Guy Thomas Kempe
At the request of Kt and Steve Greenfield, I have reviewed the following documents available to the public on the VoNP website:
• Year 2011 Revenues with DPW grouped, 12-20-2012
• Summary of 2011 Actual Expenditure Village/Town
• Village Town Water and Sewer Rate Anysis (Based on 2012 Rates)
• Town and Village Tax Rates Base on 2011 Actuals and 2012 Taxable Value
• Tax Rates for Town and Village [Note: Village represents approximately 25.6% of Town Taxable Value]
• Attachment 3 A-2009 New Paltz Police Cals by Zone
• Police Zone Activity-October 2012
• Space Needs for a Merged Government
• Town and Village Space Report
• Report of Town /Village Fiscal Consolidation Committee to the Joint Boards and Community
• Tax Rates if Consolidated (Rev 1/8/13)
• Tax Rate Comparisons (Sumarized) With Recommended Police Benefit District Included
In addition, I reviewed Part G. Work Program - Project Description; Goals & Objectives; Project Area; Background & History, and; Component Tasks – from the High Priority Planning Grant Application for Efficient & Effective Government which funds the study of potential municipal merger.
Based upon these documents, I see cases where the assumptions they made are totally off base. For example, the cost of administering a single payroll [A1430.1] will not decrease in any significant way, as payroll costs are based upon a fixed escalator based upon the number of employees. As suggestion that a handful of staff reductions (mostly electeds) will result in the proposed savings of almost 60K are a distortion.
On the matter of professional services, while the village and town do spend some money on legal expenses [A1420.4] related to each other, the estimate that these services cost almost 84% of the legal services they currently use is an exaggeration. Present engineering services required in each municipality will remain the same.
As Michael Russo pointed out, any one-time-only reduction seen in the 2011 budget from reductions [A3120.1&2&3] in force due to retirements etc, has nothing to do with proposed future savings of $300,000.
In 2011, combined expenditures for the Town and Village in the areas of Central Communication [A1650.4] Central Printing [A1670.4] and Data Processing [A.1680.4] amount to $145,011. There is no explanation how consolidating these expenses to Data Processing [A.1680.4] will result in costs of only $70,000.
As I recall, the town and village shared a contract with NYCOM for a repeater [A3989.4] and eliminating this duplication will plausibly result in a savings of $2000 per year.
The assumption that there will be reduced insurance costs because there are fewer municipal buildings [A1910.4] resulting in $10,000 savings is not based on anything specific I see in the proposal.
In my opinion, the costs of zoning board [A9010.1] planning board [A8020.1] and the professional / admin services required to address applications will not be reduced $48,665 because there will not be one fewer application in either town or former village based on consolidation, nor will the costs of administration or review be curtailed.
It is my understanding that DPW and Town Highway have for many years shared equipment and costs wherever possible, and it is unlikely that added reductions of costs of significance could result from government merger.
In my opinion, the community could achieve most of the desirable benefits of merger by simply establishing an Intermunicipal Water/Sewer Infrastructure board to set rates and policies for the system, and by establishing a Special Police Protection (taxation) District to share the costs of added services in the commercial district (“Zone 6”.) Also, in my opinion, the documents I reviewed suggest the community has failed to meet the "project goals and objectives" described in Part G Work Program of the planning grant.
January 23 at 11:40amKT Kathleen Tobin go raibh maith agat
January 23 at 5:12pmDonna Rae LaPolt Interesting!!!! Thanks for your work on this.
January 23 at 7:16pmGuy Thomas Kempe The Space Needs for a Merged Government ( Town and Village Space Report) is entirely inadequate to evaluate proposed space needs against available resources. As a model, here is an example of a comprehensive study prepared for a municipality in Hollis, NH.
http://www.hollisnh.org/reports/FacilitiesSpaceNeeds12-12-02.pdf January 23 at 7:42pm_______________________________________________________________________________
Jeff LoganAs a matter of accounting for the study - sewer/water revenue,expense, personnel from town showing savings cannot be included since the Town uses special districts and are paid for (by law) by the districts. This was a issue I discussed when first on board and continued until Toni was gone, sewer district 6 owes the town ~$75 to $100k in fund illegally transferred out of general fund by Toni. As Jason has pointed out and as I said in the meeting we are still going to have roads, water, sewer, snow, floods ...... 1/2 the people cant do same work. The issue with the savings from a licensed water/sewer operator is that with retirement of Bob Leghorn we lost some licenses but these are easy to cover with engineer paid as needed and having others get license. The future model government should include districts so the users pay for what they get and those outside don't. A easy way to do this is to annex water sewer districts into village and the rural areas with no services stay town.
January 21 at 5:37pmJohn Logan Jeff: GROW THE VILLAGE -- DAD-----Original Message-----
January 23 at 10:25amGuy Thomas Kempe According to New York Code - Laws: General Municipal : (700 - 719) Municipal Annexation Law, a petition for annexation requires a determination by resolution of the two involved municipal boards that the annexation is in the "over-all public interest."The term "public interest" is defined as "anything generally affecting the rights, health, or finances of the public at large." It seems to me that annexation is not especially a tool available to municipal governments to address issues of unlawful transfers among funds (already a criminal matter) or staff retirements (a minor personnel matter.)
January 23 at 12:40pm_______________________________________________________________________________
KT Kathleen TobinI was part of the team that wrote the original 2009 application to the state to request funding to study alternative governance models for New Paltz. This process has most definitely turned out differently from what we had hoped and expected.
