Village Audit - Not Really

I have posted previously about the Village Board's duty to perform annual audits, and the apparent failure of the Board to do so since the last financial audit performed in 2002. A recent FOIL request for all audits performed by the Board between April 2004 and present was submitted and the Village responded with a copy of one "audit." But this is not really an audit of the Village's accounting records, it is a report on "agreed-upon procedures." This is a report of specific items the Village Board requested to be sampled and reviewed by the CPA. In the last page of the report the CPA states that they were specifically not engaged to perform an audit of the accounting records.

Questions remain - why hasn't the Village Board conducted an audit of the Village's financial accounts and operations, why have taxes been collected annually (according to the budgets) for auditing services when no audits have been conducted, how were the paid consultants for the shared services/dissolution study and the Dissolution Committee able to provide recommendations to the public without having current information about Village finances, why has the Village repeatedly told the NYS Comptroller's Office that they will be conducting an annual audit then repeatedly fail to do so?

Now that voters have determined to dissolve Village government, will the Village Board engage a CPA to audit its financial accounts before the Town takes over operations?

Here is the "audit":

The Latest Disturbing Trend

Sorry for my long absence.

Recently I was made aware that an old friend, someone I’ve known and respected for years, is convinced that my wife and I have been anonymously posting criticisms of the Mayor on a locally hosted online community forum.

In my opinion, this is just a symptom of a greater illness that is currently afflicting our community. We seem to live in a time in our village in which the expression of differences of opinions and the questioning of authority is too often met with suspicion, intolerance and even vindictiveness. But isn’t it simply human nature, in any relationship, to express differing, and even drastically opposing, views? It’s the old “agree to disagree” concept once accepted as normal and honorable, even in the halls of government. Now, this viral paranoia spreading down from our elected officials results in the rise of other, less noble, examples of human nature.

So, is it wrong to criticize? Is questioning and the challenging of governmental authority to be readily subjected to derision, often delivered by “loyal supporters”? I’m not talking about genuine libel or outright fabrications, but fact-based criticisms, open questioning, and expressions of differences of opinions. Isn’t this one of the fundamental rights, if not duties, of citizens in our republic? Doesn’t that make us better citizens? Doesn’t that make for better government? Aren’t decision makers who are held accountable more likely to be careful to make better decisions and willingly listen to opposing views?

Is anonymity in criticism wrong? I have expressed more than a couple of specific criticisms and questions of the current administration, all openly under my own name. So have others. But some choose to do so under assumed names (their reasons for this are their own and I won’t presume to judge them for this decision). No one likes to be criticized. It’s uncomfortable, but if the criticism isn’t malicious or a lie, what’s wrong with anonymity?

Of course, anonymous criticism just makes it harder to attack the messenger, the critic, while deflecting attention away from the substance of the message. And that seems to be what’s going on here. The issues in question are all but ignored, while the identity of the anonymous critic is searched out, sometimes successfully, sometimes not, sometimes accurately, sometimes not. Then the critic is branded with the assumption of guilt without any consideration of presumed innocence, or any opportunity for verification of identity or of the facts. We who live in Seneca County recently experienced the damage this disease can cause. Let’s not go there again. Making a list of the naughty and nice and checking it twice should only happen at the North Pole.

By the way, I have never posted on the community forum in question. My wife and I gladly give the forum’s host permission to search the records for our names and email address to confirm this. We’ll cooperate fully. This blog, the news media, and the occasional comments at the podium during Village Board meetings have been the only public forums through which I have ever offered comments, questions, criticisms, or advice to the Village Board. I have never seen a need to hide my identity through disguise or pseudonym. I believe in accountability, and my old friend should remember this.

The Continuing Saga of a Joint Municipal Hall - Doesn't It Make You Wonder?

Let's set the scene. A criminal act destroys the Seneca Falls Town Hall on lower Fall Street. While the Town wrangles with the insurance company a question arises: is re-use of the existing site as a municipal hall the highest and best use for this property? After all, the property is one parcel removed from the waterfront and could someday, if combined with The Mews (former hospital), be incorporated into Seneca Falls' waterfront tourism efforts.

