+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 16 to 27 of 27

Thread: HUD denies housing post to Polanski

  1. #16
    Member andreahaxton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,588

    Talking Hold -Up

    Quote Originally Posted by blahblahblah View Post
    Maybe the old desk was broken when Radich tried stuffing all that buyout money he got in the drawers?

    How much did he get? Why did they have to buy him out? Contract?
    And why did he even go when it is a cushy job?

  2. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    74
    From what I understand and I may be off on the exact amount, he negotiated a buyout deal for $50,000. He recieved $30,000 on his way out but the rest is being withheld. He made an agreement with the board that if they granted his buyout he would appoint Swanson in his place as ED. He knew all along that Swanson's appointment would never hold up.

  3. #18
    Member andreahaxton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,588

    Talking The plot thickens....????!!!!!????? The question is, WHY?

    Quote Originally Posted by blahblahblah View Post
    From what I understand and I may be off on the exact amount, he negotiated a buyout deal for $50,000. He recieved $30,000 on his way out but the rest is being withheld. He made an agreement with the board that if they granted his buyout he would appoint Swanson in his place as ED. He knew all along that Swanson's appointment would never hold up.
    Thanks for info.
    I remember all of the turmoil-rallies when they removed Swanson, I have been meaning to ask them if they (he and Tenant-Board members) whatever became of it all.
    So I still don't get it....why didn't he just stay the ED and finish more of his Contract? Why such a BIG buy-out? How long has he been gone anyway....not even 2 years is it? How much longer did he have on his Contract and when does he get other $20,000?

    BTW: Why did he appoint Swanson at all, isn't it a total LMHA Board decision?
    And....how did the ED salary jump from appr. $69,000 within the last 5 years or less to $82,000?!!?

  4. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    339
    It is a board decision.

  5. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    74
    It is a board decision, I should have been more clearer in what happened.
    Keep in mind that Radich still had a majority of the board on his side. Radich approached the board with an agreement that if he could persuade Swanson to fill his vacancy they in return would grant his buyout. Radich talked Swanson into doing it telling him that he would be protected because they would give him a contract that couldn't be broken. All the board saw was the opportunity to appoint the first black as the Housing's ED and who would ever try reversing that? He knew whoever did would be called a racist. They were prepared to make their story public by calling the news and saying how the "regime" was attacking the first black ED.
    All the while, Radich laughed his way to the bank, he could have cared less about Swanson or the housing as long as they gave him his buyout.
    Radich knew it was just a matter of time before Norm and his board looked into his handling of the authority and discovered how badly he mismanaged operations and had plenty of evidence to break his contract and have him removed.
    When have you ever heard of someone being bought out of their contract when it was their decision to leave?!?!?
    To put the cherry on the icing, before he left, he negoiated the contract with the White Collar employees, the same contract that benefited him. He raised the amount of vacation and sick time you are able to accumulate to almost the exact total he had built up.
    Think about it, can you imagine retiring with three pensions? One from the city, the Water Authority and the Housing. He is making more money retired than almost all of us will ever make working!

  6. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    339
    Interesting fable you have created.

    1) I seem to recall many articles stating that the authority had many awards for how well run it was during Radich's time there.

    2) You seem to be a "Norm Insider" because you know that would be the excuse they would use to break the contract, costing the authority thousands of dollars when Radich sued for breach of contract. That's ok with Norm though because his nemesis would be gone and the path would be clear for him to take his seat there...until HUD said no (the actual topic for this thread) and his attorney friends would make more money.

    3) Maybe the board wanted a new direction and Swanson gave them that. Maybe they knew Norm was going to take over the majority of the board and fire Radich so they wanted to beat him to it and have their own say rather than Norm telling them who to hire. I think it's an insult for you to say it was only because Swanson was black. Swanson has credentials and a college education, something that Norm doesn't have. Yet "Norm's" board put in a request for a waiver because he was the ONLY person in all of Western New York that is qualified to run the authority. CAN YOU EVEN FATHOM HOW RIDICULOUS THAT REQUEST IS? It's an insult to everyone in Western New York who has a pulse.

