Dispatchers, firefighters take aim at 911 plan...

...that's the headline on the article in Friday's Observer Dispatch.

The article is in reference to the paid ad taken out by the Joseph D. Corr Police Benevolent Association, Edwards Ambulance, Willowvale Fire Company, New Hartford Fire Department, New York Mills Fire Department, Whitesboro Fire Department, Yorkville Fire & Hose Company, and members of the New Hartford Central Dispatch Benevolent Association, Inc. The ad was run in the February 26, 27 & 28, 2010 Observer Dispatch.

Since the story appeared in the Observer Dispatch, numerous people have commented on our blog, on the Observer Dispatch comment section of the story and on Topix. Sadly, people who have voiced their opinion in favor of this consolidation have been called names by some of the commenters who hide behind their screen names.

We were going to do a blog on the paid advertisement sorting out fact from fiction; however, we have decided that enough has been said; New Hartford residents can see through the b/s. In general, it would appear that the taxpayers in New Hartford feel it is long overdue for the New Hartford Dispatch to be consolidated into the County 911 system.

In fact Police Chief Philo, representing the Law Enforcement Coalition in a 2005 press release, was quoted as saying:

...the potential for reducing costs and increasing safety make this a time when a new approach to consolidation should be studied.

Chief Philo went on to say:

Costs of operating a police agency are increasing faster and faster. Technology has great capabilities, but expensive technology is beyond the reach of many small communities, Philo said. The future is going to demand that law enforcement agencies become more sophisticated, more diverse in terms of the services they provide, and more technologically proficient to keep up with the information age generation of criminals. We need the right structure to work as a team, and this is an excellent opportunity to look at new ideas.

Right on Chief Philo...we are so glad that you agree! But that was in 2005...consolidation study time is over...now it's time to do something about it!

Supervisor Tyksinski was quoted in the Observer Dispatch article as saying "the county deserves an apology". We agree.

One commenter on the Observer Dispatch article said:

"Again, call for a tour of the county center to actually see what we do."

Concerned Citizens is going to do exactly that. We will report back after our tour.

Henny Penny, The Sky is Falling...

"Town officials are essentially leading you into a merger that will have you stepping over dollars to save pennies"

"...there is serious danger in putting your eggs in one basket".

"...your cell phone bill is proposed to be increased by 30 cents a month per phone"

"There is much misinformation being presented."

"Will Oneida County be able to handle the increased workload without reducing quality of service? Absolutely not..."

"Contrary to the figures that are being publicized..."

The sky is NOT falling...the paid advertisement placed in today's Observer Dispatch is an insult to the intelligence of New Hartford taxpayers as well as an insult to the capabilities of the County 911 Dispatchers. How arrogant!

We will have more to say in our next blog!

Moving forward one step at a time...

New Hartford can’t lose professionalism on police force, according to an editorial in today's Observer Dispatch.

At the last town board meeting on February 10th, the town board voted to abolish the police commission. The OD editorial warns:

That means the police department has the potential to become politicized again.

However, the very fact that members were appointed to the commission by the town board and three of the five previous members served for 10+ years makes this commission political. Let's not fool ourselves, members of the commission marched to the beat of the police chief's drum, otherwise, they would have been replaced by new members long ago.

Add to that the reality that absent a town law there are no rules governing the police commission, in other words, the commission as it stood had more power than the town board in police matters. That is about to change now that the police commission has been abolished.

Over the past few years, Concerned Citizens blogged about several questionable situations involving the police department. Yet, Chairman of the Police Commission, Patrick Cardinale, said at the last town board meeting that the commission was unaware of any issues being reported by Concerned Citizens. That's odd because we were informed that Police Commission members were using their monthly meetings to discuss what to do to get even with Concerned Citizens; they were furious with the reporting we were doing.

The editorial goes on to say:

The scandal became known by the term “Code 31,” a term quite disturbing to New Hartford residents of a generation ago....Its existence confirmed residents’ worst fears – that the big shots get special treatment.

Come on...we have spoken to many people regarding "Code 31"; the only ones that remember it are the politicians. There were no residents interviewed in the old newspaper articles and none interviewed in the most recent articles...so where did the editorial board come up with the assumption that it was "quite disturbing" to town residents.

