In the Dumps?

http://www.cnycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=632669

Great article. Ask your Legislator for a copy of the EnSol report and read it.

The Results are In...

	2009 Cortland County Legislature Election Results
	County Legislator District 01
D	John R. Troy	426	100%
	County Legislator District 02
R	Anthony Piombo	178	47.34%
D	Raymond A. Parker	198	52.65%
	County Legislator District 03
D	Amy L. Cobb	222	100%
	County Legislator District 04
D	Thomas P. Hartnett	96	100%
	County Legislator District 05
R	Kathryn A. Wilcox	154	47.38%
D	Richard A. Bushnell	171	52.61%
	County Legislator District 06
D	Donal Spaulding	382	100%
	County Legislator District 07
D	Anthony J. Pace Jr	220	100%
	County Legislator District 08
D	Jack Williams	250	74.18%
R	Michael J. Morse	87	25.81%
	County Legislator District 09
D	Jeffrey A. Currie	121	46.89%
R	Newell L. Willcox	137	53.10%
	County Legislator District 10
D	Jennifer A. Gofkowski	325	69.74%
R	Thomas A. Williams	141	30.25%
	County Legislator District 11
R	Michael R. Park	195	100%
	County Legislator District 12
R	Danny G. Ross	173	100%
	County Legislator District 13
R	Eugene P. Waldbauer	225	100%
	County Legislator District 14
D	John R. Daniels Sr	239	32.47%
R	Susan Briggs	497	67.52%
	County Legislator District 15
R	John M. Steger Jr	358	63.36%
D	Kenneth B. Maxwell	207	36.63%
	County Legislator District 16
D	Kathie Y. Arnold	591	100%
	County Legislator District 17
R	David H. Fuller	315	100%
	County Legislator District 18
R	Lawrence E. Cornell	252	100%
	County Legislator District 19
R	Geoffrey M. Tyrrell	313	36.48%
D	Sandra L. Price	545	63.51%

County Legislature - LD 14 results

ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS...

Election Results-2009 Elections

Election: County Legislator District 14

All Towns, All Districts

All Parties

---

---

---

---

	Democratic	John R. Daniels Sr	227
	Peoples	John R. Daniels Sr	12
	Conservative	Susan Briggs	44
	Independence	Susan Briggs	57
	Republican	Susan Briggs	396

Total Districts	Reporting Districts
2	2

County Auditor

The following text contains minutes of the 1/3/08 organizational meeting and the discussion held around the County Auditor position.

"On motion of Mr. Troy, second by Ms. Price Agenda No 4 was introduced. Mr. Williams made a motion that this be tabled for a month due to the confusion with the job description and what the Auditor does. Mr. Willcox seconded motion. Mr. Williams referred to County Law and the evaluation prepared by the County Administrator stating that Mr. Whitt has served as the key staff administrator to two previous Chairs. He said he is not looking at getting rid of anyone, just a definition of what this position does and if he is working out of title, review the position, create the proper title that embraces what he actually does.

He requested that the Personnel Officer review the position and report back to us in a month. Mr. Troy said that was addressed in caucus and these issues need to be addressed through the Personnel Committee to insure the job description comes in line with exactly what he does. He said that Mr. Whitt has done a fine job for the County and it is important to move forward with the appointment. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Suben in light of County Law 600, can we change that position after appointment is made under our term of the legislature. Mr. Suben said it depends on what you mean by change. I don’t think you can change the duties but believe you can limit what type audits are made rather than change it to a non-audit position. Mr. Williams said that he believes much of what he does now is non-audit and we need to look at what he does and align his job description with reality.

Mr. Tagliente said the reality is that somebody has been doing the audits and Mr. Whitt does the internal audits. Mr. Tagliente further said that we can procrastinate on this forever and if there is an axe to grind so be it. Mr. Waldbauer said that he is new to the legislature however has heard Mr. Whitt performs duties unrelated to his job description and may do it well, however believes what is being discussed is that it should be incorporated into his duties and responsibilities.

Mr. Schrader said that any office of the County is going to have duties and responsibilities assigned by the legislature. If you want the County Auditor to just focus on financial matters, that is your prerogative. Ms. Wilcox asked if we can also rein him in to do just the job of County Auditor. Mr. Schrader said absolutely, his duties and responsibilities are outlined in the law and you can restrict anything outside of that.

Mr. Willcox read from the evaluation that the Auditor’s job description under typical work activity “is to provide to the County Administrator and Legislature copies of all reports”. In the 4 years that I have been here I can remember 3 at the very most. Mr. Schrader said he was surprised because there were instances where Mr. Willcox met with Mr. Whitt to perform an audit of the Sheriff Department vehicle repair work. Mr. Willcox said that is one. Mr. Schrader said there are numerous instances of that type that have occurred. There have been departmental audits conducted by the state and reports have been generated to the legislature. The single audit is another instance where much work was done by Mr. Whitt to generate the report to the legislature.

Mr. Williams again referred to County Law 600 and asked Mr. Suben if he thinks that we have the ability to have this position do whatever we assign. Mr. Suben said he appreciated the opportunity to correct his prior advice. After rereading County Law and hearing Mr. Schrader’s view, the law’s wording states “in such other matter as may be deemed appropriate”. It seems that clause would give you the opportunity to define additional duties (in addition to audits) that you deem proper.

A roll call vote to table the appointment was taken with Ms. Arnold, Mr. Ross, Mr. Waldbauer, Ms. Wilcox, Mr. Willcox, Mr. Williams voting aye and Mr. Cornell, Mr. Dafoe, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Hartnett, Mr. Loomis, Mr. McKee, Mr. Piombo, Ms. Price, Mr. Spaulding, Mr. Steger, Mr. Tagliente, Mr. Troy, Ms. Tytler, voting nay. Motion defeated. The Chairman called for a roll call vote on the appointment of Mr. Whitt with all members voting aye."