  7. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    74
    Awards?!?!? In fact, under Radich the housing failed three annual inspections in a row. If they would have failed the fourth HUD would had stepped in and removed him and the board and taken over. This would have been a first in LMHA history!
    He also nearly depleted the housing's reserve fund. They were on the brink of having to declare bankruptcy.
    This has nothing to do with being a "Norm Insider" This is the truth.

  8. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    74
    Title: The Lackawanna Municipal Housing Authority, Lackawanna, New York, Needs to Improve Controls and Operational Procedures Regarding Its Capital Fund Program
    We completed an audit of the Lackawanna Municipal Housing Authority (Authority) administration of its capital fund program. The objectives of our audit were to determine whether the Authority disbursed capital funds and procured contracts in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements.



    The audit disclosed that the Authority disbursed capital funds for questionable expenditures. Further, it did not follow HUD requirements, its own procurement policy, and New York State General Municipal Law when awarding contracts. Specifically, the Authority had no basis for charging management improvement expenditures to its capital fund program, charged the same expenses for multiple capital fund drawdowns, could not support the eligibility of charges, and improperly procured contracts and professional services. As a result, it lacked assurance that expenditures were necessary or reasonable, and that the services contracted for were provided as intended.


    We recommend that the Director of HUD Buffalo Office of Public Housing instruct the Authority to (1) reimburse the capital fund program from nonfederal funds the $7,535 in excess drawdowns and the more than $2.6 million in costs associated with the lead abatement/modernization contract; (2) provide supporting documentation to justify the eligibility of $676,301 in questionable capital fund expenditures or reimburse the program from nonfederal funds any amounts not supported; (3) seek legal advice on whether the lead abatement/modernization contract should be rescinded in the best interest of the Authority; and (4) review and if appropriate, disapprove any future change orders associated with the lead abatement / modernization contract.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  9. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by blahblahblah View Post
    It is a board decision, I should have been more clearer in what happened.
    Keep in mind that Radich still had a majority of the board on his side. Radich approached the board with an agreement that if he could persuade Swanson to fill his vacancy they in return would grant his buyout. Radich talked Swanson into doing it telling him that he would be protected because they would give him a contract that couldn't be broken. All the board saw was the opportunity to appoint the first black as the Housing's ED and who would ever try reversing that? He knew whoever did would be called a racist. They were prepared to make their story public by calling the news and saying how the "regime" was attacking the first black ED.
    All the while, Radich laughed his way to the bank, he could have cared less about Swanson or the housing as long as they gave him his buyout.
    Radich knew it was just a matter of time before Norm and his board looked into his handling of the authority and discovered how badly he mismanaged operations and had plenty of evidence to break his contract and have him removed.
    When have you ever heard of someone being bought out of their contract when it was their decision to leave?!?!?
    To put the cherry on the icing, before he left, he negoiated the contract with the White Collar employees, the same contract that benefited him. He raised the amount of vacation and sick time you are able to accumulate to almost the exact total he had built up.
    Think about it, can you imagine retiring with three pensions? One from the city, the Water Authority and the Housing. He is making more money retired than almost all of us will ever make working!
    Are you serious? Talk about hypocrisy! Like Polanski, Petricca and Love won't make more money retired either? Hell Love just got reappointed "PART TIME" while retiring from the very job he got reappointed to. He gets a pension from Corrections and the City and is still getting a paycheck from the city while violating the city charter residency rule to boot. Guess who appointed him in the first place? POLANSKI. Who appointed Petricca to the LMHA? Polanski's self appointed board. The problem is none of the people running this city ever have any good intentions whatsoever. It is all about jobs and getting a pension or boosting it. Before you go on making Radich look like the devil and Polanski looking like the second coming of Father Baker take a look at his intentions. They aren't any better than Radich's so to speak! Why can't he get a job in the private sector for once in his life? Seriously who else did this joke of a board interview for this position? Talk about mismanagement. Neither Radich or Polanski deserve the job! Just another patronage pit for former mayors.

