January, 2009
Town of Kent facing multi-million dollar damages claim.
Submitted by kfwadmin on Wed, 01/28/2009 - 9:37pmDear Fellow Kent residents and taxpayers,
I have become increasingly alarmed about the possible financial costs to taxpayers of the Kent Manor litigation.
As you know, the Town and its Planning Board are defendants in litigation brought by the owners and prospective developers of the Kent Acres (or Kent Manor) property on Nichols Street.
Since 2001, the plaintiffs have filed with the NYS Supreme Court (Justice Andrew P. O'Rourke) claims of damages and losses caused by our Town's refusal to issue all necessary approvals for their proposed development of 303 residential units. These damages include fees already paid (and accepted!) by the Town for permits, planning approvals, etc. and over $250,000 to the Parks and Rec. funds.
"The Journal News" wrote an article on August 21, 2008 and an editorial on August 22, 2008 about this litigation and the potential costs facing the Town and other defendants and urged the Town to bring the matter to a close.
Since then, strictly on my own volition and with nobody else's input, I have been trying to obtain information from our elected representatives and certain municipal employees about this situation. From my experience, the Town Board has dropped an "iron curtain" on this subject and will supply zero information to myself (and to some other constituents whom I have encountered along the way).
I am very, very concerned about the possible costs to taxpayers, if this litigation (still in progress, scandalously - my opinion - not resolved since 1996!!!). Not insignificant must be the high cost of legal services already paid to date by our Town for defense against this action.
I am also very concerned about the caliber of professional legal services being supplied to the Town in this matter, to date.
This litigation is ongoing, with appeals already filed or possible. However, the "worst case scenario" could be a multi-million dollar damages award to the plaintiffs, which would significantly impact your property taxes. I cannot obtain information about whether the Town's insurances would cover such an award of damages!
I have written a letter to the editor of "The Journal News", which is attached.
If you are interested, please read the letter. If you become concerned about this matter, please tell all of your friends and neighbors in Kent about it. Maybe an outcry from a number of taxpayers might get the Town to give us at least some reassurance about the insurance coverage that may ameliorate the damages award (but jack up our subsequent premiums?). I will start a "string" on the LoHud blogs for Kent, if you'd like to say anything at all about this matter.
I hope that I'm just being a "doddery senior" about this - but my fixed income won't take any shocks!
Below is the letter Cliff sent to the Journal News:
January 27, 2009
To the Editor of the Journal News,
Dear Sir or Madam,
Re.: Town of Kent - $16 million damages claim
Last August, your newspaper reported, then editorialized, on the financial situation facing the Town of Kent from damages claimed by the developers of the Kent Manor property.
I attended a Town Board meeting in September 2008 and asked questions about this matter and about insurance against such claims. The Town Board would not answer, as the matter was in litigation, but the Town Attorney attempted to answer some of my questions. Certain of his statements at that meeting did not appear to be logical, so I attempted to ask questions at the next meeting. The Supervisor brusquely refused me and adjourned the meeting.
My concern aroused, I telephoned Justice O’Rourke’s chambers (you reported his July 5, 2008 orders in your article). I was told that all court documents were on file at the Putnam County Clerk’s office. I requested these records and pored through all of them (5 boxes), making copies of relevant items.
I requested access to town records under the Freedom of Information Law. My requests were denied and my appeals of those denials have been ignored. I have been completely stonewalled by the Kent Town Board and its municipal employees.
The Town’s appeal of Justice O’Rourke’s July 5 orders has not yet been heard. Meanwhile, in his December 22, 2008 Orders, the Judge has set a trial date of July 20, 2009 with respect to the issue of damages recoverable by the plaintiffs. The judge also ordered the Town to provide the court with specific insurance information (that the Town has, to date, withheld).
This litigation is far from complete and the amount of damages (if any) set. I believe that all Kent taxpayers should be alarmed by the worst case scenario of a significant damage award (your article mentioned the almost $16 million claimed since 2001 by the plaintiffs). The plaintiffs appear to be relentless in their pursuit of damages, yet our elected representatives are not prepared to even reassure taxpayers that there is no need for concern. I am also concerned about the caliber of the professional legal services that the Town is receiving in this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Clifford G. Narbey
Kent Cliffs
Town Taxes and Budget for 2009
Submitted by kfwadmin on Wed, 01/28/2009 - 9:36pmKent Fiscal Watch has monitored the Town of Kent’s budget process, and commented thereon, for the past three years. We obtained a copy of Supervisor Doherty’s Tentative Budget for 2009, filed with the Town Clerk on September 30, 2008. A number of our members reviewed this budget and Maryholt Maxwell, Joyce Mitchell and Cliff Narbey attended some or all (respectively) of the Budget Workshops, on October 23, 28 and 30 and November 3.
Our comments follow:
A. As we have noted before, the current Town Board is a more cohesive and workmanlike group. The budget review at the workshops was better and more thorough than in the previous two years.
This Town Board and the Town Accountant have finally corrected the improper cost accounting and expense allocation in the Central Garage, so we will now see a more accurate cost of vehicle maintenance, running expenses and upkeep for the user departments (Police, Highway, Parks and Recreation, Sanitation and Town Hall departments). This item has been a consistent recommendation of KFW.
