Acting City Manager and City Comptroller Charles Emberger, Corporation Counsel Geoffrey Chanin, Acting Director of Planning and Development Courtney Kain, NIDA member Jerry Maldonado, NIDA Treasurer Michael Curry, and NIDA Acting Chair and Vice Chair Joshua Smith.

On Thursday, August 13, the Newburgh Industrial Development Agency (NIDA) gave a presentation at a special work session of the Newburgh City Council.  Acting Chair and Vice Chair Joshua Smith spoke for the NIDA, describing the many struggles and setbacks that have stymied the agency since the new board’s appointment in 2008.

A brief history of NIDA 2008-2009

Previously the city council and two additional appointees made up the NIDA.  Due to the passage of the  New York State Public Authority Accountability Act of 2005, the council could no longer legally make up a majority of the board.  Back at the May 2008 city council meeting Mayor Valentine states that new NIDA board members will be announced in June.

But no June announcement was forthcoming.  And on July 15, 2008, a quorum from the old  NIDA meets for one last time, and awards what appears to be a no-bid contract to Urban Design Associates with a ceiling of $50,000.  At this last meeting the then NIDA Administrative Director Robert McKenna also gives quite an optimistic update on the West Street Medical Tech Project, which is the project currently under scrutiny due to the potential partial or total loss of a $1.75 million grant from the Economic Development Administration, part of the Department of Commerce.

Finally, at the July 21, 2008 council meeting, the board is appointed.  But it is not until September 2, 2008, that the new board convenes.  At that meeting, Smith told the council last night, “we did something new for the IDA…  We turned the microphones on, so that the public could hear what was going on.”

NIDA board members continue to meet, often more than once a month, including September 15, 2008, September 29, 2008, October 20, 2008, throughout the fall and into the present. McKenna announces he will retire on December 18, 2008.  The day before he retires, he writes a check from the NIDA checking account, unbeknownst to the board, for $388,825.97.

Lourdes Perez takes over as administrator following McKenna’s retirement.  At the January 5, 2009 meeting, the board passes a unanimous call asking for a state audit of the NIDA.  At the January 16 meeting, the board recounts how they learned that NIDA is a “delinquent” agency that failed to file financial reports, that the treasurer had been unable to ascertain how much money was in the agency’s bank accounts, and that the accounting situation is “an embarrassment and an outrage.”  They pass resolutions to freeze account access and limit disbursement authority to the board.

The HUD audit and stealth government

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued audit 2009-NY-1008 on February 24, 2009 investigating how the City of Newburgh administered its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program.  HUD charges that “the City lacked documentation to show that $558,344 in CDBG funds used to pay for administrative costs was for reasonable and necessary expenditures.”

On January 28, 2008, the acting city manager John Platt responds to the draft of the HUD audit.  Copied on the letter are the City of Newburgh Council, Corporation Counsel Geoffrey Chanin, and Lourdes Zapata, Director of Planning and Development at the city.  Platt writes that

The majority of any unsupported expenditures for administrative costs have already been reimbursed.  The IDA reimbursed the CDBG program $388,825.97 on December 18, 2008 upon completion of an internal review of applicable/reimbursable costs…

As to the remaining balance, we are currently reviewing our internal records and will document that such funds were properly expended.  We will determine whether any journal entries or other records were recorded in error.

The NIDA board had no idea that this had happened and had not authorized the transfer.  On March 31, Vice-Chairman Joshua Smith writes to Zapata, City Comptroller Charles Emberger, and Acting City Manager Dwight Douglas, stating

This transfer of IDA funds was accomplished without the knowledge, consent or approval of the IDA Board.  On behalf of the IDA Board I thus demand that Ms. Zapata promptly, and no later than Friday, April 10, 2009, restore to the IDA account the full amount of $388,825.97 that had been withdrawn without the Board’s knowledge, consent or approval.

When the city fails to return the funds by the specified date, NIDA files suit against the city manager, city comptroller, and city planning director on May 6 to demand that they do so.

NCDA questions bring strange segue

In April of 2009, I was researching the Newburgh Community Development Agency (NCDA), and discovered that a personal injury suit had recently been filed against the NCDA by Elaine and Hector Lopez.  Ultimately I would write about this suit in the post “Who is negotiating with Ms. Lopez?” on May 7.  In preparing to write about the NCDA, following the conclusion of the April 27 council meeting I ask Mayor Nick Valentine when he thinks the agency last had met.  According to state law, the NCDA is made up of the city council.  Mayor Valentine states that he thinks it was about two years ago, to handle a property deal.  He then segues into talking about the NIDA.

