Community Advisory Committee Statement of 04/11/2011

Click on this link to view the document in its original pdf format:
CAC Statement of 4/11/2011

CAC Statement FINAL 041111

This statement is respectfully submitted to the New Paltz

Government Efficiency and Effectiveness Study Working

Group (WG) (renamed during the project as the Steering

Committee) and the Community Advisory Committee

(CAC) co-chairs, signed by seven CAC members.

 

We, the undersigned, have grave concerns about the study

process and product to date. Concerning process, the WG

rejected the CAC’s request to hold evening meetings, to

provide detailed meeting minutes, including rationales for

major decisions, and to abide by the Core Values for Public

Participation guidelines (International Association for

Public Participation; http://www.iap2.org). 

 

The study proposal, which was submitted to the New York Core Values for the Practice of Public Participation

1.      Public participation is based on the belief that those who are

affected by a decision have a right to be involved in the decision-

making process.

2.      Public participation includes the promise that the public's

contribution will influence the decision.

3.      Public participation promotes sustainable decisions by recognizing

and communicating the needs and interests of all participants,

including decision makers.

4.      Public participation seeks out and facilitates the involvement of

those potentially affected by or interested in a decision. 

5.      Public participation seeks input from participants in designing how

they participate. 

6.      Public participation provides participants with the information they

need to participate in a meaningful way.

7.      Public participation communicates to participants how their input

affected the decision.

CAC Statement FINAL 041111

State High Priority Planning Grant program as part of the

grant application, clearly states, “Concrete processes and

strategies will be incorporated into the process in order to

communicate facts and promote a dialogue that will

facilitate a high level of civic engagement.”  The RFP for

the project also states, in bold, “An enhanced public

involvement plan to promote wide scale participation in the

process is required.”

Despite these guidelines, from the start, there has been a

lack of public participation and clarity about the CAC’s

role in that public process. One CAC member asked, “Is the

CAC expected to merely inform the public of decisions, or

will the public be invited to engage in meaningful

participation?” Another said, “I thought our job was to

gather public input [in order to] inform the process of the

study, not to just garner support for its conclusions.”

To further the goal of public participation, the grant

application specifically required the creation of a project

website to facilitate information-sharing between the WG,

CAC, and community at large. In addition, the application

stated, “Dedicated pages on both municipalities’ websites

will provide a record of the study progress and include

links to all relevant documents.” The website, through the

members-only Ning site, failed to meet the basic access

needs of many members, continues to have multiple

outstanding and unanswered questions, and supplies

limited, unclear documentation to outline the process as it

has unfolded. Requests from the CAC for additional

CAC Statement FINAL 041111

information and better explanations have also been denied.

The Village and Town were complicit in these obstacles to

public access, failing to even link to the site until the

project had been underway for months, and never providing

additional resources. While the consultants have repeatedly

suggested that questions, comments, and suggestions be

funneled through the website, their responses have been

exceedingly slow or, more frequently, absent altogether.

 

Whether deliberate or unintentional, this failure to engage

the public has led us to feel that the WG is secretive and

disinterested in process. These concerns were reinforced

when the WG chose not to release the draft report to the

public. Perhaps as a result of this decision, not one CAC

member commented on the substance of the draft report,

either due to stated issues with the lack of disclosure (at

least four members voiced this concern), or speculatively,

disengagement due to lack of clear process and

transparency. One CAC member stated, “I hardly think it's

fair to presume that this relatively small group can

adequately represent the diverse perspectives of all of New

Paltz, when all of New Paltz has not had any opportunity to

review such a document.” Another member said, “How can

there be such a recommendation when the information

leading up to this conclusion has not been disclosed to the

CAC, let alone the public?  This whole report is lacking

public input. There should not have even been a draft

without public input.”

 

In terms of product, while the work to date has included a

CAC Statement FINAL 041111

thorough analysis of dollars (efficiency), there has been

barely any discussion about governance (effectiveness). We

refer again to the study proposal, which states, “[T]his

project will not only review opportunities for efficiency, it

will also consider all potential governance models.” 

Although the WG has discussed some governance models,

none of these discussions included or even considered

public feedback. The draft report rejects many possibilities

(e.g., city, village dissolution, a model of our own design,

status quo) without any public discussion.  This process and

the conclusions concerning possible governance models fly

in the face of the study proposal, which states, “[t]his

neutral feasibility study will not presume any preconceived

outcome, and instead will consider all options, including

the prospect of alternatives not currently defined by law

and the option of continuation of the existing structure(s).” 

