But then again aren’t all the Orange County Choppers’ bikes fetish bikes?  Senator Bill Larkin gives the FBI bike a try during the unveiling Monday, August 9th at the Newburgh Waterfront.  The Choppers produced the bike (and another one to be raffled) for an episode that will air September 16 on TLC.

The two Bills: Larkin and Kaplan arrive at the waterfront.

Kids, sailors and cops: the three main demographic groups attending the ceremony, in reverse order of predominance.

Paul Teutul Sr. arrives on the FBI bike.

A sign for the augurs: a flock of pigeons soared overhead just before the police procession with Teutel Sr. began.

Inlaid gold detailing above the rear tire.

Seal on the front.

Teutel gives a speech and points out the features on the bike.

An example of the cops to other people ratio.

The black bike in the foreground will be raffled, with the money to support anti-gang/stop the violence programs and initiatives in Newburgh.

What’s a Newburgh event without Mayor Nick Valentine?

Where’s County Executive Eddie Diana?  Maybe he was too shy to show the love for faithful campaign contributors OC Choppers.  He sent Jim O’Donnell, who lurked under the canopy of the River Grill for the proceedings.  Thanks, everyone!

Just a day after a New York Times article profiled the troubling impact of gangs in Newburgh, NY, multiple law enforcement agencies took action in an early morning raid this Thursday, May 13.

Later on Thursday, the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Preet Bharara, held a press conference at the White Plains Federal Courthouse.  In addition to Mr. Bharara, George Venizelos of the FBI, Newburgh Police Chief Eric Paolilli, Orange County District Attorney Frank Phillips, and Orange County Sheriff Carl DuBois spoke.

Full video of the conference is below, and may also be downloaded:

The US Attorney has charged 78 members and associates of the Newburgh Bloods and Latin Kings with nacotics-trafficking crimes.  The Thursday morning strike was a collaboration of local, state and federal law enforcement, working together as the Hudson Valley Safe Streets Task Force.

Additional coverage here and here, and the DOJ press release here.

“Gang violence is nothing new in this dilapidated city an hour north of Manhattan. Built along a scenic bluff on the west bank of the Hudson River, Newburgh has long been known for problems far out of proportion to its population of 29,000. In the 1960s and ’70s, it was racial strife and disastrous urban renewal efforts. In the 1980s, when the city was known as “crack alley,” it was drug-fueled violence, which has ebbed and flowed here ever since…”

Also include Where Gang Violence Devours Youth, a photo gallery.

I look at it almost as a tourist attraction. The international attention would put Newburgh on the map… The businesses around here would benefit. People would be going to restaurants and traveling around the Newburgh area who’ve never been here before.

This came as pressure mounted against holding the trial in the federal courthouse in New York City.

The Mayor also appeared on myfoxny.com:

The video above also includes an excerpt from a press conference held by County Executive Eddie Diana, at which Mr. Diana sharply disagrees with Mayor Valentine. Diana does not want the trials in Orange County, and has written as much to President Obama.

But what of the city council of Newburgh itself? Although media reports suggest implicitly or explicitly that Valentine has the support of his colleagues, when his colleagues are actually asked, their opinions are far from unanimous in support.  The Newburgh Advocate asked them what they thought.

Regina Angelo – “A shot in the arm”

Reached by telephone, Regina Angelo said she agreed with Mayor Valentine, that the trials would “help businesses.” She pointed out that there’s a “hotel right there,” and that restaurants would benefit. She said it would be a “shot in the arm for us… [we'd] really be on the map.”

Marge Bell – “I am absolutely opposed to this folly”

[I'm] shocked that the mayor would launch this kind of campaign without consulting the other members of the council.   Where did he receive the authority to speak for the entire council?  Inviting the trials here shows a total disregard for the residents of our city.  Safety and disruption of our way of life needed to be considered first.  The whole notion is ill hatched, and I am absolutely opposed to this folly.

Christine Bello – “It’s like making a business deal over an open coffin”

As always this is something that the Mayor did without even consulting the rest of us prior to going public with this.  He pitched it to me after the headlines, stating that the city could negotiate getting the courthouse paid off and possibly securing the salaries and benefits for 10 police officers for ten years.  I would have to see that offer in writing in order to believe it.  Generally if it sounds too good to be true it is.  The only thing the feds have announced is that they would pay for the security required.  With the military like security I believe it would limit businesses in the vicinity of the courthouse rather than economically stimulate them, something that would put some out of business.  I’m told that these trials could go on for years; that is a long time to have your business interrupted, and still survive.