“We screwed the IDA,” he says, “we didn’t give them their $418,000 for the Broadway School… They could sue… But they’re not going to sue, because we appointed [them],” and, he explains, they’d just get rid of them, appointing a new board.

Mayor Valentine’s memory is slightly off on the Broadway School amount.  At the September 4, 2008 work session, then City Manger JeanAnn McGrane gives the council a presentation on options to reduce the cost of the courthouse bond, including “nonrepayment of IDA loan $511,701.”  On her powerpoint slide and in the video, Ms. McGrane clearly states that IDA approval would be needed to forgive the loan.  That approval is never sought.

Mayor Valentine confirms with Corporation Counsel Geoffrey Chanin at a May 21, 2009 work session (at the end of this video, and also below) that the Newburgh Industrial Development Agency Board serves at the pleasure of the city council, and that “there are no time limits.”  The NIDA suit predates this inquiry by two weeks.  The NIDA board serves at the council’s pleasure… or not.

What about the NCDA?

Following the publication of the post “Who is negotiating with Ms. Lopez?” on May 7, the city council discusses the NCDA and, to some extent, the NIDA and the Newburgh Local Development Corporation (NLDC) at two work sessions, on the above mentioned May 21 and also June 18 meetings.  At these sessions, the council majority of Bell, Bello, and Dickinson express reluctance to take on the governing of an additional body on top of their council duties. On June 18 Councilwoman Bello asks whether the NIDA could take over the NCDA, since the Authority Accountability Act requires training and strict reporting of financial information, requirements that the NIDA board fully understands to which it is “working diligently” toward compliance.  Interim City Manager Dwight Douglas dismisses this idea, and Mayor Nick Valentine says, “I don’t care what it’s from, we’re in a lawsuit,” and bursts into laughter, to the dismay of Councilwoman Marge Bell.

June 18 part 1:

June 18 part 2:

In this excerpt, Councilwoman Christine Bello states her preference not to be a part of the NCDA. Interim City Manager Dwight Douglas tries to explain how the city council is already conducting NCDA business, unbeknownst to them, and suggests that he and corporation counsel Geoffrey Chanin will look into what the implications are of this and report back to the council. “I feel chastened,” Douglas says, that he hasn’t done that research already for the council.

May 21 part 1:

May 21 part 2:

Why wasn’t the risk explained to the city council?

Watching these meetings, I could not understand why Corporation Counsel Geoffrey Chanin did not emphasize the necessity of responding to the personal injury lawsuit filed by Elaine and Hector Lopez.  If the council did not take action and, at a minimum, hold one meeting as the NCDA to authorize the hiring of legal counsel to represent the agency in this case, they would be at risk of a default judgment.  At one point during these discussions, Councilwoman Bello expresses her extreme reluctance to take on the NCDA, but says if she really must, she will.  But Douglas and Chanin humor the council’s request for more time and more information, and say they will get back to them.

The workaround

Conveniently, four days after the June 18 work session, on June 22, things get much easier for Corporation Counsel Geoffery Chanin.  The attorney for the Lopezes, Peter C. McMahon, files a “supplemental summons” listing the City of Newburgh as a co-defendant along with the NCDA.  In this document, McMahon writes almost duplicate statements implicating the city along with the NCDA:

4. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the Defendant, NEWBURGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, owned the lot and/or parking lot at Section 12, Block 6, Lot 5, Newburgh, County of Orange, State of New York.

5. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the Defendant, CITY OF NEWBURGH, owned the lot and/or parking lot at Section 12, Block 6, Lot 5, Newburgh, County of Orange, State of New York.

6. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the Defendant, NEWBURGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, maintained the lot and/or parking lot located at Section 12, Block 6, Lot 5, Newburgh, County of Orange, State of New York.

7. Upon informition and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the Defendant, CITY OF NEWBURGH, maintained the lot and/or parking lot located at Section 12, Block 6, Lot 5, Newburgh, County of Orange, State of New York.

8. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the Defendant, NEWBURGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, controlled the lot and/or parking lot located at Section 12, Block 6, Lot 5, Newburgh, County of Orange, State of New York.

9. Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned, the Defendant, CITY OF NEWBURGH, controlled the lot and/or parking lot located at Section 12, Block 6, Lot 5, Newburgh, County of Orange, State of New York.

