TnT Saga (or: Et tu, Toni and Terry?)

I've really been doing my best to learn about the lawsuit.  I've talked to the mayor and supervisor, waded through various comptroller's opinions, been shown laws and budgets, and I've even been given some competing history lessons.  Finally, I consulted Guy Visk's Magic 8-Ball.  I wasn't happy with the results.

Let me try to get my head around the two positions.  I've gotten some pretty wordy explanations that I will try to summarize, and I'm confident that any mistakes I make will be quickly and politely corrected.

What is agreed upon by all is that Town taxes are divided into two parts:  stuff all residents pay for (the A fund) and stuff that only people not in the Village pay for (the B fund).  The B fund is for things that the Village takes care of on its own, and taxes Village residents for directly.  The rescue squad contract with the town was, up until some point during Don Wilen's adminstration, a single agreement with the Town and charged to the A fund - everybody paid their share because everybody could need these guys.  During Wilen's tenure, the contract was split in two, each municipality paying its own share.  The Town's contract was charged to the B fund.  Toni Hokanson placed those charges in the A fund.

Terry:  The Town's contract for ambulance services specifically states that it is for Town residents that do not live within the limits of the Village.  This means that Village residents are not only paying for their ambulance services directly, they're also paying roughly 25% of the Town's contract, as well.  This is not okay.

Toni:  The contract was placed back in the A fund because the New York State Comptroller indicated that it's the only legal place to put it.  The clause in the contract limiting service to residents outside the village is illegal, because the Comptroller said that services are provided on a town-wide basis.  Further, the Comptroller said that if a village in these circumstances wanted its own contract, it needs to be one that provides additional services beyond what Village residents would already get based on the Town contract.  The Village contract is actually the problem.

Terry:  The Comptroller's opinion doesn't actually say that services are automatically provided town-wide, only that it assumes that they are.  That's a different story.  The Town's contract is binding, and the Village is paying more than it should.

Toni:  The reason the contracts were split was because the Village residents were paying artificially low rates.  The contract is based upon a formula deriving from assessments - Village residents pay a portion based on their portion of the Town's assessed property values (right now about 24%).  When there was one joint contract, the Village paid that portion, plus an additional amount to reflect the fact that about half of all ambulance calls are within Village limits.  This extra amount was reflected in Village taxes even then.  The two contracts were apparently written to simplify this process, but the Town's portion still should be in the A fund, as the Comptroller indicates, so that everyone is paying for the level of service being received.

So does the Town's contract make some sort of de facto ambulance district, like I think Terry is claiming, or does it just include a mistaken line that is misleading to those uninitiated into the complexities of Town budgeting, which is the sense I got from Toni?  And what about that Magic 8-Ball?  I asked it, "Will this be able to be resolved without going to court?

Guy's 8-Ball is pretty old, and it's got all manner of air bubbles in it that sometimes don't let you get an answer for a couple of tries.  When I did get one I could read, though, it said, "My answer is no."

Tit for Tat: Terry vs. Toni in That Paper

I've spoken to the mayor, I've read the articles and the letter wars between supervisor and mayor, and I've seen some of the documents in question.  I have some follow-up questions into them both, but based on what I've seen so far, I think the supervisor's rationale doesn't quite fit the particulars of this case.

In her letter to TP (or That Paper, as Mr. McPhillips likes to call it), the supervisor quotes the entirety of the comptoller's opinion about how to assess ambulance charges when you've got a village within a town, and they each sign their own contracts with the same ambulance company.  The comptroller felt that, since the town contract included everything in its borders, that the village residents really were getting the benefit of that, over and above the level of service they were getting from their own contract with the same ambulance company.  (The opinion is very clear that it applies only in cases where the contracts are with the same company.)  Because they were getting that extra level of service, a town could go ahead and put the ambulance charge in the "A" fund that comes from the taxes paid by all town residents - including the ones that live in the village.

Follow so far?  The comptroller thinks that the same exact ambulance volunteers that are on call at any given time would somehow replicate themselves should an emergency happen in the village, so the village residents should pay twice:  once for the town-hired clone, and once for the village-hired clone.

Granted that the opinion is specious at best and bizarre to the core, it is in fact a legitimate basis upon which to base a defense.  If the town ended up losing under those circumstances, it would really be the comptroller's opinion being reversed by a court of law, not an error in judgment.  However, I don't think that this opinion applies to New Paltz.

I looked at a copy of the town's ambulance contract, and it's pretty clear that services are being engaged for the town, excluding anything within the village boundaries.  The mayor is claiming that this contract is specific enough that there's no way any resident of the village could be benefiting from it, at least not while they're at home.  He believes that the comptroller's opinion just doesn't apply in this case.

The Claims that Bind

There's been a fair amount of discussion about the Village suing the Town, because Terry Dungan has found what looks like about $75,000 in taxes to Village residents that the Town shouldn't have charged us.  The notice of claim is available at Town Hall or that link, and has all the relevant details.

Of course it's not the Village suing, it's a number of residents (not including, as some have noted, His Honor).  I wonder how many of those residents asked who would be paying to prosecute this suit, or to defend against it?  Because whether or not they're right, once it's on, attorneys get involved, and you can be sure that the Town is going to have an attorney answer this notice of claim . . . and they'll charge it to the "A" fund that we all pay.

Now I understand that the situation is complex - that's why Terry needed to have "lawsuit parties" where he would spend an hour or so explaining it to a group of people before asking if they wanted to sign on or not.  But in the clusterf*ck that is one government within another, does it occur to anybody on that notice that the only people that are going to pay to litigate or settle this mess is us?  This is financial masturbation, plain and simple.

How about the two boards sit down and talk it out?  Figure out a solution - and leave your damned egos at home, thanks.  I understand that some of your are steamed about being sued, and some of you are irked about being swindled, but every person in New Paltz will be paying to fix what was likely a mistake.

Terry Dungan is known for not telling his own Board anything, and I think he probably didn't make a real effort to work with the Town - or if he did, no one knew what he meant.  He's smart, but not a real communicator.  Toni Hokanson will defend the Town's interest fiercely, and despite her protests will forget that the Village is part of the Town.  We can't afford to have Terry push forward with a suit that's premature, nor can we afford for Toni not to work out a solution that benefits the citizens.  I don't really give a damn which government gets the money in the end, as long as it doesn't end up in my tax bill.

Let's watch how this unfolds carefully.  If, by the next election, it's not settled with NO cost to the taxpayers, can we agree to vote out of office anyone who comes up for election?  And to continue on that route until all ten have been replaced?  This is the reason why unification needs to happen:  I don't want them fighting over how much of my money they get to piddle away hating each other.  I know that not every sitting Board and Council member is responsible for this debacle, but we need to send a message that they will all be held accountable if this is not ended now.  I'm sure that cooler heads will prevail if it's clear that people in New Paltz are serious.  It's an embarassment, an unnecessary expense, and should have been avoided by working it out like adults.  Okay, mature adults.