Adopted 2012 Budget
Agreement Between the Town of New Hartford and the PBA...January 1, 2009-December 31, 2013
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Monday, December 26, 2011
1970...
• Paul McCartney announces that the Beatles have disbanded
• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA ) begins operation
• Boeing 747 makes its first commercial passenger trip to London
• Dow Jones drops to 631
• 1970 - American Top 40, hosted by radio personality Casey Kasem, becomes the first successful nationally syndicated radio program featuring a weekly countdown
• The floppy disc appeared in 1970, and the next year Intel introduced the microprocessor, the "computer on a chip."
• Atari produced the first low-priced integrated circuit TV games, and the videocassette recorder (VCR) changed home entertainment forever.
• US lowers voting age from 21 to 18
• In 1970 the average income per year was $9,350.00 and by 1979 was $17,550.00
• In 1970 a gallon of gas was 36 cents and by 1979 was 86 cents
• The 70's also saw the beginning of the Home Computer due to Intel creating the first cheap microprocessor - the Intel 4004, and other integrated circuits. In the beginning the computers were mainly for the hobbyists and included the Apple II, the TRS-80, the Commodore PET, and Atari 400/800 and with the growth of these home computers Bulletin Boards became a popular way for people to find others with similar interests.
AND, on June 17, 1970, the Town of New Hartford adopted their Code of Ethics. More than forty (40) years later, it remains the same, never updated or amended to reflect today's world. Pretty sad...
According to today's Observer Dispatch editorial, Town Clerk Gail Wolanin Young said:
However, the truth is, even if you knew where to find the Town of New Hartford Ethics Code, and you had concerns of a possible ethics violation, you would still need to figure out who to contact with your concerns. We tried to track that person down during the previous administration...here is what we found.
The first town board meeting of the year is an organizational meeting. During that meeting one of the resolutions that is passed is regarding the Ethics Board. The resolution is usually:
So what do you do if you live in the Town of New Hartford and you feel there has been an ethics violation? We never did find out; although we have brought the subject to the town board more than once. Apparently, town officials prefer to be the lone fox guarding the hen house; they don't want to be bothered with resident complaints of possible ethics violation[s].
The town is allowed by law to use the County Ethics Committee; however, there should first be a mutual agreement between the town and county so that town residents have the ability to seek resolution to possible ethics violations of town officials. Instead, it appears to be yet another way to put up roadblocks and thus keep town residents from being able to seek resolution to allegations of possible official misconduct.
According to recent news articles, New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s office is requesting that town officials provide copies of their local code of ethics within 60 to 90 days. We are hopeful that, for New Hartford, it will mean updating their archaic Code of Ethics policy.
The Town of Whitestown updated their code in September 2007 to include an Ethics Board with town residents serving on the board.
The Town of New Hartford needs to follow suit. Update the Town of New Hartford Ethic Code and appoint interested town residents to serve on the board so that everyone has a place to go the next time an "issue arises".
According to the website of Harris Beach, PLLC, Attorneys At Law:
Here is a model code from the Office of the State Comptroller dated March 3, 2010.
• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA ) begins operation
• Boeing 747 makes its first commercial passenger trip to London
• Dow Jones drops to 631
• 1970 - American Top 40, hosted by radio personality Casey Kasem, becomes the first successful nationally syndicated radio program featuring a weekly countdown
• The floppy disc appeared in 1970, and the next year Intel introduced the microprocessor, the "computer on a chip."
• Atari produced the first low-priced integrated circuit TV games, and the videocassette recorder (VCR) changed home entertainment forever.
• US lowers voting age from 21 to 18
• In 1970 the average income per year was $9,350.00 and by 1979 was $17,550.00
• In 1970 a gallon of gas was 36 cents and by 1979 was 86 cents
• The 70's also saw the beginning of the Home Computer due to Intel creating the first cheap microprocessor - the Intel 4004, and other integrated circuits. In the beginning the computers were mainly for the hobbyists and included the Apple II, the TRS-80, the Commodore PET, and Atari 400/800 and with the growth of these home computers Bulletin Boards became a popular way for people to find others with similar interests.
AND, on June 17, 1970, the Town of New Hartford adopted their Code of Ethics. More than forty (40) years later, it remains the same, never updated or amended to reflect today's world. Pretty sad...
According to today's Observer Dispatch editorial, Town Clerk Gail Wolanin Young said:
...New Hartford’s policy has been in place for a number of years, but she could not find it on the town website.We found the policy online; there is a link to it from the town's website, but you have to know where to look. Amazing that the town clerk wasn't able to direct the Observer Dispatch to the link for access to town codes on the web; as town clerk, she is the "keeper" of the town codes.
However, the truth is, even if you knew where to find the Town of New Hartford Ethics Code, and you had concerns of a possible ethics violation, you would still need to figure out who to contact with your concerns. We tried to track that person down during the previous administration...here is what we found.
The first town board meeting of the year is an organizational meeting. During that meeting one of the resolutions that is passed is regarding the Ethics Board. The resolution is usually:
Ethics CommitteeSince town board minutes indicate that the County would be the place to voice our concerns, we headed down to the County Office Building. When we told the County's legal department that according to town board minutes, the County would take care of any ethics "situation" in the Town of New Hartford in lieu of the town having their own Ethics Committee, they said "News to us!"
Presently, the Ethics Committee has one member, that being Councilman Woodland; two (2) positions are vacant and in the past the Town Board’s consensus was, in the event a situation arises, that the Town would use the County Ethics Committee.
So what do you do if you live in the Town of New Hartford and you feel there has been an ethics violation? We never did find out; although we have brought the subject to the town board more than once. Apparently, town officials prefer to be the lone fox guarding the hen house; they don't want to be bothered with resident complaints of possible ethics violation[s].
The town is allowed by law to use the County Ethics Committee; however, there should first be a mutual agreement between the town and county so that town residents have the ability to seek resolution to possible ethics violations of town officials. Instead, it appears to be yet another way to put up roadblocks and thus keep town residents from being able to seek resolution to allegations of possible official misconduct.
According to recent news articles, New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s office is requesting that town officials provide copies of their local code of ethics within 60 to 90 days. We are hopeful that, for New Hartford, it will mean updating their archaic Code of Ethics policy.
The Town of Whitestown updated their code in September 2007 to include an Ethics Board with town residents serving on the board.
The Town of New Hartford needs to follow suit. Update the Town of New Hartford Ethic Code and appoint interested town residents to serve on the board so that everyone has a place to go the next time an "issue arises".
According to the website of Harris Beach, PLLC, Attorneys At Law:
If the Comptroller’s March 2010 report is any indication of the upcoming review of municipal ethics codes, simply having an ethics code is not enough. Issues previously reviewed by the Comptroller that may be visited again include: the extent of issues addressed by an ethics code, the distribution and employees’ awareness of the code, whether ethics training is provided, the ability of municipal officials to understand and apply the code, how often the code is reviewed and updated, and the collection and review of financial disclosure forms.The Town of New Hartford would have a difficult time defending the sufficiency of their Ethics Code. Even if the town board decides to use the County Ethics Commission; at the very least, the town ethics code needs to be updated so that some of the "grey areas" in the present town code are eliminated to include how to register a complaint and with whom to register that complaint.
In short, local governments should be prepared to either defend the sufficiency of their current ethics code and procedures, or proactively begin the process of reviewing their current code and procedures, and making the appropriate changes. Moreover, it is equally important that a municipality or board of ethics takes appropriate action when a complaint is made.
Here is a model code from the Office of the State Comptroller dated March 3, 2010.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
New Hartford Public Library IRS 990 forms...full of fact or fiction?
