NORSU responds to Dr. Nancy Hackett

NORSU Steering Committee
Posted 8/21/12

NORSU response to comments made by Sullivan West School Superintendent, Dr. Nancy Hackett in the July 31, 2014 River Reporter:

Hackett said that “a formal bidding process was not used; a best …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

NORSU responds to Dr. Nancy Hackett

Posted

NORSU response to comments made by Sullivan West School Superintendent, Dr. Nancy Hackett in the July 31, 2014 River Reporter:

Hackett said that “a formal bidding process was not used; a best and final offer procedure was used.” When public lands and public funds are at stake, the governing agency does not have the liberty to vary from a standard legal bid procedure, which requires, among other things, a legally advertised or posted written notice to all potential bidders describing in detail what is being sold, a deadline after which no further bids will be accepted, to whom the bids should be mailed or delivered, how they are to be labeled to avoid accidental opening and the date, time and place that the bids will be opened in public (General Municipal Law §103 and Open Meetings Law).

Best and final offer is a nebulous concept frequently used in the real estate business when dealing with non-governmental agencies to encourage potential buyers to make larger offers. In reality as long as a property remains listed for sale, a higher offer can still be accepted by the seller.

Regarding the 14 acre former ball field, it has never been publicly listed or offered for sale by the school district. There has been no mention of it in any real estate listings. On the contrary, when Tusten’s Supervisor Wingert inquired, via a letter dated January 23, 2013, about the Town purchasing the property, Hackett responded with a letter dated February 13, 2013 stating “We appreciate your interest in this property but at this time the land is not for sale. If in the future the Sullivan West Board of Education decides to put this property on the real estate market, we will have our real estate agent reach out to all interested parties.” A copy of Hackett’s response was made available by the Tusten supervisor since the school district failed to produce the letter as part of a FOIL request.

When the Weidens submitted their first bid of $710,000 it included a breakdown of a price for the building, a price for the 14 acres and a price for both since they did not know what was being bid on at the time, having just read in the newspaper that the Buto bid included the 14 acres. When the Board decided on the “best and final offer”, both parties were told verbally that they MUST submit only one bid and that bid MUST include the 14 acres and was due by 5:00 pm on June 17, 2014. There was no written notice providing this information to the bidders. When the district decided to “throw in” the 14 acre field they deprived the district of the potential additional revenue that could have been generated by the sale of the 14 acres since they had at least one, if not two, willing bidders for the school building alone.

Hackett stated that Ellie Hyde, of Century 21 Country Realty, Monticello, NY was the school’s listing agent and not acting as an agent to the Butos. However, the Buto bid was submitted by Century 21 Country Realty, Monticello, NY. The Weiden bid was submitted by John Hector Realty, Narrowsburg, NY.

“In determining the board’s fiduciary responsibility, the board worked with attorneys,” according to Hackett. Since there was no attorney present at the executive session on June 19, 2014 where the bids were presumed to be opened, it is questionable how the bids were reviewed by an attorney, prior to their awarding the bid that evening. Hackett said that the Buto’s offer was for cash and the Weiden’s was a mortgage. There is no difference to the school since the bank holding the mortgage provides the seller with the full cash amount. In addition a letter included with Weiden’s bid confirmed that they were able to pay cash if necessary. Hackett was correct in stating that the Buto bid was $9000 higher than Weiden’s and the due diligence period was 180 days as opposed to Buto’s 120 days but failed to mention that Weiden’s allowed the school use of the 14 acres for five years, and Buto’s only two years. She also failed to mention that Weiden’s bid included a proposal for the use of the properties, while Buto’s bid did not; exposing the school to the additional risks associated with the potential sale to a party with incompatible uses in the Town.

In addition, Hackett failed to mention that the Buto bid included the shelving, kitchen equipment, security system, sprinkler system and generator as well as some of the inventory still in the school. Weiden’s bid stated that any non-real estate items included were “to be determined” since there was no written notice of what exactly was being bid on. The commercial generator alone is worth a minimum of $20,000 which more than offsets the $9000 difference in the bids.

NORSU Steering Committee

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here