A Town That Just Says No

The County feels that the more co-applicants they have, the better their chances are in obtaining grant monies. There is no financial obligation for being a co-applicant; however, if the monies were received by the county, and a town were to benefit from the funds, there would be a 10% match.
Discussion centered on how these funds could be used for salt shed construction, equipment, or any manner of other "highway related" uses. Currently, the county is discussing possible ways towns might take over some highway services, such as snow plowing. But it became obvious there did not seem to be anything concrete that this grant funding is being specified for.
Supervisor Leifeld asked if a town did not sign on as a co-applicant at this time, would they be prohibited from joining in later. Martello replied that in other instances, the county has not turned a town away for not participating from the beginning in a project. A question came up about administration of the grant, to which Martello replied that each of the towns involved would be a part of the group that would administer the funds and determine how they will be allocated.
Council member LaMonda garnered a smattering of audience applause when he suggested that if the county were looking for ways to cut expenses, perhaps they should start cutting from the top down - rather than from the bottom up. If services were to be shared, it was apparent that employees were going to be affected. Was the town going to be hiring displaced county employees?
LaMonda also asked the rather pointed question as to why the county was offering to hand over certain county roads to the Town of Olive, but retaining the rather lucrative contract for New York City-owned Route 28A. Martello only responded that all of the current discussions concerning the Shared Highway Services were still very much negotiable and nothing final had been determined.
Several county employees were present after having attended a Union Meeting concerning some of these issues. Rumors have indicated that 66 County employees will be losing their positions - some by attrition, early retirement or lay offs.
Leifeld asked about the per-mile price being put on the county road takeover, to which Martello replied that the price used was an average of what is being paid across the state, but the number was not set in stone - and was still very much open to negotiation. It was also noted that Olive, Shandaken and Woodstock were never consulted in the original grant interviews.
Council Member Burkhardt indicated the resolution left her feeling as though the town would, if it agreed to be a co-applicant, be buying a pig in a poke. Council Member Friedel suggested Martello should come back to the towns with more specific projects in mind.
Martello stated that the county is hoping that each town will keep an open mind and not pass judgment until the process is complete. Leifeld thanked Mr. Martello for coming and presenting all the information. He said he appreciated the County's intent to open lines of communication, but didn't see how it was going to work - at least not for the Town of Olive.
Later, a roll call vote resulted in a unanimous NO vote to the county's request.
The Board then went on to approve the adoption of new Park Fees, which will be posted at Town Hall and hopefully on line.
Also okayed was a Climate Smart Community Pledge that would allow the town to install solar panels at the town highway garage, as well as a the purchase of an International Plow Truck to replace two trucks over 25 years old that no longer meet DOT inspections.
Review of Building Department and Landfill Fees will be on next months agenda.