How many people does it take...to run the New Hartford Public Library? Guess it depends on what year you are talking about.
We recently blogged about some of the inconsistencies found in the IRS Form 990s filed by the New Hartford Public Library in regard to the salary paid to the Library Director...IRS Form 990 and the New Hartford Public Library...
Further review of the 990s give rise to even more questions that would be worth asking. Actually we find it hard to believe that a board made up of professionals has not asked these questions already starting with why was the board of trustees not provided with a copy of the 990 prior to it being filed? Why is Mr. Wiatr the only trustee that is concerned?
For example, according to their most recent 990s:
In November 2009, during the town budget workshops which were held by Councilwoman Krupa and Councilman Woodland in preparation of the town's 2010 budget, members of the library board vehemently proclaimed that they could not manage to run the library with that amount of reduced funding.
Yet, according to their 990 filed for the year 2010, they reported that they actually increased their workforce by eight (8) people to their current level of 29 employees.
In 2011 and 2012, the town once again cut the library budget by another $75,000 to the current budget of $400,000. However, in answer to the town's further reduced funding, they chose to close the library one day a week rather than reduce their staff...so now they are open fewer hours, but with the same number of employees as they had in 2010.
What we really find interesting is that each month this year, according to reports distributed at board meetings, their usage statistics have consistently shown a 24% reduction over last year's totals when compared month to month. When this is mentioned at their meetings, they try to blame it on the closing of the library on Wednesdays.
There are seven (7) days in a week; if your usuage declines by 24% due to being closed one day [Wednesday] a week, could it be that you chose to close on the wrong day? Or could there be something else at play here?
Mr. Wiatr wanted to try to analyze the usage to see if another day might be a better choice to close so he asked for usage reports from previous years. He was told that they had been destroyed and were no longer available. So what did they base their Wednesday closure decision on if the usage reports are no longer available?
What is interesting is, on page 6 of the 2010 IRS 990 form, under Section B. Policies...it says:
We are also wondering what happened to their volunteers between 2008 when they reported 150 volunteers and now when they are reporting only 40 volunteers. The 990 says to estimate if necessary...but really, that is quite a range of volunteers. Is there a reason that their "estimate" of volunteers is that far apart over the course of a year?
Here's another example of the 990 reporting that doesn't make any sense when you compare the numbers year-to-year:
Here, for those that are interested, are the New Hartford Public Library 990s:
2007
2008
2009
2010
Next, we will report on their 2012 budget, not the one you will be voting on, but the budget they put together in the interim. We cannot believe that they "balanced" their budget by anticipating additional revenue from both the town and county...revenue that they have been advised will not be forthcoming.
To be continued...
We recently blogged about some of the inconsistencies found in the IRS Form 990s filed by the New Hartford Public Library in regard to the salary paid to the Library Director...IRS Form 990 and the New Hartford Public Library...
Further review of the 990s give rise to even more questions that would be worth asking. Actually we find it hard to believe that a board made up of professionals has not asked these questions already starting with why was the board of trustees not provided with a copy of the 990 prior to it being filed? Why is Mr. Wiatr the only trustee that is concerned?
For example, according to their most recent 990s:
Click on graphic for a larger image.
In November 2009, during the town budget workshops which were held by Councilwoman Krupa and Councilman Woodland in preparation of the town's 2010 budget, members of the library board vehemently proclaimed that they could not manage to run the library with that amount of reduced funding.
Yet, according to their 990 filed for the year 2010, they reported that they actually increased their workforce by eight (8) people to their current level of 29 employees.
In 2011 and 2012, the town once again cut the library budget by another $75,000 to the current budget of $400,000. However, in answer to the town's further reduced funding, they chose to close the library one day a week rather than reduce their staff...so now they are open fewer hours, but with the same number of employees as they had in 2010.
What we really find interesting is that each month this year, according to reports distributed at board meetings, their usage statistics have consistently shown a 24% reduction over last year's totals when compared month to month. When this is mentioned at their meetings, they try to blame it on the closing of the library on Wednesdays.
There are seven (7) days in a week; if your usuage declines by 24% due to being closed one day [Wednesday] a week, could it be that you chose to close on the wrong day? Or could there be something else at play here?
Mr. Wiatr wanted to try to analyze the usage to see if another day might be a better choice to close so he asked for usage reports from previous years. He was told that they had been destroyed and were no longer available. So what did they base their Wednesday closure decision on if the usage reports are no longer available?
What is interesting is, on page 6 of the 2010 IRS 990 form, under Section B. Policies...it says:
Does the organization have a written document retention and destruction policy? Answer: YESWonder what that policy is...or for that matter where it is stored?
We are also wondering what happened to their volunteers between 2008 when they reported 150 volunteers and now when they are reporting only 40 volunteers. The 990 says to estimate if necessary...but really, that is quite a range of volunteers. Is there a reason that their "estimate" of volunteers is that far apart over the course of a year?
Here's another example of the 990 reporting that doesn't make any sense when you compare the numbers year-to-year:
Here, for those that are interested, are the New Hartford Public Library 990s:
2007
2008
2009
2010
Next, we will report on their 2012 budget, not the one you will be voting on, but the budget they put together in the interim. We cannot believe that they "balanced" their budget by anticipating additional revenue from both the town and county...revenue that they have been advised will not be forthcoming.
To be continued...
Sunday, December 18, 2011
I Believe...
Video courtesy of...Video From Pictures
Mr. Wiatr didn't ask for a resolution, nor was one required. These trustees simply do not want to say the pledge. This was not the first time that Mr. Wiatr has suggested that the Pledge should be said before the meeting starts. The first time he asked, one of the members of the Friends of New Hartford Public Library actually got up and left the meeting!
Bottom line...we videotape at each and every meeting...in plain view! The trustees have full control over how they appear to the public...obviously, they don't care how the public feels. All they care about is receiving OUR tax dollars to support their fiefdom!
Strikeslip says it very well in his blog...A Pledge of Allegiance...but not at the New Hartford Town Library!
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Zoning Text Amendment Request Withdrawn...
According to Town Attorney Herb Cully at tonight's town board meeting, Larry Adler has withdrawn his request for a zone map amendment for the Planned Development Park District. Attorney Cully also stated that he doesn't have it in writing at this time.
At any rate, it is our understanding that the December 21, 2011 Public Hearing has been cancelled.
We blogged about the zoning text amendment request by Mr. Adler here; here; here; here; and here.
At any rate, it is our understanding that the December 21, 2011 Public Hearing has been cancelled.
We blogged about the zoning text amendment request by Mr. Adler here; here; here; here; and here.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Majority of New Hartford Library Board abstained...
from voting to include the Pledge of Allegiance as the opening item on their agenda...only two (2) trustees voted in the affirmative.
One of the items that Board Trustee Edmund J. Wiatr, Jr. placed on the December 14, 2011 New Hartford Public Library Board of Trustees agenda was to consider starting each meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance.
The reaction and comments from the other nine (9) trustees and their decision to abstain from voting was shocking and quite frankly disgusting.
The Library Director actually had the chutzpah to say that the pledge was a "waste of time". As Library Director, he doesn't even have a vote on the board...he would do well to keep his opinions to himself. The Board President also abstained and ended the vote with "Not carried". And don't miss the comment of the Treasurer of the Board who often times think his "barbs" are funny...they aren't.
Here is the video of that portion today's meeting:
We decided to do some research on the web to see whether or not other libraries start their meetings with the Pledge. Frankly, we couldn't find one that didn't include the Pledge...truly New Hartford Public Library seems to stand alone on this issue.