Next, joint Town and Village comprehensive planning efforts result in a recommendation for the two governments to explore a combined municipal building housing both operations under one roof, hopefully saving each some money. The Town and Village agree to launch an effort to explore sharing a facility and where it might be located. Acknowledging a statewide trend toward sharing services the Village applies for and receives a grant from the NYS Department of State to study whether consolidating the two governments would save money; whether a joint facility would be worthwhile and where it should be located; and other potentials for sharing to benefit taxpayers.

The Town and Village, after some delay, agree to hire a consultant of solid reputation and expertise to conduct the study. While preliminary research is being conducted, the Town and Village apparently continue negotiating and discussing various sites for the new facility, quite independent from the grant-funded study by the hired professional consultants. Different sites are reviewed and discussed, usually behind closed doors, and the Town eventually announces its plans to build a new facility on Town-owned land on Ovid Street. The Village agrees to the concept, but takes a step back from the proposal amidst protests that the new site is not centrally located, will be too expensive, and that the plan is premature in light of the anticipated Fall completion of the grant-funded study.

Enter a new character in this play. Seneca Knit Development Corporation (SKDC) reveals it had offered the more centrally located former Westcott Rule Company property on East Bayard Street as home for a new joint facility. This generates little public comment from the Town or Village Boards. The Town appears to be still set on the Ovid Street site. Then SKDC meets with the Town Board offering to sell them the east half of the former Mill property along the canal. This is the half where the old Lehigh Valley Freighthouse once stood and where the south canal wall enhancements are located. This is the half where a Freighthouse-focused park was once part of the development vision. This is the half where townhouse condominiums were once planned as part of the development vision. This is the half where a 60 room hotel was once part of the development vision. SKDC representatives state that the current housing market and the development of the Hotel Clarence preclude pursuit of these types of development on this high profile piece of property.

Now this drama takes a new twist. The Town seems eager to accept this offer from SKDC. The Village gives every indication it, too, is on board to accept this idea for a canalside joint municipal hall. Coincidentally, the Village, followed by the Town, adopts a resolution to amend the contract with the professional consultant conducting the shared services study. Remember the study? The amendment eliminates the task of studying the concept and requirements of a joint municipal facility and where it should be located from the consultant contract.

Wasn't the issue of a joint facility the primary focus of the grant funding the study? In fact, it was! Here is the pertinent section of the grant contract describing the focus of the study. Wasn't this the main purpose for hiring professional specialists to examine this issue? With the joint facility question now removed from the consultant contract what expertise is being employed to enable the two Boards to make a truly informed decision? Didn't the Village make a good faith application for the grant when they requested money to specifically study the potential creation of a joint facility? If so, has the State agreed to amending the change of scope of the grant contract? That question has not been addressed publicly. How can the public know whether or not the Village and Town are endangering this grant by their actions? If they are, how will they pay for the consultants if the State rescinds the grant?

Then there is the issue of "highest and best use." The Town opted not to rebuild at their former site because of the potential for private tourism related development at such a prime piece of real estate. Now both municipalities are ready to take for governmental use what is arguably the most valuable piece of waterfront property smack in the middle of the canal harbor.

The joint Town/Village Comprehensive Plan recommends some form of housing be developed on the former Mill property. Just because the housing market is flat now doesn't mean it will stay that way. And there may be other potential uses for this prime location no one locally has thought of yet. Has the property been sufficiently studied and effectively marketed? Are we passing up an unknown opportunity? What documentation has SKDC provided the Town and Village to show they made good faith efforts to market the property to developers who would capitalize on its potential and bring tax dollars and jobs to our community?

The impatience and frustration of the Town to find a new Town Hall is understandable, but why not wait for the completion of the study? Why not let the consultants do the job they were hired to perform? Why not spend the grant money the way it was intended to be spent? If the Town is impatient the Village should step in and insist that if a joint facility is truly desired it be pursued properly with a careful, well planned documented approach that takes place in full public view.

More to come....

We're Having Meetings To Make Multi-Million $$ Decisions! Is 6:00 p.m. a good time for you? How about 5:00 p.m.?