Personally I feel that these characters should be tried by a military tribunal.  There is nothing worth putting a bulls eye on our already beleaguered little city.  When Valentine stated that he had no fear of terrorist threats here I wasn’t surprised; he does not even acknowledge the existing crime stats. Unlike the Mayor, I live AND work within a block either way of the courthouse, it’s very troubling to me.  Aside from the security concerns I get an overall uneasy feeling about this.  It’s like making a business deal over an open coffin, or selling souvenirs at the Alamo. It just doesn’t feel right.  Not to mention, what would this do to our own court cases that are already running behind? I don’t believe this was well thought out.

Curlie Dillard

As of post time, Councilman Dillard had not responded to requests for comment.

More points to ponder…

According to this press report, NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly outlined a security plan that would include two perimeters, one “soft” and the other “hard.”  The soft perimeter would be monitored by cops, while the hard perimeter would be blocked off.  Any permutation of a similar plan here in the City of Newburgh would almost certainly place a portion of 9W/Robinson Avenue at the intersection with Broadway within those perimeters.  What impact would this have on the city?

Does Newburgh have the symbolic capital to hold such a trial?  The Nuremberg Trials were held in Nuremberg in part because of its association as the birthplace of the Nazi Party.  Additionally, it had an intact Palace of Justice with an adequate prison nearby.  There doesn’t seem to be an adequate corollary for our current situation.  If anything, New York City would have made the point that “[t]his is where the attack occurred, and New Yorkers should have been proud to see justice done here.”

Attendees of the Newburgh City Council work session this past Thursday might have had a funny “Back to the Future” feeling when Neil Novesky was invited to the table.  The council was vetting Novesky and his wife Elizabeth to serve as CDBG consultants under Courtney Kain, Acting Planning Department Director.   Community Deveopment Block Grant (CDBG) funds are given to the city from the Department of Housing and Urban Development with the goal of improving conditions “principally for low- and moderate-income persons.”

Mr. Novesky was an employee of the City of Newburgh’s Development Department from 1983-1986.

As Novesky stated during his interview, it was a time of many “UDAGs” – Urban Development Action Grants, including what was to become the Key Bank Building at the foot of Broadway, and the selling off of Broadway School to several partners, including then consulting engineer Bill Hauser.

Later Novesky and his wife would work for the City of Middletown (as of this posting their website still lists Novesky as Community and Economic Development Director.) Novesky, along with Middletown Mayor Joe DeStefano and City Court Judge Rich Guertin, were the three defendants of the corruption trial that forced DeStefano out of office.  Novesky and Guertin were found not guilty on all counts in April 2005.  Novesky continued working during the trial and through the mayorship of Marlinda Duncanson, tendering his resignation December 4, 2010––just before DeStefano would return to office.

During the Noveskys interview Thursday night, Neil did the talking.  He said he would focus on large economic development projects, and try to set up revolving economic development loans with CDBG funds.  Toward the end he made mention of a nonprofit he and his wife work for.  He spoke softly, and I couldn’t quite catch if he stated the nonprofit’s name.  After their presentation, they made a swift exit, and I ran after them, catching them at the top of the stairs.

“You mentioned you work for a nonprofit.  What is the name of it?”

“CIDC.”

“Loewenstein?” I asked.

“Yes.  He pays on a per diem basis,” Novesky answered.

Have we met before?

It’s hard to tell when Mr. William Loewenstein began his consulting relationship with the City of Newburgh.  Back in 1982, the City passes Resolution No. 6 on January 25 by which the “National Development Council of Hudson, New York” is contracted to provide economic development assistance for $35,000 per year.  In later publications, Loewenstein is identified as a consultant with NDC.

Loewenstein was one of the signatories of the incorporation papers for the Broadway School partnership “Denn Cass”––a deal that profited some of the partners, if not the city’s local development corporation.

Loewenstein continued his consulting relationship over the years in Newburgh, more recently through his nonprofit CIDC – Community Initiatives Development Corporation.  He was also a consultant to the City of Middletown, and indeed, gave grand jury testimony in the aforementioned corruption trial.