We found a slide show presented by Library Trustees Association of New York State titled "Holding Effective Public Library Board of Trustee Meetings".
On page 14, under "Typical Agenda", they list Pledge of Allegiance right after Call to Order.
What is wrong with this group of people that they think saying the Pledge is "for show" and "a waste of time"?
Look around the table...these are all educated people who are well-known in the community. They should all be embarrassed of this video...we certainly were embarrassed to have to sit there and witness their disgraceful behavior and lack of patriotism!
As far as this board goes, they would all do well to read the presentation by the Library Trustees Association of NYS to see how a "real" Library Board of Trustees is supposed to work!
One of the items that Board Trustee Edmund J. Wiatr, Jr. placed on the December 14, 2011 New Hartford Public Library Board of Trustees agenda was to consider starting each meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance.
The reaction and comments from the other nine (9) trustees and their decision to abstain from voting was shocking and quite frankly disgusting.
The Library Director actually had the chutzpah to say that the pledge was a "waste of time". As Library Director, he doesn't even have a vote on the board...he would do well to keep his opinions to himself. The Board President also abstained and ended the vote with "Not carried". And don't miss the comment of the Treasurer of the Board who often times think his "barbs" are funny...they aren't.
Here is the video of that portion today's meeting:
We decided to do some research on the web to see whether or not other libraries start their meetings with the Pledge. Frankly, we couldn't find one that didn't include the Pledge...truly New Hartford Public Library seems to stand alone on this issue.
We found a slide show presented by Library Trustees Association of New York State titled "Holding Effective Public Library Board of Trustee Meetings".
On page 14, under "Typical Agenda", they list Pledge of Allegiance right after Call to Order.
What is wrong with this group of people that they think saying the Pledge is "for show" and "a waste of time"?
Look around the table...these are all educated people who are well-known in the community. They should all be embarrassed of this video...we certainly were embarrassed to have to sit there and witness their disgraceful behavior and lack of patriotism!
As far as this board goes, they would all do well to read the presentation by the Library Trustees Association of NYS to see how a "real" Library Board of Trustees is supposed to work!
p.s. There appears to be some "behind the scenes" emailing back and forth between members of the library board in an effort to defend the board's action today.
We welcome the Library Board President to submit a statement to us [for publication in it's entirety] defending the board's reaction to Mr. Wiatr's proposal to include the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of every board meeting.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Public Hearing has been scheduled...
according to the Sunday, December 11, 2011 Observer Dispatch legal notices:
It is our understanding that the Oneida County Planning Dept. has yet to be sent any information on the request; per Town Code their approval is required otherwise a 4 of 5 town board vote is needed for the law to be adopted.
As evidenced in our previous blog, no petitions were filed with the town clerk prior to the request being brought before the town board as required by Town Code; Mr. Adler does not own 50% of the acreage and needs petitions signed by other owners; currently, there are no valid petitions on file in the town clerk's office; and there will be no Planning Board Meeting until after January 1, 2012.
And still the beat goes on...somebody is obviously pounding those drums and everyone appears to be marching to the music!
And one more thing, according to Town § 118-88 E:
As of Friday, December 9, 2011, the town assessor was still working on the list of names and addresses of property owners that by law need to be notified of the Public Hearing in writing.Notice of Public HEARING – TOWN OF NEW HARTFORD N. Y.
LOCAL LAW INTRODUCTORY "H " OF 2011
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at their regular meeting held November 16, 2011 the New Hartford Town Board introduced Local Law Introductory “H" of 2011 entitled A Local Law to amend the Code of the Town of New Hartford, Chapter 118 thereof entitled ZONING, by repealing Section 118-39 (D) (7) (b) and replacing it with new language pertaining to limited uses in a Planned Development Park (PDP) District. Said legislation, if adopted would allow retail and services when such limited use occupies no more than twenty percent (20%) of the PDPD acreage owned, controlled or developed by the applicant. Said Local Law Introductory is on file in the New Hartford Town Clerk’s Office, 48 Genesee Street, New Hartford, NY, where it is available for public inspection during regular business hours or may be viewed at www.newhartfordtown.com.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that a Public Hearing upon said Local Law Introductory will be held at Butler Hall, New Hartford, NY on the 21st day of December, 2011 at 7:00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as reached in the regular course of business, and that an opportunity to be heard in regard thereto will then and there be given. Butler Memorial Hall has a barrier-
free access for the physically handicapped and any such handicapped person seeking transportation to said Public Hearing should contact Town Supervisor Patrick Tyksinski at 733-7500, Ext.2331 during regular business hours.
Date: December 8, 2011
Gail Wolanin Young
Town Clerk
OD:12/11/2011.
It is our understanding that the Oneida County Planning Dept. has yet to be sent any information on the request; per Town Code their approval is required otherwise a 4 of 5 town board vote is needed for the law to be adopted.
As evidenced in our previous blog, no petitions were filed with the town clerk prior to the request being brought before the town board as required by Town Code; Mr. Adler does not own 50% of the acreage and needs petitions signed by other owners; currently, there are no valid petitions on file in the town clerk's office; and there will be no Planning Board Meeting until after January 1, 2012.
And still the beat goes on...somebody is obviously pounding those drums and everyone appears to be marching to the music!
And one more thing, according to Town § 118-88 E:
Conformance with Town Comprehensive Plan. In all cases where the Town Board shall approve an amendment to the Zoning Map, said Board shall find, for reasons fully set in its resolution, such amendment to be in conformity with the Town Comprehensive Plan.We can't wait to see how they cover their butts on this one!
Friday, December 9, 2011
The town attorney will be consulted...the sequel
Back on December 3, 2011, we wrote our blog, The town attorney will be consulted....
At that time, we were awaiting a decision from the town attorney as to whether or not proper procedure had been followed regarding zoning amendments in the Town of New Hartford; in particular a request made by Mr. Larry Adler to change the zone text in the Planned Development Park District [PDPD].
We hadn't received anything further from the town clerk so we decided to makes some stops this afternoon to get an update on the zone amendment request.
First stop, the assessor's office where we learned that Mr. Adler does not own 50% of the land in the PDPD zone. Guess that settles it...regardless of whether the town wants to "bend" the rules and call his letter the same as a petition; without the signatures of 50% or more property owners, Mr. Adler's request cannot go forward; town code is very clear in this respect.
The assessor also stated that some property owners in Whitestown were close enough to the zone so that they [along with the Whitestown Town Clerk] would have to be notified by mail of the Public Hearing on the zone text amendment request.
The assessor seemed to believe that Mr. Adler had indeed filed a petition with the town clerk, so our next stop was in the Town Clerk's office to once again inquire as to whether or not petitions had been filed.
Sure enough, she had just received signed petitions from 3 other property owners along with one from Larry Adler. Interestingly enough, the petitions were FAXed to the town clerk from Attorney Cully's office on December 7, 2011.
That brings up a question...if Attorney Cully had them, why didn't he present them to the town board at the November 16, 2011 town board meeting in compliance with Town Code? Certainly Attorney Cully is familiar with Town Code; we have been told that he was a member of the Planning Board in a previous administration.
The answer as to why he didn't present them is obvious once you look at the petitions. The dates of the petitions are...November 28, 2011; November 17, 2011; November 19, 2011; and November 22, 2011...all AFTER the November 16, 2011 town board meeting. That being the case, it is safe to say the town attorney was not in possession of the petitions when he introduced Larry Adler's request to the town board.