  10. #25
    Member andreahaxton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,588

    Post Dates???!!! Audit performed by???!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by blahblahblah View Post
    Title: The Lackawanna Municipal Housing Authority, Lackawanna, New York, Needs to Improve Controls and Operational Procedures Regarding Its Capital Fund Program
    We completed an audit of the Lackawanna Municipal Housing Authority (Authority) administration of its capital fund program. The objectives of our audit were to determine whether the Authority disbursed capital funds and procured contracts in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements.



    The audit disclosed that the Authority disbursed capital funds for questionable expenditures. Further, it did not follow HUD requirements, its own procurement policy, and New York State General Municipal Law when awarding contracts. Specifically, the Authority had no basis for charging management improvement expenditures to its capital fund program, charged the same expenses for multiple capital fund drawdowns, could not support the eligibility of charges, and improperly procured contracts and professional services. As a result, it lacked assurance that expenditures were necessary or reasonable, and that the services contracted for were provided as intended.


    We recommend that the Director of HUD Buffalo Office of Public Housing instruct the Authority to (1) reimburse the capital fund program from nonfederal funds the $7,535 in excess drawdowns and the more than $2.6 million in costs associated with the lead abatement/modernization contract; (2) provide supporting documentation to justify the eligibility of $676,301 in questionable capital fund expenditures or reimburse the program from nonfederal funds any amounts not supported; (3) seek legal advice on whether the lead abatement/modernization contract should be rescinded in the best interest of the Authority; and (4) review and if appropriate, disapprove any future change orders associated with the lead abatement / modernization contract.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Who?
    What?
    When?

    I still don't get all this......and never understood all the Laurent stuff. Again.....Why did Laurent get appointed, only to be removed, if they really wanted him there......and the Board NOT fight off Normie's moves to remove him within a month, I believe?

    Why even do a search now, just keep the current ED who knows the job inside out. I know the money involved is BIG but if that Audit is correct then the LMHA appears to still be in deep doo-doo. When I was on the Council we voted to approve:
    COUNCIL MEETING
    November 9, 2009

    Communications from Department/Division Heads:

    LMHA – LEASE REVENUE CUSTODIAL RECEIPT BONDS


    • To: Council Members

    Communication from the Lackawanna Municipal Authority regarding Lease Revenue Custodial Receipt Bonds, Series 2009.

    the Lackawanna Municipal Housing Authority wishes to issue lease revenue custodial receipt bonds in an amount which will not exceed $6,500,000 for the purposes more specifically described herein. The Authority has approved the issuance of the Bonds by its resolution dated October 27, 2009 and needs the approval of the City Council pursuant to Section 39 of the New York Public Housing Law, Chapter 8-808 of the laws of 1939, to issue bonds. Once approved, the City of Lackawanna will have no responsibility with respect to the administration or repayment of the Bonds. Neither the Bonds nor any of the obligations of the authority shall be debt of the City of Lackawanna nor shall the City of Lackawanna be liable thereon.

    The Authority, with the approval of the U>S> Department of Housing and Urban Development, is utilizing the HUD Energy Performance Contracting procurement Program to make needed infrastructure improvements to its facilities which will result in significant energy conservation and improve the comfort of its residents and the value of the Authority assets. To utilize the EPC program and qualify for the resulting HUD program incentives, HUD requires that housing authorities borrow funds from the private sector to pay for the upfront capital improvement costs. The Authority received approval from HUD by letter dated 03/06/09 supplemented by letter dated 10/26/09 to proceed with energy services capital improvement with Johnson Controls, Inc. at a total contract cost of $6,100,302.00
    The Authority has decided to finance the acquisition, construction and installation of the equipment and other conservation measurers related to the project pursuant to a lease agreement with Crews & Associates, Inc. an Arkansas investment banking corporation. The Authority will issue lease revenue custodial bonds which will be underwritten by Crew & Associates, Inc. and sold to investors. Pursuant to applicable treasury regulation, a portion of the bonds will be Federally taxable Build American Bonds and a portion of the Bonds will be Federally tax exempt.

