Mayor Vetoes Sophie Drive Paving Resolution

July 2, 2008 Steve Yablonski

Submitted Article

OSWEGO, NY – On June 27, 2008, I vetoed Resolution # 250-2008 which was passed by the Oswego Common Council on June 23, 2008.

The first Resolved of Resolution #250-2008 calls for the paving of Sophie Drive, installing the base layer in 2008 and the top layer after the last of eight townhouses have been completed;

The second Resolved of Resolution #250-2008 calls for the developer to “reimburse the City of Oswego the difference between any or all of the taxes collected from 2008 – 2013, subtracted from the cost of any paving done at Sophie Drive”;

The last Resolved of Resolution #250-2008 states “that the Mayor be authorized to sign the agreement with the developer; the agreement will be signed by the Mayor and the developer for the paving and repayment schedule.”

This Resolution is flawed for many reasons.

The Resolution was brought from the floor, even though there was admittedly no reason for urgency.

The issue was discussed at the previous Common Council Committee meeting on June 16, 2008.

At that time, it was decided by the Physical Services Committee to have the city meet with the developer “to draw up a formal agreement regarding the paving of Sophie Drive.

This agreement will be brought before the committee at a future date.

The Resolution allows for a five-year payback period even though it was discussed at the Physical Services Committee that the development would be completed in 2010 which amounts to a three-year payback period.

There is no protection in the Resolution for the taxpayers to be reasonably assured of any payback at all.

There would admittedly be language in the agreement that I would propose to protect the taxpayers and be assured of full reimbursement.

But the Common Council is unaware of that language in the agreement as it has not yet been composed.

Essentially the Common Council voted to approve an agreement that they have yet to lay eyes on.

It is my belief that any agreement should have a definite end date, at which time a developer would fully reimburse the city for any expenses.

The possibility of a bond should also be considered to further protect the city in the event that a developer does not finish a project or is unable to sell the properties as planned.

This veto is rendered so that we adhere to the process of putting together an agreement and then bringing that agreement to the full Common Council for review.

Dated: June 30, 2008
Randolph F. Bateman
Mayor missing or outdated ad config

Print this entry