But that still doesn't answer the question as to why he allowed Adler's request to proceed. Town Code is very clear...the property owners of 50% of acreage in the zone have to bring a petition to be filed in the town clerk's office before it can be brought to the table for town board discussion. Why, then, did the town attorney bring the request to the November 16, 2011 town board meeting in the first place when he clearly was not in possession of the signed petitions and he must have known that the petitions have to be filed with the town clerk to be valid?
When we questioned the town clerk as to where the process stood as of today, she said that a legal notice for a December 21, 2011 Public Hearing was sent to the Observer Dispatch today for publication.
We then questioned how a public hearing could be held without the timely filing of a petition and without a Planning Board meeting as prescribed by Town Code. All she said that she was "told" to move it along...we understood her to mean that the town attorney had told her to publish the legal notice regardless of whether proper procedures were being followed.
So we pointed out to the town clerk that § 118-87-A of the Town Code specifically says:
The town clerk just shrugged her shoulders and said she had been told to move on the Public Hearing. However, she indicated that she was going to confer with the town attorney after we left.
Here's the part we find interesting, Town Code § 118-87 B says:
Let's count...the resolution by the town board was adopted and referred to the Planning Board on November 16, 2011...December has 31 days so that would mean that January 1st is about 45 days from the November adoption of the resolution to refer the request to the Planning Board. So what happens when the required Public Hearing is held, but no Planning Board meeting is scheduled until AFTER the 45 days passes...does it constitute a failure of the Planning Board to report and thus the zone text amendment automatically takes place. Hmmm...was this part of the plan all along?
But, that's not the only problems we have with this request...
Three (3) of the petitions we received were notarized by Thomas J. Valenti. Mr. Valenti just happens to be a principal of Cameron Group, LLC, the parent company of New Hartford Office Group LLC, the owner of record for the business park property.
According to the NYS Dept. of State, a notary is disqualified if:
So basically, no petitions were filed with the town clerk prior to the request being brought before the town board as required by Town Code; Mr. Adler does not own 50% of the acreage and needs petitions signed by other owners; currently, there are no valid petitions on file in the town clerk's office; and there will be no Planning Board Meeting until after January 1, 2012.
Yet, according to the town clerk, the notice of the December 21, 2011 Public Hearing was sent to the Observer Dispatch today for publication because she was told to "put it through anyway."
Why?
At that time, we were awaiting a decision from the town attorney as to whether or not proper procedure had been followed regarding zoning amendments in the Town of New Hartford; in particular a request made by Mr. Larry Adler to change the zone text in the Planned Development Park District [PDPD].
We hadn't received anything further from the town clerk so we decided to makes some stops this afternoon to get an update on the zone amendment request.
First stop, the assessor's office where we learned that Mr. Adler does not own 50% of the land in the PDPD zone. Guess that settles it...regardless of whether the town wants to "bend" the rules and call his letter the same as a petition; without the signatures of 50% or more property owners, Mr. Adler's request cannot go forward; town code is very clear in this respect.
The assessor also stated that some property owners in Whitestown were close enough to the zone so that they [along with the Whitestown Town Clerk] would have to be notified by mail of the Public Hearing on the zone text amendment request.
The assessor seemed to believe that Mr. Adler had indeed filed a petition with the town clerk, so our next stop was in the Town Clerk's office to once again inquire as to whether or not petitions had been filed.
Sure enough, she had just received signed petitions from 3 other property owners along with one from Larry Adler. Interestingly enough, the petitions were FAXed to the town clerk from Attorney Cully's office on December 7, 2011.
That brings up a question...if Attorney Cully had them, why didn't he present them to the town board at the November 16, 2011 town board meeting in compliance with Town Code? Certainly Attorney Cully is familiar with Town Code; we have been told that he was a member of the Planning Board in a previous administration.
The answer as to why he didn't present them is obvious once you look at the petitions. The dates of the petitions are...November 28, 2011; November 17, 2011; November 19, 2011; and November 22, 2011...all AFTER the November 16, 2011 town board meeting. That being the case, it is safe to say the town attorney was not in possession of the petitions when he introduced Larry Adler's request to the town board.
But that still doesn't answer the question as to why he allowed Adler's request to proceed. Town Code is very clear...the property owners of 50% of acreage in the zone have to bring a petition to be filed in the town clerk's office before it can be brought to the table for town board discussion. Why, then, did the town attorney bring the request to the November 16, 2011 town board meeting in the first place when he clearly was not in possession of the signed petitions and he must have known that the petitions have to be filed with the town clerk to be valid?
When we questioned the town clerk as to where the process stood as of today, she said that a legal notice for a December 21, 2011 Public Hearing was sent to the Observer Dispatch today for publication.
We then questioned how a public hearing could be held without the timely filing of a petition and without a Planning Board meeting as prescribed by Town Code. All she said that she was "told" to move it along...we understood her to mean that the town attorney had told her to publish the legal notice regardless of whether proper procedures were being followed.
So we pointed out to the town clerk that § 118-87-A of the Town Code specifically says:
Report of Planning Board.So how can there be a Public Hearing before the report is received back from the Planning Board? There is very specific criteria in town code as to the role of the Planning Board and the inquiries they are tasked to make prior to their final recommendation to the town board. Don't the people who will potentially be affected by this change have a right to view the decision making process of the Planning Board and the answers to the questions that are delineated in Town Code as needing to be answered as part of their decision making process?
All proposed amendments, supplements or changes originating by petition or by motion of the Town Board shall be referred to the Planning Board for a report and recommendation thereon.
The town clerk just shrugged her shoulders and said she had been told to move on the Public Hearing. However, she indicated that she was going to confer with the town attorney after we left.
Here's the part we find interesting, Town Code § 118-87 B says:
The Planning Board shall submit its report within 45 days after receiving such referral. Failure of the Planning Board to report within the required time shall be deemed to be a recommendation of approval of the proposed amendment.But, according to the secretary in the Planning Office, there is no Planning Board meeting scheduled until January...the town clerk's office even called the Planning secretary while we were there so we could be certain that no meeting was to be scheduled.
Let's count...the resolution by the town board was adopted and referred to the Planning Board on November 16, 2011...December has 31 days so that would mean that January 1st is about 45 days from the November adoption of the resolution to refer the request to the Planning Board. So what happens when the required Public Hearing is held, but no Planning Board meeting is scheduled until AFTER the 45 days passes...does it constitute a failure of the Planning Board to report and thus the zone text amendment automatically takes place. Hmmm...was this part of the plan all along?
But, that's not the only problems we have with this request...
Three (3) of the petitions we received were notarized by Thomas J. Valenti. Mr. Valenti just happens to be a principal of Cameron Group, LLC, the parent company of New Hartford Office Group LLC, the owner of record for the business park property.
According to the NYS Dept. of State, a notary is disqualified if:
Though a person may be eligible to hold the office of notary the person may be disqualified to act in certain cases by reason of having an interest in the case. To state the rule broadly: if the notary is a party to or directly and pecuniarily interested in the transaction, the person is not capable of acting in that case.Mr. Valenti, as principal owner of Cameron Group, LLC clearly has a pecuniary interest in the zoning text change. Therefore, three (3) of the four (4) petitions that were notarized by Mr. Valenti [Ronald Wargo, member Woods 840, LLC; Michael Paladino; and Larry Adler] would appear to be null and void.
In New York the courts have held an acknowledgment taken by a person financially or beneficially interested in a party to conveyance or instrument of which it is a part to be a nullity;
So basically, no petitions were filed with the town clerk prior to the request being brought before the town board as required by Town Code; Mr. Adler does not own 50% of the acreage and needs petitions signed by other owners; currently, there are no valid petitions on file in the town clerk's office; and there will be no Planning Board Meeting until after January 1, 2012.
