May, 2009

Thanks to all who attended thurday's Kent Fiscal Watch Open Forum

Submitted by JohnB on Sun, 05/24/2009 - 7:24pm

First off we would like to give a big thank you to Sandy Galef for being our guest at the first Kent Fiscal Watch open forum.  For two hours Sandy took our questions and provided thoughtful answers on topics such as citizen activism, open government, tax reform, and consolidation of services.  It is certainly refreshing how accessible to the people Sandy is; it is something we surely appreciate.  Rather than write up a summary here, in the coming week we will be posting video highlights for you to watch.

I would also like to thank Paul Spiegel for advertising and moderating the event, as well as all the KFW members who pitched in to help with refreshments, advertising, set up, etc.  Especially I would like to thank Joyce for organizing everything.  Also I would like to thank all who attended for their participation.

Please check back later in the week to see the video highlights of the event.  If you like what you see, please join our newsletter list on the upper right to be informed of our next event. 

The only way to make a change is to get involved!  We hope you will join us!

Taxpayer alert - Town financial results for 2008 - surplus of $647,000!

Submitted by cnarbey on Tue, 05/12/2009 - 12:05pm

The Town has now posted on its website its Annual Report to the NY State Comptroller for 2008 (see http://www.townofkentny.gov/PDF/Finance/annualfinancialreport2008.pdf).

 

An overall surplus of $647,054 (more revenue than expenditure) was achieved.

 

This adds to the Town's financial reserves, on top of a surplus of $1,201,464 in 2007.  As reported earlier, the brief financial summary of the First Quarter of 2009 showed an estimated (by me) surplus of $344,000.

 

The Town had $5,216,007 in cash and bank deposits at the end of 2008.

 

Taxpayers should be interested in why the Town is building up these surpluses, as the majority of its revenue comes from property taxes. 

 

In the details of the overall surplus for 2008, the General Fund (pays for everything except Highway Dept. and Capital Assets) had a surplus in 2008 of $1,269,662, compared to a 2007 surplus of $1,176,470 (in 2 years, that's $2.3 million of your taxes that were collected but not spent).  Offsetting this, the Highway Dept. had a deficit in 2008 of $315,451, compared to a deficit in 2007 of $148,005 (that's $463,000 more expenditures than was collected from your property taxes over 2 years).

 

These financial results certainly mean that the Town's finances are in very good shape.  The hang-over from the excessive cost overruns to build the Town Center has largely been cured.

 

So, why is the Town government piling up cash?  My personal opinion (you don't have to accept this) is that the Town is preparing to pay damages in the Kent Manor lawsuit, should the justice system ever award damages to the developer/plaintiff (there is no certainty of that).  Whatever the reason, it's taxpayers' money and I believe that they should be given an explanation. 

Please Make Your Voices Heard on Property Tax Reform

Submitted by joyce.mitchell1 on Fri, 05/08/2009 - 8:55pm

This message is from Victor Tiship.

 

Please make your voices heard on vital property tax REFORM, not relief, in New York! The State Legislature is gauging public support for a number of proposals on this issue at this site:  Please forward to your NY networks.

 
 
I have been a proponent of true property tax reform for many years. I have and continue to be a supporter of Kevin Cahill’s reform bill, the Equity in Education Act AO6009. His bill takes 5 years to be fully implemented. Many of us need property tax reform now and cannot wait for 3 or 5 years. The Krueger Circuit Breaker aims to bring some measure of relief to property owners right away, but it is not the complete answer IMO. The numerous benefits the Cahill Bill offers are the real deal and offers a complete package of reform. Cahill eliminates residential property taxes in full to fund education within NYS and shifts that burden to INCOME. It guarantees every child in NY a full quality education, even if they come from a “poor” district. It calls for a return to pre 1972 true progressive income tax brackets so the rich will once again have to pay their fair share and those of modest means do not have to pay so much of their income as the essentially flat tax we have had since 1972 requires. I believe that our vital small farmers and farmland would not be given over to “developers” if property taxes did not force it onto the market; that goes for “vacant” residential land too. Cahill has many advantages and will bring real reform to NY and help save many of our fellow citizens from choosing between moving out or staying and continue to pay an unfair and onerous percentage of their income to fund education, while some corporations and rich evade their responsibilities to our society.
 
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A06009  Find the Cahill Equity in Education Act here.
 
