Kent Manor
The real cost of Kent Manor settlement - over $11 million?
Submitted by cnarbey on Wed, 08/19/2009 - 9:10amMy 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 - 1:35pmTaken 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.
Countering misinformation
Submitted by cnarbey on Thu, 08/06/2009 - 9:43amFor 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.
Kent Manor litigation - letter to the editor "Putnam Courier"
Submitted by cnarbey on Mon, 07/20/2009 - 9:51am
Re.: Kent Manor lawsuit
Town of Kent Councilman Tartaro takes issue with the County Legislature’s decision to settle the lawsuit brought by the developers of the Kent Manor property.
In my opinion, there were misstatements of fact in "The Putnam County Courier's" report and correspondence on the Kent Manor litigation published in last week's issue.
I have today submitted the following letter to the "Courier's" Editor:
"Dear Sir,
I spent many hours reading the court documents in this case. Mr. Tartaro has been a councilman for more than 10 years and, I believe, has more knowledge of this litigation than I. He knows that the NYCDEP on May 8, 1998 gave conceptual approval to Kent Manor’s application for inclusion in the Phosphorous Offset Pilot Program, subject to the approval of either the Town or the County. He knows that on January 27, 1999 the County Watershed Administrator wrote that the County’s policy of "home rule" meant that the County would consider such approval a "local matter" for action solely by the Town. Further, Mr. Tartaro knows that a 1989 court-ordered Stipulation requires that the Town issue "all local approvals and consents necessary" for the construction of the Kent Manor project. He knows that the Town Board has not approved the project’s application for inclusion in the POPP and that the Town Building Inspector has not renewed the expired building permits already issued, despite the court’s orders.
Yet Mr. Tartaro rails against the County decision to extricate itself from the decades-long legal actions (a suit for damages and a tax certiorari action against alleged unfair assessments of property value). He claims that the County alone has denied the approvals for the project to continue.
The developer of this property alleges that the Town Assessor, supported by the local Board of Assessment Review, has over-assessed this property, placing a full market value on it for its highest and best use, while knowing that the development as residential condominiums could not proceed because the Town Board would not issue the necessary approvals.
So, Mr. Tartaro has known that Town taxpayers have paid lesser school and Kent taxes (except for their share of the County payments) and may eventually have to make this up, if the developer prevails in Court.
Yours sincerely,
Clifford G. Narbey
Kent Cliffs
Because of space limitations, I did not submit a final paragraph from my original draft, but I feel that it is important (and fits with Joyce Mitchell's report about this matter from the Town Board meeting of July 13 (see the category "Town Board Meeting" at left). So this is what was omitted from my letter to the Editor:"It is ironic that Mr. Tartaro protests the way in which the County legislators took their vote to extricate the County from these legal proceedings, when he has been a member of a Town Board that has discontinued videotaping of Workshops and some Town Board meetings, refused to give access to information under the Freedom of Information Act, does not comply with the Open meetings Law regarding Executive Sessions, denied that the Town is being sued for damages and does not even acknowledge receipt of correspondence from his constituents."
Putnam County settles with Kent Manor developers - Kent next?
Submitted by cnarbey on Tue, 07/14/2009 - 8:37amThe "Journal News" reported yesterday that Putnam County has reached an out-of-court settlement with the Kent Manor developers (read the story at http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009907130320). Readers' comments are shown on that page too.
This leaves our Town Board and its ineffective (my opinion) counsel alone to face the judge next Monday regarding damages our taxpayers may be ordered to pay by Justice O'Rourke I will attend that hearing and report o this website afterwards.
From the Times Herald-Record: Westfall, Pa. township forced to file for bankruptcy
Submitted by kfwadmin on Mon, 04/20/2009 - 8:06amWestfall, Pa. township forced to file for bankruptcy
On hook for $20M judgment
By Stephen Sacco
Times Herald-Record
Posted: April 18, 2009 - 2:00 AM
WESTFALL TOWNSHIP, Pa. — The township has filed for bankruptcy protection because of a $20 million judgment a federal judge ordered the municipality to pay a New Jersey developer.
The township filed under Chapter 9, a rarely used section of the bankruptcy code that pertains to municipalities. Westfall is the only municipality in Pennsylvania to have filed Chapter 9 bankruptcy in living memory, officials said.
Jake Buchanan, vice chairman of the township's board of supervisors, said there was no way Westfall could pay the multimillion-dollar judgment. The township's annual budget is about $1 million, and it serves 2,430 people.
The bankruptcy filing means the township is protected from having to reduce services or sell off assets. Westfall will have trouble finding credit, but the township already operates on a cash basis, Buchanan said. If not for the judgment, the town would be in good financial shape, he added.
The township plans to restructure the debt in a series of hearings. It is likely a portion of the judgment will be voided, but taxpayers will be on the hook for whatever percentage the court decides the township should pay, Buchanan said.
Westfall's legal battles with developer David Katz have gone on for 23 years. Nobody who was in town government when the lawsuits began is in office anymore.
The litigation was over 750 acres of wooded property off Old Milford Road and Mountain Avenue that Katz bought in 1985 in hopes of building homes there. His development plan sparked a series of arguments over zoning and water and sewer lines.
"In the end, they will still have to pay," Katz said Friday.
Katz also said he had offered to negotiate payments with the town after the court judgment. Buchanan said no further negotiations are possible.
Though it is not common for a government entity to declare bankruptcy, it is not unprecedented. Orange County, Calif., declared bankruptcy in 1994 after losing $1.7 billion in taxpayer money on risky Wall Street investments.
Plan Putnam comments about Kent Manor
Submitted by cnarbey on Thu, 03/19/2009 - 9:51amI have posted a response to Jeff Green's comments published in his NTM section on Feb. 19, 2009.
The link to the response is http://www.planputnam.org/ntm/2009/03/kent-manor-litigation/