THIS is the job description for the position:

COUNTY AUDITOR
Jurisdiction: Cortland County
Jurisdictional Class: Competitive
Adopted: 6/20/03
DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF THE CLASS: The work involves responsibility for conducting internal auditing of county departments and agencies, monitoring vendor contracts and payments, and reconciliation of reimbursement claims. The position is responsible for insuring that all account keeping procedures and contractual services are carried out in accordance with applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations and policies governing local governments. The incumbent will provide technical oversight and coordination of account keeping activities for county departments. The work is performed under the general supervision of the County Administrator. Does related work as required.

TYPICAL WORK ACTIVITIES (illustrative only)

• Audits all such claims, accounts, and demands which would otherwise be audited by the Legislature in accordance with County Law;
• Interfaces with county department heads and senior personnel regarding improvements in departmental accounting practices and ascertains that existing practices are accurate and workable;
• Conducts audits of county departments, receiving or dispersing money;
• Conducts audits of non-profit agencies that receive county funding;
• Conducts audit of hotels and bed & breakfast establishments for compliance with hotel tax;
• Trains subordinate staff in office procedures;
• Audits financial records and accounts of all units of county government charged with duties relating to funds of the county;
• Specific audit and monitoring duties related to expenditures of federal/state financial assistance provided to sub-recipients by the county in accordance with applicable laws and regulations;
• Reviews financial claims against the county with emphasis on contracted service agreements;
• Reconciles county claims in all departments for state and federal aid reimbursement;
• Audits payroll records;
• Conducts internal audits of county departments for compliance with federal and state regulations and county policies and systems;
• Monitors delinquent and aged receivable accounts for collection;
• Assists with internal account reconciliation in the County Auditor's Office;
• Monitors corrective action procedures for department as needed;
• May prepare reports in all accounting areas of county departments under the directive of the County Auditor.
  

FULL PERFORMANCE, KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ABILITES:

• Thorough knowledge of modem account keeping practices and terminology;
• Thorough knowledge of the terminology, practices and procedures of data processing system;
• Thorough knowledge of office terminology, procedures and equipment; County Auditor
• Thorough knowledge of business English;
• Good knowledge of federal, state and local laws and regulations which affect the accounting practices of local governments;
• Ability to develop, effectively implement and maintain accounting systems and procedures in conformance with all applicable laws, rules and regulations;
• Ability to comprehend, analyze and develop procedures to deal with unusual or complex accounting problems;
• Ability to comprehend and analyze problems in the input and output of computer information;
• Ability to understand and carry out complex oral and written instructions;
• Ability to prepare accurate correspondence and reports;
• Ability to read and understand financial statements;
• Physical condition commensurate with the demands of the position.
  

MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:

• Graduation from a regionally accredited or NYS registered college or university with an associates degree in accounting or related field and four (4) years of full time paid (or the equivalent part-time and/or volunteer) accounting experience with general ledger, balance sheets and expenditure auditing; OR
• Graduation from high school or a high school equivalency diploma and six (6) years of full time paid (or the equivalent part-time and/or volunteer) accounting experience with general ledger, balance sheets and expenditure auditing; OR
• Any equivalent combination of training and experience as described in (A) and (B) above.

THE 2009 ADOPTED BUDGET FOR THIS POSITION - $62,300

FOR A HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE WITH 6 YEARS EXPERIENCE!!! That is $5,000 more than the County Treasurer and $10,000 more than the Deputy Treasurer.

John Daniels' Political Ad

I wanted to share John's political ad that has been running in the Cortland Standard.

John indicates it in Not a time for political expediency... hmm, let's pause on that for a moment.

Making decisions based upon political expediency

Many politicians make decisions based not necessarily upon what is the best thing to do, nor upon their own ethics and morals, but upon what is best for their own political gain. A politician is dependent upon his or her good standing with voters, as well as an ability to "fit in" with the party political structure. Since a person's time in politics sometimes is short, it is only natural that they do everything possible to continue their career.

Is that why he aligned himself with Dan Tagliente, the two of which wouldn't speak to one another for a year after John was elected Chairman? Was my replacement by John the best thing to do, considering Dan Tagliente's involvement in the failed South main Street deal? How about the removal of Bill Wood, and the Chair's recommendation of and replacement by Tom Brown as Election Commissioner?

I see that John's non-partisanship fought for and eliminated political patronage of the Clerk of the Legislature and the County Attorney. What HAS been done is that the recommendation of these positions has been placed in a MUCH SMALLER group of people, and includes the County Administrator (in case you didn't know). This small group can now be faced with more more pressure and political manuevering from the Chair and the County Adminsitrator. The politics haven't been taken out of the process; on the contrary it is now even worse. Does anyone think that the interview and selection process will be transparent and open to the public?????

And if the Chair was doing his job, he would have carried the appointments done at the Legislature's organizational meeting all the way through to the Auditor.

Take a moment to view the sequence of appointments as set forth by the Rules of Order:
Resolution No. 01 Selecting Chairman of the County Legislature and Setting Official Understanding.
Resolution No. 02 Appoint Clerk of the County Legislature
Resolution No. 03 Appoint County Attorney
Resolution No. 04 Appoint County Auditor
Resolution No. 05 Appoint Veterans Service Officer
Resolution No. 06 Appoint Public Defender
Resolution No. 07 Appoint County Historian

Let's be consistent please. See my separate post on the auditor.