---

Covering Town Planners

At a recent Town Board meeting, elected council members approved Helene Grant for another term on the Planning Board, to expire in 2016. If a sitting member is interested in staying on the board, it has become usual for the Town Board to approve that decision (though not always, and ever-more-rarely in neighboring Shandaken). Otherwise, the Town Board advertises the position (through local papers and word of mouth) and an interview is conducted with each of the interested parties. All planning board members serve at the pleasure of the Town Board.
I spoke with Drew Boggess, Planning Board Chairman, before I started attending the entity's meetings recently, in an attempt to put him and the other members at ease about our presence. We want to relay what is happening in town to the residents of the town. They aren't doing anything wrong , we just want to be the eyes and ears of those who might be interested, but who can't otherwise attend. We record the meetings so that we have accurate information from which to write.
The Board meets the first and third Tuesday of each month at the Town Meeting Hall in Shokan, beginning at 7:30 PM. Rarely are meetings canceled - but snow storms have had their typical adverse affects. I used to attend these meetings years ago, and then chairman, Skip (Charles) Weidner would call potential attendees to let me know if they were not meeting. Mr. Boggess did not have a problem extending the same courtesy, but he warned that it doesn't happen often.
Current Olive Planning Board Board members, and their term termnination dates, include: Edwin Maldonado (2010), Andrew (Drew) Boggess (2011), James Konjas (2012), Robert Tischler (2013), David Sorbellini (2014), David Jones (2015), and Helene Grant (2016).
There are few spectators at planning board meetings, except when folks are coming before the board for projects or guidance in what they would like to do. It is a common misconception among some that the planning board "plans" for the town. Actually, the duty of the planning board is to apply the Town of Olive Laws already in effect to those who would like to open a business, subdivide a parcel of land, or change the business being conducted on the land they currently are working from. As each project comes before the board, it is the duty of the members to ensure that all manner of set backs, building heights, size, allowed businesses, etc. are adhered to according to our current rules. They also send plans to the County Planning Board for review. The County returns plans with recommendations and suggestions which can be implemented - but which are advisory only.
During the long winter months, the Planning Board might seem less busy simply because there are fewer projects getting started this time of year. Right now, the board has been working with the Ashokan Center and the Ashokan Foundation in developing their new building layout and features for the old Ashokan Campus, now that the waste channel has been opened by NYC DEP. Waters are flooding a portion of the lands they once used, and it had been agreed that in giving up these lands for the purpose of preventing excessive flooding, the buildings were to be replenished.
We've been given an invitation to visit with the project leaders, whom we've met at the Planning Board Meetings. We are excited to get a more complete picture about what they are planning to do in the coming months - and even more excited to bring this and other project details back to these pages, and to all of you.
Stay Tuned...

---

SEQR's Under Review

To dramatize the point a bit, suppose you made an agreement with a day care center to take your toddlers from eight in the morning to noon but the contract you signed left out the part about picking them up. Do they get to keep the kids? That would be analogous to the way Blumstein presents the Large Parcel Law (LPL) in his 36 page case Blumstein v. Paterson, et al , which also includes another 22 pages of documents and appendices.                  

“Basically, the tale is told in the words of the creators of the law,” Blumstein observed, putting emphasis on a line which appeared in the Sponsor’s Memo which introduced the bill to the state legislature, spelling out its purpose to the legislators who would be voting on it, and in a descriptive letter explaining the law to the Governor’s office. The all important line included in the memo but missing in the law was “Procedures are optional and can only be used if all effected municipalities opt to use the large parcel equalization process.”                                                                       

Without that provision, Blumstein asserts, the LPL violates at least 17 other laws, senate rules and portions of the state constitution, including a vital Home Rule code of municipal rights within that constitution. As illustration of senate rule violation, the suit highlights two portions of Section VI of Rules of the Senate which deal with the integrity and timing of how new legislation is introduced. Leaving out that crucial sentence, he adds, invalidates it as law by inserting an adversarial component that involves a question of equity under the law which must, by law, be determined in a judicial venue rather than by legislative or executive decree.                        

Saying his motivation for this legal offensive came from the apprehensions of neighbors each year when the annual Large Parcel option was being considered by Ulster County legislators and the Onteora school board, Blumstein said that, in the current economic situation, tax increases are “already baked into the cake” and that the addition of a 20 or 30% Large Parcel tax increase on top of that would be a crushing blow , especially to fixed-income residents of the effected towns.

“Two years ago, there was a tie-vote at the county level on their LPL option because three legislators were absent,” Blumstein said. “So because of a few absentees, we had a huge tax hike looming over us and my neighbors were extremely worried. I’m hoping that, by Wednesday, I’ll have letters of support from the Olive town board and other effected towns (Andes, Warwarsing, Hurley, Neversink), which represent about 18,500 people.”

