|
If you start with a half of a truth, put a whole lot of spin on it in just the right direction, you just might end up with a statement of complete fiction. That’s pretty much what Bill Ross has done in his letter to the Daily Star. So. One by one, let’s take off the spin and see if we can find the truth.
“She voted for construction of an unnecessary addition to town hall for $350,000 in spending (as town councilwoman)”.
While it may be Mr. Ross’ opinion that the addition to the Town Municipal Building was unnecessary, it is NOT an opinion shared by all.
Certainly it was NOT the opinion of the Town Justices. They both expressed a need for another space or chamber, separate from the courtroom, where attorneys could meet privately with their clients while court was in session. The only other available space was the general meeting room. That space was often in use by another meeting or had people passing through while going to and from the restrooms or the municipal offices.
It was also NOT the opinion of the Town Assessor, who shared his office with the Codes Officer, the Planning Board, and the Zoning Board of Appeals, all of whom asked for more space in one way or another.
It was also NOT the opinion of the Town Clerk, who needed a fireproof records room separate from her office.
It was NOT the opinion of the Town Supervisor, who was becoming more and more aware of the building’s leaking roof and delaminating siding, as well as the decaying restrooms and entries, none of which were ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliant.
It was also NOT the opinion of the five councilmen who knew the Town needed a larger meeting room, and on occasion, a larger court room. They also understood the need for a better insulated building and a more energy efficient main entry, as well as more energy efficient windows, doors, and lighting.
It was also NOT the opinion of many people who came to the public hearings to examine the plans and make practical suggestions.
The Town invested wisely in the construction of the extra space and the renovation of the old space. The new Town Hall is beautiful and sturdy and will serve the Town of Otsego well for many years to come. While the final price tag may have approached $350K, the original estimate by the engineer who designed the structure and rennovation work was closer to $250K. That's what the board voted to persue. The difference between the actual quotes we got and the engineer's estimate had to do mostly with the fact that 'prevailing wage' has to be paid on any public construction project, not the wage normally paid by local contractors. What’s more, the final cost was very much reduced by two grants: one from NYS for archival purposes, and another from Senator Seward. In addition, the Town Board had put money in a reserve account each year for several years prior to construction and did not need to issue a bond. Taxes were actually lowered during some of those years of saving for the construction.
“She schemed with some Pierstown residents to attempt to change the subdivision laws in the Town of Otsego, leading to the infamous Conservation Subdivision.”
I was contacted by and listened to the concerns of a group of Pierstown residents. Many Pierstown residents were concerned about the build-out effects of the 3 acre minimum lot size in the RA-1 zoning district. Since the Town was beginning the process of writing its Comprehensive Plan, they felt it was an appropriate time to express their concerns.
I supported the idea that the Comprehensive Plan needed to be completed before zoning issues could be addressed. I also helped the group secure a parcel map of the Pierstown area so they could survey all Pierstown residents to tally how many supported a larger minimum lot size and how many did not. The parcel map was to be used in making a visual aid to show support or lack of support for the idea of larger lot sizes. The parcels of owners in support of larger lot sizes were shaded in one color and the parcels of owners not in support were shaded in another color. As it turns out, a majority of Pierstown residents (by number) would like to see larger minimum lot sizes. On the shaded map, there is a far greater amount of acreage covered by those in support of larger minimum lots sizes. If we are serious about protecting agricultural lands, forested lands and rural views, then we should applaud the efforts of the residents are are working toward these ends.
The suggestion of Conservation Subdivision came from Nan Stoltzenberg, a professional planner hired by the Town Board to assist in the development of the Comprehensive Plan.
Now that the Town’s Comprehensive Plan team has nearly completed its work, the Town Board and the Town Planning Board may very likely begin examining the land use regulations. Some Town residents would like to see an expansion of the business districts, others would like to see provisions for the preservation of agricultural lands, forested lands, and open space. I believe the majority of Pierstown residents would like to have an overlay district in Pierstown with the minimum lot size greater than 3 acres. They do not want to force a larger minimum lot size on any neighborhood that doesn’t want it.