The Newburgh IDA ended its relationship with CIDC when a new board was seated, after talks with CIDC representative Ed Schorno in 2008.

CIDC Courthouse Deal

CIDC is a controversial name in Newburgh in part because of the city courthouse deal with terms such as triple-net-lease proposed by Loewenstein.  At the time (2005) Loewenstein was a financial consultant to the city, he proposed that his nonprofit be the funding vehicle for the construction of the new courthouse.

Antony Takahashi, who then lived in Newburgh and worked as a financial analyst for IBM, did an evaluation of the terms of the contract.  The Times Herald-Record quotes Takahashi saying he would never recommend the deal to his bosses. “Not in good conscience.”

Full video of the CDBG discussion, including interview with the Noveskys:

There have been reports of problems with the video embedded below. To access the video directly, go here.

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:
[video deleted]

June 18 part 2:
[video deleted]

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:
[video deleted]

May 21 part 2:
[video deleted]

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.

The Mid-Hudson Times has an article by Allan Gaul (not available online)  that relies heavily on Mayor Nick Valentine, whose quotes “Are we finishing it? The answer is yes.  Are we going to get the money? The answer is yes” also make a neat bolded text summary on the front page.  As the article continues on page 4, Gaul writes that “Valentine said that the city is in ‘constant communication’ with HUD and the city’s congressman.  ‘The buildings are built, the road is done,’ Valentine said, adding that the city has been given a ‘punch list’ of items that HUD wants done and the city is determined to complete.”

What’s that again?  HUD?  The mayor has apparently erred once again in naming his apparent favorite federal agency, HUD.  The $1.75M grant now at issue is from the Economic Development Administration, a branch of the Department of Commerce.  HUD is in no way involved.  Mayor Valentine also erred in blaming HUD in his “My View” editorial to the Record in which he brings up the Kingston Newburgh Enterprise Corporation audit.  He wrote “The audit report itself [Valentine refers to actual HUD Audit Report No.: 2009-NY-1001]was flawed beyond belief. This did not surprise me as I had seen the same act with HUD with the Kingston/Newburgh Enterprise Corp. With that situation, HUD was determined to undermine Rep. Maurice Hinchey, and it was literally blatant in its inaccuracies and falsehoods.”  As reported here, that audit was done by the Department of Labor, not HUD.  The mayor may have been confused because HUD contributed funds to start KNEC, although it was the Dept. of Labor that contributed $1.9 Million for jobs training, nothing to sneeze at.

Why did Mayor Valentine fail to mention the “other” HUD audit in his editorial, Audit Report No.: 2009-NY-1008?  The city has already seen fit to pay back approximately $388,000 of over $500,000 spent on salaries and other charges that HUD ruled were inappropriately paid for with Community Develoment Block Grant (CDBG) funds.

Where did the city get the $388K?  Robert McKenna, former administrative director for the Newburgh Industrial Development Agency, wrote a check the day before he retired from the NIDA’s checking account, unbeknownst to the NIDA board.  This unauthorized transfer is currently a matter of litigation between the city and the NIDA.

At the conclusion of the city council meeting Monday, August 10, Councilwoman Christine Bello expressed her dismay as she revealed that Newburgh may have lost $1,750,000 in grant money from the Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration (EDA.)  As documented in correspondence with the EDA, there was a breakdown in communications, with no response from the city after the city sent a letter in January 2009 to the EDA until Ms. Bello heard from the EDA on July 31.

The EDA grant was meant “to support the creation of a Medical Technology Office Park and the construction of a Medical Technology Incubator Building,” according to the agreement passed by the city council on May 27, 2003. Voting to approve the resolution were then Councilman Valentine, Councilwoman Angelo, Councilman Rockafellow, and Mayor Marino.

The reasons for losing the grant include noncompliance with certain “special award conditions,” such as the city’s failure to conduct an archeological survey to gain clearance from the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation.  Another issue was the lack of completion of the project, and exceeding the original time line.

“Why are we in this situation?” Bello asked.

