X

Opponents of land deal twist the language, says St. Lawrence County legislator

Posted 1/23/15

To the Editor: Over the past two months, a calculated campaign has been waged against the settlement reached in the Mohawk Land Claims. The opponents of sharing the revenue from this settlement have …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Opponents of land deal twist the language, says St. Lawrence County legislator

Posted

To the Editor:

Over the past two months, a calculated campaign has been waged against the settlement reached in the Mohawk Land Claims. The opponents of sharing the revenue from this settlement have tried to distort the truth in an effort to keep all of the revenue for the county. Here are some of their claims:

1. The County is in serious trouble with a $41 million debt.

• They want the public to believe that the county owes $41M Tomorrow! This is not true. They are using what is owed on bond payments, which in some cases, were taken out years ago, to scare the public.

i. $27M on the Jail – $1.9M Annual payment

ii. $6.1M on the Human Services Building - $482K Annual payment

iii. $7M on for Revenue Anticipatory Note – Paid off August 2015 – Cost $100,000

• So in reality we have $2.5M that must be paid this year…not $41M!!

2. There is the claim that they were unaware of this plan to share the settlement.

• I would refer everyone in the county to the county website and the meeting minutes for June 23, 2014. At 3:49:00 you will hear Mr. Putney give a detailed account of how the settlement will be distributed.

• Note that there are no complaints, no comments of any concern. And it stayed this way until after the elections. Only when the Board of Legislators decided to follow through on its’ promise was there a concern.

3. The county only gets $1.5M.

• This is not true, here is what the county will get in the first year: ($6.875M)

i. $3.5M signing bonus

ii. $1.5M (Annual Payment – Land Claim)

iii. $1.875M in Compact money held in escrow by the tribe

• If you also count the gaming compact monies ($1.5M Roughly) it would climb to a total of about $8.3M in the first year!

4. They are also trying to minimize the impact on Massena and Brasher by saying they will be reimbursed for lost tax revenue on any parcel sold. This is true, but so does the county. Why should the County only reap the benefits of the settlement? It is the towns of Massena and Brasher that are losing land and are also named in the Land Claims suit.

Opponents will try to twist the language to support their stance. Their favorite part(s) of the agreement lays within section 3 parts (c) and (d). Part C states: “An additional annual payment of $4M to St. Lawrence Country for its’ unrestricted use.” They feel it entitles them to keep all of the money. In reality, it is there to allow the Board to share it with the other agencies in the land claims. This is what was done under the previous board. It was the full intention of those who negotiated this agreement to share it with the taxing entities named in the land claims suit. Part D states it will make all agencies whole for lost tax revenue; including the county. Again I ask, why should just the county benefit from this agreement? All affected entities should benefit, not one. As Town Supervisor Joe Gray said: “This has nothing to do with need, this is supposed to be compensation for our loss.”

The continued attacks on Mr. Putney are without merit. It is an attempt by the new majority to try and protect themselves from the backlash of keeping all of the money which should be shared with all taxing entities in the land claims. This new leadership promised tough choices to get this County back in financial health.

Their message was well received as they swept to victory in the November elections. But make no mistake, rather than make the tough decisions on where to cut spending, they will solve the problem by using this unexpected revenue source to avoid those choices. The problem is, it will be done at the expense of the Towns of Brasher and Massena along with the two School Districts.

Greg Paquin

County Legislator District 14