 

The proposal also says, “Dissent will be an acknowledged

component of the discourse and will not be an impediment

to the process.”  We feel strongly that our dissent and our

concerns (which have been expressed repeatedly to you)

have been ignored. Furthermore, we deeply hope that the

WG will recognize our commitment to this project, and will

listen to and act on our constructive criticisms. We want to

be ambassadors for this project, but as one member noted,

“the CAC can only act as translators if they are informed.

Information on the process thus far and decisions that have

been made are not readily accessible in its entirety.”  

CAC Statement FINAL 041111

Lastly, since the CAC, to date, has provided no feedback to

the WG on the substance—only on process—of the report,

we respectfully request that the language that the CAC

provided “input and involvement” on the draft report be

deleted. Perhaps if the process improves, then the final

report can properly acknowledge the contribution of the

CAC. The CAC has been eager and prepared to contribute,

however it is impossible to do so when the group has not

been given the authority, autonomy, or information

necessary to fulfill the expectations outlined in the original

proposal.

In closing, we wish to make clear that we have a desire to

provide the citizens of New Paltz with the information

necessary to make sound, reasoned, and informed decisions

about improving the efficiency and effectiveness of our

government. We have made it clear that to do so, we must

engage the public early and often. Failure to do so will

almost surely result in rancor, discontent, and mistrust. In

this regard the CAC accurately reflects the sentiments of

the community. 

 

Signed,

John Logan                     Ira Margolis

Amanda Sisenstein         Caryn Sobel

KT Tobin                         Brittany Turner

Michael Zierler

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

Email correspondence with and regarding Ken Bond

From: Susan Zimet

Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 5:10 PM

To: jtlogan6@aol.com ; planB@hvc.rr.com ; jpgallucci@gmail.com ; kevinbarrylaw@yahoo.com ; assistant@townofnewpaltz.org ; jasonwest@villageofnewpaltz.org ; sallymrhoads@gmail.com ; basco54@gmail.com ; briankimbiztrustee@gmail.com ; stewartglennnewpaltztrustee@gmail.com

Subject: Fw: Follow-Up to Conference Call on Consooidation - 11/30/12

Hi all

Yesterday Dave Lent and I had a phone conference with Ken Bond.

Jason and Nancy joined the call.

I had scheduled the phone call to review certain questions for the Finance Committee

During that conversation Ken's office

Went through the step by step process both boards need to take in order to have a referendum at the end of March

Ken sent a summary that is very comprehensive and all board members should read

The Finance Committeedid has done an awful lot of work that should be very helpful to this process

The Town Board has allocated money for it's half to hire Ken Bond for the work necessary to move this forward.

Hope you are well.

Susan

-----Original message-----

From: "Bond, Kenneth W." <Kenneth.Bond@squiresanders.com>

To: "supervisorzimet@townofnewpaltz.org" <supervisorzimet@townofnewpaltz.org>, "jasonwest.mail@gmail.com" <jasonwest.mail@gmail.com>, "wildfire00@gmail.com" <wildfire00@gmail.com>

Cc: "Neuringer, Matthew E." <Matthew.Neuringer@squiresanders.com>

Sent: Sat, Dec 1, 2012 20:03:55 GMT+00:00

Subject: Follow-Up to Conference Call on Consooidation - 11/30/12

Dear Supervisor Zimet and Mayor West:

Thank you and your colleagues for participating in yesterday's call to move forward the process of consolidation. As the bond counsel for both the Village and the Town, and as special counsel to the joint board considering consolidation, we do not advocate a position on whether consolidation is the right thing to do. The law gives that choice to the voters and the taxpayers of both communities. However, given the short time to move forward proceedings to a referendum in March, 2013 such that a favorable vote by both communities could result in the consolidation being effective January 1, 2014 and the town/village able to begin receiving its $1 million annual state aid inducement payment before March 30, 2014, it is critical that the joint board adopt an agreement of consolidation at its meeting on or about December 20, 2012 pursuant to state law and the timeline we have sent you.

With that date, or an earlier date, in mind we will work diligently with Village and Town stakeholders to draft the agreement. As Matthew pointed out in the call yesterday, the law does not require great specificity in the details - but does require adoption of concepts, structures and principals under which the new entity would operate. We will help you articulate in the agreement the consensus which has been developing on a consolidated community.