OK, back to the ad.
He voted for the Finger Lakes East Business Park - How is that doing again???
Proposed $3 million austerity budget. Easy pickins there, all Legislators were for it.

Stopped and re-bid DMV project, saving $1 million. NOPE, sorry John. Did you not read the timeline I gave you? And the project re-bid saved about $350,000. I guess that's what you get for not coming to Committee meetings.

Your ad is wrong as well as misleading. I guess that's why you had to buy it and let let the facts speak for themselves.

Our fearless leader

This piece of video was recorded from the League of Women Voter Candidate forum, held on October 8 and the Cortlandville Town Hall. In attendance were John Daniels, Chairman of the Legislature, D-LD14 incumbent; Gene Waldbauer, R-LD13; and Susan Briggs, R-LD14 challenger.

I am posting this for those interested in the response given to a question by Connie Mack asking about communication between a Legislator and their constituents. In this case, the Mack property is in the County Airport RPZ (Runway Protection Zone) and is in the process of being taken to allow for the RPZ to be maintained.

Anyway, there is a lot more history behind this project but is not needed to share here in this post. The post is meant to serve as the way Mr. Daniels communicated with his constituents, claiming that the reason they were bringing up the fact they were losing their home was that this was a"ploy to get more money out of the County for their property".

Are you serious?


A follow up to this is in the October 29, 2009 Letter to the Editor section. John indicates that there was total communication from the beginning of the project... contrary to another letter published the SAME DAY from 7 families in the area who indicate that John has "NEVER talked to us or sent any information as all. He has done absolutely nothing to keep us informed of any developments concerning the airport."

Who are you going to believe?

My Birthday Present to the Legislature - "Little Steps"

Addressed and emailed to All County Legislators on 7/21/09 ---

Good Day,

As Thursday's legislative session approaches there are two topics and three agenda items related to large projects in Cortland County. I wanted to provide comments for consideration by representatives on the Legislature.

First, let me share a common theme that I witnessed in my term on the Legislature - the "little step" approach. As you are all aware, large projects take years to develop, often covering several terms of the Legislature. With Legislator turnover inevitable at election time, many newer legislative members and those who are reassigned to different committees each re-elected term are not privy to the entire history of projects related to multi-million dollar projects including the airport, the River Trail, and the landfill to name a few. Information is not always at the ready and time is not an ally when Legislators research topics, so smaller resolutions with no perceived cost that are brought up for votes do not often appear to have a notable impact on a project. They get lip service by Department Heads and the Administration about their history and the process for accomplishing the task, and reolutions that are prepared for Committee and passed on to the floor have about two weeks for vetting and for follow up investigation. I feel that moving things along in this matter can have drastic long range implications, as decisions that are made at a monthly Legislature meeting can either lay groundwork for or keep momentum going on projects that otherwise would bear detailed scrutiny and often fail to get support and continue if they were presented as a single all encompassing project.

For example, Agenda Items 4 and 5 pertain to further expansion and development of the Cortland County Airport. As a participant on the Highway Committee for 18 months leading up to this vote, I often requested information on the history of the project to assist in the decision making process. This information included a decision making matrix and their associated costs for various options ranging from: continued ownership and development by the County; the sale of the airport to third party operators; and County abandonment and/or closure of the facility. Unfortunately I was never able to obtain those figures and backup. I was told what possible impact would be, but there was no written report or summary to review and discuss as a Committee or a Legislature. My understanding from various discussions at Highway meetings or forums is that sale or abandonment by the County could lead to cost repercussions in that the FAA funding for the last 20 years could or would require payback. This should be confirmed and provided in writing from the FAA by the Highway Department and filed. Unfortunately, it would seem that the current arrangement to operate the airport at a "profit" (using the term loosely as I do not believe the operating and maintenance costs are accurately portrayed) is the easiest one to choose by Legislators. However, one has to consider the long-range impact on the County: more and more County properties off the tax rolls, more indebtedness to the FAA to what appears to be $855,000 per the resolution, etc. Our continued rubber stamp of airport projects without examination of the County needs and costs in these economic conditions is poor governing. I do not think that the airport should be closed; I believe that a third party group (with no financial or political ties to the airport) should investigate options and provide recommendations to the County. There is no deadline for decision for this project that would incur cost or liability to the project at this time. I recommend to table the resolutions or vote them down and take a hard look before we take nearly a million more dollars of federal funds, obligating us to longer operation of the facility at taxpayer expense.

The next topic is in regards to agenda Item #16, which is a resolution authorizing an agreement between Cortland County and Air Energy TCI. This is a major decision that will impact our entire County, and another example of "little stepping". I do not believe that the Legislature as a whole has decided to pursue the project, however the process and resolutions that were passed were done so under the guise that the project can be stopped at any time... Previous resolutions were passed to allow this company to set up wind test towers at the landfill at no cost to the County; now we are using another "no cost" resolution to engage in professional services for the County to serve as SEQR Lead Agency for this project- paid for by the company who would like to locate 50+ windmills here? This certainly gives the impression that the majority of County Legislators are favor of windmills and the project. Is this the case? Would one assume that if the County were to stop the process later in the project that they would be liable for repayment of some of this money as the County might be perceived to be acting in bad faith? Get this in writing please.

I also do not recall receiving any (written) cost benefit summary to the County for PILOT or other reimbursement for this project. The wind power certainly is more expensive than purchasing National Grid utilities, and it simply feeds into the Northeast region electrical distribution system when the wind blows. I am aware that there are landowners who will be receiving monetary sums for the lease of their properties. Are you aware that large substations and transmission lines will need to be constructed to connect these windmills into the electric grid, impacting more than the several acres required per windmill? Access and maintenance roads will also need to be built, and our existing roads will be used to transport the large, heavy equipment to the site. All of these factors will have a signficant and adverse effect on our County. Who pays for all of this? And most importantly, who benefits? We cannot give away our land and spoil our resources for no cost.

