Following his letter last week quizzing Columbia County economic development czar Kenneth Flood, Ancram Supervisor Art Bassin has now followed up with a call for his fellow Supervisors to table a long-debated but little-understood plan to use eminent domain to expand the airport. Bassin’s latest appears in full below.
In talking to many of you about the airport over the past few months, I get the impression most of us do not support the airport eminent domain plan, or the "plan" to spend $8 million to $13 million of public money on the airport.
I also get the impression from you that most of us, and most of our constituents, would like to see the effort to expand the safety zone stopped until we get the facts on what exactly the FAA will do if we do not expand the safety zone, and what impact, if any that will have on Richmor or the county in the future.
And even if the FAA tells us they will require us to shorten the runway if we do not expand the safety zone, we have seen no evidence that a shorter runway would have a negative economic impact on Richmor or the County worthy over spending $600,000 to $700,000 of public money in an eminent domain procedure to prevent.
So that we can make an informed decision about this eminent domain issue, I plan to introduce a resolution at the October 9th BOS meeting that will table any further action on the eminent domain process until we get answers to the questions I raised in yesterday's email.
Let me know if you have any questions or comments about this proposed resolution.
Around noon today, Ancram Supervisor Art Bassin sent the following letter and attached list of questions to the County’s economic development czar Kenneth Flood. Flood has been flogging a plan to use eminent domain to seize acreage abutting the County-run airport from owner Carmen Nero.
Ken,
You have stated on numerous occasions over the past few years that if we do not expand the airport safety zone, the FAA will require us to shorten the runway, which could cause Richmor to cut back staff at the airport, and hamper future growth at the airport for the larger jets that require the longer runway.
The recent FAA letter responding to your question about what will happen if we do not expand the safety zone stated we might not qualify for future grant money, but did not say they would require us to shorten the runway.
Even after getting this letter, you maintain that if we do not expand the safety zone, the FAA will require us to shorten the runway, and that they may even require us to repay all or some of the grant money we have already been awarded. You cite "the regulations" to support your contentions.
There here have been a lot of questions raised over the years about the need to expand the airport safety zone. There have been a variety of FOIL requests, and a series of questions from both Supervisors and county residents related to past, current and future levels of activity at the airport by type of aircraft. To date, the County's responses to these questions have not been clear or complete.
The general impression many people have of the airport is that it is, has been and will continue to be a small, low level of activity facility that supports small, mostly propeller driven aircraft. The few larger jets that are based at the airport appear to be anomalies.
Before the County spends any more time or money on the eminent domain process, we need unambiguous answers to the questions that have been asked multiple times, but never adequately answered.
If we find that, in fact, the FAA will require us to shorten the runway, we can evaluate the impact of that action and make a decision about whether to proceed with the safety zone eminent domain action or not, based on the possible impact to Richmor and the County of a shorter runway. It is not clear that even if the FAA does require that we shorten the runway that we can justify moving ahead with the eminent domain process or any material investments of public funds from County, State or Federal sources.
If, however, the FAA tells us we will not be required to shorten the runway if we do not expand the safety zone, there seems to be little reason to continue with the eminent domain process.
Here are the questions I think we need answers to before we decided if we need to expand the safety zone and move ahead on eminent domain. Until we get coherent answers to these questions, we should table the eminent domain discussion and stop spending any tome and money on it.
For the FAA:
If the County decides not to expand the safety zone, will they require us to shorten the runway?
If yes, by how much, and by when?
If yes, under what regulatory authority, exactly?
If this is a safety issue, why have we not been required to shorten the runway already?
For Richmor:
If the runway is shortened by FAA mandate because the safety zone is not expanded, how much revenue and how many jobs, if any, will you lose by year over the next 10 years?
If the safety zone is expanded, how much revenue and how many jobs will you be able to add by year over the next 10 years?
How much in additional facility and equipment investments will you have to make to the facilities at the airport to achieve the revenue and job growth related to expanding the safety zone?
How much annual revenue has Richmor generated, by type revenue outlined on page 5 of the lease agreement, since Richmor started leasing the airport from the county?
How many people have been employed by Richmor, by year, at the County Airport since Richmor started leasing the airport from the County?
How many total take offs and landings have there been at the airport, by year and by type of aircraft, since Richmor has been the base operator?