“In December 2005, she supported plans to construct a new town highway building for the cost of $1.2 million”.
The Town Board had been discussing the construction of a new highway building for three or four years because one of the old highway buildings was (and still is) condemnable by OSHA. In addition, the insulation was shot, making the cost of heating the structure exorbitant! An engineer was hired to do a feasibility study for repairing the old building. It was determined that the repair/renovation work needed was far too extensive and the cost far exceeded what the Board felt was reasonable. It was decided to demolish the old building and build a new one on the Cemetery Road site. Along with the rest of the Town Board, I supported an expenditure of up to $250K for the new structure. RFPs were sent out and a few responses were obtained. The bids came in at four or five times what the Board was willing to spend, and the project was dropped.
“She voted to increase the county mortgage tax on families”.
Otsego County had, and still has, the lowest mortgage tax rate in New York State. The mortgage tax is a one-time tax of ¾ of one percent of the mortgage, with the first $20K of the mortgage being exempt. The tax is on the mortgage, not on the total purchase price, not on the income of the person, family or corporation making the purchase, and not on the value of the property, house, business or other structure being purchased. In 2005, the previous board had already passed the resolution raising the mortgage tax by ¼ of one percent- in other words, raising the tax to 1%, with the first $20K of the mortgage still exempt. The county would be allowed to keep all of the increase (a large portion of the original tax goes to the State) and it would be used to help defray the expense of the County Clerk’s Office for recording, amending, transferring, and archiving deeds and mortgages.
Because the State Senate and the Assembly did not get around to approving the County’s bill before the end of the year, the new County Board had to reintroduce the resolution and vote on it again. It was introduced at our first meeting in January 2006. I supported the previous Board’s action. The resolution failed. There was no increase in the mortgage tax.
“She supported a change in the county’s insurance program that increased that expense by $100,000”.
For as long as anyone on the Board can remember, the previous Chairman of the Board worked out the County’s liability insurance policy, provisions and cost with the same insurance carrier every year. This usually happened in December, after the County budget was already in place. No one has yet been able to explain to me how the money suddenly appeared in the budget, but somehow it did.
In 2006, for the first time in anyone’s memory, RFPs were sent out for the County’s liability insurance. Two reasonable bids were returned. One was from our regular carrier for liability insurance through Trident, a Texas-based company, and the other was from a new carrier for liability insurance with NYMIR- the New York Municipal Insurance Reciprocal. Our regular carrier gave us a bid considerably lower than what had been agreed upon in past years behind closed doors! The NYMIR quote came in about $100K higher. As much I liked the NYMIR program, I could not possibly have supported spending $100K more than necessary for liability insurance! However, what I do support, is sending out RFPs to get the best deal for the county dollar.
The resolution was to accept the low bid. I vote eighth in the voting line-up. Representatives’ votes are weighted based on the populations in our districts. All seven of the representatives voting before me have more heavily weighted votes than I. The resolution to accept the low bid had already passed before it even got to me. My no vote, and the two no votes that came after mine, were actually votes in support of open RFPs, and each of us said exactly that when we voted!
“She supported Rep. Ron Feldstein in changing the budget process from one that worked to the process that resulted in an erroneous 22 percent tax increase, and has since cost nearly $200,000 to fix”.
Below is a brief comparison of the old budget process and the new budget process:
2005 Budget Process 2006 Budget Process
1- Committees review department budgets 1- Committees review department budgets
2- Treasurer compiles County budget 2- Treasurer compiles County budget
3- Treasurer and Board review County budget 3- Treas. and Admin. Committee review County
4- Treasurer and Board Chair Review budget 4-Treasurer and Board review County budget
5- Public Hearings 5- Public Hearings
6- Board adopts budget and may modify 6- Board adopts budget and may modify
There were four rounds of scrutiny in both processes (steps 1, 3, 4 and 6). The difference is that in 2006, each step was conducted in accordance with the Open Meetings Law. Not so in previous years. It should be clear that the flawed budget was not the result of a change in process.