The Town Board, without fanfare, has implemented improvements in internal controls over vehicle fuel, tires and parts and labor. Software to track repair and operating costs of each Town vehicle has been purchased and utilization is commencing. Some contracting has been reviewed and improved (e.g. geothermal systems). The Board is to be complimented on these improvements.
The Tentative Budget proposed total expenditures of $16,896,633 (up $918,788 or 5.44% from the 2008 Approved Budget), including capital expense and all Special Districts. Revenue other than real property taxes was proposed at $3,574,435 (up $1,120,292 or 45.65% from the 2008 Approved Budget). Accordingly, the Tax Levy (amount to be raised by real property taxes) was proposed to be $14,240,986 (up $73,496 or 0.5% - that’s one half of one percent - from the 2008 Approved Budget). Not exactly a zero increase in taxes, but pretty close.
The budget reviews added a few items of expense ($15,000 for Planning for code changes, $10,000 for Celebrations, $8,000 for Assessor for medical insurance) and reduced a few items ($18,518 for Police payroll, $2,000 for Assessor contractual, $2,000 for Town Clerk equipment), a negligible net aggregate addition of $10, 482.
A 9.2% overall increase is proposed for the Highway Department, as costs of petroleum products (fuel, asphalt & blacktop, plastic pipe, heating oil) together with sand and salt for winter are increasing by significant sums; reallocation of highway expenses from road maintenance to snow clearing modifies some of these, but leaves our road infrastructure subject to deterioration. A C.H.I.P.S. grant of $177,364 is anticipated, which will offset some of the increased costs.
A number of departments were held to a zero increase over the 2008 Approved Budget (the Library, the Recycling Center, Legal, Personnel, Engineering, Printing & Mailing, Unallocated Insurance, Judgements & Claims, Contingencies, Programs For The Aging, Stormwater, Landfill, Post-retirement Benefits).
Reductions were made in Recreation (as certain underutilized programs were eliminated, to be reinstated on a zero basis cost after user fees, if demand develops), Town Center Complex Building Operations & Maintenance and the Parks Department (both because equipment needs have been satisfied), Town Code and Planning (as the Master Plan and other issues are substantially complete), Historian (as Town funds for the new Kent Historical Center are not renewed), Dog Control, Beautification.
Overall payroll was increased by across-the-board raises capped at 3%, plus attendant payroll taxes and benefit costs.
The Library screened an excellent Power Point presentation and a somewhat detailed budget in financial statement format, setting a standard that all Town departments should aspire to.
B.
There is no attempt at zero-based budget. Much of the budget appears to be set by reference to prior year’s levels, without reference to the underlying use of the funds.
Personnel headcounts are not provided for review and no effort appears to be made to find ways to reduce payroll (even with reductions in service), or most non-payroll expenses.
The Board does not review all departments’ and Special Districts’ budgets. This year, there was no review of a long list of departments and cost centers - the Town Board itself, Supervisor, Justice Court, Finance, Tax Collector, Budget Officer, Law, Personnel, Engineering, Buildings Operations & Maintenance, the new item of Central Data Processing (what the heck is that?), Unallocated Insurance (how the heck can it be unallocated?), Judgement & Claims, Town Code, Contingencies (is $100,000 sufficient - way less than 1%?) Fire Marshall, Dog Control, Street Lighting, Programs For The Aging, Historian, Zoning Board, Code Enforcement, Stormwater, Landfill, Recycling Center, Beautification, Grants to Participating Municipalities (what the heck is that?), Post-retirement Benefits (a $311,108 item), Lake Carmel Fire Department, Kent Fire Department, Lake Camel Sanitation District, Lake Carmel Park District and the 2 Water Districts (they reviewed the immaterial Lake Tibet Park District!!) and all Capital Expenditures. Thus, taxpayers know little or nothing about these expenses.
There was no review of most of the non-tax revenues.
There was no mention of utilizing the $1 million plus surplus generated in 2007.
There is little or no consideration of sharing resources with other towns, the County and State, or the schools (including BOCES).
Budget control would be enhanced by using a Purchase Order system (expenditure approved before the goods/services received), rather than the Voucher system (expenditure approved after the goods/services received).
Some department managers appeared to have little idea about their department’s respective expenses, thus limiting the effectiveness of the Board’s review.
The Tentative Budget, when amended by the changes detailed above and certain “tweaking” by the Town Accountant, becomes the Preliminary Budget. The Town Board will hold a Public Hearing on the Preliminary Budget at 7 p.m. on Thursday, November 6. We urge all taxpayers to come to that hearing.
New items saw a large increase in the Justice Court ($248,000), which will be more than offset by increased State rebates of fines and forfeited bail, a new item named Central Data Processing ($60,000), a new item called Grants To Participating Municipalities ($11,518).
This was originally posted on 11/06/2008 by Cliff Narbey
Would you vote to consolidate services in Putnam County?
Submitted by kfwadmin on Sun, 01/25/2009 - 10:09pmYes
81% (26 votes)
No
9% (3 votes)
Maybe
9% (3 votes)
Total votes: 32