How many take offs and landing per year, over the next 10 years, does Richmor project if the safety zone is expanded, or if it is not expanded?
For the Economic Development Commissioner and County Financial Managers:
What has Richmor paid the County in rent, by year, since they started leasing the airport from the county?
Have we been auditing Richmor revenues annually to verify that the rent we have been paid, which is based on a percentage certain Richmor revenues outlined on page 5 of the lease agreement, is correct?
If we have been auditing Richmor revenues, how soon can you circulate these audits to members the BOS? If not, when will an audit of the Richmor lease payments since the beginning of the lease period be done and shared with the BOS?
A recent Register Star article mentioned that over $6 million of public money has been invested in the airport and in airport consulting efforts over the years...is this correct?
What was the actual total amount of specific investments made with public money from County, State and Federal sources since the inception of the airport, by project and date?
How much in additional investments using public money from County, State and Federal sources are planned for the airport if the safety zone is expanded, for what, and when?
How much in additional investments using public money from County, State and Federal sources are planned for the airport if the safety zone is not expanded?
For the County Attorney
If we proceed with the eminent domain process and secure the expanded safety zone, can we increase the annual Richmor rent to include the amortization of the additional public money (County, State and Federal) spent to achieve this safety zone expansion, or must we rely only on increased revenues from Richmor's business to raise the County's rental income?
Similarly, can the Richmor lease be modified to include the amortization of all past and/or future public monies spent on behalf improvements to the airport which benefit Richmor, or again, do we have to rely on increases in Richmor's future revenues to see higher rental payments?
For C & S Consultants about the 2011 Business Plan
How did C&S determine that the airport generated an annual economic impact of 95 jobs, $7.6 million in income and $20.4 million in total economic impact, as stated on the cover of the 2011 Airport Business Plan?
The 2011 Business Plan outlines $13 million of recommended capital improvements for the 2011 to 2015 period on page 18, while on pages 32 and 57 it recommends $8 million in capital improvements. Why the $5 million difference in capital projects?
If the Plan had been implemented as recommended, projected activity at the airport was forecast to improve between 2011 and 2015 from 27 aircraft to 38 aircraft, and operations (takeoffs and landings) to increase from 19,200 to 21,900 (page 40). Based on 2013 data and conditions, are these projections still valid looking ahead five years, or should they be modified?
Why and how is a 10% increase from 19,200 to 21,900 operations significant enough to justify an investment of between $8 million and $13 million in public funds?
Operating income was projected to increase from a loss of $30,000 in 2011 to a profit of $85,000 in 2015 (page 57). Is $85,000 in operating income the best we can expect to do for an investment of between $8 million and $13 million in public funds?
One kept expecting the Monty Python crew to break into last night’s hearing in Philmont, held to consider removal of Planning Board member and Churchtown volunteer firefighter Nathan Chess.
The proceeding, instigated by a tendentious complaint from Claverack Supervisor Robin Andrews, appeared to serve little purpose except to give certain residents and officials a chance to vent their spleen against Chess. Having badly lost her attempt to
become a State Senator last year to a Tea Party candidate—despite
pandering to the far right on guns and the minimum wage—Andrews’ complaint looks an
awful lot like another clumsy attempt to curry favor with Republican insiders.
In over 15 years of watchdogging local meetings, this observer has never seen such a proceeding initiated, let alone actually held; and nothing that Chess is accused of seems that unusual by local standards. The airing of several hampers worth of dirty laundry—consisting mainly of petty personality disputes—reflected poorly on the entire Town and Planning Board, several of whose members appeared mortified to have to testify on one side or the other.
If the Board really felt the need to take some action against Chess, it would have been better served by passing a toothlessly symbolic reprimand, rather than dragging their constituents, Town employees, and volunteer agency members along this five-hour slog through the Philmont mud. This audience member began to suspect that the attorney’s fees devoted by Andrews and her colleagues would be better spent on group therapy, rather than litigation.
Even the Town’s handpicked special counsel, Dionne Wheatley, seemed to grow embarrassed by the thinness of the case handed to her by Andrews and her colleagues on the Town Board, with Wheatley’s once-confident tone becoming less and less audible as she sank lower and lower in her chair.