On Thursday, August 13, at 6:00 p.m. the Newburgh City Council will hold a work session at 83 Broadway, Newburgh, NY. The agenda will include an “EDA grant update.” Additional agenda items include Jim Mercer of the Mercer Group, the firm hired to conduct the city manager search; property sales, and a presentation by the Industrial Development Agency.

Councilwoman Bello’s full remarks (15:00):

Video may be downloaded here.

One villain in the controversy is Dr. Thomas Glendening, who received a loan paid for by CDBG funds for his marina on the Newburgh waterfront.  Mr. Glendening has yet to make a payment on this loan, despite pulling income from the marina for years.  The city finally brought suit against Glendening to pay up in 2008, and Justice Robert Onofry ruled on May 15, 2009, in favor of the city.

On Saturday, May 23, a local community group Community Voices Heard will hold a march at 12:30 p.m. and press conference at 1:15 p.m. at Glendening’s marina at 26 Front Street.

Often discussed is the history of the land transfer to Glendening and his partners, a deal hatched in 1998 that involved a transfer of Newburgh Community Development Agency (NCDA) land (seized during Urban Renewal) to the partners for $200,000.  Glendening is the brother-in-law of James Delaune, who was the director of the NCDA.  Below is the council minutes, including the public hearing, covering the meeting at which the land was transferred.

Feburary 23,1998, Council Meeting

2/23/98
CITY OF NEWBURGH

PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE SALE OF LAND FOR TWO URBAN RENEWAL PROJECTS

Mayor Carey called a Public Hearing, that had been advertised for this meeting, to consider a contract for the sale of land for private redevelopment by and between Newburgh Community Development Agency and Front Street on the Hudson, LLC.

Since the same comments would apply to both projects, consideration of a contract for sale of land for private redevelopment by and between Newburgh Community Development Agency and Joscos, Inc., was combined with the Front St. Public Hearing. This was suggested by Councilwoman Koisch.

Mayor Carey commented that several months ago, two proposals were presented with regard to two restaurants to be placed on the riverfront. One proposal was by Cosimo DiBrizzi and Joseph Bonura, and the other was by Vincent Clavio, owner of 26 Front Street. At that time, the Mayor said she, and other Council members, asked if there would be financial disclosures and a regular development pro forma presented to the Council. The answer from everyone was “Yes”.

The Mayor continued, stating both projects were on the table at the Work Session last week, and it was the first time, as a City Council member, or Mayor, that a resolution was presented with no supporting documentation. After the meeting, Mayor Carey said she asked the City Manager if financial documentation had been submitted and if other developmental questions had been answered. City Manager Porr responded that he had not seen the financial disclosures, but they were in the Community Development Office. The Mayor asked if she could have copies prior to tonight’s meeting. That didn’t happen, but Mayor Carey said she ran into Bob McKenna and asked for the material herself. Later in the day, she received the information and had a discussion with Bob McKenna and Jim Delaune. The Mayor asked the Council if they had seen any of the documentation, and the response was “no”, but they had discussed it with Jim Delaune.

Mayor Carey said the reason she asked was because she was planning to come to the meeting tonight and support both projects. She said she thought this would be a conciliatory gesture on her part to show the Council she was willing to work with them. She, also, hoped that if she voted in the affirmative, the Council would actively participate in the Steel Style project, whatever that may be. Mayor Carey asked the Council to put the vote off for one meeting due to some information she learned at 4:00 P.M. today.

The Mayor went on to explain the reason for her request. She stated that two Council meetings ago, there was another proposal by her church, Ebenezer Baptist, to build an extension on Urban Renewal land. For its expansion, the church would like to acquire 100 sq. ft. at its rear, which is now a City-owned parking lot, and part of some riverfront land. They received a letter from Corporation Counsel that asked them to have the land appraised and to present financial documentation to indicate that they could and would be a developer. Mayor Carey feels this was a desparity in their treatment versus the treatment for other Urban Renewal land, in that they were asked to provide this information up front, where, to date, the Council still does not have the documentation for the restaurant proposals.

Mayor Carey said she recently attended a luncheon Cosimo hosted, and she had the opportunity to speak to him and his employees privately and had some questions answered. Mr. Warren Boyd, member of our LDC, was in attendance during this question-answer period. Mr. DiBrizzi has a successful restaurant in Jersey City that was started in an area similar to the City of Newburgh. Everyone told him he was crazy to go down there, but he started his business there anyway and proved everyone wrong.

