letter to the editor by michael russo 3-1-2013

Letter to the Editor, New Paltz Times by Michael Russo, March 1, 2013

At the February 21 Joint Town/Village Board Meeting, Dr. Gerald Benjamin stated, in response to a question by Kitty Brown, that funding for the Citizen Empowerment tax credits that would allow a consolidated government to obtain up to $1 million in state funding, has been appropriated in the State Budget.

This is accurate but one has to know that appropriations expire at the end or soon after the end of every fiscal year budget regardless of how much money was spent (NY Finance Law Sec 40.3). If the next year's budget does not renew the appropriation, the funding is gone.

The State’s fiscal year starts April 1, and the Governor's proposed budget is still being debated in the legislature. Even if the Citizen's Empowerment tax credits are approved this coming fiscal year, this is no guarantee for subsequent years.

Dr. Benjamin also stated: "The criticism on relying on state funds is the point that KT Tobin raised earlier, that the state has been unreliable about persisting in the amount of money it gives to local governments over time. But you have to act on the law as you understand it and as you expect it to unfold -- you can't say that the state lies and therefore we can't proceed, or has lied in the past and we can't proceed -- or at least I think we can't say that."

However, if the state fails to continue the availability of Citizen Empowerment tax credits in future years, it will not mean that the state has lied. State Finance Law Sec. 54p does not make any representation that the Citizen Empowerment tax credits will continue year after year, because the law includes the phrase "within the annual amounts appropriated there-for,” which means "only if in the current budget." The State would only be lying if it didn't provide the funds in a given year when the appropriation was already made. There is no guarantee in the State Law that these funds will be appropriated in future years.

If we proceed as Dr. Benjamin suggests, i.e. "to act on the law as you understand it and as you expect it to unfold", then aside from the current fiscal year and this coming year if the legislature approves the Governor's budget, it is anyone's guess as to how the future of the Citizen Empowerment tax credits will unfold.

But in terms of that guess, let’s remember that a few weeks ago in a letter to this newspaper, it was pointed out by authors Tobin, Portier and Preston that state aid to the town and village has dropped precipitously since 2008, from 9% of revenues in 2008 to 4% of revenues in 2011. And a similar decline in aid has occurred for our school district. Such cuts are being experienced in municipalities and school districts all over the state. For me, this is a powerful signal that the Citizen Empowerment tax credit incentive program has a very limited lifespan indeed.

summary state aid 2008 to 2011 np village and town

This chart shows the decline of State Aid to the Town and Village between the years of 2008 and 2011. In  both cases, the amount of State Aid in 2011 is half that of 2008. This has resulted in a combined loss of State Aid to the Town and Village of almost $1.5 Million for the three years of 2009 through 2011, with the 2011 level being over $650,000 off from the 2008 level.

Click on link:  https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-FIiz39zh5bNkVXTFYwcF8wZkU/edit?usp=sharing

letter to the editor by guy thomas kempe 2-19-2013

Dear Editor:

The grant application titled New Paltz Municipalities: High Priority Planning for Efficient & Effective Government as submitted in 2009 to the NY Department of State secured financial resources to develop a “neutral feasibility study” of “merger, consolidation, dissolution and shared services.” The application asserted that both Village and Town residents will “have the facts and analytical information necessary to make an informed decision about the best governance structure at the most efficient cost” along with eight specific objectives; (1) public participation; (2) assessments of assets and liabilities; (3) short and long term fiscal implications; (4) resolutions and legislation needed to advance recommendations; (5) a calendar and schedule for implementation; (6) a metric to evaluate quality of services and costs; (7) a white paper to provide a model for other communities, and; (8) an application request to the state for implementation funding.

To date, I have been unable to locate a comprehensive and reliable source of information on either municipal website to facilitate my participation in the project. While some documents are available on the village website, the town website currently announces that the “Next working group meeting of the Government Efficiency Project is May 9, 2011, 9 am at Village Hall.”

The Planning Grant identified the following deliverables; (1) Dedicated pages on both municipalities website to provide a record of the study progress and include links to all relevant documents (FAIL); (2) Facilitation of community involvement (FAIL); (3) Analytical study of all options, including the costs, benefits and liabilities of current municipal structures, alternative models and shared services (Not found); (4) Written resolutions and legislation necessary to move forward with recommended scenarios (Not found); (5) A calendar and schedule to proceed (Not found); (6) A final Feasibility Study with Implementation Outlines (Not found); (7) A metric to be used over time to evaluate delivery of better governance (Not found); (8) White paper to evaluate the process and provide informed guidance for other communities (Not found), and; (9) Application for implementation funding partnership (Not found.)

