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."

Come Say Hi!

I will be at Old New Paltz Day tomorrow, chillin' with the Mayor at the Broadhead gate from 1pm-3pm. Come say hi!

I guess I will ask him if he is the one who gave me the parking ticket. Which, by the way, I pleaded "No Guilty" to and await a court date. But Michael Zierler said he would testify for me. :)

kt Tobin Flusser

Building Freeze Looms

Last night the Town Council voted 3-1 to move forward with an 18-month moratorium on subdivisions of four or more lots.  David Lewis was not present, and Toni Hokanson cast the dissenting vote.

• The vote shows that, at least sometimes, the Town Council doesn't blindly follow Toni's lead, as I've often seen written in That Paper's letters column.  It may happen, but it didn't happen last night.
• Toni has been consistent in her opposition to a moratorium before the comprehensive plan update is done - she feels that the time for one is afterwards, when the zoning code changes are tweaked.
• Kitty Brown was consistent in her position that this type of idea should really come from the Planning Board.
• Jonathan Wright, the gadfly and Planning Board member who has pushed for this for over two years, has been unable to get that body to recommend a moratorium.  He has always maintained that having the moratorium now is critical, because the zoning is broken and we should not be allowing any more bad subdivisions (read:  McMansions and strip malls) to be approved before we take a look at what types of development will really benefit the town, economically, culturally, and environmentally.
  
• Jeff Logan worked hard on getting this passed, and showed a real commitment to doing to research and work necessary to be on the Council.  In other words, he's now officially underpaid ;) .

The language must be reviewed by the Town Attorney before a public hearing date may be set.

The Grass It Is A'Growin'

Watch out Villagers the Grass Police are taking prisoners! Or, well, at least threatening imprisonment! My lovely lawn guy (yes, I have a lawn guy!) (and he is lovely!) has informed me that the village sent out at least three of these letters in the past week, and those are just the ones he knew about.

1) First off, in my world we capitalize the "P" in New Paltz.
2) Does the village really need to yell in ALL CAPS in bold and italics and underlined about the need to remedy the situation IMMEDIATELY!
3) Does the village really need to threaten "fine or imprisonment or both" for this offense?
4) I spoke to (confidentially, due to the extreme social stigma) two high grass offenders (high grass, now that's funny) and neither were notified by phone or any other more personal way of warning before receiving this overly formal, overly harsh form letter. I thought we lived in a quaint little village in which we can expect neighborly, intimate relations (funny again) with our government... Guess not.
5) I have to wonder if we spent more tax dollars policing this and filing paperwork and paying postage than we generated in revenues gained from the fines.
6) Have you seen the code - do you know how tall your grass is legally allowed to grow? Guess what, 3 inches:
124-1. Maintenance of Grass Lawns
Grass shall not be allowed to grow in excess of three inches. This provision shall not apply to land under cultivation, naturally wooded areas or undeveloped areas which are at least 200 feet distant from any occupied building or residence.
Now that is just crazy silly for so many reasons, not the least of which is the burning of fossil fuels on a much too frequent basis for pretty lawns.
7) What is the big picture question here? Are we resorting to taxing quality of life issues in order to beef up the budget in these recessionary times? Jeez, that would be really pathetic.

(I got a parking ticket the other day at the municipal lot - the machine would not take money before 9:00am, I was there at 8:30am and was not able to run out and put money in the machine at 9:00am. My silly day job has prevented me from getting down to Village Hall to contest the ticket -- what do you think my chances are?)

kt Tobin Flusser

Time to extinguish firefight?

Kudos to Malone Vandam for proposing a detante for the, erm, firefight at Village Hall.  It's the only commentary I've seen that's done anything but fan the flames of folks whose tempers have been understandably rubbed raw all around.  In general I prefer we all play nice even if we disagree, even going so far as to referee comment fights, and Vandam's suggestion to give Shari Osborn the benefit of the doubt makes sense.

As Rachel Lagodka said of Brian Kimbiz, "I have to work with whoever gets elected."  I don't doubt that the calls for Shari's resignation could build up steam and perhaps even succeed.  But really, is that the best use of human effort?  A drawn-out, unpleasant squabble that will sell papers and slow down any real progress on funding the fire department.  At least it would be contributing to the local economy.

Who says Bruce Kazan can't build?

Rosario Agostaro of Gardiner wrote a letter to this week's issue of That Paper expressing frustration for Bruce Kazan, owner of the Main Course, in his quest to develop the property at 175 Main Street.  Rosario says:

As of this date, Mr. Kazan, a business owner for over 19 years in our community, has had to invest over $18,000 in legal fees to try to navigate through what appears as an endless nightmare of bureaucracy.  Should a respected member of the local business community be expected to support his vision at 5 separate Planning Board meetings, supported by an architect and lawyer on hand, to keep the discussion focused on the real issues of the project? Is it possible that we have a lack of communication between members of local government?

I'm not sure what Rosario is complaining about, actually.  Mr. Kazan received approval for his project months ago.  Then, he and his architect changed the plans significantly from what was approved, moving the loading from inside to outside, moving the kitchen to another location in the building, and making several windows into doors.  That all should have been included in an amended site plan application before the work started, but despite the fact that the work was well underway, the Planning Board then went ahead and approved the amended site plan.

So Bruce Kazan got his approval, built something much different than what he agreed to, and then got retroactive approval to use the new plan.  I myself was conflicted; I've stated both at public meetings and in this blog that I supported his idea, but ultimately I voted against the amended site plan because I felt that the modifications (particularly the outside loading) did not reflect the original compromise with the neighbors.  Even if the amended site plan had not been approved, Bruce would have be entitled to go ahead with his original plan.  (At that point it would have meant a lot of expensive changes to the building, but I have to think that this is the risk of making the business decision of building it before you get approval, instead of following the rules.)

The five planning board meetings Bruce attended, the time he spent drawing up plans, and the delays in getting his building to turn a profit could have been significantly reduced if he had elected to simply build what was approved in the first place.  Nobody has discouraged Bruce to act on his ideas, as Rosario claims - he's just spent a lot more time and money because he or his consultants didn't do things in the proper order.  And his plan is approved, so I don't know why this letter comes now.

Yes, there is pending litigation regarding the application (about which I will do my best not to comment), but it was brought by Mr. Kazan and any delays that result from it will be his choice.  He still is completely within his rights to finish his building and open for business.  If one of his tenants sells artisinal bread as he hopes, I will certainly patronize that business as well.  At the time, the neighbors weren't happy that I expressed a fondness for such bread, but all was forgiven when I voted against the amended site plan.  I just wish Bruce would go ahead and finish building according to his approved plan.

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.