In addition, there are publications on the noise, aesthetic and economic impacts (all negative) of windmills for review if you search for them. I have attached a few for your review, and a few links below.

http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com/page/2/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26242604/
http://www.windaction.org/pictures/482

Please do not feel that these are light decisions to be made. They require proper planning and discussion. Without concerted effort and big picture discussion regarding the future of our County you are doing the taxpayers an injustice. Thank you for your service to Cortland County.

Chad Loomis

10/12/09 - It's just blowin in the Wind

But somehow the County keeps pushing along on the wind ordinance that would allow for wind farms that would be developed here.

I simply don't get it.

I believe in renewable energy and green power, but this is not the right time or place to install these mammoth machines that only benefit a select few - the developer and the landowner. And judging by the newspaper only the developer REALLY benefits.

Somehow the visit by the Wind Subcommittee found verification in the email I had previously sent to the County Legislature on 7/21/09.

10/21/09 - Willcox ROCKS!!!

I support Newell Willcox in his bid for re-election. In my opinion he got a raw deal from his party in the primary.

Newell is a straight shooter, an honest man and a good friend. He does not play politics and always puts the good of the County ahead of himself.

I wish Newell the best in his bid for LD9, and although I do not know his opponent, would sometime like to speak with Mr. Currie about his ideas. He has some good platform material, but I have been there and done what he is promising.

10/20/09 - Lawsuits Part Deux

10/08/09 - Not Again!!

Rrrrrrrrr. Another lawsuit.

When will it end?? Why can't things be discussed in Executive Session and thoroughly investigate things before they are leaked to the press?

I doubt the pattern can be broken.

10/27/09 - My response to the Cortland Standard - Letter to the Editor

I wrote and sent this Letter to the Editor of the Cortland Standard in response to the Article written on 10/26/09.

To the Editor:

Enough is enough. I read the article in Monday’s Cortland Standard and simply cannot let Mr. Daniels’ published comments continue to degrade the leadership and the performance of elected officials and professionals on the Cortland County Legislature.

Mr. Daniels indicated that “he believes in guiding people toward a desired goal and replacing them if they get off course and refuse to be corrected”. He then indicated that he ousted Carol Tytler, Tom Williams and myself “because they were overstepping their boundaries and unwilling to work with him, in some cases costing the county money”. There are 19 members of the Legislature elected by the people working toward providing the best services at the lowest cost, not 18 rubber stamps following the wishes of one person. The County is not intended to be run as Mr. Daniels’ past employer Hevi-Duty Electric, nor as Chrysler Corporation of whom Mr. Daniels has fondly quoted Lee Iacocca in “lead, follow or get out of the way”. Well, we can see how those two companies have fared in history based on that philosophy.

Mr. Daniels’ actions over the past year are in my opinion neither communicative nor collaborative with the Legislature and the public, and the Chair has practiced nothing short of what I would consider typical bullying behavior. Mr. Daniels appears to have used his power as Chair to promote his agenda and discount and discredit those who do not share his ideas and follow his lead. His unprecedented realignment of Legislators and Committees would appear to have been done such that Mr. Daniels can control the Committee Chairs and the County business without resistance. He even unleashed a tirade on an innocent taxpayer at a recent candidate forum, speculating on a reason a homeowner would not buckle to a County demand for their longtime family property as if it were fact. What a shame!

Ms. Tytler, Mr. Williams and I were not given any advance notice from Mr. Daniels before we were publicly chastised and removed from our Chair positions. We were neither given an opportunity to discuss the issues nor refute the claims of Mr. Daniels. We were told “end of discussion”. When a member of the Legislature made a motion to request that Mr. Daniels’ own highly touted Board of Ethics investigate Mr. Daniels’ claims against those who had been reassigned, Mr. Daniels himself voted against the matter. Why is that?

I believe that Ms. Tytler and Mr. Williams are two of the most thorough, thoughtful and well spoken people on the Legislature. They ask difficult questions in order to get information and to weigh their decisions. They do their homework and aren’t afraid to vote against a resolution that they feel is not in the best interest of the people they represent. In my opinion, they were simply doing their due diligence as elected officials and Chairs of their respective committees.

Mr. Daniels specifically claimed that I interjected myself into the DMV project, causing unnecessary delays and costing the county money. This is categorically false. It should be noted that early in the project the B&G Committee established a project timeline, which was formally distributed to members of the County Legislature. The schedule was adhered to, including a public hearing meeting scheduled at my request and several presentations by the consultant during Committee meetings. The building was developed between the consultant and the Department Heads with direct oversight by the County Administrator and minimal input by the Committee, and when the project came in higher than expected the B&G Committee responded proactively to de-scope the project and prepare it for immediate redesign and rebid the following month. Our efforts resulted in the revised project saving close to $400,000 over the original cost. Our Committee kept the project on task despite Mr. Daniels’ assertion, and I provided a timeline for this project as well as the South Main Street site for Mr. Daniels to review after my reassignment - as he only attended a fraction of the B&G Committee meetings in 2008. My interjection into the project was to correspond with the consultant when County personnel were not responding to their requests for information… in an effort to keep the project moving and coordinated.