Commanded by the Town Board—which serves in this case as both accuser and jury—to appear in this Star Chamber, Chess hewed closely to self-researched legal arguments and lawyerly cross-examination. He managed, in Perry Mason style, to get Planning Board chair Steven Hook to admit he had incorrectly testified about the words used during their parking lot argument. Chess also pointed out that the Town had filed the complaint under an outdated portion of its code, and had failed to identify an adequate cause for removal, which needs to be factual, not subjective. Likewise, he poked legal holes in his accusers’ argument that he improperly raised safety concerns reviews by citing the Planning Board mission to ensure public safety.
Later, Chess provided a detailed illustration of the type of expert input he brings to the task of reviewing applications, explaining the importance for First Responders to have a turnaround on any long driveway to ensure that emergency vehicles can pass each other.
Several members of the Planning Board testified, with obvious reluctance, that while they might not always approve of Chess’s attitude, his continued presence had not altered the workings or effectiveness of the Board. (One took this to mean that it had been dysfunctional before, and remains dysfunctional after.)
Meanwhile attorney Wheatley refused to allow Chess to question his accuser, Supervisor Andrews—and Ms. Andrews did not insist on standing behind her accusations. Instead, the Supervisor attempted to paper over the ugly nature of the process that she’d put in motion. During the second break at hour three, Andews put on grinning Den Mother act, serving by-now cold pizza to the 30-plus attendees.
Meanwhile Wheatley wisely denied Big Up concert host Sam Wright’s request to be put on the witness stand, likely calculating that the belligerent and intensely personal nature of Wright’s various outbursts from the audience were not aiding the Town’s attempt to paint Chess as rude and intimidating. (Later, during the public comment portion of the meeting, a member of the audience who is friends with both men accused Wright of attempting to pick a boozy fight with Chess at a local pub.)
As the meeting’s fifth hour came to a close, Chess’s real offense came into focus: his steadfast refusal to just Go Along to Get Along. Two fellow members of the Planning Board complained that meeting were “no fun any more” and “not enjoyable,” to which Chess countered that reviewing an application is “not supposed to be fun. It’s work.”
Whether elected or appointed, local agencies are infamous for favoring the appearance of harmony over the more challenging process of weighing facts and regulations. When a lone Board member insists on a proper debate and review, this means his or her colleagues may have to actually read the materials, think for themselves, defend their reasoning and (worst of all) remain at the meeting long enough to miss the first hour of Prime Time TV.
The only bright spot of the evening was the impartial and good-humored moderation by Ancram Supervisor Art Bassin, who managed to dial down several potentially-explosive moments.
NOTE: In an amusing irony, one of the charges against Chess was that he had used expletives during a “man-to-man” discussion with Hook in the aftermath of a contentious meeting. An article in The Register-Star the morning just before the hearing, Bassin himself was reported to have used the word “bull----” in response to evasions by County Development czar Kenneth Flood—during the meeting, not “man to man.” This prompted this attendee to wonder out loud whether Ms. Andrews planned to file a similar complaint against her colleague. Don’t hold your breath; the obvious point here was not integrity or consistency, but the selective politicization of the Planning Board.
Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.
A putative partnership of major energy companies calling themselves NY Transco has sent a report to the State, which proposes (among other things) to “build one new 40 mile 345kV line between National Grid’s Leeds and Con Ed’s Pleasant Valley station.” The new line would “traverse Greene, Columbia, and Dutchess Counties.” The complete report can be read here as a PDF.
A supporting document circulated to some officials by National Grid specifies that this new line would include several “new substations,” including one at an undisclosed location in Claverack:
Transco claims that its plan supports Governor Cuomo’s goals to supply Statewide electricity needs, claiming it “reduces transmission constraints,
assures the long-term reliability of the system and accommodates the development of
renewable generation resources throughout the state.”
Bartlett beat Mazzacano by a landslide in today’s Republican primary for Columbia County sheriff. A preliminary Board of Elections tally as of 10 pm on Tuesday had Bartlett winning by more than a 2.5-1 margin, 2,181 to 800.
As of Wednesday morning, that ratio had stayed basically the same with a few more votes added to each candidate, bringing the total closer to 2,569 to 944.