Isn't it amazing how village officials and police commission members had to dredge up the past to support their view that the commission must be kept in existence; they simply couldn't come up with any legal documents. And the Observer Dispatch fell for it hook, line and sinker. Anyone know whose name was on that "Code 31" list? You can be sure that you won't see the list posted in the Observer Dispatch [wink, wink].

At the February 10, 2010 town board meeting when the police commission was abolished, the discussion was that possibly a police advisory committee would be formed to take the place of the commission. That may be the a viable alternative somewhere down the road, but not before the town board clearly defines the powers of that advisory committee. There needs to be term limits; it needs to be clear that they only serve an advisory role; and members of the committee should be representative of all wards in town.

However, first and foremost, the town board should start by updating the town's Code of Ethics. The town board at the January 1, 2010 meeting already started to address that by adopting a resolution to reinstate the Ethics Board, but they need to make it a priority to convene that board and charge it with updating the Town Code of Ethics...it hasn't been updated since June 17, 1970...pre-dating the Code 31 incident!

The Town of Whitestown had an ethics code similar to the Town of New Hartford code until September 19, 2007, when they adopted a new ethics code requiring, among other things, Disclosure of Interest forms for all town officials and many town employees whether paid or upaid; the Town of New Hartford needs to make similar updates to their Code of Ethics.

The editorial ends with the following, referring to corruption:

We all know such things happen elsewhere. We know they happened in New Hartford a generation ago.

It cannot be allowed to happen again, and it’s the responsibility of the town supervisor and the Town Board to make sure it does not.

We have to disagree to the part about corruption being in the past...corruption has been ongoing in the Town of New Hartford in many areas. However, Supervisor Tyksinski is well on the way to putting an end to many past practices. He has a difficult task ahead of him, but we are confident that he and his team will rise to the occasion.

Meetings in the Town of New Hartford...

Tuesday, February 23, 2010, there will be a meeting of the Stormwater Advisory Committee at 6:00 p.m. in Butler Hall. This meeting is open to the public.



Wednesday, February 24, 2010, there will be a town board meeting starting at 7:00 p.m. in Butler Hall. Agenda now online!


PLEASE NOTE! The Thursday, February 25, 2010, Public hearing on PCB remediation project at 3456 Oneida Street (the former Central Steel Erecting Company) has been cancelled due to the weather forecast of heavy snow.

The hearing has been rescheduled for 7 p.m. Wednesday, March 3, at American Legion Post 1000, 3454 Oneida St., Chadwicks.

Code 31...

A story in today's Observer Dispatch, How Code 31 transformed New Hartford policing, puts another spin on the story; a spin that was alluded to by Village Mayor Ryan and others at the town board meeting last week.

According to the article:

Now, village officials and members of the former commission say they don’t want the commission to go. It was formed to bring professionalism to the force, to keep politics out of policing and to restore public trust, they said.

Really, was it professional when the police commissioners had discussions that caused two people to send a member of Concerned Citizens anonymous letters warning that certain members of the police commission want to "hurt" them and in one letter giving the names of the commissioners that are "especially dangerous", plus the name of one councilman who was considered equally as dangerous? Apparently if you speak out against the shenanigans of "friends and family" members; you are subject to threats from the "professionals" on the police commission!

The article goes on to say:

“The village was leery of the town, the town was leery that the village would want to control the department,” Valentine said. “The purpose of the Police Commission was to bring professionalism and bring them in line with civil service.”

There they go again with that word "professionalism"! How do you bring professionalism to an organization when you don't practice it yourself?

The October 6, 1983 Daily Press article, Town Urged to Take Over Police Force, made no mention of the necessity of a police commission to prevent another "Code 31". Instead the article said that the temporary commission that was formed to study the consolidation determined that "cheaper and better coverage could be provided if the town ran the department". In fact, it was determined that the village taxpayers would save money and it would cost the town taxpayers more!

In a May 16, 1984 Observer Dispatch article it was reported that village resident, Lucy Martin of 11 Pearl Street, said she was opposed to the plan and would circulate petitions to bring the consolidation to a referendum; she did not cite the "Code 31" fiasco, but instead according to the article she said that she "felt that police coverage in the area was adequate now and the change would cost residents more money than what they would receive in police services".