Yet, according to the town clerk, the notice of the December 21, 2011 Public Hearing was sent to the Observer Dispatch today for publication because she was told to "put it through anyway."
Why?
Thursday, December 8, 2011
IRS Form 990 and the New Hartford Public Library...
What is a 990?
The absolute deadline to file the 990, if extensions are asked for and granted, is November 15th. Since November 15th had come and gone, Library Trustee Edmund J. Wiatr, Jr. was concerned that the document had not yet been presented to the library board of directors either electronically as an email attachment, or a paper copy at a library board meeting so he FOILed a copy of the 2010 IRS 990.
After asking again at the November 29th library trustee meeting, Mr. Wiatr was told that a copy was placed in his mailbox at the library.
After the meeting, Mr. Wiatr stopped by the library office to retrieve the copy of the 990 and noticed that the 2010 Form 990 was actually dated November 8, 2011 listing Dan Dreimiller, CPA as the preparer.
It should be noted that on page 6 of the IRS 990, question 11a asks...Has the organization provided a copy of this Form 990 to all members of its governing body before filing the form? The answer that Mr. Dreimiller provided to the IRS is YES.
Also, on page 22 of the 990, there is supplemental information typed in that states:
There are several questionable items reported not only in the most recently filed Form 990 for the year 2010, but also the 990s of previous years which is one of the reasons why Trustee Wiatr has repeatedly asked for certain financial information that has yet to be given to him. At one point, he was told that most of the items he wants are stored in boxes at Ms. Du Ross' home and it would be difficult and timely to get the items he was requesting. We can't help but wonder...just why are library documents being stored at a trustee's home?
In reviewing the 990s, one thing we find puzzling is the reported salary for the Library Director. According to the 2008 form, his salary was $41,492; in 2009, it was reported as $46,600 and now in 2010 his salary is reported as $36,470.
Each year, according to the 990, he was being paid for 40 hours a week. Additionally, according to documents provided to Mr. Wiatr by the Treasurer, the Library Director is scheduled to be paid $48,000 in 2012. [see chart below]
In fact, according to that same handwritten document, it was noted that the Library Director was paid a salary of $43,965 in 2007...over $2,000 more than was reported in the 2008 Form 990. So, did he take a cut in salary in 2008 too?
Does this make sense? We have to ask several more questions...
Why the discrepancy in the Library Director's 2008 salary between what was reported to the IRS by Mr. Dreimiller and what was reported to the library board?
What about 2010...did the Library Director take a $10,000+ decrease in salary from the previous year?
We don't have salary information for 2011, but according to the Treasurer there are no raises scheduled for 2012 so it would have to be assumed that his salary for 2011 is the $48,000 listed by the Treasurer as the Library Director's salary for 2012. Why did his salary increase almost $12,000 in 2011 especially since some members of the board are crying that there is a lack of funds available to operate the library, thus necessitating the closing of the library on Wednesdays?
Is there any wonder why Trustee Wiatr has been asking for financial documents?
All public libraries are required to conform to the Open Meetings Law and the Freedom of Information Law. However, why does Mr. Wiatr, a trustee, even have to resort to FOILing them in the first place; clearly as a trustee it is his right and his obligation to review the financial records of the library.
To be continued...
Even though tax-exempt nonprofits do not pay federal taxes, they do have to file an information form with the IRS.The New Hartford Public Library is required to file a 990 each year. For the last few years, the report has been prepared by Dan Dreimiller, a former library trustee and the current Town of New Hartford Finance Officer, an appointment of Supervisor Tyksinski.
IRS Form 990 is the tax document that tax-exempt nonprofit organizations file each year with the IRS. The 990 allows the IRS and the public to evaluate nonprofits and how they operate.
The absolute deadline to file the 990, if extensions are asked for and granted, is November 15th. Since November 15th had come and gone, Library Trustee Edmund J. Wiatr, Jr. was concerned that the document had not yet been presented to the library board of directors either electronically as an email attachment, or a paper copy at a library board meeting so he FOILed a copy of the 2010 IRS 990.
After asking again at the November 29th library trustee meeting, Mr. Wiatr was told that a copy was placed in his mailbox at the library.
After the meeting, Mr. Wiatr stopped by the library office to retrieve the copy of the 990 and noticed that the 2010 Form 990 was actually dated November 8, 2011 listing Dan Dreimiller, CPA as the preparer.
It should be noted that on page 6 of the IRS 990, question 11a asks...Has the organization provided a copy of this Form 990 to all members of its governing body before filing the form? The answer that Mr. Dreimiller provided to the IRS is YES.
Also, on page 22 of the 990, there is supplemental information typed in that states:
PT. VI-B, Line 11a FORM 990 is reviewed by the Board of Directors prior to filing. This review process has not changed from prior years.At least the second sentence is right, the review process hasn't changed from prior years as far as we can determine. At least since we have been videotaping their meetings, the Form 990 has never been reviewed by the board of trustees prior to filing and this year was no exception.
There are several questionable items reported not only in the most recently filed Form 990 for the year 2010, but also the 990s of previous years which is one of the reasons why Trustee Wiatr has repeatedly asked for certain financial information that has yet to be given to him. At one point, he was told that most of the items he wants are stored in boxes at Ms. Du Ross' home and it would be difficult and timely to get the items he was requesting. We can't help but wonder...just why are library documents being stored at a trustee's home?
In reviewing the 990s, one thing we find puzzling is the reported salary for the Library Director. According to the 2008 form, his salary was $41,492; in 2009, it was reported as $46,600 and now in 2010 his salary is reported as $36,470.
Each year, according to the 990, he was being paid for 40 hours a week. Additionally, according to documents provided to Mr. Wiatr by the Treasurer, the Library Director is scheduled to be paid $48,000 in 2012. [see chart below]
In fact, according to that same handwritten document, it was noted that the Library Director was paid a salary of $43,965 in 2007...over $2,000 more than was reported in the 2008 Form 990. So, did he take a cut in salary in 2008 too?
Does this make sense? We have to ask several more questions...
Why the discrepancy in the Library Director's 2008 salary between what was reported to the IRS by Mr. Dreimiller and what was reported to the library board?
What about 2010...did the Library Director take a $10,000+ decrease in salary from the previous year?
We don't have salary information for 2011, but according to the Treasurer there are no raises scheduled for 2012 so it would have to be assumed that his salary for 2011 is the $48,000 listed by the Treasurer as the Library Director's salary for 2012. Why did his salary increase almost $12,000 in 2011 especially since some members of the board are crying that there is a lack of funds available to operate the library, thus necessitating the closing of the library on Wednesdays?
Is there any wonder why Trustee Wiatr has been asking for financial documents?
All public libraries are required to conform to the Open Meetings Law and the Freedom of Information Law. However, why does Mr. Wiatr, a trustee, even have to resort to FOILing them in the first place; clearly as a trustee it is his right and his obligation to review the financial records of the library.
To be continued...
Sunday, December 4, 2011
The year is 1947...
...A Public Hearing is held on the possibility of zoning the Town of New Hartford. Not all are in agreement...
In our research, we ran across this news article and thought it might be fun to post.
Thursday, September 11, 1947
Zoning Plan Strongly Opposed
A lively public hearing on the matter of zoning the Town of New Hartford ended last night in no formal expression of opinion although the majority of the 55 present were opposed to the project. Another meeting will be called by the Town Planning Committee and then the matter will be submitted to the Town Board for final decision, it was announced.