Someone (using the alias Satansdarkmetal) has posted this awesome throwback home video of Hudson in the early 1990s. The video includes the exterior of the State Grill before it was renamed the Ironhorse for Paul Newman’s film, Nobody’s Fool; Stan Martin Ford; a lot of mooning and giving the finger to the camera; a guy eating a spider; and partying in the 7th Street park. Catch it before it comes down. [h/t: Jason Wyckoff]
Talking the other day with TV producer and investigative reporter Michael Singer, who will be interviewing me this October at Spencertown Academy, an intriguing question came up: How much does it cost to keep Columbia County going?
Using public sources, my back-of-the-envelope answer is: About $350 million gets spent on municipal, county and school budgets (roughly $42, $142, and $169 million, respectively).
That $350,000,000 figure does not include State and Federal direct spending, i.e. costs not passed through Columbia County’s town and county government, or schools.
Census figures indicate that the Feds spent a whopping $518 million on Columbia County in 2012, but a portion of that presumably would be already included in the $350 million figure above.
I haven’t yet found a county-by-county breakdown of State spending, some of which would already be subsumed into that $350 million figure, some of it not. (For example, budgets for State Troopers, courts and State-maintained roads would not be included in that amount.) A town-by-town State spending table can be found here.
Conservatively, I would guesstimate that to service the 60,000+ residents of Columbia County costs our town, County, State and Federal governments somewhere between $850 million and $1 billion annually. If correct, that would average out to as much as $17,000 in public spending per man, woman and child.
Mendolia at a Trixie’s Whorehouse party (Image: MySpace)
Hudson mayoral hopeful Victor Mendolia had $182.35 on hand in his campaign coffers as of August 9th, according to State online records.
Among expenses reported by the impecunious canddidate were $62.46 for dinner at Club Helsinki, and another $57.36 dinner at Café Le Perche.
The bulk of all donations reported this summer for Mendolia’s “Better for Hudson” committee came from the reserves of the Hudson Democratic Committee, which he chaired until earlier this year. Only five residents of the City of Hudson are named as donors in his most recent campaign filing.
Meanwhile, incumbent Bill Hallenbeck appears to have failed to file any finance report at all with the State in the most recent cycle. This may be because Republican candidates in Columbia County tend to funnel funds through their County committee, rather than a local campaign—or because the Mayor does not consider Mendolia a serious threat—or both.
The funeral last week for a moderate Republican official may be the last time for a while that the Columbia County GOP all come together in the same room on a cordial basis. With incumbent sheriff David Harrison not running for reëlection, the upcoming September 10th primary between Capt. David Bartlett and State Police investigator Mazzacano has the potential to get nasty, and already has divided the party ranks.
State campaign finance records tell the story of which prominent Republicans and businesses are lining up on which side.
The Republican caucus endorsed Bartlett, and donations to their man largely coming from Harrison loyalists and other Republicans generally seen as allied with former State Assembly Minority Leader and lobbyist John Faso:
Valerie Bertram, former Stuyvesant Supervisor—$80 Gail Dicosmo, Assistant to the Board of Supervisors — $100 Gary Graziano, Hudson Police Commissioner—$130 Kathy Harter, Deputy Elections Commissioner—$100 John Faso, Lobbyist and Former Assemblyman — $100
Bartlett has also garnered corporate support from a hodgepodge of politically--connected businesses and political groups, including engineers Morris Associates ($250), Valley Oil ($40), Lebanon Valley Auto Racing ($1,000), Harrison for Sheriff ($250) and the Law Enforcement Officers’ Union ($200). Couturier North America, which landed the old bakery building on Route 9 in Livingston with the blessing of County development officials, also donated $100 to Bartlett.
Donations to Mazzacano, meanwhile, largely stem from another faction mainly associated with Richard Koskey’s semi-secret barn confab of conservative insiders:
Bill Better, former County Attorney—$250 Roy Brown, Germantown Supervisor—$50 Don Kline, former Election Commissioner & Supervisor—$40 Rev. Ronald Grant, Shiloh Baptist Church—$25 Holly Tanner, County Clerk—$50 Kippy Weigelt, Claverack Supervisor candidate—$30
Dick Koskey, Accountant—$50
Corporate donations to Mazzacano include schoolbus operator Ben Funk, Inc. ($75) and mobile home builders John Alvarez & Sons ($125).