I have moved out of the 8^th District, which required me to resign from the Legislature earlier this year. I stand by the decisions that I made and I feel that I did my best to consider and preserve the long term future of the County, with the exception being my nomination of Mr. Daniels as Chairman of the Legislature. I now live happily in the 14th District – and John Daniels is my representative. I have not yet seen Mr. Daniels in my neighborhood campaigning, but based on my experience, if he stops by I will tell him that I will not be voting for him on November 3. I have spoken several times with his opponent and I will be voting for Susan Briggs. I believe in her ability to communicate both civilly and succinctly with the people and with other Legislators. She has a firm handle on the issues facing the County and is well prepared to make tough decisions.

Chad Loomis, Homer, NY – Former LD#8 County Legislator

10/26/09 Collateral Damage - Cortland Standard LD14

What did John say? You have GOT to be kidding me.

The man is just plain stubborn in my estimation. I left the Legislature without raising a ruckus.

Well, I guess that is over.

Judge to rule on dismissing defamation suits

The Cortland Standard reported on Tuesday 9/15 (Front page top article) that a Judge has heard arguments in dismissing the dafamation case against Scott Schrader and should have a ruling in the next few weeks. It somehow did not get top billing on the Substandard website, losing to "College says it’s prepared for swine flu", and a two week old recycled photo of a Cortland Standard doctor. Ah well, priorities.

Anyway, back to the reason for this post -

The arguments seem to revolve around the use of the word "paramour" - which carries the following definition under the webster-mirriam dictionary:
* Pronunciation: \ˈpa-rə-ˌmu̇r\
* Function: noun
* Etymology: Middle English, from par amour for the sake of love, willingly, from Anglo-French par amur
* Date: 14th century
: an illicit lover

From the newspaper report, Mr. Schrader's defense indicates that
(1) The term is proper and was not derogatory toward the plaintiff(s)
(2) He is not prone to suit for defamation because of law preventing such action for public servants.

So, the use of the term paramour in describing the relationship between the two litigating individuals has resulted in the dafamation lawsuit.

To defame, by definition by Webster-Mirriam-
* Pronunciation: \di-ˈfām, dē-\
* Function: transitive verb
* Inflected Form(s): de·famed; de·fam·ing
* Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French & Medieval Latin; Anglo-French deffamer, diffamer, from Medieval Latin defamare, alteration of Latin diffamare, from dis- + fama reputation, fame
* Date: 14th century

1 archaic : disgrace
2 : to harm the reputation of by libel or slander
3 archaic : accuse
synonyms see malign

— de·fam·er noun

Seems pretty clear to me.
Whether or not the accusation is true (which I do not believe is the issue here), I guess it comes down to whether the term is in fact deemed slanderous and dafamatory, and if the Administrator can be held liable for saying such.

Let's wait and see. Either way, the people need to know how much this defense has cost the County and whether the embarrassment to the County is worth it.

From my view, I know there was a considerable amount of animosity between one of the plaintiffs and the Administrator.

Congratulations to Primary Day winners

Cortland County Legislative Primary results are below (winners are in bold). Congratulations for the winners, and my condolences for the non-winners... or perhaps the other way around!

Election Day is NOVEMBER 3!!! 48 days!

Leg. District 2 Democratic Primary: Raymond Parker 40 v. Angela Wilde 21
Leg. District 3 Democratic Primary: Melissa Bramley 52 v. Amy Cobb 62
Leg. District 4 Democratic Primary: Thomas Hartnett 19 v. Cassandra Schneider 10
Leg. District 6 Democratic Primary: John McCallen 18 v. Donal Spaulding 33
Leg. District 7 Democratic Primary: Anthony Pace Jr. 70 v. Michael McGee 39

I will provide a list of contests for Cortland County once ballots have been counted for LD10 and LD14 (write-ins).


source - www.9wsyr.com

9/15/09 - PRIMARY DAY

As Primary Day is here, Election season is in the air; and there is a slight odor... Just kidding! It is the smell (I hope) of progress, enthusiasm and CHANGE.

For most those running today in the primary, good luck. For some- good riddance. I have a few in mind on both sides of those wishes.

As we move ahead, I will post the victors for your information. I hope that transparency, accountability and open communication prevail with those who promise it. I had a very difficult time trying to promote that behavior beyond about 4 or 5 very good, thoughtful and caring individuals on the Legislature.

I will also be bringin up more of the important topics that have been lingering since I was on the Legislature and tell you why they are moving along (or why not).

Cheers!

09/14/09 - My Letter to the County Legislature on the 2010 Budget

Hi everyone,

Just wondering how you all are doing on our Cortland County 2010 budget process? It seems as though our Tompkins County neighbors are pretty far along, and are currently at a projected 3% TAX LEVY increase. I attached a portion of a page from the Tompkins Weekly for your information. It can also be found at www.tompkinsweekly.com. Pretty good, eh? That's even before a thorough review by the Legislature. How can they do it so quickly and yet we cannot?

I have and seen heard snippets of budget talks on the radio and in the Substandard, but honestly you folks should be shouting to the public the fact that you are going to keep the budget increase down a lot more loudly and frequently, especially as Election Day approaches. Leaving the work to the Administration is political suicide - especially after last year's budget fiasco (of which I unfortunately played a part!). Do you think another year of 15% tax levy increase is the way to quality life in Cortland County? My guess is that if you let the budget talks and decisions slide until November without correction we will be staring at least 25% in the face. Although, if budget numbers aren't published in November after Election Day... hmmm.... you guys out for re-election might have a chance!

Please be proactive and begin to discuss and make the difficult choices NOW. I advocated for immediate review after the last budget was voted on, however you all might know what transpired in December 2008 and January 2009 that re-organized my priorities on the Legislature. I understand that 14 of you think our Administrator is doing a good enough job to contract his services for another 4 years, but it is your job to best represent the taxpayers and you have the ultimate say in how much more - or less - we have to pay for services.