    The energy savings are generated from a contractual agreement between HUD and the Authority in which HUD agrees to continue to provide utility subsidies at the preimprovement consumption levels through the term of the repayment period. Additionally, the contractor performing the work is required to guarantee the system performance and thus the savings generation through the term of the repayment period. The Authority, through a competitive procurement process, entered into a contract with an energy services company to develop and implement a self funding energy conservation capital improvement program. Currently all qualified improvements have been identified and all required Authority and HUD approvals have been abstained. Funding for the project will

    Be obtained by using private funds and leveraging the Build America Bond program available to the Authority which, in effect, provides the Authority with a 35% interest rate buy down through the U.S. Department of Treasury. The Authority has agreed to borrow $5,338,707 from Crews & Associates. The borrowed funds will be repaid over a 20 year period using the approved excess HUD subsidy funds.

    The choice of the energy performance contracting program and the Build America Bonds methodology affords the Authority a viable option to complete the project which it would not otherwise have been able to do. It has been determined that the proposed financing will not negatively impact the Authority's ability to meet the existing and future physical needs of its public housing portfolio over the term of the Bonds.

    City Council approval is the last step required prior to closing of the funding and commencement of construction of these needed energy related capital improvements.

    THOMAS J. RADICH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

    Moved by Szymanski, seconded by Jaworski to table, and set a work session with HUD, City Attorney and Thomas Radich.

    Yeas: Szymanski, Kulczyk, Schiavi, Jaworski

    Nays: Haxton Tabled 4-1

    Waive Rules:

    Moved by Szymanski, seconded by Jaworski to waive the rules for a

    new item to be presented.

    Yeas: Haxton, Szymanski, Kulczyk, Schiavi, Jaworski Carried 5-0
    ************************************************** ************************************************** *******************************

    Is this the project that is in question? Again, by whom?
    Some blanks seem to be missing somewhere.

  11. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    233
    Come to think about it. People on here have bitched about Tony Mingarelli doing the same thing. Perhaps jealousy has a lot to do with it.Everyone wants to better everyone else in fleecing the system. Either way its sickening and a reason why our local,state and federal governments are in the condition they are in. One word says it all GREED!

  12. #27
    Member andreahaxton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,588

    Post Continued.....

    Quote Originally Posted by andreahaxton View Post
    Who?
    What?
    When?

    I still don't get all this......and never understood all the Laurent stuff. Again.....Why did Laurent get appointed, only to be removed, if they really wanted him there......and the Board NOT fight off Normie's moves to remove him within a month, I believe?

    Why even do a search now, just keep the current ED who knows the job inside out. I know the money involved is BIG but if that Audit is correct then the LMHA appears to still be in deep doo-doo. When I was on the Council we voted to approve:
    COUNCIL MEETING
    November 9, 2009

    Communications from Department/Division Heads:

    LMHA – LEASE REVENUE CUSTODIAL RECEIPT BONDS


    • To: Council Members

    Communication from the Lackawanna Municipal Authority regarding Lease Revenue Custodial Receipt Bonds, Series 2009.

    the Lackawanna Municipal Housing Authority wishes to issue lease revenue custodial receipt bonds in an amount which will not exceed $6,500,000 for the purposes more specifically described herein. The Authority has approved the issuance of the Bonds by its resolution dated October 27, 2009 and needs the approval of the City Council pursuant to Section 39 of the New York Public Housing Law, Chapter 8-808 of the laws of 1939, to issue bonds. Once approved, the City of Lackawanna will have no responsibility with respect to the administration or repayment of the Bonds. Neither the Bonds nor any of the obligations of the authority shall be debt of the City of Lackawanna nor shall the City of Lackawanna be liable thereon.