The Mayor stated that the Redeveloper’s Statement of Public Disclosure submitted by Front St. on the Hudson contains a name she is not familiar with. The proposal states that the principals will own 10%, 10% and 80%. The person owning 80% is a physician in the Radiology Dept. of a hospital. This person is, also, the brother-in-law of James Delaune, Executive Director of the Newburgh Community Development Agency. Mayor Carey asked the Council to allow enough time to obtain an opinion from Corporation Counsel as to any conflict of interest and allow her to vote in good conscience.

Mayor Carey pointed out that 20% deposit will be made, but the $200,000 can be used for riverfront stabilization if the City does not get a grant to do it, or it could be used for infrastructure improvement. She said she wonders if the appraisal done today would be the same after the infrastructure improvements. “if so, then what are we getting for the land?” the Mayor asked.

There are many questions that can’t be answered tonight, and the City Manager is not here. Mayor Carey said the waterfront is critical to Newburgh’s future, and its got to be done right.

Councilwoman Angelo responded that she won’t be here to vote at the next Council meeting on March 9th. Councilwoman Koisch said she does not plan to table this, and that she has all the information she needs to vote tonight. The Councilwoman stated that this has been discussed enough, and she would fall asleep if she took all the paperwork home to review. Councilwoman Koisch said we pay Jim Delaune and Bob McKenna to do that for us. She added that she wouldn’t want to read the 4-1/2″ proposal from Steel Style either. Councilwoman Koisch said she trusts Vinnie Clavio, she trusts Wait Lambert, she trusts Cosimo DiBrizzi, she trusts Joe Bonura, and she is ready to go ahead and vote. She added that to hold up Vinnie Clavio for Steel Style is ridiculous.

Mayor Carey responded that it’s the Council’s job to oversee the City Manager and the departments to see that everything is complied with. She said, “After all, it’s our vote that’s on the line.” The Mayor added that it’s not a matter of trust, it’s a matter of doing what’s right. She doesn’t see anything wrong with asking Corporation Counsel for a written statement saying there is no inherent conflict. Mayor Carey said she mentioned putting this off until the next meeting because she doesn’t want anyone to think she is stalling. Councilwoman Koisch said she does not want to table this issue.

Robert McKenna, Dir. of Housing and Community Renewal, stated that there have been appraisers on the property, and the sale price was set at $200,000 each. Since he and Jim Delaune are not experts in financial statements, consultants were asked to review the tax returns prepared by their accountants, and they judged that the principals have the equity needed.

Mayor Carey asked if there is a statement on file by Consultant George Stapf? Mr. McKenna responded that there is a copy on file which was received at 4:30 P.M. today. The Mayor said it probably wouldn’t have been there if she hadn’t pressured for something. She added that she would like to vote in favor of these projects and is prepared to do so in five days, or whenever else the Council would like to meet.

William F. Ketcham, Corporation Counsel, said that he would like to clarify the issue of the relationship between Jim Delaune and Thomas Glendening, M.D. Mr. Delaune did raise this point himself earlier and research was done. According to New York State law, there is no conflict of interest since they are not blood relatives. Mr. Ketcham said he can provide the Mayor and Council with a copy of the law.

Also, with regard to the Urban Renewal process, Mr. Ketcham stated it is covered by statute and federal regulations. In this case, we do see the developers’ financial statements that must be approved. A survey of the property is required. In the case of the waterfront, the property was surveyed in the 1980s by Oak Partners. In the case of the other proposal, the church would like to purchase a part of a larger parcel. That piece was never done, thus the requirement of a new survey. Financials are required, as well as a Plan. The process is identical to what is required of Front St. on the Hudson and Joscos, Inc., and no one is skipping any part of the process. The church has to do a new survey because they are not buying a whole parcel.

Mayor Carey asked Bill Ketcham to explain the whole process, as he did at the last Work Session. Mr. Ketcham described the steps that will be taken: Upon passage of the resolution, the Community Development Agency is empowered to enter into agreement with the developer. The agreement is recorded, and as part of the development plan, the Agency said it would make application to the State of New York for grant money for shoreline stabilization. This is because a large portion of the shoreline is heavily eroded and is so bad near South St. that driftwood is coming up through the manholes. The developers, under these agreements, will be empowered to proceed to secure all of the permits necessary to begin construction along the waterfront. This will have to be accomplished within a certain timeframe. These permits include the NYS DEC, the US Corps of Engineers and the City of Newburgh Planning Board. If the developers cannot get the approvals within the timeframe agreed upon, the agreement is at an end and the the developers will not take title.