We wanted this study to provide the requisite factual information to (from the original proposal): "help the public distinguish between fact and rhetoric in order to develop and contribute informed opinion and participation." We actually got the buy-in and the votes from wary village and town board members at the time because the plan we laid out was going to be different. It was going to be informed and inclusive. Disappointingly, we have not come anywhere near achieving that goal.
My assessment of the reports (human resources, infrastructure, financial) completed by the consolidation proponents is that they lack sufficient detail and documentation. If a professional submitted these reports, one could easily make the case to not pay. They are unorganized and lack attention to standard reporting and accounting best practices. Egregiously, false information about aggregate “savings” was released to the public and the press before there was any real or adequate validation of the numbers. And at a recent joint town/village meeting, the town supervisor actually silenced the independently elected town highway superintendent when he was asked to provide detail about the over half a million dollars his department would contribute to the supposed “savings”.
In my review of these reports, I could not find any significant savings that would require consolidation to implement, found no work load or safety analysis, or any assessment of the impact the proposed cuts to personnel and services would have (e.g. how much longer it will take to plow all the roads in a typical snow storm). There appear to be multiple lines that were cut from the town budget this year in anticipation of merger, but are being counted towards future savings. Government appears to grow, not shrink, as many new and various infrastructure special districts are proposed for the village (e.g. lighting, sidewalks, police, fire, sewer). Overall, the financial report reads as a tax restructuring – not a consolidation – plan, as it includes significant tax shift from the town to the village – it is definitely not an appealing scenario for villagers to have their taxes increase in tandem with losing home rule!
January 23 at 7:27amSteve Greenfield They have to shift taxes to the Village, because otherwise, there would be no reason for any of the 6000 Town residents to vote for merger. If the tax code remained as it is, our taxes would go up, which is a cost, not a savings. Changing the tax code is a way to buy my vote at the expense of yours, which makes sense when you think about demographics and voting behavior -- if what you're really trying to do is sell the merger rather than let it sell itself. To me, that's the 2nd biggest flaw in the report (first being that practically none of the $1.6 million touted is actually merger-specific savings). Anything within it that has to do with gaining votes rather than gaining operational efficiencies does not belong there, constitutes lobbying on public money, and is quite possibly illegal.
January 23 at 8:59amJohn Logan kt; excellent statement Thank you. I think the finance committee has made the case for the status quo. There is no need for consolidation to effect savings ; a whole lot of the supposed savings can be done by the town and village boards unilaterally - if , indeed, we want fewer full-time employees and degraded services. The finance committee tried to do a snow job on us with their rainbow presentation purporting to be a model budget. An abbreviated study of the document quickly reveals that the committee's purpose was to lay off an undetermined , but substantial, number of full-time employees , while at the same time falsely stating that no lay offs would occur. The Fairweather report supposed that up to 16 special districts would need to be formed to continue to provide services to us villagers .Do we want to live in a conglomeration of special districts, or do we want to live in a single district efficient and effective village? My answer is that we should maintain our village pretty much as is. And that we need to grow the village through annexation of the contiguous town water and sewer districts. John
January 23 at 10:20am_______________________________________________________________________________
Jason West -----Original Message-----
From: Mark Blauer [mailto:mblauer@evenlink.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 1:21 PM
To: Mayor Village
Subject: Consolidation
Mayor West
Last Thursday we met with George Popp from the USDA Office in Middletown regarding the Village's pending application for water system assistance.
I used the opportunity to ask George if New Paltz Village would be
eligible to apply to USDA for Water & Waste assistance if the Village
boundary was expanded to encompass the Town of New Paltz. The resulting population would exceed the USDA cutoff population of 10,000.
Mr. Popp's said unambiguously that New Paltz will not be eligible if its
new consolidated population exceeds 10,000. This is precisely what I have been saying when first asked about this subject. I was dismayed that some people (folks who don't write grants for a living) doubted my assessment of future eligibility. They are free doubt my judgement but they should not dismiss the firm answer given by George Popp at USDA on the subject.
FWIW, I am 4 for 4 on grant applications submitted for the Village. This
is something people should consider when thinking about my opinions on the subject of grant eligibility.
If I thought that consolidation would improve and not diminish your
prospects for receiving grants I would say so. I am after all in the
business of winning.
Even if USDA changes its 10,000 cutoff in the future the newly constituted Village would not qualify for the favorable "poverty rate"
loan and grant terms it now enjoys. The Village qualifies for the low
rate of 1.875% (38 years) and grants up to $750,000. The Intermediate rate interest is higher and the grant ceiling is only $500,000.
On several occasions I have noted that our CDBG Small Cities success was directly attributable to the 58% low and moderate income percentage of the current Village. We must prove that any project have at least 51% low and moderate income benefit. Presently the Village's configuration makes Village wide benefit projects eligible. As they say on TV, this is black letter law. The expanded Village would have a new low and moderate income percentage well under 51%.
Consolidation may have arguments in its favor but future grant eligibility is not one of them.
I suggest that the Village carefully consider my input based on 35 years
of grantwriting before sacrificing the grant programs we have relied on to bring $1.7 million to the Village in the short time I have served you.
Choose wisely.
Mark Blauer
Blauer Associates
January 22 at 11:54amJason West Mayor West
Fairweather is misrepresenting if he says that a new municipal entity with a population of over 10,000 is still eligible for Water & Waste funding. The Town population is in excess of 14,000 according to the 2010 Census. Perhaps Fairweather would like to ask George Popp if the Town of New Paltz can presently apply to USDA for Water & Waste funding.