On Sept. 18, 1984, the referendum was put out to the voters in the Village of New Hartford and it passed [210 for and 33 against the consolidation]. According to an article we found dated September 19, 1984, about 16.2% of the eligible voters actually took the time to vote which pleased Village Mayor William Keiser. According to the article, he only expected about 100 people because there wasn't much controversy over the issue.

Hmm...not much controversy according to then Mayor Keiser. So it would appear that the main thing on the minds of the temporary police commission and the village residents, who overwhelmingly voted to dissolve the Village police in favor of a town police department, was money and whether it would cost more if consolidation were to take place.

On September 24, 1984, an editorial appeared in the Observer-Dispatch; this editorial could have been written today...it seems nothings changes. The editorial said among other things:

Village residents were for it because they stand to save about $20 per $1,000 of assessed valuation.

The editorial goes on to say:

Inevitably one government entity or another begins to worry about possibly higher costs under a proposed consolidation, or loss of control over services, or loss of jobs, or all three. The fears may be groundless, but it can be hard to convince the public of that, particularly when public officials who want to retain their patronage bases are the ones sponsoring the fears.

Public officials sponsoring fears...say it isn't so!

So what was the real intent back in 1984 when the police consolidation referendum took place? Unless the Village or someone comes up with a legal document that clarifies the intent of the Village and Town; how will we ever know? Until then, it looks like the police commission was abolished on February 10, 2010.


We have posted a video of just the portion of the February 10, 2010 town board meeting where the police commission discussion took place. Strike also has some interesting comments on his blog, Commissioning Failure: "Regionalization" in New Hartford.


p.s. Thank you Strike; the virtual roses are beautiful and the virtual diamonds are exquisite! LOL

I'm diggin in my heels, Strike!

Strike, Strike, Strike...I'll answer your latest attack on me, No Let Up....

In fact, there actually was an executive session after the meeting for "matters leading to appointment of Police Chief"; covered under the part of the Open Meetings Law that I referenced.

Keep in mind, Strike, Town Law 150 gives the right to appoint a police chief to the police commission. If a commission has been formed by board resolution; the town board gives up their control of the police dept. and they therefore would have no say in naming the police chief. Town Law 150 says in part:

...such board of police commissioners or police commissioner shall have and exercise all the powers relative to police matters conferred upon the town board pursuant to this article.

Town Law 150 also says, in part:

The town board may by resolution at any time abolish such police commission.

I still maintain that the discussion to dissolve the commission could have been done in executive session since dissolving the commission is part of the action to name an acting police chief...in other words, a personnel matter.

And for arguments sake, how many times have we seen other boards, school boards included, go into executive session using "personnel matters"; meeting secretly waiting for the public to leave; then they come out and continue their "open" meeting with no one present to speak in opposition? I think we have both been to those kind of meetings Strike. Doesn't make it right, however, it was an option that Pat could have chosen, but he didn't.

Pat chose to bring this very controversial discussion to the table while everyone was still present. Obviously enough people knew the topic would be discussed because the room was full of people who don't normally attend town board meetings. But you weren't there so you wouldn't know that.

We stand behind Pat; both for his decision to dissolve the commission and the way in which it was done. Perhaps transparency is in the eyes of the beholder.

Sorry Strike...I stand my ground!

I have been bloggerized...

Wow! Strike used the title of my last blog for the title of his own blog; see To err is human; to Blog Divine!, then he goes on to tear my blog apart piece by piece.

Wait a minute Strike! I'm not going to let you have the last word on this.

In response to my blog where I said:

Strike, we feel that Supervisor Tyksinski was as transparent as he needed to be given the circumstances; it really is a town board's prerogative to abolish the commission; input from the public is not required.

Strike said:

Of course this was prerogative and input from the public is not required. It's not required for a lot of things that the Town does. But just because it's not required does not mean that it is not expected. We were promised transparency. We expected transparency. We did not get transparency.

My reply:

Strike, anyone who expects transparency should make a point to be at the town board meetings. That way they can hear first hand what is going on at town board meetings. As long as the discussion is held in the public and the public has a right to speak either in favor or against, I don't feel that the town board is under any other obligation for such a matter as abolishing the commission. There will be other issues where the need to notify the public in advance will be necessary, but this was not one of them. The town board made a decision that had to be made.

