To the Editor:

At the Oct. 4 Westerlo Town Board meeting, we learned that the (first phase) tentative budget for 2017 may include a 3-percent property-tax increase. Copies of the tentative budget were not available to the public at the budget workshop on Oct. 18 , which made the discussion difficult to follow, and no questions were permitted.

No changes were made to it. I requested a copy and am trying to understand what's going on, especially between what was said at the first meeting and what the budget seemed to indicate at the next.

As far as I can tell, there appears to be a 1-percent tax-levy increase, but I don't know what that translates into for an actual property tax increase. A brief exchange at the workshop may hint at the reason for the change.

Supervisor Richard Rapp added $100,000 for capital outlay in the Buildings Expenses category, mentioning that the steam boiler that heats the building was no longer working. Councilman William Bichteman said he thought immediate necessary repairs to bring the town hall up to code would be $300,000 and asked if the plan was to borrow the rest, to which Mr. Rapp indicated yes.

So, instead of adding the $300,000 now, the board would incur more debt. All this, of course, depends on the outcome of the Nov. 8 vote regarding the town hall renovation: $887,000 estimated cost, plus $80,000 already allocated for basement asbestos abatement, plus $400,000 interest, for a total of $1,367,000.

In recent years, two different budgets had line items for replacing the highway-garage roof, which had been leaking for years. At meetings, the amount mentioned was $100,000 each budget. This was never disputed by the board, but in 2013 there was a budgeted capital outlay of $150,000. Was that for the roof?

Nothing was done to that roof until last year when a temporary fix was applied as an “emergency” $12,000 expense. When asked what happened to the $200,000 (or more) previously allocated for the roof, the public was given only a vague answer that it was used for other things.

I believe the New York State Office of State Comptroller would consider roof replacement (as opposed to repair) within the definition of a capital project (any physical public betterment or improvement). Money set aside for a capital purpose “continues in force until the purpose for which it was made has been accomplished or abandoned.”1

It wasn't accomplished. As far as I know, no resolution was passed to re-appropriate the money for other purposes. If the $200,000 (or more) had been in a restricted fund and a separate bank account, as generally acceptable accounting practice might suggest, it could have been transferred at year end to a restricted capital reserve fund and be available now for some of the needed work.

The 2014 New York State audit of “Selected Financial Activities” uncovered the fact that $66,388 had been transferred from the town's general fund to the hamlet's Water District Fund, which is separate and supposed to pay for itself. If this money had stayed in the general fund it, also, could have been used for capital projects.

The audit recommended, “The Board and Town officials should develop a comprehensive plan to ensure that all outstanding interfund advances are repaid, and future interfund advances should be repaid no later than the close of the fiscal year in which the advance was made. In addition, future interfund advances should be authorized by the Board.”

No such “comprehensive plan” to restore the $66,388 to the general fund has been discussed in public and Mr. Bichteman has said it could take “60 years.”

The boiler has been on its last legs for years. The $80,000 being applied to basement asbestos abatement includes approximately $60,000 leftover from the grant originally used to purchase the town hall building. That $60,000 sat there for years and the public was told it would be used to repair/replace the boiler. That, of course, didn't happen.

The four members of the town board who voted to spend well over a million dollars to renovate the town hall have converted years of neglect into a marketing strategy to justify that expense. The mailer that residents should soon receive lists ways the building is not “code compliant.”

The urgency to correct this was mentioned by Mr. Bichteman, as if there are now suddenly deadlines to do so in order to “continue to occupy this building.” This, again, is new news to the public. The mailer is also unlikely to remind taxpayers of accumulating impacts such as replacing the highway garage, previously estimated at $1,630,000, and 2017 property tax increases.

Then there is the matter of “community pride” Mr. Bichteman mentioned in a recent letter to the Altamont Enterprise editor. You can't buy pride. It costs nothing except the practice of putting values into action.

At the Oct. 15 open house, we walked around that building inside and out. What you see everywhere, except the clerk's office (the code enforcement office was locked), is neglect and messiness, well described in Anita Marrone's letter of Oct. 20.

At that open house, one of the Building Committee members implored the seven residents attending to “trust them, give them a chance” and to vote in favor of the million-dollar-plus plan. Political trust is not a blank check. It is earned by demonstrating honesty, transparency, accountability, public inclusion, sound decision-making, and fairness.

This project puts the cart well before the horse. Fundamental processes, including financial transparency, need correcting before the public can be assured that our tax dollars are being well spent.

You shouldn't need a Ouija board to figure out what's going on in local government.

On Nov. 8, residents can vote on the town hall project. On Nov. 9, the board will hold its budget meeting, and we should know then whether this “gift horse” of a building will cost us $300,000 or $1,329,000.

Dianne Sefcik

Westerlo