New Lebananon Supervisor Mike Benson is said to have hosted a fundraiser for Bartlett attended by GOP chair Greg Fingar, from whom no donations appear in the State database.
Interestingly, Hudson Alderman and Taghkanic resident Cappy Pierro crossed party lines to donate to Mazzacano—passing over fellow Democrat Mike Winnie, who is running for Sheriff from the other side of the aisle. Chatham Deputy Chief Mark Leggett dropped out of the early running, and is said to now back Winnie rather than his former GOP rivals. Democrat Ancram Supervisor Art Bassin donated to Bartlett, rather than Winnie.
The campaigns thus far appear obsessed with sign wars, with pockets of the county featuring alternating Bartlett/Mazzacano lawns. Generally, one tends to see signs for popular judge Jonathan Nichols alongside Bartlett’s. But Mazzacano is clearly winning the who-has-the-most-gigantic-signs-with-huge-photos-of-the-candidate’s-face battle.
If the campaign follows the usual pattern, as we get closer to primary day on the 10th, expect to see a lot more aggressive (and in some cases ghostwritten) letters-to-the-editor. Most will likely feature bland encomiums to their preferred candidate, but a few will contain more personal insinuations of financial or professional impropriety.
Since Bartlett has secured the Conservative and Independence lines, a Mazzacano win in the Republican primary would raise the prospect of a three-way race in November, giving Winnie (whose past campaigns have fallen short) a much stronger chance of prevailing.
As far as law enforcement issues go, it is not clear from the candidates’ statements so far that there are any significant policy differences. The primary seems to be more about personal loyalties and turf.
Kevin Delahanty, an executive who has made a home in Columbia County for some 35 years, recently had a wide-ranging conversation with economic development and planning czar Kenneth J. Flood. Their talk was prompted by the growing controversy over the potential use of eminent domain to acquire more land for the County airport, but ranged over a much broader terrain of topics.
Delahanty recapped their talk in a longish letter to Flood on Tuesday, reproduced in full below. (As of press time, he had not received any acknowledgment or reply.) Delahanty’s account reveals a number of statements which raise eyebrows—either due to what Flood said, or what he claimed not to know. According to the letter, the County’s top development official believes that:
“Restaurants in Hudson and Chatham ... don’t provide good jobs except for the owners”;
The local paper does “not always present issues correctly”;
Big power lines like the one proposed across Ghent and Stockport do “not have a negative impact on property values.”
Delahanty’s letter notes that Flood sounded unsure or unconcerned about the following topics related to the County-owned airport;
What the financials are for the airport and its operator;
How many flights come in and out of the airport, what kind of planes are involved, and in what manner;
Whether Meadowgreens owner Carmine Nero would litigate to contest the use of eminent domain to seize his land;
What planes and funding would be lost, if any, if the land were not seized; and
Where funding for this legal effort and purchase would come from if Nero prevails in court, obtaining a higher price.
Another surprising note from the letter: While shepherding the economic and planning efforts of of Columbia County, Flood does not actually live within the County itself.
While thanking Flood for his time, Delahanty concludes that the County development office needs to provide more public information, make more prudent use of tax dollars, consider citizen concerns seriously, and take an approach which is more “innovative, outside the box and constructive.” The full text of his letter follows.
Commissioner Kenneth Flood
Columbia County Planning/Economic Development
401 State Street
Hudson, NY 12534
August 20, 2013 By email
Ken:
I wish to thank you for taking the time out of your day to speak to me on Wednesday the 14th of August. I wish to recap our comments, especially on the Columbia County Airport and to build upon them and hope that what we all want in Columbia County can be accomplished.
As mentioned, I first bought property in Austerlitz in 1978, somewhat based upon research I did of an ancestor during the Revolutionary War and whose records indicate he was in Claverack as well as the Mohawk Valley.
This county with its natural and historical beauty and growing economic vitality is thus important to me.
We discussed a number of issues from the strength and vitality of so-called 2nd home owners who I believe are probably the biggest economic boom this county has experienced in the last 100 years, to the excess number of boards, county and town departments and the limited population and thus tax base.
We also discussed that over the last 10 to 20 years the county and towns have spent millions on the purchase of closed schools, numerous Public Works buildings, tax abatements for firms that ultimately left and some who remain, to the moving of dirt around the Industrial Park. All this money comes from a limited population that is being strained each year.