The error was due to miscommunication between the Treasurer’s office and the Board involving an overestimate in the growth of the tax base, and the use of the terms “tax levy increase” and “tax rate increase,” during three of the levels of review (steps 3, 4 and 6).
In good faith, the Board passed the 2007 budget believing there to be a 2.4 percent tax increase. When the error was discovered, the Board assumed responsibility and set about the tasks of amending the 2007 budget to reflect a tax increase of less than 2.4 percent, and returning the additional money to the taxpayers.
This placed an additional burden on our Town Clerks, all of whom rose to the occasion in helping solve the problem of collecting and returning tax monies in accordance with State law. It also placed an additional burden on personnel in several County departments, mostly the Treasurer’s Office, the Real Property Tax Service Office, and the Information Technologies Department, some of whom also rose to the occasion to help design and carry out solutions to the problem. Some did not.
Because State Law would not allow the County to simply scrap the original tax bills and send out new ones, the solution became quite complicated and required State Legislative action. The process forced the taxpayers to pay the original bill and wait for Legislative action before getting a refund. As a result, the additional money sat in an account earning interest. Enough interest was earned to more than cover the cost of refunding money to taxpayers. Did it cost the taxpayers of this County $200,000 to repair this damage? Absolutely, no. Did it cause inconvenience and hardship? Regrettably, yes.
“As a major slap in the face to our agricultural community, Iversen voted to gut the Cornell Cooperative Extension, and fired its most senior and experienced employees without warning”.
Although I might mention the Board of Directors of Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE) in my response to Bill’s accusation, I do not speak for the CCE Board. Whatever I say here is my own response.
CCE Associations in New York get their funding from several sources: county appropriations, formula matches from New York State and the US Department of Agriculture, grants, donations, memberships, earned income, and other sources. By 2006 there were a handful of NY Associations in danger of bankruptcy. CCE of Erie County came the closest when it lost all appropriations from Erie County and all formula match funds connected to it. CCE of Otsego County, although not on the brink of bankruptcy, was experiencing more and more financial difficulty each year. The County Board cut the CCE appropriation by 28% several years ago. That, in turn, resulted in another serious loss of funding through the NYS/USDA formula matches. During those same years, several grants had run their courses and ended, one of which resulted in the loss of another $100K per year.
Any small business or non-profit corporation that loses nearly $200K in income each year over the course of a few years is going to have serious difficulty maintaining the same number of high-quality programs and continuing to pay the same number of employees. The CCE executive Board and the executive Director met over the course of six months to design a business plan that would prevent the Association from sinking into deeper financial troubles and still continue to deliver the best possible program with the available resources.
The core areas of program delivery at CCE of Otsego County (Agriculture, Natural Resources, Horticulture, 4-H Youth Development, and Nutrition/Health) and the staff that deliver these programs would be funded primarily with appropriations and other hard money sources. Any program beyond the core areas, the Special Projects, and the staff hired to provide delivery, would be dependent on softer grant money. The Five Year Plan called for a reorganization and reduction in program and staff positions in order to continue providing high quality programming in the core areas.
The Five year Plan was presented to the full CCE Board in January 2007. There were many questions and discussions. The motion to accept the plan carried. There were no nays. There was one abstention.
After the Plan was adopted, it was amended in May 2007. The Plan originally called for the hiring of a Dairy/Livestock Educator in place of the Central New York Dairy and Field Crops Team. The dairy community was especially concerned about the loss of the Dairy Team services. A special CCE Board meeting was called to allow the dairy community to address its concerns, and to allow the Dairy Team to address ways in which it might improve service in the southern part of the County. After this meeting the Board amended the Plan to retain the services of the Dairy Team. However, the need for a Livestock Educator was still recognized. There are many farms in Otsego County with livestock other than dairy cows: horses, beef cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, llamas, alpacas and even bison. The only increase in appropriation the CCE Board has asked for in the 2008 County budget is the salary and overhead expenses of a Livestock Educator. The Educator’s benefits will be part of the NYS/USDA formula match.