Please don't take the easy way out and listen to the Chairman and Administrator when they lobby for a 1% sales tax increase. Do you think that is the best way to balance the budget? How do you balance your budget at home? You live with what you have and within your means - that is how taxpayers have to do it. Does anyone know what kind of additional burden an increased sales tax would put on families in the County? I didn't think so. Maybe proponents think that the sales tax will be spread to and borne by shoppers coming into Cortland. My guess is that those people will shop at other Walmarts and stores closer to their homes, or even that Cortland residents will begin to travel to adjacent counties to shop rather than stay here. After all, we already have higher than average gas prices, and with 281 expanding and bypassing the heart of the County who would want to stop and shop at all once we have the highest sales tax in the state? In case you were wondering where we stand now - http://ny.rand.org/stats/govtfin/salestax.html

Best of luck. YOU control the budget.

Chad

PS - any word yet on how many millions the Jets brought in?

Aging building / South Main Street Timeline

There was much energy surrounding the South Main Street site when I took over as B&G Chair. I tried to take an open, transparent approach to figuring out the best way to make lemonade out of lemons.

Carol Tytler had been working with the Area Agency on Aging to determine the needs of that department our Committee decided it would work well to determine the feasibility of locating the AAA on South Main Street.

The goal was to take a holistic view of the County Office Building, using the space freed up from a potential AAA move to reorganize and remodel disjointed departments in the COB. We could apply for NYSERDA funds to offset costs as the COB is a very inefficient space with poor lighting and heating.

My assumption was that this did not sit well with some of the Legislators and the Administration, and it was an uphill battle during 2008. Much of the programming work and study was done directly with AAA and the Administrator and the Legislature / Committee did not get engaged until the end of the process, when an unexpected $90,000 bill came to the B&G Committee for approval. There was shock to say the least, but the minutes and timeline below tell the tale.

This was provided to all the members of the Legislature on January 27, 2009.

PLEASE NOTE THE BOLD TEXT AS RECORDED IN THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 2008 LEGISLATIVE SESSION. This is very telling of how the Administration typically interacts with the Legislature.

Aging building / South Main Street Timeline –

3/11/08 - B&G Committee meeting - Authorizing Specialized Services Agreement Area Agency on Aging Feasibility Study – MOTION BY MR. SPAULDING - 2^ND BY MR. HARTNETT - ALL PRESENT VOTING IN FAVOR – MOTION PASSES.

Discussion: Joe Maryak of JCM Associates will be conducting the feasibility study. The feasibility of moving Office of the Aging to the South Main Street property. Ms. Deloff indicated that the Office of the Aging is willing to re-locate to the South Main Street if the feasibility study shows that there is space and enough parking. Ms. Tytler commented that the reality is that Office of the Aging will probably be a 2 story building if it moves to the South Main Street property. Ms. Tytler asked if there is a possibility that the Board of Elections could go to the South Main Street property instead of sharing space with the DMV. Mr. Loomis commented that we will know more once the feasibility study is completed. Mr. Loomis asked that a report be submitted to this Committee in 2 months.

3/27/08 – Legislature meeting – Authorized Authorizing Specialized Services Agreement Area Agency on Aging Feasibility Study (Resolution 102-08).

April, May 2008 – No recorded activity or updates via Committee.

6/10/08 - B&G Committee meeting - space study, along with preliminary site plan layout was provided. Extensive discussion as recorded in the minutes:

Mr. Maryak reported on the AAA design. He provided an updated Executive Summary and reviewed it with the committee in detail. Mr. Maryak indicated that 17,630 square feet would be necessary to house the agency. He indicated that there has not yet been resolution on consideration of future space needs for the programs involved in AAA. The sketch shows maximizing the size of the building along Main Street . The building has a footprint of 11,000+ square feet. So, with two stories, the building could hold 22,000+ square feet. However, we need to provide 10 handicapped parking spaces. That means that only 90 parking spaces could be planned on site. There is the potential of 30 parking spaces on the streets. So, there is a potential of 120 parking spaces available. We are in three places for consideration: 1) future growth of the agency; 2) if the space is maximized with the building – who else would be brought in and how would that impact the parking; and 3) parking – which becomes an issue based on agency needs and the practicality of the site.

Ms. Deloff indicated that she based the 130 parking spaces on – 44 staff on site each day; 79 participants in the daily meal program; additional visitors for recreation and other programs. She has major concerns about the parking. There is street parking available, but she does not know how much of that will be accessible. The future growth of the program is a potential problem for the space being designed. She does not believe that the current design allows for the addition of more programs. Mr. Loomis indicated he has two concerns – one is the primary entry and the exits drives and the fact that traffic will be routed through residential streets and the fact that it is “tight”. Mr. Loomis does not feel that the site is feasible – particularly given the current proposed designed. He is concerned about the primary access off the side streets and who owns that property and he is concerned about whether or not the City will buy in. Mr. Williams stated that the design appears to be a “silk purse” that we are trying to make out of a “sow’s ear”. We are trying to shoehorn something in to a space that will not work for our program. The program is going to expand and this design does not provide for easy additions. Mr. Williams feels we should look at getting out of ownership of the property gracefully and look at building another AAA facility in a different location. Mr. Maryak indicated that this is a tight site and the Director of the program feels uncomfortable with the room provided in the site design. Mr. Williams feels if we can walk way from these, with a party interested in purchase, he feels we should do it. Mrs. Tytler asked if we could look at the property for Mental Health alone and not include the Health Department in the space. We have a critical need for Horizon House space and we are leasing space for Mental Health. Perhaps we could look at this property for Horizon House for a standalone facility as well in this space. Mr. Ross indicated that he feels that South Main Street is prime property and he would like to see it back on the tax rolls. Mr. Willcox reiterated that he would like to see a price set for the property and have it open for consideration.