A letter from Olive supervisor Berndt Leifeld, who planned to attend the suit’s preliminary meeting in Albany with Blumstein and councilman Bruce LaMonda, speaks of the “severity of impacts” due to the law experienced by 4,800 residents of Olive in 2004. It goes on to state that it “generated wild upward swings in the Real Property Tax levy...of approximately 26% for the school and approximately 51% for the County levy with no provision made to amortize the huge tax levy spikes... (It also) created an annual climate of fear amongst the population of large upward tax swings...(and) a climate of rancor and enmity between the Towns which are members of the Onteora School District causing rancorous demonstrations and school budgets voted down,,,”                             

Leifeld’s letter to the Honorable Thomas J. McNamara of the NYS Supreme Court, who has been assigned the case, also notes that the sponsors of the law had “acknowledged the problem and advised the Town Board that the problem would be resolved by the legislature” but, as Blumstein points out, they “dropped the ball” and that’s why he was picking it up in this lawsuit. In fact, the law’s sponsors DID recognize the problem and its lead sponsor, Senator William J. Larkin, stated emphatically in a letter to a Town of Olive attorney that it was never the LPL’s intention to create a law which could not be negated by an effected municipality’s “nay” vote.                                                                      

How could such a decisive phrase get lost in the lawmaking process? Blumstein suspects it may have been a “typographical error of omission” since the line was situated at the very end of a section of the law.

“Something fell off which entirely changed the nature and function of the law,” Blumstein noted. “It changed it into a law where there could be a matter of equity at stake and a matter of someone having to judge what that equity is and that can only be done in the judiciary... Matters of assessment equity have been settled in Olive in the Supreme Court for at least a century. We’re been in court repeatedly with New York City over values within the town for at least that long.”                                      

And, since members of the legislature said, years ago, that the law would be “fixed,” why hasn’t that been done?                       “

You’re dealing with a dysfunctional organization,” Blumstein replies, citing an influential 2004 study by NYU’s School of Law’s Brennan Center for Justice titled “New York State Legislative Process: An Evaluation and Blueprint for Reform” which, despite initial negative responses from former Senator Joseph Bruno and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, provided detailed analysis of “dysfunctional” elements of the legislature and its processes that has since sparked reform measures and initiatives within that body, including a contentious battle to define ethical standards. Former Governor Eliot Spitzer had adopted a number of the report’s concerns in June 2007 and conferred with the Center on campaign finance reform. The ongoing reform struggle was updated by the Brennan Center in 2006 with “Unfinished Business: NYS Legislative Reform” and in 2088 with “Still Broken: NYS Legislative Reform.” Blumstein observes that the original 98 page report contains several pages “specifically related to situations like this.”                  I

t is uncertain when Wednesday’s meeting in Albany might produce results.
 

---

Riding In The Cheap Seats

Changes were also made to the service schedule. They increased the number of buses running on popular routes, while routes with fewer riders were given fewer runs. Inaccurate bus times were corrected with the interest of keeping the shuttles running on time.
Some bus runs were changed to better fit the schedules of the riders. For example, the buses on routes to SUNY Ulster were altered to fit the needs of students, aiming to get them to class with time to spare, which has been a problem in the past. The schedules themselves were redesigned to be easier to read, with maps to show the routes, and bus stop locations were specified - though UCAT buses can be flagged down from anywhere along the route.
UCAT has also been working towards environmental sustainability by replacing its buses with hybrid electric vehicles, and by using smaller vehicles whenever possible.
Since I am a student at SUNY Ulster, I feel that the changes in the schedule have been for the better, since I am no longer late for my early classes and I no longer have to spend hours waiting in Kingston for transfer buses. However, the overhaul inevitably caused some riders inconvenience.
When talking to other riders about the change, the main complaint was the way the transition was handled. Many passengers were uninformed of the new schedules, and were left stranded at the bus stop on the day of February 1, shivering, confused, and waiting for a bus that no longer existed. A meeting was held at the DMV to inform the public, and flyers announcing the meeting were posted in the buses. Flyers announcing the fare increase were also posted. I was lucky to notice the flyers, but many others were less lucky. I would not have been able to anticipate the change if I had not attended the public meeting, which was inconveniently held outside the hours of service for many UCAT routes. No new schedules were available until the day the changes came into effect, leaving many riders in the dark. The UCAT website had the new schedules posted in advance, but they were somewhat difficult to find. The page with the old schedule was not replaced by the new schedule until February 2, the day after the changes were implemented. Although many of the changes should have benefited riders right from the start, many were left in the dark. If the transition had been managed better, and ample notice had been given to the passengers, it could have gone much more smoothly. But after riders and passengers become accustomed to the change, UCAT will soon fall back into its usual rhythm.