We provide a video of each town board meeting; those who cannot attend meetings can watch to see what took place. The public always has the right to contact the town supervisor or their councilman any time to voice their opinion. If there are enough people who voice opposition, the town board can always revisit their decision. I stand by my opinion that the town board did not need to give prior notice to the public!

Strike wrote that I said:

Supervisor Tyksinski could have discussed the topic during executive session and then merely come out of executive session to adopt the resolution after the public left . . .

And Strike replied:

Oh really? And under what provision of the Open Meetings Law would such a discussion in executive session have fallen?

My answer:

under section 105-f. the medical, financial, credit or employment history of a particular person or corporation, or matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person or corporation;

Next, Strike pointed out that I wrote:

[He] even gave people in attendance a chance to speak. Actually, since this was not a public hearing, he didn't really even need to acknowledge comments from the audience; but he did.

Strike's opinion:

Wow! Perhaps we should be impressed with his magnanimity. But what good does it do for the public to have an opportunity to speak when it had almost no notice that this issue was even being considered?

My answer:

Strike...even if Pat had sent out personal invitations to all residents, the only people that would have shown up in droves would have been firemen, policeman and dispatch. We already know their opinion...they see it as a threat to their fiefdom. The rest of the people obviously put their faith in Patrick Tyksinski who has shown that he has what it takes to turn this town around. After the last four years, Pat is a breath of fresh air!

Next, Strike commented on my assertion that:

No, Strike, the decision needed to be made last night so the town can move forward.

So Strike responded:

No decision "needed to be made last night." The Police Commission was created over 20 years ago for certain reasons. Obviously no one bothered revisit those reasons because there was no time to research them. Since the decision was made this week without knowing those facts, and without time to reflect upon them, the Town Board cannot have known if it is just trading a present problem for a past one. In trying to "move forward," the Town may have stepped back 20 years.

My reply to Strike who, by the way, did not attend the town board meeting:

Town Attorney Cully did extensive research and took a great deal of time sharing his findings with the town board as part of the discussion at the meeting. And as Supervisor Tyksinski said, the issue can always be revisited if someone comes forth with a document that provides solid facts and documentation as to why the commission should not have been dissolved. Until then, the town board now has the authority to move the town forward regarding the police department; and that is not a bad thing; enough IS enough!

Lastly, Strike quoted me as saying:

Obviously, for too many years, the fox have been guarding the hen house. That came to an end at last night's town board meeting. Now we will truly have transparency when it comes to the Police Department because the people in charge will have to answer to the people that pay the bills.

Strike replied:

And on the above, Cathy and I can agree!

Amen, Strike! As for the rest of our discourse, we can always agree to disagree; however, I am right!

To err is human; to blog...divine!

Strikeslip...we usually agree with what you write, but this time we must show you the err of your ways.

In your blog, The Good and the Bad you said:

The Bad: New Hartford Town Board eliminates Police Commission with no advanced notice or opportunity for public input.

So much for the new "transparency" that was promised.

Strike, we feel that Supervisor Tyksinski was as transparent as he needed to be given the circumstances; it really is a town board's prerogative to abolish the commission; input from the public is not required.

Supervisor Tyksinski could have discussed the topic during executive session and then merely come out of executive session to adopt the resolution after the public left [of course, Concerned Citizens would have still been there], but he didn't. Instead he proposed the resolution in open session and even gave people in attendance a chance to speak. Actually, since this was not a public hearing, he didn't really even need to acknowledge comments from the audience; but he did. We commend him for his willingness to allow open and frank discussion.

While we are sure there might be some that might agree with you, so far, from what we see on the internet, and even on your own blog, Strike, the public seems to be very much in favor of what was accomplished at last night's town board meeting. Waiting to give the public a chance to attend the meeting would have been a lesson in futility any way...the same people attend town board meetings every week. Heck, even when there is a public hearing; the same people attend these meetings.

No, Strike, the decision needed to be made last night so the town can move forward. After all, who was overseeing the police department when contracts were signed absent town board approval...the Marquee Cinema; the resource officer at Sauquoit School; and we also have recently been advised that there may be a contract with Gander Mt. to do "gun runs". The town police, on overtime pay, are supposedly using town police vehicles to transport guns from Gander Mt. to the State Police barracks in Oneida for mandatory balistic testing prior to the guns being sold at Gander Mt.