The agreement will, also, have an outside date during which the developer has to come in and take title, or the agreement will become null and void. They are considering a two-year period. Oak Partners had no outside date, and this is where the problem came in, since they had an open-end option.

Mayor Carey asked Joe Bunora if he would be willing to wait another five days. Mr. Bunora responded that since her concerns are not with his project, he would like to see the Council vote on his tonight. He said he doesn’t see why the two projects have to be tied together. The Mayor responded that even though she knows him, she doesn’t hasn’t seen his financial statement, and she doesn’t do business that way. The only person who has seen the financial paperwork is George Stapf, and he isn’t here. Mayor Carey said she wants to protect the interest of the people of Newburgh. She added it’s a matter of function and process and doesn’t feel it’s too much to ask him to wait another five days.

Mr. Bonura complained that it’s one stall after another, and asked what the Mayor would say if he backed out of the deal if it’s not voted on tonight? Mayor Carey said she would apologize, but she would have to maintain her position.

At 8:45 P.M., Councilwoman Angelo asked to have a private meeting with her colleagues. At 8:55 P.M., the Council returned to the table.

Councilman Rockafellow said they have met with the people who they have been talking to all along, and nothing has changed. There is nothing wrong going on. Financial disclosures have been reviewed by our Consultants, and they have advised that everything is sound and in order. He said he is prepared to go forward with voting tonight.

Councilwoman Angelo said they have conferred with Corporation Counsel and are confident that they can legally vote on this tonight. She said they hope to get five votes, but she is sure of three.

Mayor Carey stated that she would like to vote for this, and that was her intention, but now feels things have changed. When the project was discussed, it was referred to as Vinnie Clavio’s project, but Mr. Clavio has only 10% interest. Although this project may have been his idea, it is not his project, the Mayor added.

Councilwoman Koisch said that she knows Vinnie Clavio does very well at his business, but, also, knows he couldn’t do this by himself. She added that she was aware of the names involved.

Mayor Carey said she is sorry Joe Bonura took the position he took, but he is a good businessman, and good businessmen do their homework. She said she is asking what she would ask of any developer. The Mayor stated that Mr. Bonura negotiated for more than a year with Poughkeepsie on another project, and said, “But If that’s the way it has to be, that’s the way it has to be.”

Joseph Servocky, Crescent Ave., said if there were as many delays on invasions as we have here, we would still be fighting WWII.

Councilman McAllister said he would like to see these two projects separated. Personally, he has the utmost confidence in Joe and Cosimo’s project, but he has serious problems with the other one, namely 26 Front Street. The Councilman said his personal reasons are: “When Joe builds his facility down there, I can take my grandson down there and have dinner together as a family. 26 Front St. I don’t believe I can take my family in there to have a dinner because of the type of environment that I perceive, from my perspective, that’s down there,” he stated. He said that’s his separation between the two. The Councilman said he wishes he could somehow separate the two tonight, but it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen.

Calais Guglielmi, Grand St., said in looking at this realistically, there are certain delays that happen, and there there is basic business and common sense. If documentation comes in at the last minute and paperwork you have not read, then you should look it over. She added that she is sure the Council wants to really understand what they are getting involved in.

Betty Blake, Lake Dr., said if the Council is serious about getting Newburgh moving, they would go along with these gentlemen. She feels any delay is crucial to Newburgh, and she would like to see this happen in her lifetime. Mayor Carey said she would like to see it happen, as well, but she has the obligation to protect the interest of the taxpayers of the community.

Warren Boyd, N. Montgomery St., said she has been in favor of the projects all along, but doesn’t understand why more information wasn’t given. He added that this is the first time tonight that he was made aware that this isn’t Vinnie Clavio’s project.

Vincent Tallarico, Sherman Dr., said he has confidence in everyone on the Council, but the majority rules and he would like to get on with the vote. He feels everyone is intelligent and can’t understand the delay.