Despite what I trust are best efforts by leaders and volunteers working on the issue, it is clear that we have a long way to go before the facts and analytical information necessary for the public to make an informed decision about any proposal to change local government structure can be evaluated.
-GTK

Regarding the potential loss of significant grant funding due to consolidation

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 11:54am

Jason 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 11:49am

Jason 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 11:50am

Jason 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

About press coverage of Gerry Benjamin's Statements of Feb 21

Regarding Jeremiah Horrigan's article about the Joint Town/Village meeting on February 21.
http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130222/NEWS/302220359

Jeremiah's article misses the technical aspects of both Peter Fairweather's and Gerry Benjamin's statements. Watch the meeting video (including the Q&A following both their presentations) and read carefully through the Fairweather Report in terms of his Scenarios 1 and 2. See below for links.

Take for example, this sentence in the article: "Benjamin repeatedly explained that a second point of contention, a $1 million state grant, has been appropriated and would be available to help with the transition to a single government."

This is accurate in terms of what Dr. Benjamin said. But there is a technical aspect here -- one has to know that appropriations expire at the end of every fiscal year budget regardless of how much was spent (NY Finance Law Sec 40.3). If the next year's budget does not renew the appropriation, the funding is gone.

I hope Kitty Brown (who asked the question) and others understand this, and don't now think that appropriated funds are permanently encumbered funds. Incidentally, the next state fiscal year starts April 1st and the Governor's proposed budget is still being debated in the legislature. But even if the Citizen's Empowerment Tax Credits are approved this coming year, this is no guarantee for subsequent years.

The article's next sentence: "In acknowledging that state funding can be a risky proposition, he [Benjamin] also said, 'You can't say 'the state lies,' and therefore, we can't proceed.'” This too is accurate with regard to the words Dr. Benjamin used but again there is a technicality.

Dr. Benjamin's actual words were: "The criticism on relying on state funds is the point that KT Tobin raised earlier, that the state has been unreliable about persisting in the amount of money it gives to local governments over time. But you have to act on the law as you understand it and as you expect it to unfold -- you can't say that the state lies and therefore we can't proceed, or has lied in the past and we can't proceed -- or at least I think we can't say that."

But here's the technicality: State Finance Law Sec. 54p does not make a representation that the Citizen's Empowerment Tax Credits will continue year after year. This is because the law includes the phrase "within the annual amounts appropriated there-for,” which means "only if in the current budget." So the State would only be lying if it didn't provide the funds in a given year when the appropriation was already made. This is no guarantee in the State Law that these funds will be appropriated in future years.

So if we proceed as Dr. Benjamin suggests, i.e. "to act on the law as you understand it and as you expect it to unfold", then aside from this fiscal year and maybe this coming year (if the legislature approves the Governor's budget), it is anyone's guess as to how it will unfold.

New Paltz Town Board 2-21-13
Joint Village/town meeting followed by Town Meeting. Presentation on consolidation given near the beginning.
http://youtu.be/huZa2eMECww?t=1h18m

http://www.fairweatherconsulting.com/2013/01/24/download-the-new-paltz-government-efficiency-report-here/

Excerpts from the 2009 Memorandum of Opposition from the Assoc of Towns

This is not recent commentary, but is recently posted and worth reading.

Excerpts from the 2009 Memorandum of Opposition from the Assoc of Towns to the NY Government Reorganization and Citizens Empowerment Act:

"This legislation does not deal with the true costs of high real property taxes but instead purports to establish a one-stop shopping process to consolidate or dissolve local government entities."

"There is no substantial proof that consolidation results in lower property taxes. The only realistic way in which consolidation could result in cost savings is to eliminate jobs, such as police, fire and highway, or reduce or eliminate services. Legislation changing the fundamental makeup of local government needs to be studied and debated in open with full participation from the public. No good policy is made under the cover of darkness. The manner in which this legislation was introduced and poised to be passed curtails public debate and constructive input."

"Real property taxes are high in New York State for four primary reasons: Personnel Expense; Primary and Secondary Education; Social Welfare Services and Debt. These four categories account for nearly all of the difference in per capita spending between New York and the average of the other 49 states. Despite the assertions in the memorandum in support of this legation, generally speaking, property taxes are not high due the number of local government entities in New York State. Villages and special improvement districts are established to assign the cost of desired services to the people who will be receiving said services. In other words you should not have to pay for a service that you do not receive. Most local government entities have been sharing and/or consolidating services for decades and significant savings have resulted. Cooperation rather than consolidation is favored in many instances because it saves taxpayer resources while keeping local democracy in tact and government readily accessible to the people."

"The Association of Towns is vehemently opposed to the passage of this legislation in its current form."

http://www.nytowns.org/core/contentmanager/uploads/Opposition%20to%20Local%20Consolidation.pdf

joint letter to the editor 2/20/13, twelve signers

Letter to the editor 2/20/13

Four out of five members of both the Town and Village Boards have resolved to create a public vote in the near future on whether to consolidate the Village and Town of New Paltz into a single municipality operating according to Village government laws. That may or may not be a good thing. Since Villages and Towns operate under completely different systems, there is much to consider regarding how elections would operate, whether it will cost money or save money, how it will affect zoning and planning, whether we have sufficient facilities to combine all departments, what it would cost in construction and renovation if we don't, and how it would impact public and employee safety, infrastructure maintenance, and other required services. And yes, we need to know what it's going to do to our taxes. That's the bare minimum of the information necessary in order to cast our votes.