As a member of the Health, Education and Agriculture Committee, I support agriculture in Otsego County, as well as the preservation and conservation of agricultural lands. Agriculture is important to the Otsego County economy, and will be even more important as sustainability efforts move forward. My voting record on the County Board will clearly support this claim.
“Iversen failed to attend key meetings with the governor’s office and local officials to find solutions to problems at Canadarago Lake”.
This is true. I missed the meeting. Sometimes more than one meeting is scheduled for the same evening. I do, however, sit on the Board of the Otsego County Soil and Water Conservation District, a major player in finding the solution to spring flooding and late summer low water levels on the Lake. Scott Fickbohm, the District Manager at SWCD, and Blanche Hurlbutt, the Office Manager at SWCD, keep me very well informed, especially since Canadarago Lake is one of the major topics of discussion at every SWCD Board meeting. I’m on record as having supported the Town of Otsego efforts in working toward a solution when I was on the Town Board. As a County Representative, I’m also on record as being in support of the County taking a leadership role in working toward a solution. To read more about how I feel about finding and executing a solution to the flooding/water level problems on Canadarago Lake, go back to the Campaign Issues page of this website.
“On many occasions Iversen explained her votes by saying she didn’t know what she was voting for”.
This last one goes far beyond spin. This is slander. It deserves no discussion.
Responses to the anonymous pink posters.
Again- start with half a fact, put plenty of spin on it, and pretty soon it becomes a complete fiction!
And again- anything I may say in responding to the pink slander sheet is what I have to say. I cannot speak for the CCE Board.
“Two senior educators being denied entry level positions due to lack of skills”.
A member of any Board of Directors is morally bound not to discuss employees outside the confidence of an executive session. I can't comment on this. I think people would be disappointed if I breached that confidence.
“Executive Director’s salary at $60K. and 3% raise after a year and a half”
I can talk about this issue because in a public non-profit such as CCE, the executive director’s salary is public information.
The CCE provides salary ranges for various job descriptions within CCE Associations. Originally these salary ranges were suggestions, but over the last decade or so they have become stronger than mere suggestions. The low end of the range has gradually come to be considered as the absolute minimum allowed. Otsego County CCE was one of the last Associations to be paying its employees less than the minimum standard.
When the Board advertised for an executive director, the office had already had a few recent director turn-overs, the Association was in financial distress, programs were suffering, employees were being paid poorly, and the building was in need of major repairs. What’s more, this was pretty much known in Extension circles. There weren’t very many applicants, qualified or unqualified.
The position was advertised at somewhat less that $60K. The best applicant had a degree in economics, a law degree, and a forestry degree. He had also practiced law, and had worked as forester. He had administrative experience as the executive director in two very different non-profits: the Catskill Forestry Association and the Schoharie County CCE. His work ethic and personal philosophy were admirable, and he set high goals for himself. And, as really desirable candidates often do, he asked for somewhat more than the position has been advertised for. Yes, I supported hiring the present Executive Director at $60K And yes, I supported giving him a 3% raise for 2008; he has worked under the most difficult of conditions, he has juggled the jobs of several different people, he has kept the Association alive and he has allowed the recovery process at CCE to begin.
“May 17 decision to no longer answer questions.”
The CCE Board answered every question asked at public meetings, over the phone, by email and by letter, as they were asked. The answers were honest and forthright, but were not always the answers one particular group pf people wanted to hear. The same questions were asked over and over, and the same answers were given. Finally the Board decided to gather all of the questions, sort them by category, and provide written responses to all questions. Some people were still unsatisfied with the answers and began harassing Board members in their places of employment and in their homes. The Board decided that new questions would be answered, but time would no longer be spent answering the same questions again and again. I supported this action.
Responses to Mr. Johnson’s most recent mailer:
Again, if you start with a half of a fact, put a whole lot of spin on it in just the right direction, out comes a complete fiction.
