lighting Districts; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED that the said Town Board does hereby authorize and direct the Town Clerk to publish the legal requisite Notices of Public Hearing in The Observer Dispatch.

The Resolution was then voted upon as follows:

Councilman Waszkiewicz - Aye
Councilman Reynolds - Aye
Councilman Woodland - Aye
Councilman Payne- Aye
Supervisor Reed - Aye.

Thereafter, the Supervisor declared the Resolution unanimously carried and duly ADOPTED.

Guess, the town board knew that the tentative budget had to be accepted before October 5th last year...they even did it during a regularly scheduled meeting at 6 p.m. in the evening. They had even set the date for the Public Hearing at the 2006 October 4th board meeting...so I guess they knew the law last year...or...was it a stroke of luck that they were in compliance with the law last year??!! We know that Concerned Citizens didn't have to 'remind' them of the law last year like it was necessary for us to do this year.

And by suddenly calling a 7 a.m. meeting on October 5, 2007, they broke their own rules. Here is an excerpt from the 2007 town board 'organizational' meeting held last December.

SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING
December 28, 2006
Page 20

II. SPECIAL MEETINGS:

The Supervisor may, and upon written request of two (2) members of the Board, call a special meeting of the Town Board at any time by giving at least two (2) days’ notice in writing to the other members of the Board of the time when and the place where the meeting is to be held.

Either a notice of the 7 a.m. Special Town Board meeting didn't go out to the board members two (2) days in advance...or the Town Clerk was left 'out of the loop'...or the Town Clerk was not being truthful when we called each day to ask if a meeting had been set. Concerned Citizens believes that the meeting was not set two (2) days in advance! We were finally notified of the time and place of the 'Special' meeting in an email that we received from the Town Clerk at 3:35 p.m. on October 4, 2007...less than 24 hours before the meeting took place! That is hardly two days notice!

So, just what is the problem this year?

To be continued...

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly...Part 1

Town Law says that: (Underlining, emphasized words and notes in red are comments from Concerned Citizens for Honest & Open Government.)

3. The town clerk shall present the tentative budget to the town board at a regular or special meeting to be held on or before the fifth day of October. (The GOOD - Thanks to Concerned Citizens being on top of the law, the town board was able to meet their legal obligation, albeit at 7 a.m. on October 5th). The town board may call upon the head of any administrative unit and the budget officer to discuss the tentative budget and the estimates as originally submitted. The head of any administrative unit may request in writing that he be permitted to explain his estimates to the town board. The town board shall review the tentative budget and may make such changes, alterations and revisions as it shall consider advisable and which are consistent with law. (The only people in the audience were 2 members of Concerned Citizens...so much for the discussion!)

4. Upon the completion of such review, the tentative budget and any modifications thereof as approved by the town board, shall become the preliminary budget. (The BAD - There were no discussions or modifications to the town budget. Course, this could be good too...it might mean that the budget is o.k. as it stands. Stay tuned...because I have a bridge for sale in Part 2 of this series.) The preliminary budget shall be filed in the office of the town clerk and the town clerk shall reproduce for public distribution as many copies as the town board may direct.

The UGLY - That brings us to yesterday, October 10, 2007. Yesterday morning, Concerned Citizens sent in a FOIL request for a copy of the 2008 Preliminary Budget that, by law, is supposed to be available in the town clerk's office. We were informed at last night's town board meeting that the Preliminary Budget doesn't exist - huh? We asked what the tax rates are for New Hartford and the Village of NYM residents in the Town of New Hartford. They don't know yet. In fact the town clerk wasn't sure if whomever is in charge of the budget process has even met with all the department heads yet...huh???!!!

To be continued...

Peek-a-boo...I see you!

Well, well... It seems that someone is trying to break into our cgi-bin again.

CGI - Common Gateway Interface - The CGI standard forms the rules for running external programs on a HTTP server.

cgi-bin - The directory on a Web server in which CGI scripts are typically stored. CGI scripts are text files, not binary files, but the "bin" designation has traditionally been used for any directory that holds programs.

Funny, though, the 'intruder(s)' seem to only have an interest in Russ Cerminaro's website and Concerned Citizens website.

We could identify the 'perp(s)', but let's suffice it to say that they were supposedly "partnering" with the Town of New Hartford a couple of years ago. Let's also suffice it to say that if it happens again, we will announce the name of their business on my blog as well as on all the websites we maintain. We have a feeling that they would not be so 'forgiving' if they found us trying to get into their cgi-bin, but then we would never do something as 'under-handed' as that...besides, we don't need to...they don't have anything we want or need.

Come on, guys! Is it that important to find out what we are doing, who we are, and/or how many followers we have? Or are you just looking for fodder for your next brochure?

2008 Tentative Budget now the 2008 Preliminary Budget....

Nothing like a 7 a.m. Special Town board meeting.....