Obviously, for too many years, the fox have been guarding the hen house. That came to an end at last night's town board meeting. Now we will truly have transparency when it comes to the Police Department because the people in charge will have to answer to the people that pay the bills.

Police Commission abolished...

As reported in today's Observer Dispatch article, last night the New Hartford Town Board voted 3-2 to eliminate the police commission.

We commend Supervisor Tyksinski, Councilwoman Krupa and Councilman Backman for making what was probably a difficult, but necessary decision.

The videotape of the meeting is now online!

Town Board Meeting Tonight...

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 starting at 7:00 p.m. in Butler Hall.

Agenda now online!

It is already starting...

...the beating of the drums giving us the Top 10 reasons why it would be detrimental to our well-being if we rely more heavily on sheriff or state police patrols in order to bring down the cost of our New Hartford Police Dept.

A Letter to the Editor in today's Observer Dispatch written by a NH Policeman alleges that the sheriff's department is dysfunctional and can't even handle simple contracts...perhaps the letter writer meant contracts like the private contracts at the Marquee Cinema that are subsidized by taxpayers. It's probably true, the Sheriff Dept. probably won't provide this service like NHPD does...at least not for the same price and they probably don't have the overtime budget that the New Hartford Police Department has been given in the past either.

The writer warns fellow townspeople:

"...not to be fooled by the political rhetoric of Pat Tyksinski".

With all due respect, officer, we don't think Pat is merely talking; we think he means business.

Just for the record, the Town of Clay handled their consolidation with the Onondaga County Sheriff Department with no adverse effects on the safety of town residents and Clay actually has more retail development than New Hartford. In fact, there are still the same number of patrols in their town as before; but instead of being town police, they are sheriff patrols. By all accounts that we have read, the residents say they actually see the sheriff patrols more than they did their own town police patrols.

By the way, as far as we know, Supervisor Tyksinski isn't looking to entirely disband the police department and consolidate with the Oneida County Sheriff Dept.; he is merely looking to cut costs and that is not a bad thing.

In his letter, the writer also says:

"Personally, I would be happy to pay more than the 50 percent tax increase to maintain not only our police department but also every other service we enjoy."

We don't blame him for making that statement; although we are not sure that many other people would agree.

Let's give this letter writer the honor of being our first SNAFU of the year...just one of the many assessment SNAFUs in the Town of New Hartford.

Letter Writer's property

1,832 sq. ft. home; 2-stall attached garage; lot size 90 x 150; 3 bedrooms; 1-1/2 baths; partial basement; built 1951...assessed for $93,300 or $50.93 per sq. ft.

Compared to:

845 sq. ft. home; no garage; lot size 58 x 106; 3 bedrooms; 1 bath; slab basement; built 1951...assessed for $56,200 or $66.50 per sq. ft.



...ironically, they are both in the same Neighborhood Code [4817]; not because they are comparable homes, but rather because they have similar tax map numbers!

According to the 4817 neighborhood code description provided to us by the town assessor "most of the homes are in the $40,000 to $75,000 range".

Sure they are...except for the mansions off Genesee Street, the letter writer's home and several other homes that we have highlighted on our blog that are in the same "neighborhood" by virtue of their tax map number!

To the letter writer, be careful what you wish for...based on the assessed value of your home in relation to other homes that are truly comparable to yours, you SHOULD be paying more for the services you get!

It Seems To Us We've Heard This Song Before...

Former Highway Superintendent Roger Cleveland, Commissioner Steve Devan and Peter Rayhill were at the last town board meeting to once again talk about the Consent Order. As already reported in the Observer Dispatch article, No Sewer Charge for New Hartford, the town will be using Fees In Lieu of Mitigation to pay for the $1.05 surcharge on the water bills of residents in the Town of New Hartford excluding the Village of New Hartford and New York Mills. The Villages are responsible for their own sewer fixes.

We have obtained three (3) letters through the FOIL process that everyone should read regarding the problems at the Sauquoit Creek Pumping Station:

1) Letter dated March 20, 1997 - From John Sandwick, Jr., D.E.C. Environmental Analyst I to Jane Brouillette who was Town of New Hartford Planner at the time. In part, this letter says:

The connection of yet another 141 dwelling units (Applewood) to the wastewater system tributary to the Oneida County Sewer District's Sauquoit Creek Pumping Station will continue to compound the severity of the wet weather flow condition at the station. In his January 7, 1997 letter, Commissioner Steven Devan outlined the sewer district's program for correcting the problem.