We discussed the increase of restaurants in Hudson and Chatham and you mentioned “they don't provide good jobs except for the owners.” I disagreed, as they not only provide good work for many people either as their principal or second job, but also the owners have bought and renovated buildings. These purchases continue to provide work for numerous trades, increasing the buying locally from farmers, improving the tax base and bringing customers that may stay, use the B&Bs and buy product in the retail stores. It appears you dismiss the positive impact which was also highlighted in August 14th article in the Food Section of the New York Times.
I was also dismayed that you thought our local paper did not always present issues correctly, if so, then you need to better communicate your Department’ s views and activity.
But the main point of my call was and is the ill-conceived purchase of land from a viable 9-hole golf course for the expansion of the Columbia County Airport. You mentioned that Mr. Nero had turned the offer down and that the county would only be spending $25K on legal fees. But when asked if you thought he would litigate you did not have an opinion.
I am saddened that as the Economic Development Officer of the County that you cannot offer an informed opinion to the Supervisors and the public of what possible outcomes may happen. Given Mr. Nero's stated issues and positions, I can see him winning a substantial price increase to purchase the land, as he will need to spend substantial money renovating a viable Golf Course. Where the money will come from when he wins, seemed not to be an issue with you.
We discussed the number of flights in and out of the airport and you did not seem to have that information and when pressed you said the numbers of recorded flights could be found on the Internet. When discussing what planes use the airport and how, you did not seem to have that information. You did not know of the airport in Egremont, MA, that gives flying lessons and uses Columbia as a practice “touch and go,” because the Town of Egremont does allow such use. You thought that was great as someone might buy a house in Columbia County. I hope you mentioned that in jest.
I was also surprised that you did not know the financials of the airport and its operator. If we are not the stewards of responsible economic development and spending, who is? Before we effectively give money to a business we should know the financials. No bank would give money without a full accounting of the Income, Balance Sheet and Cash Flow of the business that was going to most benefit from a loan or grant.
You indicated that Richmor may leave and the possible loss of 35 jobs because it might not be profitable for them to remain if the airport was not expanded. You mentioned Richmor recently bought a jet and is keeping it in the Schenectady area. But you could not tell me the type, what it may have cost and why it is in Schenectady, but you think keeping it there is a reason to spend a million plus dollars because Richmor may leave. Let me indicate to you, that a business would not remain in Columbia County if it was not making money. In fact you have mentioned it brings $20M of economic vitality to the county, so I assume they make money as it is.
You mentioned that the added land was needed for safety, but it is currently operating safely and you could not explain which planes and money would be lost to the County if the airport was not expanded. You mentioned one reason for the land was to keep deer out of the facility, I may suggest Richmor close the 9H entrance for example.
We also discussed why the County did not assess each landing some dollar amount; you thought it was an interesting point. At least the County could see a tangible benefit.
I can go on and on in reference to our call, but my perception is a perceived lack of knowledge that your office seems to have of the impact of the expansion of the Airport. I hope my perception is incorrect.
But we also discussed the subject of the possible NYSEG power lines will have on Ghent. I was interested in the fact that you stated you live near power lines, although not in the County and we all need power, implying it will not have a negative impact on property values, etc. But in fact, as you mentioned, you bought your home after the lines were installed, thus not negatively impacting the value of your home. You also mentioned that internet lines are visible – I hope again that is in jest, as cable lines do not run on high tension lines.
We need to have thinking that is innovative, outside the box and constructive. I don’t get the sense that is the vision of the Economic Development office.
I request you and your office provide information publicly of all the questions that have been asked on the Airport issues and on other ongoing business so the public can be informed. I suggest that the Development office more actively continue to help other smaller businesses and push the providers of the Internet to expand access throughout the county. The money whether from the Federal Government or taxpayers of Columbia County needs to be used prudently.
We are here for future generations and not to bankrupt current taxpayers with added burdens. I trust you will further consider the negative impact this land purchase will have both locally and regionally.
From your office’s web site: “Since 1967 Richmor Aviation, Inc. has operated out of the Columbia County Airport. Business in the country has been good for us. Low overhead compared to our competitors in New York City. Great resource for our work force. Excellent place to reside and raise a family.”