---

Selling Off The Assets

Speaking at the February 2 meeting at Bennett Elementary School, OCS Board President Laurie Osmond said, "It's time to do something, rather than not do anything and have it just sit there."
Board members have until April to make a decision on whether to go forward with closure and eventual lease/sale plans.
Trustee Tom Hickey had asked for West Hurley to be placed on the agenda for discussion.
"In this economic time, we have to look at all of the ways we can save and we've got a piece of property that has been unused," he said. "If we lease this property it is a source of income or if we sell it, that offsets a lot of the costs that we're looking at."
Osmond read a state law regarding a central school district's right to sell or lease a district school without voter approval, including its provision that anyone can challenge such a decision by gathering ten percent of voters' signatures and forcing it to a ballot. But the board decided in good faith that such a move should be up to voters to decide.
Trustee Ann McGillicuddy added that it was a bad time to sell a building and suggested leasing it. She also referred to hints that the Town of Hurley is currently looking into possible uses for the building.
Director of buildings and grounds Jared Mance said it would cost approximately $15,000 to "mothball" the school, but overall would add up to around $40,000 in the long run. Mance said that the building is currently open but not in use, with heating systems on in the entire building.
Trustee Rob Kurnit cautioned the board about future costs reusing the building if it were to be mothballed first.
In further budget talk, board members asked for cuts across all departments while trying to affect the classroom as little as possible. It was noted that in order to maintain a tax levy of 4 percent for the coming year, the board would still need to cut approximately $1.5 million. And if voters rejected the budget, the board could see a cost shortfall that would double.
Business Administrator Victoria McLaren said she has already found $200,000 in BOCES services no longer needed because students will be graduating or leaving the district next year. Board members tossed around ideas on cutting all field trips, conferences, office consolidation, and administrative level employees, and exploring the possibility of "pay to play," sports programs.
Trustee Tony Fletcher noted that extra-curricular activities that run after-school, on weekends and into the evening total up to approximately $447,000, under 1 percent of the total budget.
In another cost cutting option, the board explored ideas of reassigning District Assessment Team (DAT) services. Osmond said she researched other school districts and found not all use DAT to evaluate students but instead rely on teachers and special educators. Onteora DAT consist of two full time and two part time special education professionals who conduct evaluations on special education students.
Three DAT members spoke in length during the public comment section, warning that if their positions were eliminated the district would see lawsuits stemming from parents due to services for their children going out of compliance.
"I just want to acknowledge to everyone that this is a stressful time. We are all aware that we are cutting more than a million dollars from the budget and probably a good deal more and it's our responsibility to talk about everything and look everywhere," said Osmond. "Just because we talk about something doesn't mean it will happen, but we will be remiss if we don't bring it up. These numbers are so great that we have to be comprehensive."
Beginning with the February 16 school board meeting, public-be-heard times will be extended, if necessary, for the community to weigh in on the looming school budget crisis. All budget reports can be found by going to board docs on the district website at Onteora.k12.ny.us.
In other business, the school board approved the contract extension of Birnie Bus Service for the 2010-2011 school year with only Trustee Donna Flayhan voting against it, stating that the district needs to re-bid in order to keep costs down.
Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum Katie O'Brien presented the district's graduation rate for a three-year window, pointing out that every year requirements change, subsequently offering poor comparisons year to year. In 2007 the cohort graduation rate for regular education was 88 percent and special education 68 percent. In 2008 it was 79 percent for regular education and special education was not calculated through the state school report card. In 2009, the graduation rate was 78 percent for regular ed students and 50 percent for special education students, a drop from 2007. The State average graduation rate is 71 percent.
O'Brien listed ways they are trying to bring the graduation rate up via a toughening of standards and new programs for helping students including more academic intervention services, early intervention programs, and after-school homework help.

---

---