On July 29, attorney Michael E. Catania from the firm Tarshis, Catania, Liberth, Mahon & Milligram files a request for judicial intervention on this suit, signing as “Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF NEWBURGH.”

And, at the August 10 city council meeting, under the “communications” portion of the meeting, the council votes and approves unanimously referring this suit (among many others) to the corporation counsel for action.  Did any of them even realize this was the same NCDA suit that necessitated the earlier work session discussions?

Even Mr. Chanin’s memory seems a little fuzzy.

“I noticed that the Lopez suit, Elaine and Hector, was referred… they were originally suing NCDA?” I ask him.

“Ok, it’s not registering, but keep talking.”

“Ok, I just noticed that it was referred…”

“All claims are referred to the corporation counsel to the power to act because technically, under the charter…” he goes on.

“If the Community Development Agency is listed as a party, do they still have to reply?”

No answer.

“You had explained to me earlier, that if somebody sues the CDA, they have to hold a meeting and appoint somebody to respond.”

“In the absence of the CDA… You can’t just not show up… when you get a notice of claim, if it’s against any city agency, whether it’s the NCDA or the IDA or some other [entity]… if they have not formally met to act, it’s incumbent on me to defend the city… at least until they decide to meet, and make another decision.”

No NCDA, but that doesn’t stop them from collecting debt

The same day things get easier for Mr. Chanin, the city comptroller Charles Emberger decides things would not get any easier for NIDA.  On June 22, Mr. Emberger writes a letter of demand to the NIDA.  They need to pay $169,518 to the Newburgh Community Development Agency – that’s right, the same agency that has no board members, no administrative director, and, according to the July 2009 Annual Report on Public Authorities in New York State issued by the Authority Budget Office, has not submitted either budget reports or annual reports in PARIS, the required state filing method.

Emberger sends his letter to the NIDA:

To back up his claim, Mr. Emberger includes the first two pages of the June 15 letter from HUD’s New York office, from Vincent Hom, the Director of Community Planning and Development.  Mr. Hom writes at the top of page 2 that (emphasis mine)

The Office of Inspector General stated in the report that documentation provided by the City during the January 2009 exit conference to demonstrate that the $388,825.97 was reimbursed to the CDBG Program was found to be acceptable.  After review of the documentation, we agree in that assessment.  In order to resolve this recommendation, the City must submit evidence that overall receivables from the IDA to the CDBG Program including the $388,826 have been reduced in the City’s records and supply documentation for the remaining balance of $169,518 which clearly indicates that these costs were for eligible CDBG administrative expenses; or repay ineligible or inadequately documented costs from non-federal funds.  The City shall arrange to submit additional documentation or have materials available for examination within 45 days of the date of this letter.

Despite the city’s claim in their January 28 letter to HUD, included in the February 24, 2009 Audit, that

As to the remaining balance, we are currently reviewing our internal records and will document that such funds were properly expended.  We will determine whether any journal entries or other records were recorded in error.

…for whatever reason, that documentation must not have been forthcoming, since Mr. Emberger sends the bill to the NIDA.

What are the consequences?

I ask the New York State Authority Budget Office, to whom agencies such as the NCDA and the NIDA–as well as the Newburgh Local Development Corporation–must file financial reports, if there are any consequences to the NCDA failing to file or meet as a board.  Matt Anderson replied, stating:

The ABO does not have statutory authority to compel reporting or to require the board to meet on a regular basis.

I also ask if an agency is not being administered by its board or an officially appointed administrative director, could the city manager and/or the city comptroller act on the agency’s behalf?  Mr. Anderson replied (emphasis mine):

We do not believe that a city employee can act in place of the board without the specific authorization of the board. It is our understanding that the Office of the State Comptroller has issued opinions that appear to conclude that only the agency can appoint personnel and this power cannot be delegated to officers or employees of the agency.  I suggest speaking with the Office of the State Comptroller for further information on this issue.

The Office of the State Comptroller did not provide an answer to repeated requests for comment on this issue.

What about HUD?

I ask HUD’s New York office if it matters to them that the NCDA is not filing financial reports and without an active board.  Newburgh annually receives HUD money in the form of CDBG funds, and those funds have been administered, as far as I can tell, by the NCDA (whether the council is cognizant of that or not.)

