Limiting the number of times someone can be elected to the same position can promote needed change by bringing fresh ideas and new eyes to government, but it can also deprive the public of competent, energetic public servants. Earlier this year the Putnam County legislators decided in favor of change and fresh ideas and adopted term limits for themselves. Should the members of the Kent Town Board do the same?

Opinion for term limits                                       Opinion against term limits

School Presentation on Unfunded and Underfunded Mandated 9/27/2011

James J. Kirk

Tomorrow's School Board presentation will include a segment on unfunded and underfunded mandates.  The recent Tax Cap levy law included language that intended to address this problem, but to the best of my knowledge the current law only calls for further study on the issue of unfunded mandates and does not include legislative language that offers immediate relief.

The New York State School Board Association (NYSSBA) has issued their own recommendations for mandate relief and some of the recommendations are likely to meet with intense resistance.  The New York State Board of Regents has also prepared a list of mandates, which is more current than the list provided by the NYSSBA.    

Special Education

One of the key areas of under-funded mandates is Special Education programs and one recommendation to shift the burden of defending the need for an IEP from the school to the parent.  I am not an expert on this particular mandate, and therefore not qualified to offer an opinion on how this shift would reduce overall costs, but according to NYS records the individual special education costs for the Carmel Central School District (CCSD) total 27K per student as opposed to an average of 12K for the remaining student body. This equates to a total of over 19 million dollars in expenditures for the CCSD.  The relevant information can be found here. 

This sum is partially offset by what is known as “Foundation Aid, which for the CCSD totaled close to 16 million for the 2010-2011 school year.  .  Special Education aid is included in the total sum CCSD receives for Foundation Aid and the percentage dedicated to Special Education is included in the link found here. It should be noted that the Special Education funding can be found under the items listed as Public Excess Cost Set Aside which totals close to 3 million dollars and when other aid is factored in the total excess cost aid is four million, four hundred seven thousand, and six hundred and seventy dollars ($4,407,670.00).   As noted above the 2011-2012 CCSD budget for Special Education is over 19 million dollars. Therefore, if the above calculations and information are correct the CCSD taxpayers are picking up the additional 15 million dollars for this mandated program.

Taylor Law

The NYSSBA also identifies the current Taylor Law as an unfunded mandate, which costs individual school districts millions of dollars.  Under the current law, once a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) expires the terms and conditions of the expired CBA remain in place with the exception of increases to those covered individuals who are the top Step.  This particular provision of the Taylor Law not included in the original language of the Law, but was adopted by a legislative act after a Judge in a Court Case determined that once the existing CBA expired, the entire CBA was deemed null and void including the existing practice of continuing to grant Step and Lane increases for all employees covered under the previous agreement.

While I am advocate for this legislative, the fact is if you compare teacher salaries for the current fiscal year against the 2010-2011 school year, the total increase in salaries is projected to be in the neighborhood of 1.3 million dollars;  his really is not a true savings but a deferred cost.  Under a subsequently negotiated CBA the teachers would, most likely, be entitled to raises they did not receive during the period when a CBA was not in effect.

However, my main reason for endorsing the Taylor Law change is that I believe the current system places the Administration at a disadvantage during the negotiating process.  The current system also lacks any provisions for finality in the Collective Bargaining process.

Transportation

Transportation is another area where the NYSSBA found room for improvement.  Under the current system the school is responsible for ensuring that their bus runs offer seating for all enrolled students.  I don’t pretend to know the actual percentage of school busses that are at less than capacity and by how much but this is an area worth exploring.  In fact, if I am not mistaken, this is also an area that has been widely discussed under the Shared Services initiative. One possible solution is to eliminate HS students who drive to school and also a possible charge on parents who drive their children to and from school with a waiver for children involved in extracurricular activity.  

A review of our current transportation expenses demonstrate that the CCSD spends over 5 million dollars per year on transportation, however as the Foundation Aid report cited above shows CCSD is reimbursed for over 2 million dollars of these costs.  But the bottom line is that the 2 million dollars is still taxpayer money.

One additional note and that is the figures cited on the School Budget do not add up to the figures posted on the NYSED website and maybe the Administration can clarify the discrepancies (e.g. Special Ed on the District Website totals 13 million dollars, yet NYSED listed the total at 19 million dollars).

Finally, the above list is far from comprehensive and does not include items such as Wicks Law or mandated Pension Contributions.  The latter being a significant cost burden on the individual Districts.  

PS: The embedded links do not appear to work properly. You may have to disable your popup blocker.           

Why A Constitutional Convention Is Meaningless In Regards To Addressing The Long Term Budget Problems Facing NY State

James J. Kirk

While I applaud Assemblyman’s Katz desire to expedite the Constitutional Convention process in NY State, the sad fact is that changing the current State constitution will have very little affect on the immediate long term pension obligations of NY State. 

