|
|
|
|
Click to visit the
Official Town Site
|
|
|
|
|
|
February 17, 2012
To the Editor:
We are currently being asked, as taxpayers, to fund renovations on the Shore Road DPW facility. There seems to be an overwhelming feeling that we already sold the original Hudson Street facility in 2005, so if we do not renovate the current facility, where will the workers go? How much would it cost to construct a new facility some place else?
These are valid questions. However, also a valid question – If the building construction was pushed through so hastily, with improper foundation design for the site, in a flood plain, and against 2005 taxpayer objection, why should the taxpayers believe that the additional $400-500,000 in renovations cost will be properly utilized now?
There is a public meeting February 27 that will discuss the funding of the renovations, as well as possible alternatives to just renovating the building at this site. I encourage all Village citizens to attend.
The NYS Comptroller’s audit was just released for public viewing - http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/audits/villages/2012/cornwallonhudson.pdf
Please pay careful attention to the Executive Summary (p3), and the audit of the DPW facility (p 8). Please carefully compare Mayor Coyne’s letter of response (p25) and the Comptroller’s comments regarding his response (Appendix B p 27).
The auditors’ outline on p3 that they felt the 2005 Village Board did not act in the best interest of the taxpayers by utilizing an LDC to circumvent compliance with NYS General Municipal Laws. They also clarify why they came to that conclusion in the Appendix B on p 27.
The original claim of the 2005 government was that they used an LDC for construction to “save the taxpayers money”.
Page 8 of the audit document outlines the monetary amounts associated with the project –
The contract between the LDC and the builder was signed in August 2005 for a total of $722,000. However, the Village Board bonded $960,000 and turned this money OVER to the LDC to use in October 2005. Once construction was complete the LDC spent $929,000 and returned $31,000 to the Village Board. This is $207,000 more than needed by the contract signed. Where did that money go? Was this in the best interest of the taxpayers, did this save us money?
The auditors also outline how the $300,000 the LDC received for the sale of the Hudson St. DPW facility was not put towards lowering the amount of the $960,000 Bond, and that the taxpayers will pay an additional $378,000 in interest over the life of the bond. With interest we, the taxpayers, are paying $1,307,000 for a building only worth about $400,000. How is this saving the taxpayers money?
I am asking the taxpayers to think logically when they are faced with the statement “looking forward.” Think – 15 years from now, when I will need to pay for my child’s college education, will the building flood again, will the improper foundation be a future issue, will I then be asked to spend more? This is your tax money, and your future. Please, tell our representatives “Don’t Pay Twice.”
Melissa Vellone
Cornwall-on-Hudson
Comments:
|
Complete hyperbole.
>>>With interest we, the taxpayers, are paying $1,307,000 for a building only worth about $400,000. How is this saving the taxpayers money? <<<
Totally pulling figures our of the air.
This poster is just not worth listening to. Building is just not worth 400.000? Back that up with some facts. You are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Let us see how you base this building being worth 400K. Let us see your facts?
posted by P W on 02/17/12 at 7:33 PM
|
|
Mr. Welch, if you would like to fact check me, please do. YOU spend your time researching what the building is valued at and let me know where your documentation came from.
As I recall the actual number was in the ballpark of $450-$460,000. I would need to search for that number, and it is not going to happen tonight. But I assure you that I have NO PROBLEM fact checking and giving you an update.
Can you do the same?
posted by Melissa Vellone on 02/17/12 at 9:23 PM
|
|
I also find it interesting that with other such large, outlandish figures of money that ARE totally confirmable from the comptrollers report (which I added the link to) you have to pick out the one figure that is not in the report.
I CAN tell you that I did not pull that number out of the air, I recall the number from the August-October Village Board meetings. I know, because it was a figure that was being discussed in the meet and greet this fall. I will search through Argenio's videos and work on giving you an update. If you refute this value, please provide to me the same documentation you are asking me to search for.
posted by Melissa Vellone on 02/17/12 at 9:29 PM
|
|
Oye ve ... Hey everyone, I apologize for posting on my own letter so much, but I just realized that the $1,307,000 figure I stated was also under dispute -
I got that number from the comptrollers report, which can be found at the link in my article.
$929,000 (construction) + $378,000 (interest) = $1,307,000 total cost for the building before renovations. I did not just make that number up.
posted by Melissa Vellone on 02/18/12 at 10:33 AM
|
|
As a former New York State Licensed Real Estate Appraiser I can say from my history doing appraisals that your $400k figure is off the mark. Hire a licensed appraiser and the 400k figure will go poof!
posted by P W on 02/18/12 at 11:38 AM
|
|
OK, sorry for the delay. I just called the Town Assessors office. NOW, the gentlemen I spoke to indicated to me that these should be considered ESTIMATED numbers, because the 2011 tax assessments have not been completed and released. The 50 Shore Road property has an assessed value of $328,500, and the equilization rate for 2011 is 70.69%. So doing some math -
$328,500 (AV)/0.7069 =
$464,281 Market Value for the 50 Shore Road property
posted by Melissa Vellone on 02/20/12 at 11:41 AM
|
|
The town assessor wasn't a licensed appraiser when he worked in Putnam county nor is he now that he's working in Cornwall. I think you must be aware of his fiasco on a Town of Cornwall commercial property last year.
I'll reiterate. Have a NYS Licensed Appraiser do a current appraisal and you will find that figure 400K is WAY off the mark.
posted by P W on 02/21/12 at 8:26 AM
|
|
To the readers -
The taxpayers of COH have already spent $1,307,000 on just the BUILDING at 50 Shore Road. Not the property, just the building.
I can dispute and argue which market value is correct, but the fact is - You can ASK whatever you want for your property, but asking is not getting. Does anyone believe that there would ever be a buyer willing to spend $1,307,000 on that building? Let alone if we add in another half million dollars of renovations cost - That would bring the total on the building to about $1.8 million.
The NYS Comptroller's report is linked above for your review.
posted by Melissa Vellone on 02/21/12 at 11:43 AM
|
Add a Comment:
Please signup or login to add a comment.
|
 |
|
|
|