"22% tax increase"
In good faith, the Board passed the 2007 budget using the best information available, believing there to be a 2.4 percent tax increase. Did I know what I was voting on? Absolutely. I was voting for a responsible budget with 2.4 percent tax increase, as did all thirteen other Board members. Twelve voted yes, 2 voted no.
When the error was discovered, the Board assumed responsibility and set about the tasks of amending the 2007 budget to reflect a tax increase of less than 2.4 percent, and returning the additional money to the taxpayers. The amended budget was passed early in January. Solving the payment problem was lengthy. It placed an additional burden on our Town Clerks, all of whom rose to the occasion in helping solve the problem of collecting and returning tax money in accordance with State law. It also placed an additional burden on personnel in several County departments (mostly the Treasurer’s Office, the Real Property Tax Service Office, and the Information Technologies Department) some of whom also rose to the occasion to help design and carry out solutions to the problem. Some did not.
Because the law would not allow the County to simply scrap the original tax bills and send out new ones, the solution became quite complicated and required State Legislative action. The process forced the taxpayers to pay the original bill and wait for Legislative action before getting a refund. As a result, the additional money sat in an account earning interest. Enough interest was earned to more than cover the cost of refunding money to taxpayers. Did it cost the taxpayers of this County $200,000 to repair this damage? Absolutely, no. Did it cause inconvenience and hardship? Regrettably, yes.
“A Tax on Working Families”
Otsego County had, and still has, the lowest mortgage tax rate in New York State. The mortgage tax is a one-time tax of ¾ of one percent of the mortgage, with the first $20K of the mortgage being exempt. The tax is on the mortgage, not on the total purchase price, not on the income of the person, family or corporation making the purchase, and not on the value of the property, house, business or other structure being purchased.
In 2005, the previous board had already passed the resolution to raise the mortgage tax by ¼ of one percent- in other words, raising the tax to 1%, with the first $20K of the mortgage still exempt. The county would be allowed to keep all of the increase (a large portion of the original tax goes to the State) and it would be used to help defray the expense to the County Clerk’s Office for recording, amending, transferring, and archiving deeds and mortgages.
Because the State Senate and the Assembly did not have the opportunity to approve the County’s bill before the end of the year, the new County Board was forced to reintroduce the resolution and vote on it again. It was introduced at our first meeting in January 2006. I supported the previous Board’s action. The resolution failed. There was no increase in the mortgage tax.
“Giving Illegal Aliens Drivers’ Licenses”?
Resolutions are presented to Board members several days before any meeting along with the agenda (I post these on my website). Each resolution has a printed number, and names the sponsoring committee and its members. If the sponsoring committee was not unanimous in its vote to sponsor a resolution, the no votes are also named. Board members have the opportunity to read the full resolution and ask questions of the sponsoring committee chairman prior to the meeting or during the meeting.
Late resolutions are prepared prior to any meeting, and distributed to Board members before the meeting. Late resolutions also have printed numbers and sponsorship information.
The resolution to have our County Clerk disregard the Governor’s directive concerning the Social Security Number requirement on license applications had no printed number and no sponsorship information printed on it. It was not distributed prior to the meeting, it was distributed after all timely and late resolutions had been considered. There was emotionally charged discussion; many board members played devil’s advocate in asking ‘what if’ questions.
Our County Clerk was not present to answer questions concerning the ramifications to the employees of the DMV Office, the County Clerk’s Office, or the County, of disregarding the Governor’s directive.
The resolution was a knee-jerk reaction to a bad decision and directive on the part of the Governor. The resolution was on the spot. The discussion was emotionally charged. Not all the information was available to make a thoughtful, deliberate, responsible decision. I don’t think anyone should have voted yes or no under those conditions.
In hindsight, the resolution should have been held until we had all the information we needed for an informed, responsible decision, and enough time to sort out and remove our emotional feelings. I abstained. Are you thinking I am not a Patriot? Don’t. I grew up in a military family- both parents served in the Pacific for the entirety of WWII. We go all out on the 4th of July. I’ll bet I’m one of the few people you’ll ever know who actually owns and plays recordings of John Phillip Sousa marches.
| 