George Popp said point blank on January 11th that USDA eligibility for Water & Waste will be lost if the Village boundary is expanded to encompass the Town. We all heard what George said and he represents the Funding Agency. Fairweather apparently dismisses what I and Mr. Popp have to say about Water & Waste eligibility. Nothing short of Congressional action will restore eligibility for municipalities with populations over 10,000. Presently the Town of Ulster cannot apply for Water & Waste. Supervisor Quigley can confirm that.
The Town Supervisor is mistaken if she thinks I am being defensive. I don't suffer disinformation gladly and make no effort to mask my opinions about disinformation.
As per the fundng agency, New Paltz will lose its eligibility for USDA through the expansion according to USDA, OCR funding will be at least more difficult and possibly impossible to obtain. I will finish my current projects and move on to work for other clients.
I won't waste time drawing pictures for the willfully blind. Either they get it or they don't.
Mark Blauer
January 22 at 11:49amJason West On 1/16/2013 1:41 AM, Jason West wrote:
> Mark -
>
> Most of Fairweather's comments focused on Small Cities. There was some cross-talk regarding USDA and I will confirm what was said verbatim once the video becomes available. It was clear by both thecomments made by a few and the silence of the rest that in the he-said-she-said Fairweather was seen as a more trustworthy source than I.
>
> I will do whatever I can to stop wasting your time with this nonsense so that we may retain your services.
>
> I am copying this to the entire Village Board so that they understand the consequences of their failure to adequately check their facts.
>
> Jason
January 22 at 11:50amJason West Jason
I am not surprised that Mr. Fairweather focused on Small Cities and downplayed USDA. The facts about USDA don't support his argument that consolidation does not lessen grant eligibility. USDA's George Popp was unambiguous on January 11th about New Paltz losing USDA eligibility for the Water and Waste Program once its population exceeds 10,000. My understanding is that the new Village boundary would coincide with the current Town boundary. That puts the new entity over 10,000 population. Like I noted the Town of Ulster is already over 10,000 population and is not eligible for USDA Water & Waste. They are presently hoping that Congress changes the law. Even if Congress changes the law, after consolidation New Paltz lose "poverty" status. That translates into a higher interest rate and a lower grant ceiling from USDA.
If consolidation was already accomplished the $4.1 million water request USDA is currently reviewing would have been denied as the municipal population would already be over 10,000.
Regarding Small Cities, we don't entirely lose eligibility. Some types of projects will be instantly ineligible while other submissions will be vastly complicated after 2020.
The Village is 58% low/moderate while the Town is 42%. All Small Cities applications must demonstrate 51% or better low/moderate benefit. The Village's 58% is why we won the last three Small Cities grants. In contrast, the Town of New Paltz has not won a Small Cities grant in at least the last 10 years. Town-wide projects are presently ineligible and will continue to be so because of the 42%. Consider for example a youth center project. A youth center serving the Village is eligible while one serving the whole Town is not.
When the 2020 Census is conducted the demographics of the old Village will be absorbed within the larger Town boundary. The 58% low/moderate figure will disappear to be replaced by a blended low/moderate figure. That figure will be less than 51%. Small Cities has been operating for 35 years and is likely to continue for many more years. The Village's special competitive advantage will disappear with the 2020 Census. At that point income surveys would be required to justify water and sewer projects. Towns like Ulster and Wawarsing conduct such surveys now. Surveys are difficult, expensive and time consuming. Surveying hundreds of households including off campus students in order to qualify a water or sewer project would be a logistical nightmare for New Paltz. Without the 58% percentage the Village now enjoys our last three Small Cities projects would have required door to door income surveys to determine the income characteristics of approximately 3,800 residents.
Qualifying a Small Cities project that requires surveying 1000+ households is possible in theory but often impossible in practice. Anyone who writes Small Cities applications would understand why I am loathe to discard the Village's separate identity and advantageous 58% low/moderate income demographics.
I can assure the Village Board that I don't wish to stop working on future projects for the Village. I am just being realistic. Casting away eligibility through consolidation may leave me little to do for New Paltz. Without workable opportunities I would have no choice but to move on.
Mark Blauer
January 22 at 11:50am_______________________________________________________________________________
Jan 7th from Jason West seeking public participation in anticipation of the FC's report, which was released a few days later:
Jason West Ladies, Gentlemen, and those in between - this Wednesday, there will be a Joint Meeting of the Village and Town Boards. This replaces our regularly scheduled Village Board meeting. We will be presented with te final report if the Consolidation Finance Committee. We have yet to receive it, so I don't know what it says, but this report will be the document around which consolidation orbits. It is set to explain in precise detail (and With sources and footnotes I am assured) on any actual cost savings to consolidation. Please join us. This is the second to last research meeting of this process. whatever facts are established by this report will decide whether we attempt to consolidate. There will be a follow up meeting at the end of Jan to decide whether (based on this report) to spend $75,000 to hire attorney Ken Bond to shepherd this process to a public referendum. This is the end of the line, folks - if you have an opinion on considatipn, yiu will effectively have only Wednesday's meeting to voice your opinion before it goes to a public vote. I apologize for the lack of information, for the lack of public involvement, and the lack of community-wide engagement in this process that will afect your tax bill for the rest of our lives. I did the best I could to throw my weight around to demand accurate, neutral, de-politicized data. The number of 9-1 votes may give you some idea of how successful it seems I've been.
January 7 at 4:39pmJason West Apologies for the spelling. My thumbs are 4 times wider than the letters on the phone.