    The Authority, with the approval of the U>S> Department of Housing and Urban Development, is utilizing the HUD Energy Performance Contracting procurement Program to make needed infrastructure improvements to its facilities which will result in significant energy conservation and improve the comfort of its residents and the value of the Authority assets. To utilize the EPC program and qualify for the resulting HUD program incentives, HUD requires that housing authorities borrow funds from the private sector to pay for the upfront capital improvement costs. The Authority received approval from HUD by letter dated 03/06/09 supplemented by letter dated 10/26/09 to proceed with energy services capital improvement with Johnson Controls, Inc. at a total contract cost of $6,100,302.00
    The Authority has decided to finance the acquisition, construction and installation of the equipment and other conservation measurers related to the project pursuant to a lease agreement with Crews & Associates, Inc. an Arkansas investment banking corporation. The Authority will issue lease revenue custodial bonds which will be underwritten by Crew & Associates, Inc. and sold to investors. Pursuant to applicable treasury regulation, a portion of the bonds will be Federally taxable Build American Bonds and a portion of the Bonds will be Federally tax exempt.

    The energy savings are generated from a contractual agreement between HUD and the Authority in which HUD agrees to continue to provide utility subsidies at the preimprovement consumption levels through the term of the repayment period. Additionally, the contractor performing the work is required to guarantee the system performance and thus the savings generation through the term of the repayment period. The Authority, through a competitive procurement process, entered into a contract with an energy services company to develop and implement a self funding energy conservation capital improvement program. Currently all qualified improvements have been identified and all required Authority and HUD approvals have been abstained. Funding for the project will

    Be obtained by using private funds and leveraging the Build America Bond program available to the Authority which, in effect, provides the Authority with a 35% interest rate buy down through the U.S. Department of Treasury. The Authority has agreed to borrow $5,338,707 from Crews & Associates. The borrowed funds will be repaid over a 20 year period using the approved excess HUD subsidy funds.

    The choice of the energy performance contracting program and the Build America Bonds methodology affords the Authority a viable option to complete the project which it would not otherwise have been able to do. It has been determined that the proposed financing will not negatively impact the Authority's ability to meet the existing and future physical needs of its public housing portfolio over the term of the Bonds.

    City Council approval is the last step required prior to closing of the funding and commencement of construction of these needed energy related capital improvements.

    THOMAS J. RADICH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

    Moved by Szymanski, seconded by Jaworski to table, and set a work session with HUD, City Attorney and Thomas Radich.

    Yeas: Szymanski, Kulczyk, Schiavi, Jaworski

    Nays: Haxton Tabled 4-1

    Waive Rules:

    Moved by Szymanski, seconded by Jaworski to waive the rules for a

    new item to be presented.

    Yeas: Haxton, Szymanski, Kulczyk, Schiavi, Jaworski Carried 5-0
    ************************************************** ************************************************** *******************************

    Is this the project that is in question? Again, by whom?
    Some blanks seem to be missing somewhere.
    Approved on:


    COUNCIL MEETING

    MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2009


    WAIVE RULES:

    Moved by Jaworski, seconded by Szymanski to waive the rules.

    Yeas: Haxton, Szymanski, Kulczyk, Schiavi, Jaworski CARRIED 5-0

    Moved by Jaworski, seconded by Szymanski to remove from the table communication #10 from the Lackawanna Housing Authority, meeting of November 9, 2009.

    Yeas: Haxton, Szymanski, Kulczyk, Schiavi, Jaworski CARRIED 5-0

    Moved by Jaworski, seconded by Haxton to receive and file communication #10.