Just a couple thoughts on upcoming important Village meetings:

Apparently there is a "special meeting" of the Village Board being held tonight, Tuesday, April 22nd, to adopt the 2008-09 Village Budget. I believe it is supposed to take place at 6:00 p.m. at Village Hall. Kind of an odd time of day, if you want the public to attend. Right after normal work hours when people are either still in transit or just sitting down for supper. This information came to me "through the grapevine" rather than by having read an announcement about it in the newspaper or on the Town/Village website.

Just in case anyone reading this blog missed it, the Village Board held a required Public Hearing on the proposed budget on April 1st. A few residents made comments at the hearing for the official record, including myself. The Board members then "closed" the public hearing. Closing a public hearing means that there can be no more public comment allowed on the subject of the hearing. Only the Board members can now speak regarding this issue. If the Board had wanted any further comment from the public they could have "adjourned" the hearing to a later date instead, which would have allowed for more public comment before they take a vote. The budget must be passed according to State law before May 1st or the "tentative budget," as initially presented to the Board by the Mayor, would become automatically adopted.

At the April 1st Budget Hearing the Board decided not to vote on the budget at that time because Third Ward Trustee Petroccia was absent due to illness. While it is laudable that the Board would want to wait until the full Board could be present for the vote, it is unfortunate that tonight's "special meeting" to vote on the budget was not advertised more prominently to the public. Even though we residents can no longer speak about the budget or ask questions, it would have been more in keeping with the concept of open, inclusive government to prominently feature tonight's meeting in the media. Even the Town/Village website makes no mention of this special meeting.

Many residents may not have the time to review an annual municipal spending proposal in detail or attend meetings no matter what date or time they are held. Nonetheless, it is important that our elected leaders provide as much information, and as often as possible, on how they plan to spend our tax dollars. They should do so at times that maximize the possibility that residents can attend. It should also become a matter of routine (and a matter of sound fiscal management) that the Village Treasurer (Chief Fiscal Officer), and the Mayor (Budget Officer), provide regular, monthly reports to the Board and public on the status of the budget and departmental spending.

Taxpayers need to know whenever the budget presents areas of concern. For example, one area that grabbed my attention when reviewing the current budget (2007-08) is the amount we have been spending on engineering services. The 2007-08 budget included $50,000 for engineering costs. While this amount is far above the "usual" amount we pay for such services, it probably was reasonable given the need for engineering design and project oversight for the ongoing drainage projects. However, the current budget provides a projection that the final total for engineering services in 2007-08 will be $100,000!

Interestingly, although drainage projects are scheduled to continue (at least, that is what we have been told), the 2008-09 budget the Board is preparing to pass tonight only includes $15,000 for engineering services.

No explanation has been given for the exorbitant amount that will have been spent by June 1st, an amount double what had been budgeted. And no explanation can be found as to why the new budget includes only 15% of the amount spent this year. Why have we been kept in the dark, especially if these costs may have been legitimately necessary?

My review of the proposed spending plan showed that the Mayor's proposal shows "projections" that the Village's General Fund will be over budget in our current fiscal year by approximately $300,000. Given the rather wildly varying amounts spent as opposed to budgeted, what financial surprises may be in store for us in 2008-09? Could these cost overruns have been addressed or avoided if spending were more openly reviewed and the budget better planned?

During the recent election campaign, the First Ward Trustee suggested that consultant services, such as engineering, be put out to competitive bid in order to provide the Village Board the opportunity to compare and possibly save tax dollars. The Village has used the same engineering firm for decades. At the Village's organizational meeting on April 1st the Board once again appointed the same firm. The firm's work has been professional and reputable. However, this firm provides Village Board members and selected employees with free tickets to Rochester Red Wings baseball games in their corporate seating and tickets to Syracuse University basketball games.

It is no wonder that the Smith Administration has been pushing to relax the Village Code of Ethics to allow elected officials, appointed officers, and employees to accept gifts of up to $75, when they currently are not allowed to accept gifts of any kind. When Mayor Smith was questioned at a mayoral candidate's forum regarding her plan to relax the Code of Ethics she stated that she felt the current code was too restrictive by not even allowing officers and employees to accept a birthday card. It would seem that birthday cards are the least of taxpayers' concerns. And still we see no movement toward competitive bidding of engineering consultant services.

Another upcoming "special meeting" is one that has, so far, been referred to in recent local news articles as taking place April 30th at the Seneca Falls Community Center at 6:00 p.m. It is to be a joint Town/Village Board meeting to continue discussion of plans for a possible joint Town/Village municipal facility. While this meeting has been better publicized than the budget vote, I have been told that the meeting time is now being pushed back to 5:00 p.m., ostensibly to better accommodate the schedules of members of both Boards who may have to leave by 7:00 p.m. for various reasons.

Without getting into the pros and cons of joint facilities and possible locations, it seems to me that the joint Boards are scheduling this meeting for a date and time that is inconvenient, apparently, to several Board members, and is certainly inconvenient for the public that may actually wish to witness how multi-million dollar decisions are made by our elected officials.

Many in the public are concerned that this decision is being pushed along before a full study of needs and options can be made and digested. This is a legitimate concern. Given the fact that the Town wants to build on its own land there should be no rush at this point because they are not competing to buy a piece of property. And given the Village Board's uncertainty - because they voted to accept the plan and now want to revisit that vote - there is still no need to rush this meeting. Instead of handcuffing members of these two Boards to a night when they obviously have other places to go and little time to spend on the issue why not reschedule this meeting altogether? Why not choose another date and time that doesn't effectively exclude the majority of the public who should be allowed to witness the decision making process on an issue that will have a long term effect on our community and its future?

This Place Matters!

May is National Historic Preservation Month, and the theme this year is "This Place Matters." As this celebration approaches consider this:

Once upon a time Seneca Falls forgot its past, disregarding its own heritage except for what was written in books, essays and newspaper articles. Buildings were lost: some great and noble, others modest and humble. Most were demolished in the name of progress; some were lost to fire, while some were simply lost through neglect over time.

Then in the 1970s the Village lost a few more landmarks that made people wake up to the potential loss of the Village’s very identity. The old Latham House on the corner of Center and West Bayard Streets was removed for construction of a new consolidated Fire Department; the Town Clock Building (the Hoskins Block) on the corner of Fall and Cayuga Streets came down; the Armitage on lower Fall Street, site of many weddings and anniversary banquets, was destroyed to make room for a new professional building housing doctors' offices; City Mills on Water Street was leveled creating Peoples Park; and the old Masonic Temple was part of the block removed to help straighten out the Fall/Cayuga Streets intersection.

These losses, as well as others, eventually prompted the Village, supported by ad hoc citizen groups, business people, and state and federal initiatives, to adopt legislation creating the locally designated historic district in 1980. New York State lent its support to Seneca Falls’ preservation efforts through its Heritage Area program, then known as the Urban Cultural Park system. The National Park Service’s enabling legislation that created Women’s Rights National Historical Park included language that called for the state and local governments to ensure the preservation of the Park’s historical context.

Despite some “bumps in the road” Seneca Falls became a community that eventually served as a model for other small municipalities seeking ways to protect their architectural heritage. Communities, institutions and individuals across the country have requested our local law and Guidelines and Standards for the Protection & Enhancement of the Seneca Falls Historic District.

Lately, however, it seems a second coming of the 1970s is fast approaching. Somehow nearly every announcement of potential local development is accompanied by a description of old buildings that will “have to” be demolished to ensure success. Sometimes there aren’t even any logical reasons offered for the demolition plans; the historic structures are just old and apparently in the way of something. Talk of demolition has gotten a little too comfortable for local officials willing to compromise the Village’s identity for ambiguous plans and unsubstantiated needs. For the first time in memory a sitting Mayor has gone before the local preservation commission advocating for demolitions, stating that the structures under review were not really that important, even if it were discovered that Elizabeth Cady Stanton had slept in one of them.

The Village even included demolition of an historic Stanton-era building in a recent grant application. The Village’s unsuccessful 2007 Restore NY application through the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) requested funds for demolition of the former Boarding House at the corner of Bridge and Canal Streets, a structure from our early industrial era that became part of our local Irish and Italian immigrant story, in the Village's oldest commercial district. Of course, first the building was claimed to be “not historic” at all, despite evidence to the contrary, and it was condemned as unsafe for occupation. The building is clearly in bad shape, but so is the Knitting Mill across the street. Neither is beyond salvation. Why single out the Boarding House when it, too, can be rehabilitated and adaptively reused? What would its demolition accomplish other than freeing up enough space to park an additional three or so cars and exposing the backs of buildings on West Bayard Street that would not normally be visible to anyone coming over the Bridge Street bridge into the Sackett Business District?

The same Restore NY grant application also called for rehabilitation and reuse of the former Trinity Church at the Westcott Rule Company property, most recently used as the local “Haunted House” at Halloween. Oddly enough, according to the property owners, at approximately the same time the grant application was submitted they say they secured a determination from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) that demolition of the former church would have no impact on significant cultural resources. Interesting that SHPO seems to be under the impression that their determination of “no impact” was issued not for demolition, but for regular maintenance and environmental actions, in anticipation of an historic rehabilitation of the property.

SHPO was required to review the proposed project. At the church, this included hazardous material abatement; a new roof; new windows and doors; removal of an exterior stairway; and to scrape and paint the exterior. This was to be done in hopes of ultimately reusing the building as an Elder Community Center. Nowhere was demolition of the church mentioned.

Lest we place all of the blame on local officials and developers, it should be noted that NY State shares in the current atmosphere where irreplaceable buildings are treated as expendable. When the former Lehigh Valley freight depot on the Mill property was knocked down without SHPO approval after being virtually demolished by neglect by Seneca Knit Development Corporation (SKDC), SHPO required a Memorandum of Agreement be signed by several involved state and federal agencies, the Village and SKDC. The Memorandum actually required, among other things, the Mill be protected against the elements and the Boarding House be “mothballed” for future restoration. The SHPO never followed up on these requirements, allowing both buildings to continue deteriorating to the point where SKDC and the Village are using that deterioration as reason for the pending demolition of the Boarding House.

Of course, like many municipalities, Seneca Falls has a property maintenance law on the books. The idea behind it is to protect property values, public safety, and protect against irresponsible property owners. The Village can force SKDC to bring the building up to code or have the work done and have the bill sent to the owners, thus avoiding demolition. This law is seldom used, and its enforcement seems to get applied to some properties and not others.

Adaptive reuse, the principle of finding new uses for old buildings and re-establishing them as productive community assets, was once an exciting trend in Seneca Falls. The First, Third and Fourth Ward School buildings, once the subjects of demolition talk now provide much needed housing. The former P&C supermarket on Clinton Street, long vacant, is now a Seneca-Cayuga ARC facility. Neighbors of the downtown building now housing Henry B’s Restaurant once believed that structure couldn’t be saved. Who could now imagine downtown without Henry B’s? The former NY Central freight station now houses professional offices, and its cross street neighbor, the passenger depot, was rehabilitated as Village Hall. The former Village Hall, so full of code violations that the standard joke was that no one but the federal government could fix it, was donated to, you guessed it, the federal government and now is headquarters and Visitor Center for Women’s Rights National Historical Park.

The demolition of historic buildings, unless absolutely necessary, is wrong. Demolitions are permanent. Condemnation of a structure does not necessarily require demolition - rehabilitation is often a viable option. Once the historic structure is gone, it’s gone forever. The physical evidence of a piece of history is erased.

Seneca Falls, once progressive in the context of historic preservation and heritage tourism, now displays growing evidence of regressing to a short-sighted approach to the future. We don’t have to destroy the Village in order to save it. One of the reasons developers have shown interest and have invested in Seneca Falls is the very appearance of our charming, historic community.

Let’s not revert to whittling away at our heritage, building by building, as if this place does not matter.

Payments In Lieu Of Health Insurance

There is no doubt that the cost of health insurance is of serious concern to us all.

Health insurance benefits make up a huge chunk of all municipal budgets. The Village of Seneca Falls pays the full cost of health insurance benefits for its full-time employees; retirees must pay a percentage of the cost.

Be that as it may, there are ways to contain the cost of municipal employee health insurance plans. The New York State Comptroller's Office provides some suggestions on their website. One of the suggestions is to offer "payments in lieu of health insurance" to employees who have access to health insurance from another source, usually through a spouse. These payments can provide a cost saving to taxpayers, especially when the payments are less than the full cost of the insurance plans provided by the municipality.

The Village of Seneca Falls offers this alternative to eligible union employees.

The Comptroller's Office states that a municipality can authorize offering employees a "payment in lieu of health insurance" in one of two ways - by passing a local law to provide it or by including it in a collective bargaining agreement. Seneca Falls Village union members have this language in their contracts.

Here is what the NYS Comptroller says about how municipalities may authorize payments in lieu of health insurance:

Payments in Lieu of Health Insurance Coverage

Because many employees have health insurance coverage available from a second source, such as benefits under a spouse's plan, offering the option of a cash payment in lieu of health insurance coverage can be beneficial to both your local government's budget and to the employee. Employers realize a savings by paying employees an amount less than the cost of health insurance premiums, and employees increase their income. These payments may be authorized by local law, or pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement.

To qualify for the payment, employees must demonstrate that coverage is available from another source. Employees will want to compare their current plan with the alternate one to weigh the benefits and risks of switching plans. The municipality may also wish to contact the IRS concerning the income tax consequences it sees as a result of a payment in lieu of health insurance benefit.

The Village of Seneca Falls also offers payments in lieu of health insurance to its non-union employees. However, the Board authorized such payments by a simple resolution as part of adoption of its personnel policies on April 3, 2006, and not by a local law. Local laws, of course, require that the Board hold a public hearing.

Given the importance of this issue and the potential savings for Village taxpayers it would be prudent for the Board to review their program and ensure that it is properly authorized. If the simple Board resolution including these payments in the Village's Personnel Policy is inadequate to properly authorize them then a local law should be drafted, a public hearing on the draft law should be held, and if the Board deems it acceptable it could be passed.

First, though, there should be open discussion in advance regarding how many employees are eligible overall (both union and non-union), any alternatives regarding actual percentage of payments to be offered, and the potential savings to taxpayers.

One of the required duties of the Village Administrator is to review all Village insurances and make recommendations to the Board regarding alternatives. Have there been any reports regarding insurance coverages made to the Village Board?

Jumping the Gun

It is a curiosity, perhaps, to note that the Village Board has scheduled their annual reorganization meeting for Tuesday, April 1st at 6:30 p.m., with a Public Hearing on the 2008-09 Village Budget to take place at 7 p.m. the same evening.

It is a curiosity because it seems that the Board is jumping the gun regarding the commencement of their next terms of office. Regarding the commencement of the terms of village officers, NYS Village Law states:

S 3-302 Official year, terms of office,
extension or reduction of terms, biennial elections.

1. An official year begins at noon on the first Monday in the month
 following the date of the general village election or the date such
an election would have been held had elections been held annually.

2. The term of office of each elective village officer shall commence
at the start of the official year following his election; the term of
office of each officer appointed at the annual meeting of the board
of trustees shall commence at the start of the official year in which
he is appointed; and the term of office of each officer appointed at
any other time shall commence at the time of his appointment.

The first Monday in the month following the date of the general Village election is April 7th, which would also coincide with our Village's regular meeting date of the first Monday after the first Tuesday of each month.

The budget, by law, is not required to be adopted until May 1st and doesn't go into effect until June 1st. So it is also curious to note that the Public Hearing will take place so quickly, the same night as reorganization.

In any case, why are we in such a rush to begin new terms of office before they legally begin? What was wrong with waiting a few more days for the regular Board meeting date? And if there are questions about the budget, will the Board agree to adjourn the Public Hearing rather than formally close it so that more discussion can take place to address questions before May 1st?