January 7 at 4:40pm via
mobile__________________________________________________________________________
Jason WestThis afternoon I received the Agenda for the Joint Town Board-Village Board Meeting this Thursday, the 24th. At prior Joint Meetings, the Supervisor and I conferred on the agenda items to be added. My input was not sought for this meeting. Here is the agenda:
Agenda
Joint Town/ Village meeting
January 24, 2013
Town Hall 7:30
Pledge
Announcements
Public Input
Consolidation Discussion/Vote RECOMMENDING THE CREATION OF A CONSOLIDATED COTERMINOUS TOWN/VILLAGE,ACTING PRICIPALLY AS A VILLAGE, UNDER THE CONDITION THAT THE INITIAL CONSOLIDATED BUDGET HAS NO INCREASE IN TAXES DUE TO GOVERNMENT CONSOLIDATION
1. A single governing board for coterminous town/village
2. One board with 5-7 members (5 at large, 1 from Ward based on Village boundaries, I from ward based on Town outside village boundary. One of the at large members is elected as the Chief Elected Officer [Mayor].
3. One Clerk who is appointed
4. The positions of DPW/Highway Superintendent are eliminated and combined with Highway, Buildings & Grounds, Sewer and Water and one Superintendent is appointed.
5. Nonpartisan elections run by the County.
6. Fire protection is run by a Volunteer Fire Department
7. Water/Sewer services are provided by one benefit district where geographically possible; where not by separate benefit districts
8. Other amenities such as sidewalks, lighting are covered by separate benefit districts, costs covered by benefited properties.
The committee also agreed a coterminous government has many other benefits that are not fiscal and that our recommendations are premised on the assumption that there may not be increases in revenue despite potential sources such as the Consolidation Incentive Payments from the NYS Division of Budget. However , The Citizen Empowerment Tax Credit to provide incentive funding for local government consolidation was amended and signed into law by Governor Cuomo in the summer of 2013 to include Townwide Villages to receive the incentive.
Next steps
Adjourn
January 22 at 6:02pmMichael Chase-Salerno I don't see any mention of how the respective laws/codes will be combined. Isn't that something that needs some serious attention?
January 22 at 9:41pmJason West it is one of many, many things that do. and one of many, many things that seem utterly irrelevant to susan zimet, sally rhoads, kitty brown, ariana basco, jean gallucci, stewart glenn, kevin barry and brian kimbiz. Some may have private reservations, but the time to keep those private is long since past.
January 23 at 11:07am via
mobile ·
EditedMichael Chase-Salerno Ok, thanks. FYI, as VP of the New Paltz Rod & Gun Club, the fact that the village has a provision prohibiting discharge of firearms makes this particular issue a concern to us.
January 23 at 11:01amJason West the devil is in the details. unfortunately, both devils and details have been pushed beyond the scope of the present discussion in favor of overly broad generalizations, self-congratulatory backslapping and outright misinformation.
January 23 at 11:09amJason West I'm a little upset by all this.
January 23 at 11:09amMichael Chase-Salerno I can't even imagine the scope of combining the 2 sets of codes. Seems like that effort alone could wipe out many years of any savings.
January 23 at 11:13am Jason West Depends. How long do you figure it will take to re-visit every single issue ever codified?
January 23 at 11:14amMichael Chase-Salerno Right, a long time. Like multiple person-years.
January 23 at 11:15amJason West In theory it should be simple; the zoning laws should dovetail, there are sections where it might make sense to leave seperate codes for seperate sections (like firearms discharge, which makes sense to codify for the urban village, but not the rural town). The thing is, it can takes months or years for a Board to agree on and adopt a single Local Law of a few pages. In the real world, this will be a huge and therefore expensive undertaking. It took the Village Board months and months to agree on a law allowing chickens in the village. That law was a paragraph long or so.
January 23 at 11:21amMichael Chase-Salerno Agreed.
January 23 at 11:21am ·
EditedJason West And in this hypothetical 'transition period' when all this work gets done (along with arranging for office space, building/designing/financing same, actually moving, familiarizing and integrating Town staff with Village processes and structural requirements....) EVERTHING ELSE IN THE TOWN AND VILLAGE KEEPS GOING. So who is going to do all this work? How many years would every single other things being worked on simply stop? Wetlands law? rezoning? farmland protection? geren infrastrucutre projects? affordable housing? Everything would have to completely stop for years on end while we re-task all of our resources to making this change. And hire an unknown number of additional staff. We don't have anything budgeted for the village/town attorneys to do all this transition work on top of looking out for our day-to-da legal interests. How many lawsuits might this process trigger? Not to mention all the contracts that might need to be re-negotiated. It's a minefield.
January 23 at 11:26amJason West And how would we pay for all of it? Putting aside the fact that we have no idea how much it would cost.
January 23 at 11:27amSteve Greenfield "Fire protection is run by a Volunteer Fire Department" That's awfully vague, wouldn't you say? Current system as quasi-Village employees with Board as Fire Commission? District? As written, this couldn't be on the ballot, and needs to be stricken from the resolution. But then we're left with no clue of how fire dept. administration is being handled.
Has any of this been put before lawyers? Aren't resolutions intended to go to the ballot required to be checked for the legality of the language and what's being proposed? Because that was the case in the branch of government where I used to serve.
January 23 at 11:49amJason West To my knowledge, neither the Village Attorney nor Town Attorney has any role in this resolution at all.
January 23 at 11:50amSteve Greenfield If we don't know what the merger is going to do to facilities or grant eligibility (among SO many things we don't know), how do we know the proposal is tax-neutral? Someone PLEASE tell me what the hell is going on here. This is like Wile E. Coyote painting a picture of an open road in front of a brick wall, so we can all run straight into it. WTF?
January 23 at 11:51am ·
LikeSteve Greenfield What's the story with that Fire Department clause? It's off the scale by which "vague" can be rated. Have you heard this before? Who could vote on a resolution like this?
January 23 at 11:52amJason West There has been no discussion of a District; just keeping things status quo as a (now Town-wide) Village Department. Same structure, etc. Just no need for a Fire Protection Contract.
January 23 at 11:54amSteve Greenfield But that's not what the resolution says. It's the language I'm asking about. It says "is run by a Volunteer Fire Department" Volunteer Fire Departments are not administrative units. That's you guys. And if there's no need for a Fire Protection Contract with which to engage the actual provision of operational services, under what auspices are members of NPFD, Inc., fraternal non-profit that trains and supplies firefighters, getting on the trucks?
January 23 at 12:11pmJason West Ask Susan and Sally. i've been unable to get answers to any of these questions for a year and half. i get met with a combination of hostility and blank stares.
January 23 at 2:26pmSteve Greenfield Come on, you're the elected chief executive officer of the Village. They have to answer. If that's what's actually happening, you should have gone to Vince Bradley's satellite AG office months ago. It's your constituents' rights, for which you are chief steward, that are being violated here.
January 23 at 2:57pmJason West Ah, but i've been told for a year that the Finance Committee report is where all the answeres were to be found; i've been assured by Sally and Susan that it would be heavily footnoted and annotated; that all projected savings would come with explanatory footnotes useful for I and others to cross-check; and that the FC's thinking would be spelled out so that others could follow along. And then we got THIS 2 meetings ago.
January 23 at 3:12pm ·
EditedJason West Hence my FOIL requests with threats to file an Article 78 lawsuit to ask the Courts to force the FC to provide the info necessary for the public to make an informed decision.
January 23 at 3:10pmJason West I've been patient, but now time's up. Time for those who have been pushing and pushing for this to be held accountable for the consequences of their proposal. It would be very, very different if the rabid pro-consolidation-no-matter-the-cost partisans were interested in giving skeptics and the public soem time to digest and understand what they will be asked to vote on, but the 9-1 and 8-2 votes show that a supermajority of the Town and Village Boards are completely happy to implement consolidation without the public's input or any understanding of what they are discussing. it's frankly emabarrasing.
January 23 at 3:15pmSteve Greenfield I guess my specific question right now is how is it possible that the two boards are deliberating on this resolution tomorrow when the report is such piece of crap, and has not been offered for scrutiny? What's the rush to resolution? Why not do a process like the planning boards have to do, where you take public comment, record questions, and then publish the answers to them?
And if the rush to resolution is simply because of what Susan said -- that delay could cause enough time to elapse for the composition of the two boards to change, why would the other board members want to help out with that? What's in it for them?
January 23 at 3:58pmJason West I have no idea, but that's precisely what is happening. As I said, I get met with silence and blank stares if I ask these questions, as if I'm somehow being unpatriotic. It's that kind of tenor to the conversations. Its insane.
January 23 at 4:22pm ·
EditedSteve Greenfield They're poopieheads. I hate everyone, and everything.
(Everyone who has kids, click "like." Everyone who doesn't -- just wait.)
January 23 at 5:14pm ·
Steve Greenfield Hold the presses. What is this about having already determined the structure of the future election districts? When does the public get to debate ED-based wards, vs. defacto at-large wards, wards that are not wards? What is this whole pile of not-publicly-debated charter-type questions?
January 23 at 5:23pmMike Russo Jason hasn't just been met with blank stares. He has been told that he shouldn't be asking questions and that he was "derelict in his duties" for choosing not to participate in the consolidation committee effort. He is the village mayor but he shouldn't be asking questions - huh?
January 23 at 9:06pmKT Kathleen Tobin supersize that "HUH?!?"
January 23 at 11:06pm___________________________________________
Jason WestThank you to those who came out and asked the questions you did tonight. Don't be fooled by the Town and Village Boards' speeches: they did an about-face because of you and you stopped a runaway train.
I apologize to those who might have felt I did wrong by abruptly leaving part way through. Politics, like any other trade, has its' jargon. And after the third direct -though veiled from you - insult levied against me I got fed up and chose to extricate myself from a nasty situation rather than allow myself to be abused. I have no tolerance for it anymore. And neither would anyone else
January 24
at 10:42pm via
mobileBob Lukomski I was playing Haus Herr this evening, so I look forward to hearing in greater detail what transpired. Sorry to be hearing (and reading) about all the nastiness.
January 24
at 11:19pmSteve Greenfield A lot of us got abused, in similarly veiled ways. But resentment of that was more than offset by the sheer spectacle of it. I'm gald I stayed to the end. Everyone who went home, you only missed around 15 more minutes, which I think you would have enjoyed, because they determined themselves to be a long way from resolution text. A very long way. Jason was not the only one who was not consulted on the agenda text. I think Sally drew it up at Susan's request, and maybe it was tweaked a bit by Susan, but nobody else had any idea what it said, or why. Interesting. They could only agree on a coterminus townwide Village being the preferred form, elections to be non-partisan, and to have a volunteer fire department. Everything else got bogged down, and they just closed shop and agreed to meet again next Wednesday at 7:30 to go at it some more. They are nowhere near agreement on the rest. Debate over enough specifics on government structure and tax code to create a referendum may well scuttle this even getting to the ballot. Even Sally and Susan's plea to rush it to ballot even though it's not ready yet is probably dying. |
I got my money's worth from the show, especially the foaming at the mouth parts, and also from finding out -- despite the lowest signal to noise ratio in the history of public meetings -- what actually happened that made the report what it is. Now I can really get to work. I'm too sleepy to talk about it. Some of you figured it out.
And for whatever it's worth, I also found out where Susan really lives.