If you believe the above statement is not factual, just look at the FAQ’s released by Katz in conjunction with his request for a constitutional convention.  If you see any reference to pension reform for current State and local municipal employees let me know, because I don’t see them. 

The true facts are the Supreme Court and various Circuit Courts have ruled that even if a State does not provide constitutional protection for pension benefits, contract law may take precedence and prior agreed upon contractual obligations cannot be abrogated unless the State can assert a compelling public interest such as maintaining the continued viability of a pension plan.  

In States without contitutional protection for their pension benefit plans the burden of demonstrating that an actual contract exists falls on the moving party, which in most cases would be the Union.      

A number of States have decided to challenge this interpretation of the contracts clause of the US government by taking such actions as freezing COLA payments for current retirees.   Needless to say these actions are under attack by the local unions and their beneficiaries and as of this writing at least two cases have been dismissed, with the Courts ruling that COLA payments are not subject to the Takings Clause and changes to the COLA formula was within the perview of the respective legislations. 

It is no secret that the current Supreme Court is not labor friendly and the cases to watch now are those cases brought by municipal unions in Wisconsin and New Jersey.  However, as noted above pension reform does not appear on Assemblyman Katz' proposal for a Constitutional Convention. 

The bottom line is, unless New York State can get out from under their pension obligations for current employees a Constitutional Convention will not do much to change the State's fiscal picture and is not worth the cost.  However, if a Supreme Court decision puts pension reform on the table for current employees then a Constitutional Convention may be worthwhile.     

.       

The Town of Kent Town Board is proposing to amend the zoning law for the Town by adopting something euphemistically called an Office Park Overlay District, or OPOD. You can see the text of the proposed law on the Town’s website, here. The proposal would permit and encourage R-80 residential land with access to state or county roads to be developed for commercial uses such as warehouses, distribution centers and manufacturing so long as the parcel involved meets certain conditions spelled out in the proposal and so long as the Town Board approves.

After studying it extensively, I’ve become convinced the proposal is an extremely bad idea that has the potential to seriously damage our town and our way of life. Yes, we need responsible commercial development, but this is not the way to go about encouraging it.

The Town Board will reconvene the public hearing on this matter on June 21 at 7PM at the town hall. After you understand what’s being proposed, I hope you’ll come to this hearing and speak out against this ill-considered proposal.

David Ehnebuske

Why the OPOD is a Truly Bad Idea

The OPOD propsal should not become law for three main reasons.

First: The process used to develop the OPOD proposal is not a good one

The Town has a Comprehensive Plan. It was adopted after considerable work, expense and public discussion. Now the public has every right to expect the Town to use the Plan to guide its land use decisions. That said, no plan is perfect. If the Town Board concludes that there are aspects of it that aren't working as well as they need to -- for example, if the Plan doesn't sufficiently encourage redevelopment of the Route 52 corridor -- then the Town Board should amend the Plan using a process similar to the one used to create it in the first place. Once agreement is reached on updates to the Plan, then it would be time to draft legislation to implement the agreed-to changes.

What's happened here is nothing like that. Out of nothing we suddenly see fully formed draft legislation that doesn't just fail to implement an amended Plan, it hardly acknowledges the Plan's existence. In bringing forward the OPOD proposal in this way, the Town Board has broken the promise of stability and predictability the Plan ostensibly represents. Regardless of the merits of the proposal, the process used to create the OPOD proposal is both wrong and wrongheaded.

Second: The OPOD proposal itself is a bad idea

Completely independent of the process used to develop it, there's the OPOD proposal itself. I think it's a terrible idea for two reasons.

Number one, the proposal doesn't follow the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan says, "The R-80 and R-40 residential zoning in Kent should not change." (Land Use and Zoning Policy 1). The Consulting Town Planner points out that adopting the OPOD doesn't change the zoning of any property. That’s true enough in the sense that no land is moved from one zone to another. Instead, the proposal changes the definition of the R-80 zone itself. In the existing definition, office parks, light industrial, and the other uses outlined in the OPOD draft are not permitted. With the proposed change, those uses are permitted so long as the property involved meets the OPOD criteria and the Town Board agrees. In my book, keeping the name of a zone and changing its definition is a zoning change, and adopting this one would be contrary to the Comprehensive Plan.

