To the Editor:

At the Oct. 4 Westerlo Town Board meeting, we learned that the 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 Oct. 18 workshop, which made the discussion difficult to follow, and no questions were permitted.

No changes were made. 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.

Last year's tentative budget provided the amount and percentage of difference in the tax levy. This year's does not. Could it be because last year the levy decreased and this year it increased?

Overriding the state-set tax cap requires a local law. I calculated a 1-percent tax levy increase. Why is this different from the amount originally mentioned?

A brief exchange at the workshop may hint at the reason. Supervisor [Richard] Rapp added $100,000 for “building expenses capital outlay,” saying that the steam boiler that heats the town hall was no longer working. Councilman [William] Bichteman said he thought immediate necessary repairs to make the building code compliant 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 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, and 20 years of debt repayment at $64,500 a year.

In 2013, a capital outlay of $150,000 was allocated for replacing the highway garage roof, which had been leaking for years. Nothing was done to that roof until last year when a temporary fix was applied as an “emergency” $12,000 expense. When repeatedly asked what happened to the $150,000, 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 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,” according to the comptroller’s “Information for Town Officials” of December 2015.

It wasn't accomplished. As far as I know, no resolution was passed to re-appropriate the money for other purposes. If the $150,000 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 building improvements.

That 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.” When the water district was established we were assured that its costs would not affect town taxpayers.

The boiler has been on its last leg 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 town board members 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 brochure that residents may receive lists ways the building is not “code compliant.” Mr. Bichteman mentioned the urgency to correct this, as if there are now suddenly deadlines to do so.

These deadlines are new news to the public. The brochure is unlikely to advise residents of accumulating tax 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 his Oct. 13 letter. 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 almost everywhere 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.

The original snow job that minimized the asbestos problem and obscured the real cost of acquiring the town hall is documented. The minutes of May 13, 2010 say, among other things, that “renovation estimates given by the school were high,” even though the town had no estimate of its own. It did not accept the independent and accurate estimate of $500,000 (not including asbestos abatement), established by then-Councilman Jack Milner.

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. We should know then whether this “gift horse” of a building will cost $1,329,000 or several thousand and counting.

Dianne Sefcik

Westerlo

Editor’s note: See related story.