The meeting this morning lasted all of 3 minutes! Town Clerk presented the Tentative Budget to the Town Board; they voted to accept the budget...end of discussion.

Town Law says:

The town clerk shall present the tentative budget to the town board at a regular or special meeting to be held on or before the fifth day of October. Done

The town board may call upon the head of any administrative unit and the budget officer to discuss the tentative budget and the estimates as originally submitted. The head of any administrative unit may request in writing that he be permitted to explain his estimates to the town board.

No Department Heads were at the meeting. Guess they didn't have any input into the Tentative Budget. Actually only three (3) board members were in attendance...Councilman Payne, Councilman Reynolds and Councilman Woodland. Good thing those three (3) were able to be there; otherwise, they wouldn't have a quorum and they wouldn't be able to take any action. Whew!

The town board shall review the tentative budget and may make such changes, alterations and revisions as it shall consider advisable and which are consistent with law.

There was no review at this meeting. Either there are no changes to the Tentative budget because it is just as the Town Board envisioned...at least until after the November election...or the changes they need to make aren't consistent with the law, or...

Upon the completion of such review, the tentative budget and any modifications thereof as approved by the town board, shall become the preliminary budget. The preliminary budget shall be filed in the office of the town clerk and the town clerk shall reproduce for public distribution as many copies as the town board may direct. Done

Well...the Tentative Budget has become the Preliminary Budget and it is now available to the public so they can attend the Public Hearing in November and make any comments or ask questions regarding the Preliminary Budget.

S 108. Public hearing. The town board shall hold a public hearing on the preliminary budget showing such changes, alterations and revisions as shall have been made therein by such board pursuant to subdivision three of section one hundred six of this chapter. (blogger comment...this subdivision of the town law refers to the changes that should have or could have been made at today's meeting.) Such hearing shall be held on or before the Thursday immediately following the general election...notice of hearing shall state the time when and the place where the public hearing will be held, the purpose thereof and that a copy of the preliminary budget is available at the office of the town clerk where it may be inspected by any interested person during office hours. The hearing may be adjourned from day to day but not beyond the fifteenth day of November... At such hearing, any person may be heard in favor of or against the preliminary budget as compiled or for or against any item or items therein contained.

But wait, Councilman Reynolds said (acting as Deputy Supervisor for today's meeting since Supervisor Reed was unable to attend) "we will continue to work on that for our final budget..." (This is a .wma file. You will need Windows Media Player.)

Huh? So if the Town Board will still be "working" on the Preliminary budget, how can anyone be prepared to comment since the preliminary budget that is now going to be distributed to the public isn't necessarily the budget that will be discussed at the Public Hearing in November or did he mean that they will continue to work on the Preliminary Budget after they get comments at the Public Hearing in November? And just when will they unveil the "real" budget and the tax rate? Or is that the plan...after the election on November 6, 2007, the "real" budget will be disclosed. Nah! They would never do that...not in New Hartford! It wouldn't be in compliance with the Town Finance Law!

Special Town Board Meeting....

tomorrow, October 5, 2007 at 7 a.m. so that the Town Clerk can present the tentative budget to the Town Board for discussion and the town board can pass a resolution making the tentative budget the Preliminary Budget.

Got to tell you, it is a good thing that Concerned Citizens for Honest & Open Government is watching over things because as of Wednesday, October 3rd when we visited the Town Clerk's office to ask about the budget not even the Town Clerk was aware of the October 5th deadline set by Town Law and no one from the town board had even mentioned to the Town Clerk that they planned to hold a "Special Meeting" to insure that the board was in compliance with the law. It would have been awful if they had missed yet another "opportunity" to follow Town Law, don't ya think? No thanks needed, Mr. Reed! Concerned Citizens is just trying to do our part...to keep everything above board (no pun intended).

We will have a copy of the Preliminary Budget online as soon as possible along with some commentary.

Next Town Budget Deadline Fast Approacheth....

According to New York State Town Law:

On or before the twentieth day of September, Department Heads need to submit an estimate of revenues and expenditures for the ensuing year. Done

There is a review of the estimates...usually meetings are scheduled with the Department Heads to review the estimates. Done

After the review of all department budgets, the tentative budget is prepared. Done

On or before September 30th, the tentative budget is filed in the office of the town clerk, along with the budget message, if any, and the estimates and schedules. Done

The town clerk shall present the tentative budget to the town board at a regular or special meeting to be held on or before October 5th.

The town board shall review the tentative budget and may make such changes, alterations and revisions as it shall consider advisable and which are consistent with law.

Upon the completion of such review, the tentative budget and any modifications thereof as approved by the town board, shall become the preliminary budget. The preliminary budget shall be filed in the office of the town clerk and the town clerk shall reproduce for public distribution as many copies as the town board may direct.

The next town board meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, October 10, 2007. Will there be a 'Special' Town Board meeting or will they once again ignore the law by waiting until the October 10th town board meeting to vote on the Preliminary Budget?

Tick Tock, Tick Tock