2) At one point in the video, Co-Founder of Concerned Citizens, Edmund J. Wiatr, Jr., holds up a letter; that letter was dated January 7, 1997 from Stevan Devan, Commissioner to Mr. James F. Lutz, Regional Engineer D.E.C. The Town Supervisor gave the letter to Mr. Devan to verify it was sent by him; Mr. Devan read the letter, but never replied or verified that he sent it. However, it is on Oneida County Department of Water Quality and Water Pollution Control letterhead and has Mr. Devan's signature.

Here is a portion of the letter; but we hope that everyone will take the time to read this letter in its entirety:

I thought it was important to update you as to the progress being made in addressing the wet weather flow problems at the Sauquoit Creek Pumping Station.

...preliminary work has been progressing. However, at this point in time, I am unable to give you a firm schedule as requested in your letter. I need to gather more information before I can commit to a schedule.

There is no real handle on where the excess flows are coming from. However, money should be spent on solving the problem rather than studying it in a minute detail.

I would anticipate that this year would be spent finalizing the project plan and getting the municipalities involved to commit to the plan.

3) The third letter dated January 16, 1997 is from Roger Cleveland, who was town engineer during this timeframe, to John Sandwick, Jr., D.E.C. Environmental Analyst I. It says in part:

...the writer has met with Commissioner Devan to address a collective effort between the represented Towns and the County to address the issue of excess I/I. Out of this meeting came a commitment by the Commissioner...to identify some initial steps that the County Sewer District and its member communities could take to begin addressing this issue.

Specifically, as it pertains to the Town of New Hartford, monies have been budgeted for fiscal year 1997 to commence investigation and remediation efforts on our own. An additional commitment of $10,000 has been made by the private sector to assist the Town in this matter. We look forward to the Spring of '97 to begin.

Fast forward to 2010; we have posted the portion of the January 27, 2010 town board meeting and the Consent Order discussion between the town board, Steve Devan, Roger Cleveland and Peter Rayhill on our website.

Watch the videotape to hear how they still don't know exactly how to proceed, or what fixes will be done with the $1.05 per 1,000 gallons of water fee they are collecting. Watch as they dance around when Town Supervisor Pat Tyksinski tries to get them to address how much of New Hartford's fixes will be done with the money that is being collected from the Town of New Hartford.

Now look at who was copied on each of the above three (3) 1997 letters; the scary part is that some of the same people are now involved with the Consent Order fixes. These letters are dated 13 years ago and they still don't have any answers as to how, when & where the work will be done!


In a related story:

We read with interest the Observer Dispatch story, Firm closing, Madden Concrete owner blames town policies...Says development, and thereby need for concrete, way down regarding the closing of Madden Concrete in the Village of New Hartford. Mr. Madden's sign caught our attention one day last September while we were in the area and we decided to photograph it.



Strikeslip already wrote a blog on this subject, N.H's Concrete Blues & Shoes...

We couldn't have said it any better ourselves, Strikeslip!

Under construction...

Over the next few weeks, we will be redesigning our websites. We have already started the process by making our logo a little more colorful...bringing us out of the shadows so to speak and we have added a space for the full video of the most current town board meeting.

We will be adding an archive of previous town board meetings with agendas so you can quickly locate the meetings with the subjects you are interested in listening to.

We will also be putting the most current Planning Board meeting on our website with an archive of previous meeting videos.

The video for the January 27, 2009 town board meeting is already on our site. Here is a link.

Kellogg Road Community Center...

Today's OD article asks, Should New Hartford reopen community center?

That seems to be a nagging question; but, more importantly, we have to ask...was there a hidden agenda regarding the closing of this building in the first place?

Back in October 2007, then Ward 1 Councilman, Robert A. Payne, III, decided it would be a good idea to close the Kellogg Road Community Center for the winter months of November to April. According to the October 10, 2007 approved town board minutes, Councilman Payne said:

...the Town would realize an estimated savings of at least Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000) in energy costs.

Then, according to the November 7, 2007 approved town board minutes, Payne said:

The 2006 energy expenses for the Kellogg Road Community Center Building totaled Four Thousand Four Hundred Seven Dollars ($4,407) while the rental revenues for the same period amounted to about Eight Hundred Dollars ($800.00).

