To the editor:
As a sitting town board member and incumbent candidate, I normally do not react to negative commentary or campaigning. In this case I am compelled to take issue with the Democrat/Skaneateles Party claim the town ignored an opportunity to refinance the firehouse bond, and save $165,000 over a 13-plus year period. What the opposing candidates fail to mention, or are not aware of, is that towns in New York operate under a different set of rules than villages do, and our town is obligated under state law to do the following; to go through the refinance process, the town must first schedule a request for proposal (RFP), establish the dates the RFP starts and stops, bid opening, have a public referendum, must receive joint town/village board vote of approval independently, and then award the refinancing to the successful bidder. Basically the same process used to generate the original bond. These processes can take well over 60 days, and the rates at the time of receipt of the proposal in question were moving upward to the point that any offer of refinance was financially ineffective. Another fact that has failed to be mentioned is the financial firm offering the re-financing has stated $83,500 in costs and fees to complete the process, plus additional significant legal fees the town would incur and village expenses as well. All said a decision at the town level was made to not pursue the refinancing, which did not consume taxpayer dollars trying to catch a questionable opportunity that had a very short open window.
We should let the facts speak for themselves, and if this was as important of a decision as it is being portrayed to be, there was never a motion made by any village official, including trustee and candidate Sennett to the village board to go forward with the refinancing. The first step by any board is to make a motion and subsequent vote to pass a resolution to proceed, and no motion results in no vote, resulting in no resolution with no action to move forward.