That said, I want to clarify a couple items and suggest some larger concepts and principals which the joint board may want to include in the agreement:

1. The $1 million in annual state aid, in our view, is a hard number. Your budget numbers qualify for the full amount each year. The "subject to appropriation" concern should politics or state finances derail the annual payment is not warranted. First, state policy is to reduce and consolidate the state's local governments to reduce the expense to taxpayers and increase service delivery efficiency. Second, New York is not going to run of money - ever. In the state's 2012 FY budget it appropriated $35 million for consolidation inducement payments - and paid out only $3 million. Should the consolidation occur, New Paltz will be the largest and most visible urban area in the Hudson Valley to complete the process. Thereafter, you should be all over your legislators for more appropriated state consolidation inducement aid.

2. It is a legal fantasy that residents in the Village have two votes because they also live in the Town. The 1st Amendment to the US Constitution and the NY State Constitution recognize the "one person, one vote" rule. Village residents would vote in the village referendum. Town residents outside the village would vote in the town referendum. Any other proposal will generate a lawsuit.

3. Much discussion focuses on residents of the town/village paying more/less taxes post-consolidation. The agreement should include a "transition period" commencing with the effective date of consolidation for two years (i) where no taxes go up or down on account of consolidation and any cost savings post-consolidation are spread proportionately and equally among all properties in the consolidated entity, and (ii) the levy for the consolidated entity beginning in its first year equalizes all rates for all classes of property for all properties in the consolidated entity.

4. The agreement requires a statement of a governmental organization. Key officers are a CEO, COO, CFO, police chief, fire chief, DPW supervisor, HR director, planning director, economic development officer, etc. During the transition period (2 years) the CEO (elected [after the transition period] supervisor/mayor) and COO (administrator/manager) should be the current Town Supervisor and Village Mayor. The governing board of the consolidated entity should be the entire town board and village board during the transition (about 11-12 board members) then reduced to 7 (typical city council size) after the transition. No current town or village personnel should be let go during the transition as a "cost saving" measure because of consolidation. Personnel who retire, resign or die need not be replaced (attrition) but no job losses on account of consolidation during the transition.

5. Economic development - should be a major aspiration of the consolidated entity to put more properties on the tax role - should include establishment of one or more BIDs and LDCs.

6. SUNY and non-profit properties and facilities - should pay for services under a PILOT. This may require future state legislation, a lawsuit, etc. But get the idea into the agreement.

7. Costs/benefits of services - move more services to a fee for service payment basis to reduce or maintain property taxes. You want students and tourists to pay for the services the consolidated entity provides.

8. Labor agreements - since they have all expired and the consolidated entity is new, declare that Triborough should not apply and create new uniform labor agreements during the transition period. The unions will fight and they will lose on this. The consolidated entities' employees have little to fear: over the past 10-15 years average salaries and benefits in the public sector (i.e. local government) have consistently surpassed those in the private sector.

9. Debt and agreements - those long-term debts incurred by the separate town and village pre-consolidation are paid by the taxes generated on the properties within the separate entities. Same rule applies to improvement districts' (water and sewer) pre-consolidation debt. Separate entity terminable contracts should be terminated and made contracts of the consolidated entity upon effective date.

10. Fire services - merge any Town fire districts and fire protection areas into the village fire department upon consolidation.

11. Water and sewer districts. Use the Town Law approach. The village water and sewer systems would be treated as a separate improvement district; then establish an entity-wide water district and sewer district and consolidate all water and sewer districts into the entity-wide districts during the transition. We've done this before - not rocket science.

At this point, if there are existing committee reports we can review, like that of the finance committee (have not reviewed) or the Human Resources Subcommittee (forwarded by Jason) please send ASAP. Because, of the shortage of time I would not spend more time on committee reports unless other committees did work and can produce a short written summary of their findings ASAP. That said, you need to have answers to the following items at least in summary form well before December 20 for the agreement:

(a) the name of each local government entity to be consolidated (Town of New Paltz, Village of New Paltz, any fire districts in the town);

(b) the name of the proposed consolidated local government entity, which name shall be such as to distinguish it from the name of any other like unit of government in the state of New York (except the name of any one of the entities to be consolidated) (New Paltz, Manhiem, or some other interesting Huguenot or Dutch word [I'm partial to Friesland and Groningen from where my mother's family immigrated in the late 19th century);

(c) the rights, duties and obligations of the proposed consolidated local government entity - (see note 4 above - this needs elaboration but 4 will get you started);

(d) the territorial boundaries of the proposed consolidated local government entity (the current town boundaries; the village boundaries dissolve);

(e) the type and/or class of the proposed consolidated local government entity (first class town/village [based on population]);

(f) the governmental organization of the proposed consolidated local government entity insofar as it concerns elected and appointed officials and public employees, along with a transitional plan and schedule for elections and appointments of officials - (see notes 4 to 11 - also needs elaboration);

