August, 2009
The real cost of Kent Manor settlement - over $11 million?
Submitted by cnarbey on Wed, 08/19/2009 - 10:10amMy estimate of the "worst case" scenario is a tax giveaway of over $10 million between now and when the last house is built on this land, as follows:
1. 269 houses are built and get their CO s, between now and 2019.
2. The assessed value (at full market value) of each house would be $250,000, absent the "settlement".
3. Average assessment of each house will be $4,000 ($1,100,000 divided by 269) for property tax purposes, for 6 years, per the "settlement".
4. Taxes foregone on each house by County, School, Town and Special Districts @ (say) $26 per $1,000 of assessed value is $6,396 each year ($250,000 minus $4,000 @ $26 per $1,000).
5 Taxes foregone each year on 269 houses is thus $1,720,524 (269 times $6,396).
6. Maximum tax giveaway is therefore $10,323,144 (6 years @ $1,720,524 per year).
This is a lot of guesswork on my part, with assumptions that could be higher or lower (the estimated "assessed value" of $250,000 for each new house, the $26 mil. rate), but it does give some magnitude to the tax giveaway that the settlement has made. That falls on the shoulders of the other taxpayers in the County, School District, Town and Special Districts (that should gall the residents of Patterson, Carmel, East Fishkill and Brewster, who are in the Carmel Central School District and had even less to say about this matter than Kent residents!). It also does not directly impact the current Town Board, as the bulk of this very real cost will fall in future Town Boards' reigns.
I'd like to see how Mr. Curtiss, the Town Attorney, came up with his figure of $3.5 million. Even that is pretty bad for the "rest of us" taxpayers. Also, how does Mr. Curtiss know that there will be no construction for 8 years?
Developer will receive $1.5 million in settlement with Kent
Submitted by JohnB on Tue, 08/18/2009 - 2:35pmTaken from: www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article
By Michael Risinit • mrisinit@lohud.com • August 17, 2009
KENT - The developer of hundreds of planned townhomes in Kent will receive $1.5 million and up to 16 years of tax abatements as part of its legal settlement with the town over the project's construction delays.
The Town Board last month approved settling the Kent Manor case. Details of the damages remained under a gag order imposed by state Supreme 
"I think the Town Board is relieved to have this case behind us. Now we can move forward with the town's business," Supervisor Kathy Doherty said today.
The town's insurance carrier will pay $1.25 million and the remainder of the cash judgement will come from the town's coffers.
The damages stemmed from Kent not allowing the townhome project to proceed, even after several court decisions over the years said otherwise. First approved in 1987 with 318 units, the project has been reduced to 269 homes.
Lawyers for the developers had vowed to seek millions because of expenses incurred during that time, including the elimination of some units because of new wetlands laws, the reopening of the environmental review process and missing out on the real estate
Lawyers for the town and the developers were not immediately available for comment.
New York State Taxes Sick People
Submitted by DavidE on Sun, 08/16/2009 - 1:02pmI bet you didn't know that the State of New York taxes you for seeing a doctor. Or going to a hospital. Or a clinic. And the tax isn't small. As of April 1, 2009 it's a whopping 9.63%. About the only people who escape this tax are those on Medicare or Medicaid. Sure, the State calls it a "surcharge," but a tax by any other name is still a tax. The reason you've never seen this tax on seeking medical help is that it's usually hidden in what you pay — the same way that gasoline taxes are hidden. New York's doctors, hospitals and clinics are required to turn over 9.63% of what you'd pay without the surcharge, so they just add it to your bill before you see it.
Like you, I had no idea this was going on. I only tripped over it when one of my providers, Memorial Sloan-Kettering, changed its billing system to move the surcharge out from behind the curtain. It now shows up as a separate line item the way sales tax does. Finding it bizarre that the State thinks it's reasonable to levy a special tax on sick people, I looked into it. Sure enough, the NYS Department of Health's website spells it out pretty clearly. See, for example, the letter to "Dear Payor/Provider" of April 1, 2009 in which the new, increased surcharge is announced.