January 24
at 11:54pmKatherine Preston Thank you for being Haus Herr,
Bob. I spent most of the meeting in various forms of abject open-mouthed astonishment. I may get over it some day. I am just in a state of sputter right now.
January 25
at 12:48amMike Russo That's okay, Jason. I imagine this is far more depressing and agitating to you than I, and it's been really troubling to me.
January 25
at 1:20amMark Portier "Sigh." But don't believe that "sigh" I just sighed. I might have been quoting myself out of context. And don't forget, you're reading this on Facebook. How dare I. You. We.
January 25
at 1:45am___________________________________________
Steve GreenfieldStarting a new thread. Maybe
Jeff Logan wants to chime in on this. Every mention I see has it that there are four votes on each board to move this forward tomorrow night. This despite a total fail of a financial report, a facilities report that states nothing, despite the fact that we know Town Hall is kaput and Village Hall is way too small, and half filled with a firehouse to be useful for a combined government, and an "Item 1" in the resolution that says the only requirement for approval is that taxes for everyone must be neutral only in the first year -- basically waiting for 13,000 other shoes to drop. How is this possible? How can it be a foregone conclusion that four people on each board are voting yes despite all this? Even with just one of these three things evident, there should at least be two undecideds, waiting to hear from the public, or an accountant, or something, anything. But with all three evident, this should be a "we don't have the information we need to recommend this" situation for everyone except Susan Zimet and Kevin Barry. Should be, yet, appears exactly the opposite.
So what's the deal? When we turn out for public comment tomorrow, will two more members of at least one board change their minds? Is showing up tomorrow an exercise in starting a public information campaign to defeat the vote, or is there the possibility of a more immediate accomplishment, like a postponement?
January 23 at 6:43pm___________________________________________
Steve GreenfieldI hate to do this, but... Can anyone who's put the time in, perhaps
Mike Russo or
Jeff Logan, put up a short list of things that are clearly CORRECT in the FC report? By correct, I mean a) mathematically correct; and b) a potential future savings attributable to consolidation that would not be possible without it?
January 21 at 5:51pmMike Russo Well we can try this: each of us can list their ideas out here on this thread and others can agree or disagree. Through this hashing out, we should be able to isolate at least something of a list of definites and maybes.
January 21 at 6:43pmMike Russo My ruminations about this question, although I only know how to think about this in general terms -- I don't know a lot of specifics about the town or village (for instance, I don't know how old and screwed up the computer networks or phone systems are, though if the town's systems are anything like its website...etc.):
I think there would be savings if the various bookkeeping types departments of the Town and Village. The 25% claimed by the FC is quite optimistic for a report that should contain a conservative estimate, but there would be some material percentage savings here.
Likewise data processing (computer, internet and telephony) costs; definite savings but the 33% claimed by the FC seems too optimistic for a report that should contain a conservative estimate.
Likewise some savings for legal, for matters that require both town and village attorneys to be involved, but in no way the unrealistically optimistic claim by FC of 55% savings.
I don't agree with any cost savings in Legislative, Zoning or Planning -- if we expect one of each type board to cover what two boards used to do, we damn well better up their stipends or no one will want to serve, or alternatively we'll need to split up the load somehow among more people, which means more stipends.
How about A3989.4, i.e. reducing from two repeaters to one -- that would seem to be accurate.
How about A1320.4 Auditing? FC has about 30% savings. I suppose with the clearing out of all the entanglements of town/village charges, the audit should be considerably simpler so this might be possible.
So I end up with one definite and one almost definite, and two not so much maybes but rather partially trues. The legal savings claim seems way too high to make it even partially true.
January 21 at 7:45pm ·
EditedKT Kathleen Tobin But to find those savings you would need to deduct things like the legal costs of merging zoning code and law, and any possible reduction in grants (quite possible when you no longer have a 30 percent plus poverty rate, etc), right? ---- the FC as is does not include transition costs and probably more costs/loss of funds since this is just off the top of my head.
January 21 at 7:56pmSteve Greenfield GRANTS! Is there any mention of impact on grant eligibility?
Also, Mike, when you talk about repeaters, is that radio towers? Because placement of those is usually a geographic matter, not an administrative one. All three of our emergency services agencies are shared already.
January 21 at 8:01pmKT Kathleen Tobin Jason West has info on reductions due to grant ineligibility
January 21 at 8:06pmSteve Greenfield But it's not included in the report? Did they cover any possible new costs at all?
January 21 at 8:09pmKT Kathleen Tobin not to my knowledge. Fairweather does a little bit.
January 21 at 8:11pmMike Russo Steve -- Yes, they are listed under public safety so I assume they are radio band transmitters. So strike that one from the very short definite list.
January 21 at 8:12pmMike Russo Re: New Costs. There wasn't a thorough facility analysis but I'm thinking there's a good probability that neither town nor village hall buildings are adequate for a combined government, such that one could be sold. Maybe the courtroom and some other services would have to remain at the town hall. But ultimately, a larger facility may be necessary (ah, and that brings us back to you-know-what issue ...).
Also similar for DPW/Highway -- i believe there were questions at the 1/15 meeting asked about how the contents of a 5000 sf garage could be moved into a 1200 sf pole barn... I don't know the facts on this, and haven't reviewed that part of the 1/15 meeting.
January 21 at 8:21pmSteve Greenfield Then I'll assume their mention did not include references to why they'd be reduced, or whether any fire, police, or EMS chiefs approved of that. I'm starting to get nauseous. This study has been a long time in the making. I think my comment at the meeting is going to start with "show me what's right in this document, and who says so."
