References to WCLP appear in documents related to the project, including its draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and correspondence between RUPCO's executive director, Kevin O'Connor, and the commissioner of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal regarding public funding for the project. In 2005 the housing division committed, but did not release, funding for Woodstock Commons. The commitment was rescinded the following year "because of the length of time of the local approval process," said O'Connor, who noted that no public funds can actually be disbursed to an affordable housing project until it is approved for construction.
Letters sent in 2005 and 2008 to the state housing commissioner, and signed by O'Connor on behalf of both the WCLP and RUPCO, begin as follows: "This letter constitutes an unconditional and irrevocable covenant by Rural Ulster Preservation Company [RUPCO] on behalf of Woodstock Commons Limited Partnership." The letters go on to note that the Woodstock Commons project, as "described in the United Funding Application," is an affordable housing project consistent with the rent structure delineated in the application.
Said Segal in a February 24 interview: "(O'Connor) used the LP name to get a promise of money; the (RUPCO) application was approved. The 'irrevocable covenant' was made on the date the letter was signed, but since the LP didn't exist at that time, the letter meant nothing." RUPCO could have created at least the required legal framework for a limited partnership - a subsidiary corporation as the general partner and investors as limited partners - but failed to do so, she said.
According to Segal, a representative of the state corporations division told her that it would be fraudulent, and thus illegal, for one entity, in this case RUPCO, to claim an affiliation with another entity, WCLP, that did not legally exist or was formally associated with a third party. In a February 22 visit to Albany, Segal sought an opinion on the matter from the local U.S. Attorney's office, since Woodstock Commons was a potential recipient of federal funding. That office referred Segal to the Albany office of the F.B.I., where a representative said told Segal its white-collar-crime section would look into the matter, the Woodstock resident said in an interview.
O'Connor acknowledged in an interview that WCLP did not yet exist, but that RUPCO planned to create such an entity, albeit now under a different name. At no time had RUPCO sought to deceive anyone, the executive director asserted. "'Fradulent' is a strong term. We will be contacting our attorneys (about its use)," said O'Connor, adding that his correspondence with the state housing commissioner was "absolutely not fraudulent. There was no intent to defraud. The rest of the application to the New York State Department of Housing represents that a partnership would be formed."
O'Connor maintained that WCLP was "just a name," which could be replaced by any number of substitutes. The name simply identified the ownership entity, while RUPCO remained the project's developer. He said that he would consult with RUPCO's planner and its attorney about the possible need to alter documents that currently refer to WCLP. Such a task would amount to a "needless added expense," he said, adding, "I am shocked that someone would go to this length to take this name."
In hindsight, O'Connor was asked, would it have been preferable for RUPCO to state in its documents that the limited partnership did not yet exist, but that RUPCO planned to form such an entity? "Perhaps," he said, "but it was certainly not meant to be deceptive in any way. If Robin wants to make a federal case over that, so be it."
Required ownership
In a February 24 interview, O'Connor responded to questions first via e-mail and then by telephone. In an e-mail he stated: "The chief funding source that we have proposed to use to build Woodstock Commons is the federal Low Income Tax Credit program. Enacted in 1986, LIHC [Low Income Housing Credit] has been the single largest producer of affordable rental housing in the country since that time. LIHC was designed to involve private sector capital, and the program is governed by the IRS."
O'Connor's e-mail continued: "LIHC regulations require that the investors, or purchasers of the federal tax credit, have a material interest or ownership in the housing for a period of 15 years. It is standard practice in the development of LIHC-funded housing, whether by a for-profit or non-profit entity, to form a limited partnership as the ownership entity, to allow the investors in as limited partners. After 15 years, the LP is generally dissolved and most often, as in this case, RUPCO shall have the exclusive first right of refusal to take back ownership of the project."
In an ensuing phone conversation, O'Connor said that banks and other corporate entities, more so than individuals, are likely to constitute Woodstock Commons's corps of investors. Financial firms known as syndicators bring together potential investors and affordable housing projects in which they might seek an interest, he added.
The schedule from here
The February 23 forum, at which Segal was the sole speaker, took place at the Woodstock Community Center amid a heavy snowfall. Fewer than two dozen people attended the event, which was titled "RUPCO: Just the Facts, Please." Among those present was one member of the Planning Board, Paul Henderson, who declined to comment on Segal's presentation at the conclusion of the forum.
The Planning Board is scheduled to resume its late-stage review of the Woodstock Commons application at its March 4 meeting. A vote by the board on a resolution to adopt the project's Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) could occur at that meeting or the board's next meeting, on March 18. The board's approval of the FEIS would not signify its approval of the project. If the FEIS is approved, a period for public comment projected to last 21 days, would follow the publication of a Notice of Completion. Only after those steps were taken would the board decide whether to approve the project.
Segal's presentation at the forum covered several topics related to the project, including traffic safety; the noise likely to accompany the drilling of 53 geothermal wells, each 300 feet deep, at the proposed site behind Bradley Meadows; the representation of current Woodstock residents in the development's population; the definition of "artist" as it applies to eligibility for residence at Woodstock Commons; the long-term ownership and operation of the project; and possible alternatives for affordable housing in Woodstock.
By February 25, said Segal, the entire proceedings of the forum - broken down into ten-minute segments, each covering a single topic - can be viewed as a YouTube video via her blog site, thetroublewithrupco.blogspot.com.++
Post a Comment