Mayor Carey said this is the Public Hearing portion of the Agenda, and when it comes to the resolution portion, it will be voted on accordingly. This is the public information section and this is part of record and is not a delay. This must occur whether you are for or against it.

Hans Voight, Jamison PI., said he doesn’t see a problem, because if there is one, the City gets the property back. He said there are educated people working on this project. Mayor Carey responded that she’s willing to take an educated chance, but not tonight.

Joseph Vitale, Overlook PI., asked if he should go home with an unhealthy suspicion about the people involved in this? When the Mayor mentioned conflict of interest, he doesn’t know what to think. Mayor Carey said she doesn’t know what he should think, but Councilwoman Koisch said, “You can take home that the Corporation Counsel has said that there is no conflict.”

Richard Taylor, Liberty St., said he doesn’t want to see another situation like IBM years ago. We stalled and stalled and lost that project, and he doesn’t want us to lose this project the same way.

Mayor Carey said she wishes all her questions were answered. She added that the City Manager said this morning that this is the first positive movement in 35 years, and five days is nothing compared to 35 years.

Councilman McAllister described a situation that occurred after he became a Councilman. There was a piece of property he wanted to buy at Public Auction and discussed it at a Work Session. He asked Corporation Counsel to check into the law and see if he could buy from the City. Prior to the Auction, they received written documentation saying a City Council member cannot buy property from the City. This information was given in a timely manner, not at the last minute. He feels this is what the Mayor is looking for: written documentation from legal counsel.

Councilwoman Koisch responded that she is sure this is part of the record that’s being taken down, and it’s on tape, and that’s good enough for her. Mr. Ketcham made a statement, and it’s on tape, and that’s as good as a Memo, she feels. Mayor Carey said tapes can be erased, but the Councilwoman said, “Now we’re getting into something really heavy.”

Councilman Rockafellow said the question has been raised, “Has something changed?” His response is “no”. He said they knew all along that Vinnie Clavio didn’t have the money to do this on his own, and that he had partners. Along with Vinnie Clavio and Walter Lambert, there was another person who disclosed his financial capabilities. They have met the criteria. Mr. Rockafellow said he is comfortable with that, and nothing has changed at this point.

Dae Vitale, Overlook Pl., feels it’s important that Corporation Counsel said Jim Delaune went to them in the beginning to disclose his relationship to a major investor, and this was not hidden. Corporation Counsel investigated it, and according to law, there is no conflict since Jim’s brother-in-law is not a blood relative. She doesn’t feel this is an issue, and that they should get on with the vote.

There being no one else wishing to speak for or against, the Mayor declared these Public Hearings closed.

Feburary 23,1998, Council Meeting

RESOLUTION NO. 38-98
OF FEBRUARY 23,1998

A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
DISPOSITION OF PARCELS I 0, I I A, I I C, AND 13 A
EAST NEWBURGH URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT
NYR-189BY THE NEWBURGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
TO FRONT STREET ON THE HUDSON, LLC

WHEREAS, Front Street on the Hudson, LLC (hereinafter refeffed to as the “Redeveloper’) has submitted to the Newburgh Community Development Agency (hereinafter referred to as the “Agency”) a Redeveloper’s Statement for Public Disclosure and Redeveloper’s Statement of Qualifications and Financial Responsibility (Form 6004) which the Agency has reviewed and found to be satisfactory; and

WHEREAS, the Agency has found the Redeveloper to be qualified and financially responsible to purchase and construct the improvements on disposition parcels IO, I IA, I IC, and 13 A; and

WHEREAS, the Agency has designated the Redeveloper as qualified and eligible to purchase the property and construct the improvements thereon- and

WHEREAS, the Agency has approved the sale of the property to the Redeveloper at a negotiated sale, pursuant to General Municipal Law, Section 507(2)(d), and has approved a disposition price of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND ($200,000.00) DOLLARS; and

WHEREAS, the Agency has approved a Land Disposition Agreement and the form of a Deed of Conveyance and has authorized the execution and delivery thereof, subject to the approval of this Council- and

WHEREAS a Notice of Public Disclosure was duly published by the Agency; and

WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing on said disposition was duly published and said hearing was duly held before this Council on February 23, 1998, at the time and place provided in said Notice, and all those wishing to speak in favor of or in opposition to said disposition having had an opportunity to be heard,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Newburgh, New York as follows:

I . that Front Street on the Hudson, LLC be and hereby is approved as a qualified and eligible redeveloper to purchase and construct the improvements to the property in accordance with the redevelopment plan, pursuant to General Municipal Law, Section 507(2)(d).

