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/

FC: Revised Sewer and Water

---

From: dslent30@msn.com
To: nancybranco@villageofnewpaltz.org
Subject: Revised Sewer and Water
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 11:37:49 -0500

-->

Nancy:  This final ( I hope) revision.  It does not to appear there is any debt on sewer that should be shared.  Dave

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

HR email: Barry 6-18-12

From: kevinbarrylaw@yahoo.com

To: donpaltz@aol.com
Cc: rel12561@mac.com, briankimbiz@gmail.com

Sent: 6/18/2012 10:21:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
Subj: (no subject)

Just a reminder about our meeting tonight @7pm at Town Hall. Kevin