January 21 at 8:21pmSteve Greenfield No facilities analysis. And this from the people who complained that the MS and the Lenape land acquisition weren't part of a thorough facilities study...oy. Oh, wait a second -- Susan was planning to snag the MS for a combined municipal center. Now they have a huge, gaping hole in their plan -- no facilities. Now I have another good question: "where is the facilities analysis?" Back to Fairweather, perhaps? But they're out of study money...
January 21 at 8:24pmMike Russo Steve -- The facilities analysis is here. As you can see, it's still somewhat lacking at present.
http://www.villageofnewpaltz.org/filemgmt_data/files/Space%20Needs%20for%20a%20Merged%20Government.pdfJanuary 21 at 8:30pmKT Kathleen Tobin that's some real professional grade work there (not)
January 21 at 8:33pm ·
EditedSteve Greenfield That closiing line is a fail. Obviously they did not consider whether there might be costs, not savings, meaning they simply did not do calculations, but they're reporting likely savings anyway. I would suggest that that line, as written, is one more thing to put on our list of complaints that this is not an objective report, but a sales pitch. Shit. I hate everyone and everything. I'm sorry I saw that PDF. Now I have to look at everything else, too. This is the part where I start cussing every ten seconds. Really bad cusses, too. These people are trying to make it suck to live in New Paltz, and they never rest. You know who would never have let this happen? Guy Kempe. Before I was even friends with him, when I dropped by the office to talk to Don Wilen he would show me policy and planning stuff that was before the Town Board. He really knew how things worked. He didn't let sloppy math happen. We should sit down with him.
January 21 at 8:39pmMike Russo Question: Can the sewer #6 situation be effectively and cost-efficiently solved in any other way than through consolidation? Perhaps there is significant cost savings with that aspect. This topic was discussed at the FC 12/3 meeting at 1h55m.
http://youtu.be/6Do7Xggy8LM?t=1h53mJanuary 21 at 8:40pmKT Kathleen Tobin as
Jeff Logan and
Jason West have pointed out, having the village annex the infrastructure connected places - rationalizing the t/v municipal lines based on water, sewer, pop density, land use - is a seemingly smart approach that has been not given enough attention
January 21 at 8:44pmMike Russo Now that you mention it, the Fairweather report also suggest that, or otherwise having the Town take over all DPW operations, which is their preferred solution (pg 49-50).
January 21 at 8:51pmJason West There's too much to respond to.
January 21 at 8:56pm via
mobileJason West Based on comments made by DPW staff with 20+ years experience, I've started running numbers on what would happen if the village annexed all 'urban' parts and kept the town rural/suburban, ffocusing on both existing water/sewer and the max feasible extent of future dense expansion. it would basically mean a village from river to thruway and shivertown to jansen. plus sewer 6. sewer six can be handled whether we consolidate or not, as it would mean connectiv this freestanding plant to the existing centralized system through directional bores already laid under the thruway years ago. sewer 6 is consolidation-neutral
January 21 at 9:00pm via
mobileKT Kathleen Tobin re: voldemort and since
Ruth Quinn is in the house!, I am reminded of some data you should all have in your possession. The Rosendale Elementary School (closed last year by Rondout CSD) is being proposed as a town hall for three towns: Marbletown, Rochester, & Rosendale. Square footage of the Rosendale School - 45,440;
NP MS - 135,578
January 21 at 9:01pmJason West as everything else, the only explanation given for the repeaters is whats in the FC spreadsheet
January 21 at 9:01pm via
mobileJason West all interim costs are ignored: legal, facilities improvements, etc on the claim that it is a one time cost. where we get the money for a multimillion dollar 'one time cost' beyond long-range borrowing is beyond me
January 21 at 9:02pm via
mobileJason West interestingly, while the costs of the transition is left out, there is a propagandistic misrepresentation that we ARE gettig "the million dollars" from the state. that is untrue. we may be able to apply for up to a million, under certain conditions, with approval of nys and without an guarantee of continued aid
January 21 at 9:06pm via
mobileSteve Greenfield Can you hear me cussing? I'm cussing a lot right now. I'm even mentioning specific people's names.
January 21 at 9:23pmMike Russo Steve, take a deep breath or two. Or put this aside and come back to it later. As frustrating and under-the-skin this gets, it's not as important as enjoying a good deep breath or appreciating the fact that we're alive and not dodging stray bullets or missiles from drones.
January 21 at 9:34pmFeebe Greco Speaking of Guy Kempe, can we get him back in here? If we all invited him maybe he'd get in on this...
January 21 at 9:42pmSteve Greenfield What? No drones? I spent 10 grand putting radar-absorbing paint on my roof FOR NOTHING??!!!
http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-begins-inauguration-festivities-with-ceremon,30974/
Obama Begins Inauguration Festivities With Ceremonial Drone Flyoverwww.theonion.comWASHINGTON—Taking the oath of office for his second term today, President Barack...
See MoreJanuary 21 at 9:44pmTim Hunter funny!
January 22 at 9:13amJason West -----Original Message-----
From: Mark Blauer [mailto:mblauer@evenlink.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 1:21 PM
To: Mayor Village
Subject: Consolidation
Mayor West
Last Thursday we met with George Popp from the USDA Office in Middletown regarding the Village's pending application for water system assistance.
I used the opportunity to ask George if New Paltz Village would be
eligible to apply to USDA for Water & Waste assistance if the Village
boundary was expanded to encompass the Town of New Paltz. The resulting population would exceed the USDA cutoff population of 10,000.