Mr. Loomis asked if there is any discussion about letting this company to continue to design. Mr. Schrader indicated that the issue that keeps coming up is growth – Carol spoke about program growth, Mr. Maryak spoke of space growth. Mr. Schrader indicated that we are in an economy where we should not be looking at growing – program, space, or otherwise. We should be looking at maintaining, not at expanding. Can we accomplish what we need to accomplish without growing – we need to reconfigure. If we do not locate Mental Health with the Health Department, we lose the economies of scale gained by co-locating. We need to have conversations about what we want to offer and how we do it most cost effectively. Mr. Loomis asked how we do it? Do we work with other committees? Mr. Loomis sees this committee’s role as addressing the needs of the departments. Mr. Schrader indicated that we need to look at “want” versus “need”. We need to adapt and we are not doing that. We need to look at providing services that we can afford to provide. Mr. Loomis reiterated that we need to work back through the other committees and define what we will be providing and then make a decision about what space is actually needed. Mr. Schrader is looking at a proposal with IKON to put all paper records on electronic means thereby eliminating storage requirements. This does not necessarily mean cutting back staff, but it does allow staff to work smarter. We need to accomplish what we are charged to accomplish, not necessarily what we “want” to accomplish. Mr. Williams asked how we get to the point that Mr. Schrader wants us to reach. How does this Legislature put all of this together. How do we discuss it and come together with a “Master Plan” for direction as to where are going with all of this. We as a body need to do what we are supposed to do, which is provide policy oversight. Mr. Schrader indicated that we have a roadmap, called the County Budget . This is stagnate; the budget needs to be dissected within departments and identify who and how we are serving and decide if that is appropriate. We need to look to see if the services we are providing are still timely and what is needed by today’s population; can we provide better services in a more cost-efficient manner. Each jurisdictional committee needs to carefully consider the programs under its oversight. Mr. Schrader would argue that the current AAA program would fit in the designed building. Are we appropriately providing a level of service? Or is there a level of service that we are not providing? Decisions need to be made along those lines. Tough decisions need to be made. Mr. Williams indicated that the entire Legislature needs to meet and have these conversations. Mrs. Price indicated that she and the Majority Leader will work with the Chairman to enact a meeting to hear the entire presentation from beginning to end and then offer an opportunity to ask questions so decisions can be made on programs and space. Mr. Schrader indicated that he believes the only way to sell surplus County property is through auction or sealed bid. He asked Mr. Suben to research this topic. Mrs. Tytler expressed her frustration about the lack of the Guido Summit and other communication opportunities. Mrs. Tytler reminded the members that government is here to serve the population.

Mr. Maryak indicated that he will meet with the DA to develop the need for that department. There will be a report available for the next committee meeting. The DMV site will be put “on hold” until direction is given by this committee. The COB project will be finished and a final report will be provided. AAA is complete as far as it can be until decisions are made about programs. The report can be directed through the entire Legislature.

Mr. Schrader thanked Mr. Maryak for the service he has provided to the committee.

6/19/08- Special Legislature Meeting - Called by Chairman to discuss selling the South Main properties.

Chairman Daniels said that there have been some legislators advocating the sale of the Moose property so he directed a resolution to be prepared to dispose of the issue one way or another. Today we need to resolve that issue and Mr. Daniels entertained a motion for item number 1. Ms. Price raised a point of order referring to page 21 of the Cortland County Rules of Order that resolutions shall be available 48 hours before a Special Meeting. She said these were not available until this morning just prior to session. Mr. Daniels said he would entertain a motion to suspend the rules. For lack of a motion and a second, the rules were not suspended to allow consideration of the resolutions. There was a motion, second and vote to pull the resolutions. Motion passed.

6/26/08 - Legislature meeting –

On motion of Mr. Daniels, second by Ms. Price Agenda No. 1 was introduced. Ms. Wilcox said she doesn’t understand why we are considering a building for that site when we haven’t determined if it is appropriate. She stated that this is premature. Ms. Tytler said she was hoping to see other opportunities for building on the site and has been assured by Mr. Loomis that will be explored, therefore she will support it. Mr. Loomis said he shares the neighborhood concerns with Ms. Wilcox. His main concern is access and he hopes that they will be addressed by the architect. Concerning the COB space and aging study received earlier this week, the final figure for aging is just over 17,000 square feet. The additional square feet was added to maximize the site to allow for space for other departments relevant to the Master Plan. Ms. Price said she is willing to support this as the first step in the journey to complete South Main Street. We can’t know until we engage the firm to be sure. Mr. Loomis questioned if the next step will be scope, schedule and fee for the project. Mr. Schrader answered yes. Mr. Willcox asked how residents were to be involved. Mr. Loomis said the project will be open for comment once the plans and design are proposed. Ms. Wilcox spoke of having neighborhood representatives involved in the process. Mr. Schrader suggested inviting a representative to Buildings & Grounds Committee to participate in the discussions then later have public hearings once the draft product is developed. Ms. Wilcox said that access on Randall Street is not proper. Mr. Loomis said that the study has revealed that the program and parking fit the needs of AAA, however the orientation of the building may need to be altered. Mr. Wilcox asked what the ballpark figure is for the study. Mr. Schrader said he could not guess without conversations with the architect and engineering firms. That figure will come to the committee for approval. Ms. Wilcox said she didn’t believe the resolution was worded that way. It reads that we are engaging them for the design with an unknown cost. Mr. Schrader said that the resolution directs him to receive proposals which will have to be approved by the legislature; you are selecting the firm to do this building. Ms. Wilcox said that is not how it is worded. Mr. Willcox asked if we approve this do we then engage them. Mr. Schrader said no, the legislature would need to accept the proposal submitted and the proposal will be negotiated by the next session with a resolution to authorize their proposal. Mr. Waldbauer said he will support that if that is the case however he would prefer having a sub committee to determine all of the space planning needs of our county. Mr. Williams requested a roll call vote. The Clerk took a roll call vote with Ms. Arnold, Mr. Cornell, Mr. Dafoe, Mr. Hartnett, Mr. Loomis, Mr. McKee, Mr. Piombo, Ms. Price, Mr. Spaulding, Mr. Steger, Mr. Tagliente, Mr. Troy, Ms. Tytler, Mr. Waldbauer and Mr. Daniels voting aye and Mr. Ross, Ms. Wilcox, Mr. Willcox and Mr. Williams voting nay. Agenda No. 1 became Resolution No. 181-08 Engaging Barton and Loguidice and JCM Architectural Associates to Design and Prepare a Site Plan and Construction Drawings for a 22,400 Square Foot Building for the Office for the Aging Located on Main Street.