(g) a fiscal estimate of the cost of and savings which may be realized from consolidation - (this will be a guess or perhaps numbers can be tweezed from the Fairweather report or committee reports; however, other than the $1 million annually from the state, you're not looking for savings during the transition [first 2 years] as much as you are looking for efficiencies in operation which generate permanent savings and tax reductions after the transition);

(h) each entity's assets, including, but not limited to, real and personal property, and the fair value thereof in current money of the United States - (public facilities asset values can be obtained from town and village certified financials per GASB 34 reporting; private assets can be obtained from the assessor's office);

(i) each entity's liabilities and indebtedness, bonded and otherwise, and the fair value thereof in current money of the United States - (terminable contracts are only current liabilities - essentially the town and village expense budget numbers; indebtedness is all the town and village general obligation debt - the things we write approving opinions on - plus any financing leases for equipment);

(j) terms for the disposition of existing assets, liabilities and indebtedness of each local government entity, either jointly, separately or in certain defined proportions - (assets to be made owned by consolidated entity during transition; separate town and village long-term liabilities remain where they are - see note 9 above - proceeds of any assets disposed of post-consolidation go into the pot of the consolidated entity) ;

(k) terms for the common administration and uniform enforcement of local laws, ordinances, resolutions, orders and the like, within the proposed consolidated local government entity - (lay out where the consolidated entity will follow Town Law and where it will follow Village Law; it must follow the GML for local laws which might deviate from [but not conflict with] the Town Law or Village Law - I would leave implementation of these things to transition period activities);

(l) the effective date of the proposed consolidation (January 1, 2014); and

(m) the time and place or places for the public hearing or hearings on such proposed joint consolidation agreement - (hold in the town and villages offices on dates indicated by the timeline we provided

- the statutory hearing can be held over for 2+ days; information meetings of an informal nature can be held after December 20 and before the vote).

So there you have it - the Cliff notes for a consolidation agreement. If you can agree on the big concepts you can get an agreement together. If you agonize over details and ruminate in the weeds this will never happen. Any one who absolutely opposes consolidation for any reason can campaign against it to convince the voters to reject it. But opposition by stonewalling to prevent the question from being placed before the voters (at a time they are aware of the issue and forming their own opinions) seems a little disingenuous given the intent and state policy behind the consolidation law.

Finally, we are transactional lawyers and used to the pressure of getting things done with tight deadlines. Matthew is finished with final exams on the 14th and has offered to encamp in New Paltz for a week to work 24/7 with you to craft an agreement - at no extra cost, I should add. I have intentionally not marked this email "Confidential - Attorney Client Privilege" so that you can freely share it with others as you deem appropriate. In the words of Mr. Spock, "Long Life and Prosper." Ken

Kenneth W. Bond

From: PlanB@hvc.rr.com

To: Susan Zimet <supervisorzimet@townofnewpaltz.org>, jtlogan6@aol.com, jpgallucci@gmail.com, kevinbarrylaw@yahoo.com, assistant@townofnewpaltz.org, jasonwest@villageofnewpaltz.org, sallymrhoads@gmail.com, basco54@gmail.com, briankimbiztrustee@gmail.com, stewartglennnewpaltztrustee@gmail.com

Sent: Wed, Dec 5, 2012 04:47:58 GMT+00:00

Subject: Ken Bond Conference Call on Consooidation - 11/30/12

Susan, I'm not clear on where the data and new contracts and water districts etc outlined below by Ken Bond are going to come from. Is this what the $75,000 will provide? Kitty

From: Susan Zimet <supervisorzimet@townofnewpaltz.org>

To: PlanB <PlanB@hvc.rr.com>; jtlogan6 <jtlogan6@aol.com>; jpgallucci <jpgallucci@gmail.com>; kevinbarrylaw <kevinbarrylaw@yahoo.com>; assistant <assistant@townofnewpaltz.org>; jasonwest <jasonwest@villageofnewpaltz.org>; sallymrhoads <sallymrhoads@gmail.com>; basco54 <basco54@gmail.com>; briankimbiztrustee <briankimbiztrustee@gmail.com>; stewartglennnewpaltztrustee <stewartglennnewpaltztrustee@gmail.com>

Sent: Wed, Dec 5, 2012 8:24 am

Subject: Re: Ken Bond Conference Call on Consooidation - 11/30/12

Kitty

All the documents needed Will be developed with Ken Bond's. Team working with us.
It's important we do this right
and cannot do it alone.

Hope this helps

Susan