Still not willing to believe it, I wrote to the e-mail address given at the bottom of the page to see if I understood correctly. After about a month of being a pest trying to get someone to respond, I got an e-mail from Michelle Levesque, Bureau of HCRA Operations and Financial Analysis, NYS Department of Health. She explains:
David,
The surcharge is required to be assessed by designated HCRA [NYS Health Care Reform Act] providers (as of 10/1/00 they are : General Hospitals, Amb-Surg, and D&TC) on certain services that they provide. Note: There are exemptions (ie Medicare covered services are not surchargeable). The surcharge is 9.63% for services on and after 4/1/09.
The surcharge is required to be assessed by designated HCRA [NYS Health Care Reform Act] providers (as of 10/1/00 they are : General Hospitals, Amb-Surg, and D&TC) on certain services that they provide. Note: There are exemptions (ie Medicare covered services are not surchargeable). The surcharge is 9.63% for services on and after 4/1/09.
The surcharge funds the "Public Goods Pool" which is a fund that is set aside to fund necessary programs to assist the public such as preserving rural health care, funding poison control centers, and substantially funding the Child Health Plus insurance program for uninsured children.
Consumers may have a responsibility to pay the surcharge depending on the policy they have with their insurance carrier (ie deductible, 80/20 coverage). For example, if a person changes insurance carrier, or if their carrier changes what they cover, they might start seeing a surcharge where they didn't before.
If you would like to discuss details on how/why it appears on your bill, please call me or another HCRA representative at 518-474-1673.
Additionally, you may go to our website to find out more: http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/hcra/hcrahome.htm
Thank you,
Michelle
What she means when she says "[c]onsumers may have a responsibility to pay" is that they might actually see the charges. Of course they have to pay. The money's got to come from somewhere, right? And you can bet the "HCRA providers" and the insurance companies aren't just going to eat it. The money comes from people who seek medical help in New York — either directly or in the form of increased insurance premiums.
Now I'm all in favor of "preserving rural health care, funding poison control centers, and substantially funding the Child Health Plus insurance program for uninsured children" and Michelle is just administering what the Legislature decided was best for us. But is it really right, sensible or moral for the State to pay for these services by taxing the sick? This is an outrageous, sleazy system: The sicker you are, the more the State takes out of you. Just the sort of system you'd expect a thoroughly dysfunctional Legislature to impose.
I applaud Memorial Sloan-Kettering for moving this hidden sick-people tax out into the open where patients can see it. I wish all of New York's health care providers would do the same. If that happened, even our pitiful excuse for a Legislature might be motivated to do something sensible.
David Ehnebuske
Countering misinformation
Submitted by cnarbey on Thu, 08/06/2009 - 10:43amFor reasons best known to him, Councilman Lou Tartaro has made statements at the Town Board meeting of July 13, 2009, to the press ("The Journal News", "The Putnam Courier" and "The Putnam Press") and in letters to all of these newspapers.
Many of his statements are not factual and appear to be designed to shift the blame for the impending (apparent - we don't know the details yet) financial loss to the taxpayers of Kent onto Putnam County and onto NYC's DEP.
I have attempted to counter these mistatements with letters to the editor. Here is the latest, published in today's "Putnam Courier":
In his letter last week, Town of Kent Councilman Tartaro again writes misleadingly.
He writes that the County “ … forgave the unpaid taxes …”. The fact is that the County cannot forgive property taxes and this property remains on the tax roll at its 2009 assessed value (which may change as a result of the yet-to-be-revealed settlement of the litigation over the development), so the owner will have to pay taxes on whatever assessed value is agreed upon. Legislator Hay said as much in his letter.
Secondly, Mr. Tartaro questions why the County did not foreclose on the property. The fact is that foreclosure proceedings are held in abeyance in the event of the property owner’s bankruptcy and/or in the event of litigation launched by a property owner. So, the County was unable to complete its foreclosure action, awaiting the resolution of the litigation.
Mr. Tartaro knows (or he should know) these facts. I believe that it is entirely improper for him to write these misleading comments, as many of his constituents do not have knowledge of the facts in these situations and many believe fervently (but incorrectly) that the County has the absolute and unfettered right to seize real property, without regard to the legal rights of the owner.