Chairman Daniels pulled Agenda Nos. 2 and 3, Directing the Sale by Public Auction of Randall Street (Rear); 157 Main Street; and 151 Main Street, Commonly Known as the Moose Property and Directing the Sale by Public Auction of Williams Street (Rear) and 159 Main Street, Commonly Known as the Wood Property.

7/8/08 – B&G Committee Meeting –

Mr. Loomis informed the committee that he had received the drafts from Joe Maryak for the proposal for the Aging facility (Administrator was on vacation). He said that he expected a proposal of the same for the DMV site. At that time he will call a special meeting for the Buildings and Grounds committee. Stated that the proposals for the DMV would be close to the same scope. Asked if the committee would rather have a meeting, days prior to legislative session or a day prior to session. Mr. Williams suggested that a separate meeting would be better. Mr. Daniels stated that a separate meeting would be more beneficial as more Legislators would be available to ask questions.

7/18/08 – Chairman, Administrator, County Auditor and B&G Chairman met in Chairman’s Office to discuss the proposals. Administrator indicated he would have timelines prepared for DMV and Aging projects, and that he would have the DMV proposal ready by Resolution as a Receive and File. Administrator indicated that he was still working on revisions to the Aging proposal and would follow up.

7/24/08 – Legislature meeting- refer to DMV timeline for detailed minutes of meeting. Below is summary of discussion related to the Aging building:

Ms. Wilcox inquired why the Aging facility timetable was attached to the proposal when that facility was not even being spoken on. Mr. Schrader replied it was there to address some concerns that were raised at the last Legislative Session. One specific concern with the timetables was the inclusion of public comment into the projects that the Legislature was considering. It is attached to show that the concerns are being addressed. … Ms. Wilcox asked for the Aging timeline to be pulled from the proposal. It was agreed to do so. Mr. Loomis informed the other members that the intent is to have the DMV proposal to be on the next Building and Grounds agenda for discussion. He urged all members interested to attend. Mr. Williams stated he was more comfortable voting knowing there would be prior committee and legislative review in August.

8/12/08 - B&G Committee meeting –

Mr. Loomis asked for the status of this project. Mr. Schrader informed that Committee that he had met with Barton & Loguidice who, with Mr. Maryak are finalizing three different orientation schematics of the building and the parking on the property which should be available by the end of the week. He indicated that these would be forwarded to the Legislators via e-mail. Mr. Loomis suggested that the public meeting on this building be done on the same night as the DMV/Elections building, if possible.

9/9/08 B&G Committee meeting - update by B&L after the DMV final design presentation;

9/9/08 -12/2/08 - Subsequent meetings were made with Aging and with Cornell Cooperative Extension along with the consultant; not made with nor updates provided to B&G Committee.

The Administrator added the “Future” (Cornell Cooperative Extension) space to the building at his own prerogative. Committee members were not made aware of this; B&G Committee Chair was copied on an email from JCM to Cornell Coop Ext which made him aware of this fact. Much discussion has revolved around the ability of the site to accommodate the Aging program and parking issues; more discussion entailed locating (the Cornell Cooperative) programs in the basement of the now almost 35,000 square foot facility.

12/2/08 – B&G Committee meeting - A resolution was drafted by the Administrator for approval by the B&G Committee, provided in hard copy (the emailed agenda of 11/26 did not contain the resolution). Questions were raised as to the amount to be approved and the corresponding scope, and it was stated by the Administrator that is was for the final study provided to the B&G Committee at the same meeting. (The original draft resolution amount was for the 7/7 proposal amount of $158,800. Note that Administrator was on vacation the week of 7/7.) The resolution sent to the Legislature was revised to reflect the amount of work done to finish the study, which was approximately $90,000.

12/18/08 Legislature meeting, agenda item #8 pertaining to this was tabled and sent back to B&G Committee.

1/6/09 B&G Committee meeting - Committee voted to send the resolution back to the floor. Administrator felt he was within his responsibilities to have the consultants perform the work. Formal Legislature approval was not provided to the Committee.

1/8/09 - Mr. Loomis called Administrator and spoke with him at approximately 5:30 pm to discuss the situation. Administrator indicated that he had a handwritten note from Sue Morgan that shows copies of the proposal were provided to B&G and B&F Committee members. Mr. Loomis indicated that if the question was raised again regarding authorization that the Administrator will have to explain how the work was performed.