The second reason the OPOD proposal is a bad idea is that it undermines the very reasons for having zoning laws. Our zoning laws assure residents and businesses that land use patterns in the Town are well thought-out, stable and predictable over long periods of time. This gives residents and businesses the confidence they need to make large, long-term investments in our community. People and businesses don't invest where land use can suddenly and unpredictably change. Yet, that's exactly what the OPOD proposes for large sections of the Town. With the OPOD in place, no one with R-80 property near a county or state highway could reasonably predict what might happen to vacant land next door. Today its R-80 zoning permits only residential use, but tomorrow a warehouse, parking garage or factory could be okay. From a zoning point of view all it takes is a developer who puts together 25 acres, gains access to the road, and receives the nod from a majority of the Town Board. This is not how zoning laws are supposed to work.

One last thing on this topic. Proponents of the proposal have put forward the idea that because OPOD projects would need to go through all of the environmental vetting processes, be designed and constructed to conform to building codes and so on, the proposal is somehow less bad. That’s hogwash. The subject of the proposal is zoning, not construction standards, architectural guidelines or environmental impact processes. At the end of the obfuscation, we’re still talking about changing the definition of the R-80 zone. That’s a bad idea, plain and simple.

Third: The OPOD proposal doesn't accomplish the goal the Consulting Town Planner said it was designed to accomplish

At the May Planning Board workshop the Consulting Town Planner said that the OPOD proposal was motivated by the desire to encourage redevelopment of some of the commercial areas along Route 52. Many people, including me, agree with that goal. But the OPOD proposal is completely off target if that's its intent. The OPOD proposal applies to land zoned R-80, but none of the parcels along Route 52 that might benefit from redevelopment is zoned R-80. The OPOD simply wouldn't apply.

On the other hand as the Consulting Town Planner said at the Public Hearing, the OPOD proposal does apply to the undeveloped land to the north of the Town Center. But that's not redevelopment.

In summary, it’s my view that the OPOD proposal would not serve the interests of the Town, its residents, or businesses and should not be adopted. It’s also my view that, the Town Board would be well advised to address any land use issues it identifies using an open process that begins with changes to the Comprehensive Plan and ends with adopting legislation. Doing it that way is much more likely to generate public support for needed change and, at the same time, produce a better result.

Help stop this poorly thought-through proposal before it has a chance to wreck our neighborhoods. Attend the public hearing on June 21 at 7pm in the Town Hall. Speak out against the Office Park Overlay District proposal.

To the editor:

Simply put, taxes (property and school tax) based on the value of real

estate are fundamentally unfair because they do not reflect an

individual's ability to pay, except at the time of purchase.

Income tax is based on the fact that a person has income of a certain

level. Sales tax is based on the fact that a person has money to

purchase goods and services. I recognize the need for tax revenue. Tax

my income and purchases at a level required to support the needs of

the government. But why does the government have the power to tax the

house I purchased in 1982 for $35,000 at an assessed value of more

than $300,000 today? Using the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

inflation calculator available on the Internet, my $35,000 home would

now cost approximately $79,400 in 2010 dollars.

How does the government's assessed value of my home reflect my ability

to pay? It doesn't. Our real-estate-value-based taxes do not have an

income component in their calculation. The assessed value reflects the

ability to pay of the person who buys my house for $300,000 if I'm

forced to sell due to the tax burden. Maybe that's the real goal after

all!

Joe

I have written the following letter to "The Putnam County Times", to amplify their report on the November 3 Public Hearing on the 2011 budget:

"Your reporter was too brief about the November 3 public hearing.

I did credit the current Board, in the last 3 budgets, with significantly slowing the rate of spending increases incurred by previous administrations. They have also improved the budget process significantly.

However, I did go on to urge them to do more. I feel that public bodies (including schools) should conduct their budgets like families do. When revenue falls (e.g. mortgage tax), spending should be cut, not just held to small increases.

The 2011 budget shows that Kent’s operating spending (excluding the Special Districts, capital expenditures and debt service) has increased since 2006 by 22%. Over this period, spending by Police, Highway and garage has increased by 18%, 26% and 29% respectively (see the table on www.kentfiscalwatch.org). Few residents have seen that kind of increase in their incomes, many even having theirs reduced.

I told the Board that I felt no more "served and protected" by police in Kent than my friends and acquaintances in Putnam Valley and Patterson. I offered Miller Hill Road and White Pond Road out of Kent and into East Fishkill as examples of poorer quality roads in Kent than our neighbors. I urged the Board to start reducing the high cost of the above departments, by reducing manpower and contracting out work, as needed. I feel that there are other departments that could stand a complete re-evaluation. Consolidation is talked about but not acted upon.

The current Board is a qualitative improvement over previous ones. Yet, they are justified in regarding the apathetic response by taxpayers as affirmation that what they have done so far is good enough. There were less than 12 people (6 Kent Fiscal Watch members) in attendance.

Yours sincerely,

Clifford G. Narbey

Kent Cliffs"