 
 
The Krueger circuit breaker bill offered in the senate, S4239, and supported by the Omnibus Consortium and Frank Mauro of the Fiscal Policy Institute, promises quick relief for at-risk homeowners, and should be supported, but does not offer the long term advantages of Cahill, IMO. I can see the two being passed together, with the Krueger bill bringing quick relief to many in need, while the Cahill bill is being phased in over the requisite 5 years. The two passed and running concurrently, could, if the political will and integrity in Albany existed, bring the critical REFORM our state needs NOW, especially in this “economic downturn”. They need a stout hickory sapling lashed to their spines, and your voice along with that of our neighbors and friends might help accomplish that.
 
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=S04239   Krueger circuit breaker bill here.

Put Valley's Open Meeting Controversy-from PlanPutnam Blog

Submitted by joyce.mitchell1 on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 10:07am

Putnam Valley - Illegal Meetings

By dawnpowell
 

Advisory Opinion of the Office of Open Government Illegal Meetings

 

When I was interviewed for the ad hoc Planning Board position, Mr. Tendy asked me how I could work with the Planning Board when I have accused them of having illegal meetings.
 
I said that the illegal meetings bothered me, and that they should be a concern for everyone on the Town Board.  I have heard no objections to illegal meetings from any Board members.
 
The Planning Board gathers in the backroom without notice to discuss applications before their noticed meetings.
 
Three members of the Planning Board, as well as their attorney, met with others to discuss and rewrite the expertly written draft zoning code, without formal notice or formal cancellation of meetings, without recording formal decisions, and without minutes. That was Mr. Tendy’s Wordsmith committee.
 
I received a four page response, dated April 16, 2009, to my inquiry about these meetings from the State of New York, Department of State, Committee on Open Government.
 
Excerpted from that response:
 
“ In the context of your inquiry, clearly the Planning Board is a public body. Based on the rationale outlined above, in our opinion, a committee whose membership includes a majority of the Planning Board would also constitute a public body subject to the Open Meetings Law, and in any event, a gathering of a quorum of the Planning Board membership to discuss public business would constitute a meeting of the Planning Board regardless of others present.
Second, we note that the definition of “meeting” (Open Meetings Law, Section 102[1]) has been broadly interpreted by the courts. In a landmark decision rendered in 1978, the court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, found that any gathering of a quorum of a public body for the purpose of conducting public business is a “meeting” that must be conducted open to the public, whether or not there is an intent to take action and regardless of the manner in which a gathering may be characterized [see Orange County Publications v. Council of the City of Newburgh, 60 AD2d 409, aff’d 45 NY 2d 947 (1978)].”
This seems quite clear to me. Both the Planning Board backroom meetings, and the Wordsmith meetings are covered by the Open Meetings Law.
Regarding the rationale for the public’s right to be included in the public process, the opinion also said:
“In discussing the issue, the Appellate Division, whose determination was unanimously affirmed by the Court of Appeals, stated that:
’We believe that the Legislature intended to include more than the mere formal act of voting or the formal execution of an official document. Every step of the decision-making process, including the decision itself, is a necessary preliminary to formal action. Formal acts have always been matters of public record and the public has always been made aware of how its officials have voted on an issue. There would be no need for this law if this was all the Legislature intended. Obviously, every thought, as well as every affirmative act of a public official as it relates to and is within the scope of one’s official duties is a matter of public concern. It is the entire decision-making process that the Legislature intended to affect by the enactment of this statute’ (60 AD 2d 409,415).”
The public process includes notice and minutes. The Planning Board’s pre-meetings have not been noticed, nor have minutes been recorded. The Wordsmith meetings were not properly noticed, and minutes were not taken.
“Third, as mentioned earlier, the Open Meetings Law requires that notice be given to the news media and posted prior to every meeting. “ (emphasis added)
“Minutes shall be taken at all open meetings of a public body which shall consist of a record or summary of all motions, proposals, resolutions and any other mater formally voted upon and the vote thereon.”
I do not understand why Mr. Tendy expressed dismay at my continued comments on illegal meetings, yet expressed no distress at all about these meetings. I do not understand why none of the Board members have made any comments about these illegal meetings. I do not understand why it is that I was the one asking the questions of the Committee on Open Government, rather than the Planning Board members, the Town Board members, or the Tendy Wordsmiths members, including the Town Attorney.
I also do not understand why there have been no members of the press reporting on these blatant illegal meetings.   
What will it take to have a legal public process in Putnam Valley?