"This is a free country and I should like to keep it that way. I think zoning is unnecessary.” Thus Dr. Herbert N. Squier, Third Ave., voiced the majority opinion of those in the Highway Building, Washington Mills.
“New Hartford is a free and very lovely township. None in our residential areas would sell property to anyone wanting to start a honky-tonk or beer joint. We are protected by a natural pride in our community”. Dr. Squier added “We are not going to be free with a lot of zoning restrictions established.”
ELMER ROBERTS, Tilden Ave., asked, “Who started this business? This is a free country. Let’s keep it that way. If we have zoning and a board of appeals, we will have just one political mess after another.”
“Zoning”, he continued, “becomes a political football. It is accompanied by higher taxes. Many people have moved from Utica to New Hartford to escape these high taxes. Most residential developments already are restricted. Let’s leave the rest of the people alone.”
Roberts suggested the estimated costs of administering the proposed zoning program be presented at the next meeting. W. D. Morgan, serving as chairman of the Planning Committee, repeated several times that the proposed zoning plan is still open to changes. He said: “This is not our baby. The committee has been appointed to investigate the proposition. We are here to obtain a cross-section of your opinions. It may well be that the proposed map will be changed as a result of factors that have been brought out here tonight. By law, there must be another meeting on this matter. The final decision rests with the Town Board.”
FREDERICK H. BAIRD, senior planning technician, State Department of Commerce, pointed out ''Zoning cannot change the present physical features of your property over night. Zoning will provide that the better qualities are retained. But there is no way a use which is already established can be thrown out.
Stephen Bogner, 1126 Pleasant, asked, “What affect will zoning have on the assessment of our property? Is there a possibility that zoning will result in higher assessment? We are o.k. as we are now.”
P. D. McCormack, surprised many when he said, "I maintain winter quarters for lions, tigers, elephants and other animals on Third Ave., just above Sedgwick Park. We have never had trouble. Your zoning plan would classify us as residential.' Then we would have trouble. Zoning means gravy for somebody, — the architects, the lawyers, or somebody."
AMONG THOSE who spoke were: A. J. Scully, third Ave; W. Elmer Bedford, Chadwicks: a representative of Dr. H.F. McDonald, Burrstone Rd. and Champlain Ave; Frank Dingle, Park Blvd.; Henry Brown, Utica; Walter J. Brown, Seneca Turnpike; John Moyer, Chadwicks; and W. S. Garrett, Higby Rd. and Valley View; J. J. Scatko, New Hartford; and Theodore Burek, Utica.
Chester Roberts, Valley View Rd., and several residents of Sedgewick Park spoke in favor of zoning, especially in their area. Mark Barlow, Washington Mills, pointed out that for a small fee property owners could have restrictions written into their deeds regardless of zoning.
Serving with Morgan, a lawyer on the Planning Committee, are Nicholas Kauf, a farmer; Wendell Sawyer, an industrial engineer; Irving Wood, a chemical engineer; and William Downs, a merchant.
In our research, we ran across this news article and thought it might be fun to post.
Thursday, September 11, 1947
Zoning Plan Strongly Opposed
A lively public hearing on the matter of zoning the Town of New Hartford ended last night in no formal expression of opinion although the majority of the 55 present were opposed to the project. Another meeting will be called by the Town Planning Committee and then the matter will be submitted to the Town Board for final decision, it was announced.
"This is a free country and I should like to keep it that way. I think zoning is unnecessary.” Thus Dr. Herbert N. Squier, Third Ave., voiced the majority opinion of those in the Highway Building, Washington Mills.
“New Hartford is a free and very lovely township. None in our residential areas would sell property to anyone wanting to start a honky-tonk or beer joint. We are protected by a natural pride in our community”. Dr. Squier added “We are not going to be free with a lot of zoning restrictions established.”
ELMER ROBERTS, Tilden Ave., asked, “Who started this business? This is a free country. Let’s keep it that way. If we have zoning and a board of appeals, we will have just one political mess after another.”
“Zoning”, he continued, “becomes a political football. It is accompanied by higher taxes. Many people have moved from Utica to New Hartford to escape these high taxes. Most residential developments already are restricted. Let’s leave the rest of the people alone.”
Roberts suggested the estimated costs of administering the proposed zoning program be presented at the next meeting. W. D. Morgan, serving as chairman of the Planning Committee, repeated several times that the proposed zoning plan is still open to changes. He said: “This is not our baby. The committee has been appointed to investigate the proposition. We are here to obtain a cross-section of your opinions. It may well be that the proposed map will be changed as a result of factors that have been brought out here tonight. By law, there must be another meeting on this matter. The final decision rests with the Town Board.”
FREDERICK H. BAIRD, senior planning technician, State Department of Commerce, pointed out ''Zoning cannot change the present physical features of your property over night. Zoning will provide that the better qualities are retained. But there is no way a use which is already established can be thrown out.
Stephen Bogner, 1126 Pleasant, asked, “What affect will zoning have on the assessment of our property? Is there a possibility that zoning will result in higher assessment? We are o.k. as we are now.”
P. D. McCormack, surprised many when he said, "I maintain winter quarters for lions, tigers, elephants and other animals on Third Ave., just above Sedgwick Park. We have never had trouble. Your zoning plan would classify us as residential.' Then we would have trouble. Zoning means gravy for somebody, — the architects, the lawyers, or somebody."
AMONG THOSE who spoke were: A. J. Scully, third Ave; W. Elmer Bedford, Chadwicks: a representative of Dr. H.F. McDonald, Burrstone Rd. and Champlain Ave; Frank Dingle, Park Blvd.; Henry Brown, Utica; Walter J. Brown, Seneca Turnpike; John Moyer, Chadwicks; and W. S. Garrett, Higby Rd. and Valley View; J. J. Scatko, New Hartford; and Theodore Burek, Utica.
Chester Roberts, Valley View Rd., and several residents of Sedgewick Park spoke in favor of zoning, especially in their area. Mark Barlow, Washington Mills, pointed out that for a small fee property owners could have restrictions written into their deeds regardless of zoning.
Serving with Morgan, a lawyer on the Planning Committee, are Nicholas Kauf, a farmer; Wendell Sawyer, an industrial engineer; Irving Wood, a chemical engineer; and William Downs, a merchant.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
The town attorney will be consulted...
that's what we were told would happen, if the town clerk felt it was necessary.
A few days ago we blogged about the zone text amendment request made by Mr. Adler and received by the town clerk's office at 12:49 p.m., just hours before the 7:00 p.m. town board meeting scheduled for November 16, 2011.
We noted in our blog that a couple of days after the town board meeting we visited the town clerk's office and asked for a copy of the petition submitted by Mr. Adler...according to the town clerk there was none on file. There were only some papers requesting the change in the zone text in the Planned Development Park District [PDPD].
Today, more than two weeks after the zone text amendment request was brought before the New Hartford Town Board, we called the Town Clerk to again ask for a copy of the petition that was presented on behalf of New Hartford Group, LLC. The Town Clerk once again said all she has on file is a letter; a letter that is merely signed "Larry Adler" on what appears to be Cameron Group, LLC letterhead.
The town clerk said she did not believe that a petition was necessary for a zone text amendment; she believed it was only necessary for a zone map amendment. She then asked what section of Town Code we were referring to so she could look at the code herself. She further stated that after reviewing the Town Code if she found it necessary, she would ask for an opinion from the town attorney as to whether or not the code referred only to a zone map amendment and did not apply to a zone text amendment which is what Mr. Adler had requested.
Let's take a look at Chapter 118 of New Hartford Town Code titled "Zoning".