Mr. Popp's said unambiguously that New Paltz will not be eligible if its
new consolidated population exceeds 10,000. This is precisely what I have been saying when first asked about this subject. I was dismayed that some people (folks who don't write grants for a living) doubted my assessment of future eligibility. They are free doubt my judgement but they should not dismiss the firm answer given by George Popp at USDA on the subject.
FWIW, I am 4 for 4 on grant applications submitted for the Village. This
is something people should consider when thinking about my opinions on the subject of grant eligibility.
If I thought that consolidation would improve and not diminish your
prospects for receiving grants I would say so. I am after all in the
business of winning.
Even if USDA changes its 10,000 cutoff in the future the newly constituted Village would not qualify for the favorable "poverty rate"
loan and grant terms it now enjoys. The Village qualifies for the low
rate of 1.875% (38 years) and grants up to $750,000. The Intermediate rate interest is higher and the grant ceiling is only $500,000.
On several occasions I have noted that our CDBG Small Cities success was directly attributable to the 58% low and moderate income percentage of the current Village. We must prove that any project have at least 51% low and moderate income benefit. Presently the Village's configuration makes Village wide benefit projects eligible. As they say on TV, this is black letter law. The expanded Village would have a new low and moderate income percentage well under 51%.
Consolidation may have arguments in its favor but future grant eligibility is not one of them.
I suggest that the Village carefully consider my input based on 35 years
of grantwriting before sacrificing the grant programs we have relied on to bring $1.7 million to the Village in the short time I have served you.
Choose wisely.
Mark Blauer
Blauer Associates
January 22 at 11:54am ·
EditedJason West Mayor West
Fairweather is misrepresenting if he says that a new municipal entity with a population of over 10,000 is still eligible for Water & Waste funding. The Town population is in excess of 14,000 according to the 2010 Census. Perhaps Fairweather would like to ask George Popp if the Town of New Paltz can presently apply to USDA for Water & Waste funding.
George Popp said point blank on January 11th that USDA eligibility for Water & Waste will be lost if the Village boundary is expanded to encompass the Town. We all heard what George said and he represents the Funding Agency. Fairweather apparently dismisses what I and Mr. Popp have to say about Water & Waste eligibility. Nothing short of Congressional action will restore eligibility for municipalities with populations over 10,000. Presently the Town of Ulster cannot apply for Water & Waste. Supervisor Quigley can confirm that.
The Town Supervisor is mistaken if she thinks I am being defensive. I don't suffer disinformation gladly and make no effort to mask my opinions about disinformation.
As per the fundng agency, New Paltz will lose its eligibility for USDA through the expansion according to USDA, OCR funding will be at least more difficult and possibly impossible to obtain. I will finish my current projects and move on to work for other clients.
I won't waste time drawing pictures for the willfully blind. Either they get it or they don't.
Mark Blauer
January 22 at 11:49amJason West On 1/16/2013 1:41 AM, Jason West wrote:
> Mark -
>
> Most of Fairweather's comments focused on Small Cities. There was some cross-talk regarding USDA and I will confirm what was said verbatim once the video becomes available. It was clear by both the...
See MoreJanuary 22 at 11:50amJason West Jason
I am not surprised that Mr. Fairweather focused on Small Cities and downplayed USDA. The facts about USDA don't support his argument that consolidation does not lessen grant eligibility. USDA's George Popp was unambiguous on January 11th about New Paltz losing USDA eligibility for the Water and Waste Program once its population exceeds 10,000. My understanding is that the new Village boundary would coincide with the current Town boundary. That puts the new entity over 10,000 population. Like I noted the Town of Ulster is already over 10,000 population and is not eligible for USDA Water & Waste. They are presently hoping that Congress changes the law. Even if Congress changes the law, after consolidation New Paltz lose "poverty" status. That translates into a higher interest rate and a lower grant ceiling from USDA.
If consolidation was already accomplished the $4.1 million water request USDA is currently reviewing would have been denied as the municipal population would already be over 10,000.
Regarding Small Cities, we don't entirely lose eligibility. Some types of projects will be instantly ineligible while other submissions will be vastly complicated after 2020.
The Village is 58% low/moderate while the Town is 42%. All Small Cities applications must demonstrate 51% or better low/moderate benefit. The Village's 58% is why we won the last three Small Cities grants. In contrast, the Town of New Paltz has not won a Small Cities grant in at least the last 10 years. Town-wide projects are presently ineligible and will continue to be so because of the 42%. Consider for example a youth center project. A youth center serving the Village is eligible while one serving the whole Town is not.
When the 2020 Census is conducted the demographics of the old Village will be absorbed within the larger Town boundary. The 58% low/moderate figure will disappear to be replaced by a blended low/moderate figure. That figure will be less than 51%. Small Cities has been operating for 35 years and is likely to continue for many more years. The Village's special competitive advantage will disappear with the 2020 Census. At that point income surveys would be required to justify water and sewer projects. Towns like Ulster and Wawarsing conduct such surveys now. Surveys are difficult, expensive and time consuming. Surveying hundreds of households including off campus students in order to qualify a water or sewer project would be a logistical nightmare for New Paltz. Without the 58% percentage the Village now enjoys our last three Small Cities projects would have required door to door income surveys to determine the income characteristics of approximately 3,800 residents.
Qualifying a Small Cities project that requires surveying 1000+ households is possible in theory but often impossible in practice. Anyone who writes Small Cities applications would understand why I am loathe to discard the Village's separate identity and advantageous 58% low/moderate income demographics.
I can assure the Village Board that I don't wish to stop working on future projects for the Village. I am just being realistic. Casting away eligibility through consolidation may leave me little to do for New Paltz. Without workable opportunities I would have no choice but to move on.
Mark Blauer
January 22 at 11:50am