2. that the proposed Land Disposition Agreement between the Agency and the Redeveloper for the disposition of the property for the negotiated disposition price of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND ($200,000.00) DOLLARS is satisfactory and is hereby approved.

3. that the proposed Deed of Conveyance from the Agency to the Redeveloper is satisfactory and is hereby approved

4. that the proposed disposition of the property to the redeveloper is hereby approved.

5. that the execution by the Agency of the Land Disposition Agreement is hereby approved.

6. that the execution and delivery of the Deed of Conveyance by the Agency, upon the fulfillment of all conditions precedent to the conveyance of the property, is hereby approved.

Councilwoman Koisch commented that if Vinnie Clavio were here tonight, he would invite Nelson McAllister, and his family, down for dinner, and they would love it. (but not on a Friday night!) Councilwoman Angelo moved and Councilwoman Koisch seconded that the resolution be adopted.
Ayes-Councilwoman Angelo, Councilwoman Koisch, Councilman Rockafellow-3.
Noes-Councilman McAllister-].
Abstain-Mayor Carey-].
ADOPTED.

Feburary 23,1998, Council Meeting

RESOLUTION No. 39-98
OF FEBRUARY 23, 1998

A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
DISPOSITION OF PARCELS 12A, 12B, AND 13B
EAST NEWBURGH URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT
NY R- 1 89 BY THE NEWBURGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
TO JOSCOS, INC.

WHEREAS, Joscos, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the “Redeveloper”) has submitted to the Newburgh Community Development Agency (hereinafter referred to as the “Agency”) a Redeveloper’s Statement for Public Disclosure and Redeveloper’s Statement of Qualifications and Financial Responsibility (Form HUD-6004) which the Agency has reviewed and found to be satisfactory; and

WHEREAS, the Agency has found the Redeveloper to be qualified and financially responsible to purchase and construct the improvements on disposition parcels 12A, 12B, and 13B- and

WHEREAS, the Agency has designated the Redeveloper as qualified and eligible to purchase the property and construct the improvements thereon, and

WHEREAS, the Agency has approved the sale of the property to the Redeveloper at a negotiated sale, pursuant to General Municipal Law, Section 507(2)(d), and has approved a disposition price of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND ($200,000.00) DOLLARS- and

WHEREAS, the Agency has approved a Land Disposition Agreement and the form of a Deed of Conveyance and has authorized the execution and delivery thereof, subject to the approval of this Council; and

WHEREAS a Notice of Public Disclosure was duly published by the Agency; and

WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing on said disposition was duly published and said hearing was duly held before this Council on February23, 1998, at the time and place provided in said Notice, and all those wishing to speak in favor of or in opposition to said disposition having had an opportunity to be heard,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Newburgh, New York as follows:

I . that Joscos, Inc. be and hereby is approved as a qualified and eligible redeveloper to purchase and construct the improvements to the property in accordance with the redevelopment plan, pursuant to General Municipal Law, Section 507(2)(d).

2. that the proposed Land Disposition Agreement between the Agency and the Redeveloper for the disposition of the property for the negotiated disposition price of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND ($200,000.00) DOLLARS is satisfactory and is hereby approved.

3. that the proposed Deed of Conveyance from the Agency to the Redeveloper is satisfactory and is hereby approved

4. that the proposed disposition of the property to the redeveloper is hereby approved.

5. that the execution by the Agency of the Land Disposition Agreement is hereby approved.

6. that the execution and delivery of the Deed of Conveyance by the Agency, upon the fulfillment of all conditions precedent to the conveyance of the property, is hereby approved.

Mayor Carey said she plans to abstain, not because she is against the project, but because she is against the process.

Councilwoman Koisch moved and Councilwoman Angelo seconded that the resolution be adopted.
Ayes-Councilwoman Angelo, Councilwoman Koisch, Councilman Rockafellow-3.
Abstain-Councilman McAllister, Mayor Carey-2.
ADOPTED.