Chapter 18, Article XIV - Amendments; § 118-85. Statutory authorization states:
The next section of Article XIV, § 118-86 states there are only three (3) ways that a zoning amendment can be initiated:
We have numerous concerns regarding the process being used by town officials as it pertains to Mr. Adler's request...
First, there is a specific process for initiating zoning amendments...that's why a law was adopted...to outline the process so that everyone would be treated in a 'fair and like' manner. A letter does not constitute a petition, at least that's what we've been told when we have had occasion to file petitions. We have been told that we had to follow strict rules in order for the petition to be recognized as legitimate.
Secondly, Mr. Adler didn't sign his "letter" as a duly appointed representative of New Hartford Office Group, LLC or as the principal owner of acreage in the zone where he is requesting the text to be changed...he just signed it Larry Adler.
According to the town assessment database, neither Mr. Adler nor Cameron Group, LLC [the letterhead used by Mr. Adler to submit his request to the town clerk] are the owner(s) of any of the business park acreage. As a matter of fact, according to the town assessment database, neither Mr. Adler as an individual nor Cameron Group, LLC are listed as owners of ANY property in New Hartford. New Hartford Office Group, LLC is listed as the owner of part of the business park and Cameron Housing, LLC, apparently another subsidiary of Cameron Group,LLC. owns property near Sitrin.
Additionally, the map of the PDPD zone we were provided by the town is outdated; the town actually owns some of the land for the roads servicing the business park; and the property that The Hartford building is situated on is not owned by Mr. Adler or New Hartford Office Group, LLC.
Third, the town attorney is already on video acknowledging that he would have to confer with the town assessor to confirm that Mr. Adler owns at least 50% of the acreage in the zone. So if this section of the Town Code doesn't apply to zone text amendments, what part of the town code is Attorney Cully relying on when he states that he and the assessor would have to determine whether or not Mr. Adler owns at least 50% of the acreage in the zone that is to be amended?
Is there another section of the town code that applies or are we to believe that the New Hartford Town Code is meant to be applied "buffet-style"...pick and choose the section of code that best suits the individual applicant's "wants and needs"?
Without a petition duly signed and acknowledged from 50% of the owners of the acreage, we would like to know how the Hell this ever got to the town board table in the first place and what basis was used by the Town Supervisor and Town Attorney to ask the town board to approve sending this request on to the New Hartford Planning Board and the Oneida County Planning Board; one of the first steps in the process for the approval and adoption of a local law for a zone text amendment; of course, that would be right after a "duly signed petition" is filed in the town clerk's office along with the applicable fee...we still don't know if the fee has been received from Mr. Adler.
But we will wait for an opinion from the town attorney...this should be interesting to say the least.
A few days ago we blogged about the zone text amendment request made by Mr. Adler and received by the town clerk's office at 12:49 p.m., just hours before the 7:00 p.m. town board meeting scheduled for November 16, 2011.
We noted in our blog that a couple of days after the town board meeting we visited the town clerk's office and asked for a copy of the petition submitted by Mr. Adler...according to the town clerk there was none on file. There were only some papers requesting the change in the zone text in the Planned Development Park District [PDPD].
Today, more than two weeks after the zone text amendment request was brought before the New Hartford Town Board, we called the Town Clerk to again ask for a copy of the petition that was presented on behalf of New Hartford Group, LLC. The Town Clerk once again said all she has on file is a letter; a letter that is merely signed "Larry Adler" on what appears to be Cameron Group, LLC letterhead.
The town clerk said she did not believe that a petition was necessary for a zone text amendment; she believed it was only necessary for a zone map amendment. She then asked what section of Town Code we were referring to so she could look at the code herself. She further stated that after reviewing the Town Code if she found it necessary, she would ask for an opinion from the town attorney as to whether or not the code referred only to a zone map amendment and did not apply to a zone text amendment which is what Mr. Adler had requested.
Let's take a look at Chapter 118 of New Hartford Town Code titled "Zoning".
Chapter 18, Article XIV - Amendments; § 118-85. Statutory authorization states:
This chapter or any part thereof, including the Zoning Map [emphasis added by this blogger], indicating the various district boundaries, may from time to time be amended, supplemented, changed, modified or repealed by the Town Board in the manner provided by § § 264 and 265 of the Town Law.Sounds pretty straight forward to us. The operative words in this section of the Town Code are..."this chapter or any part thereof...including the Zoning Map...may be amended, supplemented, changed, modified or repealed by the Town Board." It doesn't say the code is referring only to zone map amendments...in fact by the very wording "including the Zoning Map" one would be led to believe that zone map changes are only part of the equation.
The next section of Article XIV, § 118-86 states there are only three (3) ways that a zoning amendment can be initiated:
A. By the Town Board upon its own motion.We know for sure that A & B didn't happen so in order for the process to begin someone must have been relying on C...so why is the town unable to provide us a copy of a "duly signed petition"?
B. By resolution of the Planning Board, filed with the Town Clerk, wherein certain changes to or repeal of specific provisions of this chapter are recommended, in which case, it shall be the duty of the Town Board to act on such proposed amendment within 90 days of the time such resolution is filed by the Planning Board with the Town Clerk.
C. By petition duly signed and acknowledged from the owners of 50% or more of the acreage in any district or part thereof requesting an amendment, supplement or change in the regulations prescribed for such district or part thereof, in which case, it shall be the duty of the Town Board to act upon such petition for amendment within 90 days of the time such petition is filed by the petitioners with the Town Clerk. Said petition shall be accompanied by the applicable fee in accordance with the fee schedule established and annually reviewed by the Town Board.
We have numerous concerns regarding the process being used by town officials as it pertains to Mr. Adler's request...
First, there is a specific process for initiating zoning amendments...that's why a law was adopted...to outline the process so that everyone would be treated in a 'fair and like' manner. A letter does not constitute a petition, at least that's what we've been told when we have had occasion to file petitions. We have been told that we had to follow strict rules in order for the petition to be recognized as legitimate.
Secondly, Mr. Adler didn't sign his "letter" as a duly appointed representative of New Hartford Office Group, LLC or as the principal owner of acreage in the zone where he is requesting the text to be changed...he just signed it Larry Adler.
According to the town assessment database, neither Mr. Adler nor Cameron Group, LLC [the letterhead used by Mr. Adler to submit his request to the town clerk] are the owner(s) of any of the business park acreage. As a matter of fact, according to the town assessment database, neither Mr. Adler as an individual nor Cameron Group, LLC are listed as owners of ANY property in New Hartford. New Hartford Office Group, LLC is listed as the owner of part of the business park and Cameron Housing, LLC, apparently another subsidiary of Cameron Group,LLC. owns property near Sitrin.
Additionally, the map of the PDPD zone we were provided by the town is outdated; the town actually owns some of the land for the roads servicing the business park; and the property that The Hartford building is situated on is not owned by Mr. Adler or New Hartford Office Group, LLC.
Third, the town attorney is already on video acknowledging that he would have to confer with the town assessor to confirm that Mr. Adler owns at least 50% of the acreage in the zone. So if this section of the Town Code doesn't apply to zone text amendments, what part of the town code is Attorney Cully relying on when he states that he and the assessor would have to determine whether or not Mr. Adler owns at least 50% of the acreage in the zone that is to be amended?
Is there another section of the town code that applies or are we to believe that the New Hartford Town Code is meant to be applied "buffet-style"...pick and choose the section of code that best suits the individual applicant's "wants and needs"?