Adam Glantz answers that there is no requirement that the CDBG funds be administered by the NCDA; “the eligible applicant is the City of Newburgh,” and were the NCDA to somehow be dissolved, the city could apply directly.

Does HUD have any problems granting CDBG moneys to an agency that has no officially appointed director and is not acting in accordance with the authority requirements of New York State?

Mr. Glantz says no.  “HUD regulations allow that the chief executive to designate a public agency to administer and monitor its programs,” he writes, “HUD regulations only require only that an agency have “continuing capacity” to carry out the program activities in a timely manner.”

NIDA auditors stymied

NIDA board members were kept in the dark about the $388K check for the HUD audit.  And the Newburgh planning and development office apparently wasn’t any more forthcoming with the NIDA auditors.  At the July 13, 2009 meeting, the 2007 audit is accepted. The auditors describe in their difficulties gaining access to records and city personnel at arranged appointments, writing that “when we showed up, no one was there…”

Paging the NLDC

The day after Robert McKenna retires, on December 19, 2008, a letter is written to him from the State of New York Authority Budget Office.  Writes the ABO,

As you [McKenna] know, recently we mutually determined that your local development corporation met the definition of a local public authority under the Public Authorities Accountability Act (Act).  This letter is intended to continue the communication between our offices and to prepare your LDC to meet the requirements of the Act…

We look forward to working with you in the spirit of open, transparent and accountable government embodied in this legislation.

Yet this letter only came to the knowledge of the city council through the efforts of a citizen.  That these various agencies must comply with the Public Authorities Act was something that seemed of greater importance, awareness and urgency to Councilwoman Bello at the June and July work sessions than to either City Manager Dwight Douglas or Corporation Counsel Geoffrey Chanin.  Despite promises, no public follow-up happens regarding these issues.  With the assignment of the Lopez suit to corporation counsel, the immediate heat is off.

At the conclusion of the NIDA’s presentation on August 13 (first video on this page), the subject of the NLDC comes up, and when it does, Mayor Valentine brusquely draws the meeting to a close.  The members of the NLDC are present, although they might not all know it.

Why the confusion?

In January of 2003, the city’s charter is changed, merging the NIDA and the NCDA into a new city department:

ARTICLE XIV
Department of Planning and Development
[Added 1-27-2003 by L.L. No. 1-2003]

§ C14.00. Establishment; head.
There shall be a Department of Planning and Development, headed by a Director of Planning and Development, who shall be appointed by the City Manager and who shall serve at the pleasure of the City Manager.

§ C14.01. Director of Planning and Economic Development.
The Director of Planning and Development shall be appointed on the basis of his education and experience in carrying out the duties of the position. Among the Director’s functions and duties, but not by way of limitation, shall be the following:

A. To act as a full-time administrator of the Department, the Newburgh Local Development Corporation and the Newburgh Industrial Development Agency offices to ensure a coordinated and comprehensive approach to community and economic development within the City of Newburgh.

B. To develop and administer a combined and integrated staff to support the Newburgh Community Development Agency, Newburgh Local Development Corporation and the Newburgh Industrial Development Agency and other community-based programs recognized by the Council.

In the aftermath of the Savoy scandal, NIDA administrator and board changes, City Manager William F. Ketcham recommends the reconfiguration in part to reduce the influence of “politically motivated” decisions.  If the administrative director to these agencies is under the city manager’s control, perhaps abuses like the $380,000 unauthorized transfer to the Savoy partners would be less likely to happen.

As late as January 10, 2005, the city council appoints the officers of the Newburgh Community Development Agency, in resolution 9-2005.  They are:

Mayor Nicholas Valentine – Chairman
Councilwoman Regina Angelo – Vice Chairman
Dawn Gobeo – Treasurer
Councilwoman Else Figureoa App – Secretary

Time passes; Robert McKenna takes care of things, and, until the passage of the Public Authorities Act in 2005, there isn’t much reason to do anything differently.

It is a strange coincidence that it is another $380K sum of questionable provenance that has drawn this tangle of agencies and government authority under scrutiny.

Conference tomorrow on NIDA vs. City Manaager, City Comptroller, and City Planning Director suit

Monday morning, August 17, attorneys representing the NIDA and the City Manager, City Comptroller, and City Planning Director will meet in Goshen and perhaps come up with terms for a settlement.

The saga of the city’s public authorities – the Newburgh Industrial Development Agency, the Newburgh Community Development Agency, and the Newburgh Local Development Corporation – will no doubt continue.