Hmm...according to the article in today's paper:

Reed estimated the costs [of the utilities] at between $12,000 and $14,000 per year, in a May 2009 interview.

Guess he really wasn't a whiz when it came to numbers! How big did Reed think this building was when he made that crazy statement.

Finally, in April 2008, it was revealed at the town board meeting that:

By closing this building for the winter months, the Town saved $1700 in utility costs, according to the Supervisor.

So supposedly the town saved $1,700 in energy costs...take away the $800 in rental revenue that the town no longer received and you have a savings of a whopping $900. For a town board that spent $2.8 million of our tax dollars frivolously, this is almost comical.

According to the January 23, 2008 approved town board minutes:

Agreement – Structural Evaluation of Kellogg Road Community Center Building

The Highway Superintendent reported it had been suggested that the Town evaluate and determine whether the Kellogg Road Community Center is structurally sound. A quote of Twelve Hundred Dollars ($1200) has been received from Zangrilli Engineering to inspect, identify, evaluate, and recommend any remedial action, to include the Americans With Disability Act. No Board action was taken at this time.

No board action was taken...now that is funny because...

Through the FOIL process, we obtained a copy of the November 19, 2007 limited evaluation of the Kellogg Road Community Center prepared by Alesia & Crewell that was sent to the attention of [Councilman] David Reynolds; two months prior to the January 23, 2008 board meeting where there was no action taken to hire Zangrilli Engineering to evaluate the building!

As a matter of fact, we could not find any indication that this was a budgeted item or that the town board even approved the hiring of Alesia & Crewell to do the evaluation.

The result of the evaluation by Alesia & Crewell:

"For its age, the building is in generally good condition. The concerns raised are relatively minor, explainable and repairable. Probably the biggest shortfall is the lack of adequate insulation and resulting high energy cost to operate.

It is estimated that an expenditure of $20,000 to $25,000 would be required to resolve the issues with the building."

According to the article in today's Observer Dispatch:

He [Councilman Backman] said the building could be closed in the coldest times of year to save money.

Backman also suggested the repairs could be done more cheaply if a BOCES class was able to use it as a project.

The estimate of the work needed is substantial, but, hopefully something can be worked out so that the building can be re-opened, even if it is only for the warmer months.

Still, we have to wonder just how much damage there really is and how unsafe the building is at this point. We blogged back in September 2009 when we saw the Community Center building lights on for a couple of nights. We were subsequently told that the police were using the building; heaven knows what for...must be the building is only unsafe for us "common folk".

In our research, we ran across a November 2007 Observer Dispatch article, New Hartford closes community center Dec. 1 until April 30. The article said in part:

‘A piece of surplus property’

In addition to saving on utility expenses, officials said the building is in a “deplorable” state and is therefore unfit to use.

“It needs a new roof,” Reed said. “We can close it down and analyze the viability of the building.”

Town Planning Board member Jerome Donovan, who has attended board meetings in the center for seven years, said the building is an eyesore in the town’s redevelopment plan and occupies valuable commercial property.

It also is unequipped for public presentations, he said.

“It does not lend itself to audio-visual presentations, nothing for public comment,” he said. “I won’t shed any tears if they close it down. It is an unnecessary building, a piece of surplus property.”

The article finishes by saying:

Whether repairs will be made to the building still is undecided, and members next spring will look to appoint a citizens committee made up of engineers and architects who can assess the building’s condition and decide its fate.

Councilman David Reynolds said the town is exploring the financial feasibility of keeping the building open.

Is there anyone reading this that was on that citizens committee? Sorry that was a rhetorical question...we already know the answer...there was no citizens committee!

Here is a video excerpt from the January 13, 2010 town board meeting where Councilman Backman brought the issue to the table:



One more thing, we are told, and Don Backman mentioned in the video, that the parking lights and security cameras for the police station run off the Community Center building...no wonder we only saved $1,700 on a $4,400 bill!

"...an eyesore in the town’s redevelopment plan and occupies valuable commercial property." Au contrare...it is only valuable commercial property if the police station is part and parcel of the property that is disposed of. Like we said, it appears there was a hidden agenda in the closing of Kellogg Road Community Center. We are sure there is much more to this story!