Without a petition duly signed and acknowledged from 50% of the owners of the acreage, we would like to know how the Hell this ever got to the town board table in the first place and what basis was used by the Town Supervisor and Town Attorney to ask the town board to approve sending this request on to the New Hartford Planning Board and the Oneida County Planning Board; one of the first steps in the process for the approval and adoption of a local law for a zone text amendment; of course, that would be right after a "duly signed petition" is filed in the town clerk's office along with the applicable fee...we still don't know if the fee has been received from Mr. Adler.
But we will wait for an opinion from the town attorney...this should be interesting to say the least.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Funny you should say that, Mary...
At the November 29, 2011 Library Board of Trustees meeting, Trustee, Edmund J. Wiatr, Jr. pointed out that the trustees need to be mindful of the 2% tax cap as it does apply to libraries.
Trustee Mary DuRoss interrupted and said that she was told that the libraries no longer were held to the 2% tax cap and another trustee agreed with Ms. DuRoss. Trustee Wiatr then asked to see the documentation that Ms. DuRoss was relying on and he was told to get the information for himself.
Here is Ms. DuRoss in her own words [about a minute and a half runtime]:
Well...as luck would have it, we received an email just yesterday from the Empire Center for New York State Policy and it contained a link to "New York State's Property Tax Cap: A Citizen's Guide".
According to that guide:
Incidentally, this article is dated November 30, 2011, the day AFTER the Library Board of Trustees meeting, so one would have to suspect that the library trustees can believe it to be current and in effect. Looks like Mary's sources were incorrect. Perhaps trustees should be more careful before they speak rather than to just speak out against things they don't want to hear and board members they would rather not hear from!
What does the tax cap mean to the library? It will force them to make a tough decision. Do they low-ball their first budget request so that taxpayers will pass their referendum? Might not be the prudent thing to do knowing that they are forced to a 2% tax cap in future budgets. They would need a simple majority vote of the trustees to override the tax cap. The publicity from an override vote of the board, depending on how much the library tax would increase, might make voters reject future budgets and then by law they would be forced to adhere to that first budget that they low-balled.
OR...
do they ask for what they REALLY think they need hoping that voters agree that the library is worth spending their tax dollars on? This year's budget is set for $596,200..... and that budget appears to be a deficit budget if you look at where they think they can get revenue. More on this soon.
Keep in mind, this is not the budget that they will be presenting to the taxpayers in May 2012, they have yet to present that budget to the Library Trustees or the public; however, they have said that the budget that is presented for the taxpayers to vote on will include sufficient monies so that they can be open on Wednesdays, a day that they are now closed.
Decisions, decisions, decisions...but ignoring the facts or "tuning out" some of their trustees is not the way to go.
By the way, Trustee Wiatr, a member of the Library Finance Committee was given a handwritten note from Library Trustee and Treasurer Earl Cunningham on November 23, 2011. According to Cunningham [and this is a direct quote]:
Who is keeping an eye on the financial status of the library if the Finance Committee never meets...who sees to it that your tax dollars are being wisely spent. Is the Finance Committee meeting behind closed doors in defiance of the Open Meetings Law...doors that are even closed to their own Library Trustee who is a member of that committee? As taxpayers, this is upsetting to say the least.
In May 2012, this library will be asking taxpayers of the New Hartford Central School District to vote on re-chartering to become a school district library; to vote on the trustees who will be making future decisions regarding the library; and to vote on the budget that your 2012-2013 school library taxes will be based on and yet their books are closed even to a member of their board who asks questions that ALL board members should be asking.
We will have more on the vote to re-charter soon. However, at that meeting one of the trustees asked Mr. Wiatr...Are you going to sabotage the efforts of this board to re-charter? From where we sit, Mr. Wiatr doesn't need to sabotage their efforts...they are doing a fine job all by themselves!
Trustee Mary DuRoss interrupted and said that she was told that the libraries no longer were held to the 2% tax cap and another trustee agreed with Ms. DuRoss. Trustee Wiatr then asked to see the documentation that Ms. DuRoss was relying on and he was told to get the information for himself.
Here is Ms. DuRoss in her own words [about a minute and a half runtime]:
Well...as luck would have it, we received an email just yesterday from the Empire Center for New York State Policy and it contained a link to "New York State's Property Tax Cap: A Citizen's Guide".
According to that guide:
The cap applies to all counties, cities, towns and villages outside New York City, and to all fiscally independent school districts. It also applies to the property tax levies of special districts established to finance fire departments, libraries [emphasis added], sewer and water systems and other purposes.While the tax cap does not apply to the library now because it is part of the town's budget and the tax cap is the town's responsibility, it would apply to them if they become a school district library.
Incidentally, this article is dated November 30, 2011, the day AFTER the Library Board of Trustees meeting, so one would have to suspect that the library trustees can believe it to be current and in effect. Looks like Mary's sources were incorrect. Perhaps trustees should be more careful before they speak rather than to just speak out against things they don't want to hear and board members they would rather not hear from!
What does the tax cap mean to the library? It will force them to make a tough decision. Do they low-ball their first budget request so that taxpayers will pass their referendum? Might not be the prudent thing to do knowing that they are forced to a 2% tax cap in future budgets. They would need a simple majority vote of the trustees to override the tax cap. The publicity from an override vote of the board, depending on how much the library tax would increase, might make voters reject future budgets and then by law they would be forced to adhere to that first budget that they low-balled.
OR...
do they ask for what they REALLY think they need hoping that voters agree that the library is worth spending their tax dollars on? This year's budget is set for $596,200..... and that budget appears to be a deficit budget if you look at where they think they can get revenue. More on this soon.
Keep in mind, this is not the budget that they will be presenting to the taxpayers in May 2012, they have yet to present that budget to the Library Trustees or the public; however, they have said that the budget that is presented for the taxpayers to vote on will include sufficient monies so that they can be open on Wednesdays, a day that they are now closed.
Decisions, decisions, decisions...but ignoring the facts or "tuning out" some of their trustees is not the way to go.
By the way, Trustee Wiatr, a member of the Library Finance Committee was given a handwritten note from Library Trustee and Treasurer Earl Cunningham on November 23, 2011. According to Cunningham [and this is a direct quote]:
"Ed,Actually, since Mr. Wiatr was named to the Finance Committee over a year ago, he has never been invited to a meeting of that committee. In fact, Mr. Wiatr has repeatedly asked for financial information and has even resorted to FOILing the information, but little is forthcoming. Ms. Romano at the end of the above video says that there is absolutely no issue with giving Trustee Wiatr the information he asks for? Really?
Hans Plambeck and I have prepared the proposed budget for 2012. Enclosed is a copy for your advance review--I plan on giving it to the Library Board at our next meeting.
I do not intend to have a Finance Committee meeting since you are the only other member of the committee and I assume that you will not be in favor of this proposed budget and will want to submit your own proposed budget."
Who is keeping an eye on the financial status of the library if the Finance Committee never meets...who sees to it that your tax dollars are being wisely spent. Is the Finance Committee meeting behind closed doors in defiance of the Open Meetings Law...doors that are even closed to their own Library Trustee who is a member of that committee? As taxpayers, this is upsetting to say the least.
In May 2012, this library will be asking taxpayers of the New Hartford Central School District to vote on re-chartering to become a school district library; to vote on the trustees who will be making future decisions regarding the library; and to vote on the budget that your 2012-2013 school library taxes will be based on and yet their books are closed even to a member of their board who asks questions that ALL board members should be asking.
We will have more on the vote to re-charter soon. However, at that meeting one of the trustees asked Mr. Wiatr...Are you going to sabotage the efforts of this board to re-charter? From where we sit, Mr. Wiatr doesn't need to sabotage their efforts...they are doing a fine job all by themselves!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