Unfortunately, after two years of study, we have answers to exactly none of this. We also have been shown a considerable amount of information purported to support claims of substantial savings, but nearly all of it is clearly due to ordinary service cuts that have nothing to do with efficiencies made possible by consolidation, and savings that have already happened with the Town and Village separate. Reviews of emails and videos of conversations between the members of the committee that prepared the financial reports show that in most cases decisions of what to include and exclude were made on the basis of what was likely to "sell" consolidation.

This is not, and never has been about personalities, or about some people being resolved to oppose consolidation no matter what. We have been very specific in our questions, working with the figures brought forth by the study committees. In every case we have been met by "watch the videos," "you don't have the skill to question what we've presented," and flat-out refusal to respond. There have been no substantive answers provided at all. None.

We have started researching the information on our own. We are doing this in a quantifiable, verifiable way that will be open to public scrutiny. Some of this is already available, with official source material, at http://newpaltzfactcheck.com/. As we develop our findings, we will present them at public forums, and we invite all interested persons to participate, challenge, and learn. In the meantime, we encourage all of you to ask these questions, and any others you may have, of the Town and Village Boards.

Mark Portier
Guy Thomas Kempe
Steve Casa
Feebe Greco
KT Tobin
Stephanie Olear
Steve Greenfield
Kathy Preston
Greg Olear
John Logan
Rebecca Rotzler
Keith Woodburn

letter to the editor by steve greenfield 2-7-2013

Letter to the Editor by Steve Greenfield -- February 7, 2013

How much more of this are we going to take, New Paltz?

Susan Zimet, in her brook-no-questions zeal to merge the Town and Village as quickly as possible before she registers to vote at her actual home in Gardiner, where she won't have a share of the consequences of her haste, blindsided the two governments last week with a proposal to skip over going out to bid for an unbiased review of her epic fail of a financial report by proposing, with no advance notice, but with resolution-ready text in hand, to have the review done not by an accountant, but by a lawyer. And not someone with no financial stake or personal associations with the Town, Village, or its officials and employees, but someone in whom those ties and conflicts of interest are maximized -- Kenneth Bond. The two boards then voted to expend funds engaging Mr. Bond to start by advising them on legal matters pertaining to the operations of a coterminous "town-wide village," pending another vote to expend even more funds on his review of the financial projections. Supervisor Zimet is hard-selling these no-bid consultancies on the grounds that Mr. Bond, having been involved, for pay, in legal and financial matters with both boards in recent times, knows both the bookkeeping and officials of both boards well, supposedly streamlining the review process. But she deliberately left out a critical matter of which, on the two boards, only she and equally aggressive consolidation advocate, and former Deputy Mayor Sally Rhoads was aware: Kenneth Bond was involved in the creation of the report that is currently under challenge. Consultation with Ken Bond during the report's creation was referenced in emails exchanged between the members of the Financial Committee, including Susan Zimet and Sally Rhoads. This alone must completely rule out any further role for him in the process of vetting the methodology or the results. He's inside the product. The idea of steering taxpayer funds into his pocket for this purpose is utterly wrong. They did not reveal his contribution to the process to their fellow board members before the vote. They still have not. Thankfully, this is why the Freedom of Information law exist, and luckily, it's been used. Hopefully, the information will motivate people to act.

But the depth to which Ken Bond is embedded in Supervisor Zimet's long-term personal and political ambitions goes further still. Many of us remember that this is the same Ken Bond whom Supervisor Zimet brought to government meetings to help her sell the idea of buying the Middle School to re-purpose it as a government center. But it turns out that his political relationship with Supervisor Zimet predates his professional engagement by New Paltz. Mr. Bond was of counsel during the 2011 Ulster County Legislature debates over the sale of the Golden Hill Senior residence, on the side of interrupting the sale -- one of Ms. Zimet's final efforts as a county legislator before she bailed out to seek the Democratic Committee appointment to become Town Supervisor. If it were possible to draw up a list of consultants who, as a matter of propriety, are absolutely ruled out as eligible to take part -- particularly in receipt of taxpayer funds, which must always be used in an impartial manner -- in further review of New Paltz consolidation research, that list would have just one name on it: Kenneth Bond. Small wonder that Supervisor Zimet wants him on the job to the exclusion of even seeking bids from other candidates. It's up to us to stop it. We're way past "this has gone far enough," and well into "this has gone way too far." Contact your Town and Village Board trustees and demand that Ken Bond not be used for any further consultations on any matter related to consolidation, and that only truly impartial review be sought through a standard Request For Proposal (RFP) outreach, and bidding process.

Steve Greenfield
New Paltz