    Yeas: Haxton, Szymanski, Kulczyk, Schiavi, Jaworski CARRIED 5-0

    RESOLUTION #33, 2009 LMHA BONDS:

    RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF LACKAWANNA, NEW YORK APPROVING A PROJECT TO BE UNDERTAKEN BY THE LACKAWANNA MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY AND APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF TAX EXEMPT BONDS AND BUILD AMERICA BONDS BY THE LACKAWANNA MUNICIPAL HOUSING AUTHORITY

    WHEREAS, the New York Public Housing Law, Chapter 808 of the Laws of 1939, as amended (the “Act”), has been enacted by the Legislature of the State of New York (the “State”) for the purposes, among others, of promoting the clearance, replanning, reconstruction and rehabilitation of substandard and unsanitary areas and the providing of adequate, safe and sanitary low-rent housing accommodations for persons and families of low income; and

    WHEREAS, to accomplish the purpose of the Act, the Lackawanna Municipal Housing Authority (the “Authority”) was established pursuant to Chapter 4 of the Laws of 1934 and is authorized to acquire real property and interests therein., buildings and other improvements thereon, and machinery and equipment in connection therewith for the purposes set forth above; and

    WHEREAS, to accomplish its stated purposes, the Authority is authorized and empowered under the Act to borrow and issue bonds in such amounts and upon such terms as it may deem advisable; and

    WHEREAS, the Authority has determined to undertake a project (the “Project”) consisting of (a) the completion of energy services capital improvements to upgrade equipment and facilities to improve energy efficiency in the public housing owned by the Authority and located in Lackawanna and (b) the funding o certain funds and requirements related to the Bonds (as such term is defined herein); and

    WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 39 of the Act, the Authority may undertake the Project only after the City Council of the City of Lackawanna (the “City Council”) has approved such Project; and

    WHEREAS, by resolution dated October 27, 2009, the Authority, as “lead agency,” adopted a Resolution determining that the acquisition, construction, renovation and equipping of the project will not have a “significant impact on the environment” within the meaning of Article 8 of the environmental Conservation Law of the State of New York; and

    WHEREAS, by Resolution dated October 27, 2009, the Authority has approved the Project and authorized the issuance of its Lackawanna Municipal Housing Authority Lease Revenue Custodial Receipt Bonds, Series 2009, in an aggregate principal amount of $6,100,302.00 (the “Bonds”); and

    WHEREAS, Section 51 of the Act specifically provides that neither the Bonds nor any other obligation of the Authority shall be a debt of the City of Lackawanna , nor shall the City of Lackawanna be liable thereon; NOW THEREFORE,

    BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Lackawanna as follows:

    SECTION 1. For the sole purpose of approving the issuance of the Bonds pursuant to the provisions of Section 39 of the Act, by the City Council hereby approves the Authority's undertaking of the project and the issuance of the Bonds in an aggregate principal amount of $6,100,302.00 by the Authority, provided that the Bonds, and the premium, if any, and the interest thereon shall be special obligations of the Authority and shall never be a debt of the State of New York or the City of Lackawanna, New York, and neither the State of New York nor the City of Lackawanna, New York shall be liable thereon.

    SECTION 2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately.

    Moved by Jaworski, seconded by Szymanski that the resolution be adopted as amended.

    Yeas: Haxton, Szymanski, Kulczyk, Schiavi, Jaworski CARRIED 5-0

    Moved by Jaworski, seconded by Kulczyk that the meeting is adjourned

    CHUCK JAWORSKI, COUNCIL PRESIDENT

    JACQUELINE A. CAFERRO, CITY CLERK
    ************************************************** ************************************************** ***********8
    This is something else.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Polanski for Senate!?!?
    By LAsurvivor in forum City of Lackawanna Politics
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: December 14th, 2009, 10:29 PM
  2. Filmmakers defend Polanski
    By ILOVEDNY in forum Morning Breakfast - Breaking News
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: October 2nd, 2009, 07:02 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts