News (All)

Campolo Debates Elected Officials and Talks Economic Growth as 2018 Takes Shape

Posted: January 23rd, 2018

As the newly minted Chairman of the HIA-LI Board of Directors, Joe Campolo moderated a distinguished panel at the Annual Meeting & Legislative Breakfast on January 19, 2018 at the Hamlet in Commack. Campolo debated the 2018 economic forecast and policy with panelists New York State Senator Tom Croci, New York State Assemblyman Mike Fitzpatrick, Deputy Suffolk County Executive Jon Kaiman, Suffolk County Legislator Tom Cilmi, Smithtown Supervisor Ed Wehrheim, and Kulka LLC President Jack Kulka at an event that drew over 300 Long Island business leaders.

After opening the meeting with a focus on the need for transparency in government, Campolo shifted to the new Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and Governor Cuomo’s efforts to blunt the impact anticipated in high tax states such as New York. Targeting the governor’s proposed payroll tax, he pressed the elected officials at the state level as to whether they are enabling the governor to take money from the pockets of business owners. The conversation then turned to more local issues as Campolo and county elected officials debated pension spending, Suffolk County’s fiscal condition, the rise in healthcare jobs, and projects to expand the sewer system.

Despite the disagreements that Campolo’s tough questioning revealed, the morning ended on a high note for the local business community. Immediately following the breakfast, HIA-LI President Terri Alessi-Miceli, Assemblyman Fitzpatrick, Supervisor Wehrheim, and LIBI President and HIA-LI Board member Mitch Pally joined Campolo at a press conference announcing an important new partnership among HIA-LI, the Regional Plan Association, and the Suffolk County IDA. As part of the partnership, the RPA will undertake an economic study of the Hauppauge Industrial Park—a major economic engine for Long Island—that will focus on identifying opportunities for the park and attracting and retaining employees. The study follows an economic impact study completed by Stony Brook University, which revealed that HIP businesses generate more than $870 million per year in revenue and property taxes and employ more than 55,000 people.

Campolo explained that “we want to keep our young people on Long Island and make it more affordable for them,” as Alessi-Miceli emphasized that the HIA-LI and its member companies “are primed for growth.”

 

Tax Cuts and Jobs Act: How Are You Going to React?

Posted: January 22nd, 2018

Tags:

By Alan R. Sasserath, CPA, MS
Partner, Sasserath & Zoraian, LLP

Whether we like it or not, the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” (“TCJA”) has been signed into law.  The purpose of this article is not to discuss the merits of TCJA, but rather address what New Yorkers can do to minimize the tax bite that resulted from its passing.  Just as one of the laws of Physics is “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction,” the laws of tax are no different.  Some states such as New York are talking about instituting a deductible payroll tax to replace the non-deductible personal income tax as a reaction to TCJA.  However, we can’t rely on our state politicians as our sole reaction.  Here are some suggestions as to what each business and individual should discuss with their tax advisor in response to the TCJA.[1]

  1. Pass-Through Entity 20% Deduction: This is where significant planning time will be spent. For 2018, individual owners of pass-through entities with “domestic qualified business income” (“DQBI”) are permitted a deduction of up to 20% of such income subject to certain limitations based on wages and “business capital.”  In other words, an individual that owns a pass-through entity with DQBI of $100 could pay tax on $80 after this 20% deduction.  This effectively reduces the maximum Federal personal income tax rate from 37% to 29.6%.

Based on a strict reading of the law, different forms of business (Sole Proprietorship, S Corporation or Partnership) could result in differing amounts of this deduction for the same business due to the limitations referred to above.  The reason we say a “strict reading of the law” is that generally when there is confusion about a section of a new tax law, we can look to what the drafters were trying to accomplish and who was supposed to benefit to determine how to interpret such legislation.  Unfortunately, such clarity does not exist for this section of the TCJA.  We can only hope that future technical corrections will provide additional clarification.

Again, under a “strict reading of the law,” wage income is not included in the definition of DQBI.  Accordingly, business owners of S Corporations may want to minimize their salaries to minimize their exposure to higher tax rates.  A single owner of an S Corporation will be tempted to “optimize” their salary to maximize this deduction and minimize their wages.  Such calculations are subject to reasonable compensation rules.  Employees that are borderline independent contractors may push harder to be considered independent contractors or partners, in the case of partnerships, as their highest tax rates could be reduced from 37% to 29.6%.

Finally, individuals with multiple pass-through business interests will be tempted to allocate income from business interests where this deduction is limited or not permitted to business interests where they are more easily able to benefit from this deduction.  The simplest example is the doctor that owns their medical practice and the building in which they practice in two separate pass-through entities.  Income from many professional service practices, including medical, generally are not included in the definition of DQBI; however, income from real estate is included in DQBI.  Simply by raising the rent the medical practice pays the real estate entity, the doctor can turn non-DQBI income into DQBI income and be entitled to this additional 20% deduction.  Again, IRS reasonableness standards come into play.

This analysis is just the tip of the iceberg; this is where significant time should be spent planning.

  1. C Corporation 21% Tax Rate: The C Corporation tax rate was reduced from a maximum of 35% to a flat 21% in connection with TCJA. While this is an enticing rate, there are still state taxes to consider as well as the second level of tax when the income is distributed to the corporate owners.  Generally, the C Corporation route will not make sense due to the second level of tax, especially in high tax states.  Also, longer term considerations must be addressed. One such consideration is if the owner believes that the ultimate sale of the business were to be an asset sale.  The S Corporation typically makes more sense in the asset sale scenario.  (These are general rules as there are certain scenarios where a C Corporation will make more sense.)
  2. Itemized Deductions: Very few itemized deductions survived the TCJA. One of the survivors is the charitable deduction.  Couple this with the higher standard deduction and it could make sense for certain taxpayers to “bunch” their deductions into one year.  To get the benefit of itemized deductions in at least one year, donate $20K in year 1 and zero in year 2, rather than $10K each in years 1 and 2.  This way, it is more likely that you will be able to utilize itemized deductions in year 1 and still get the standard deduction in year 2.  If you donate $10K in each year, you may end up with the standard deduction in both years.
  3. Depreciation: 100% asset expensing and expanded section 179 asset expensing were included in the TCJA. The takeaway here is to maximize the depreciation benefit and consider state consequences.
  4. Kiddie Tax: Pre-TCJA, children that qualified for the “Kiddie Tax” could shelter up to $2,100 of investment income from their parents’ tax rate at a very low tax rate. Under the TCJA, assuming the parents are in the highest tax bracket, qualifying children can now shield up to $12,500 of unearned income at tax rates lower than the maximum tax rate.
  5. 529 Plans: Under the TCJA, taxpayers may use 529 plans to pay for private schools from elementary onward. Previously, such plans could be used to pay for qualified college expenses only.  There are two potential benefits with the 529 plan.  The first is that some 529 plans permit a state tax deduction upon contribution and the second is that the income earned is tax-free if used for qualified expenses.

As with the Pass-Through Entity 20% Deduction, these additional items relate to the entire TCJA and also merit careful planning.

In addition to the domestic tax changes referred to above, the TCJA contains a myriad of international tax changes that has altered the playing field for US companies with foreign operations and US shareholders in foreign corporations.  Other international corporate structures and individuals can also be affected.  As with some of the domestic provisions above, there is a cloud of confusion surrounding several of the international provisions contained in the TCJA.  However, there are steps that you can take to minimize your exposure to these issues. Such considerations are beyond the scope of this article; however, you should consult your tax advisor to address these issues.

Finally, above and beyond the TCJA, there are already a myriad of often-missed tax benefits that could apply to a business.  Two such benefits are: (1) the research credit, which is available for developing new technologies, software, and processes as well as streamlining processes as some examples of its application, and (2) IC-DISCs for manufacturers, producers and sellers of US products to foreign customers.  Both benefits are still available post-TCJA.

The bottom line: over the course of the year, and for some sooner than later, every business and individual should review their situation with their tax advisor to make sure they are maximizing their tax benefits.  Once the technical corrections to the TCJA are deployed as we hope/expect later in 2018, they should then re-confirm that they are maximizing their opportunities from the tax perspective.

[1] Please note that most TCJA provisions are effective January 1, 2018.

 

This article does not necessarily reflect the views of CMM and does not constitute legal or tax advice. Please consult with your accountant about your particular tax situation.

Everyone Needs a Will, But No One Wants to Do It

Posted: January 22nd, 2018

By: Martin Glass, Esq. email

Tags: ,

I think this is something that I’ve known even before I started practicing as an Estate Planning attorney. Matter of fact, it probably predates my practice by decades, if not centuries. What am I talking about? I’m talking about the tendency to hesitate (if not complete avoid) writing a Will. Both in my practice and my everyday life, I hear from people who recognize and admit that they should put a Will in place, but despite their best intentions, they simply don’t do it. Why is that? What keeps us from doing what we know we should do?

In my experience, a major driving factor which deters many people from preparing a Will is that they don’t want to face their own mortality. Or worse yet, I hear them say, “If I write a Will, I’m going to die.” Many people feel that if and when they do memorialize their last wishes, they’ll be tempting fate or inviting something terrible to happen. Personally, I believe that the day you’re going to die is already written somewhere. And whether you write a Will or not, that date is not going to change. While this tempting of fate is intellectually an irrational and unfounded fear, it’s hard to minimize the psychological effect it has on people and stops them cold from even pondering writing their Will.

To people with this mindset, there is no easy answer. Without diminishing the very real distress that many people face when forced to think about their last wishes, I would offer this bit of advice: Get over it. I hate saying that, and I certainly don’t intend to be rude, but you have no choice. You need only consider what’s at stake after you die to truly understand that reality. Do you really want the court to make decisions for you as far as who raises your children or where your assets go or even who gets to control them? Most likely the answer is no. I’m not saying it will be a comfortable conversation, and you might even disagree with your spouse (or children) about your final plans. But given the alternatives, a little bit of discomfort is really worth the potential chaos that you could leave your family in should you choose not to have that conversation and take action.

Another reason I hear when people avoid preparing a Will is that they don’t think they need one. If truth be told, there are some instances when a person truly doesn’t need one. That, however, is the exception to the rule. Everyone needs to understand one very simple thing. If you die without a Will, it falls on the court to decide not only how your assets are distributed, but who gets to distribute them, when they get distributed and who will be responsible for raising your minor children after you die. If you want to have control of all that, you need to prepare and complete a Will.

While no two estates are alike, it’s typically not that expensive to have at least a basic Will prepared, especially considering how expensive it can become if one wasn’t done. The reality is that not everyone requires a complicated estate plan or some type of trust. For the average person, it’s not that expensive and will be money well spent. If nothing else, it will provide you (and the rest of your family) with peace of mind knowing that everything has been set in place and done properly.

Although no one can force anyone to write a Will, I believe each of us has an obligation to those we love to do everything we can to make our final wishes known. If you haven’t already done so, I would urge you to write one for not only your own sake, but, more importantly, for the sake of those you leave behind. They are the ones who will be left to pick up the pieces.

The information contained in this article is provided for informational purposes only and is not and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. The firm provides legal advice and other services only to persons or entities with which it has established an attorney-client relationship.

ADA Accessibility for Websites

Posted: January 22nd, 2018

By Christine Malafi

The Internet has become a necessity for the marketing and promotion of businesses, services, and merchandise. An evolving legal issue is website accessibility to those with disabilities and the applicability of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Accessibility of public websites and compliance with the ADA in connection with public websites may cause issues for some time to come, given the lack of governmental regulations and guidance in this area. Nevertheless, it’s important for businesses to know where the law currently stands.

The purpose of the ADA is to provide equal opportunity to individuals with disabilities. Title III of the ADA specifically prohibits discrimination of individuals with disabilities “in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.” While the ADA is silent on the specific issue of website accessibility, case law has made it clear that the ADA applies to public websites, and businesses must accommodate individuals with disabilities and make their websites ADA accessible. However, the extent to which websites must be made accessible has not been definitively determined. Questions remain as to whether all websites fall under the ADA and whether a website must also be tied to a physical location before it falls under the ADA, among other questions.

In December 2015, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced that it would not issue private sector website ADA accessibility regulations until fiscal year 2018. However, a recent Presidential Executive Order cut regulatory resources, and may subsequently freeze the DOJ’s public accommodations website rulemaking.

In the absence of DOJ regulations, what should businesses do? Many settlements approved by the DOJ have implemented the World Wide Web Consortium’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG) on how to make a website more accessible. At the most basic level, an ADA accessible website should provide these (and other) types of features:

  • Text alternatives for any non-text content;
  • Alternatives for time-based media;
  • Content that can be presented in different ways without losing information or structure;
  • Be easy to see and hear, including separating foreground from background;
  • Permit all functionality from a keyboard if needed (as opposed to a cursor);
  • Permit sufficient time to read and use content;
  • Not be designed in a way that is known to cause seizures;
  • Include ways to help users navigate, find content, and determine where they are;
  • Include text content that is readable and understandable;
  • Operate and appear in predictable ways;
  • Help users avoid and correct mistakes; and
  • Compatible with current and future user agents, including assistive web technologies.

The best option for business owners to not fall victim to a successful Title III suit is to comply with these WCAG guidelines.

However, it may not always be deemed “reasonable” for businesses to create a fully ADA compliant website. As is stated in the ADA: “A public accommodation shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when the modifications are necessary to afford goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the public accommodation can demonstrate that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations. “ 28 C.F.R. § 36.302 (2012).

If making your website fully compliant with the WCAG is too costly for your company, other options may be available. Although New York courts have yet to address this specific issue, others have. In National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp., Target was sued because its website did not enable visually impaired persons to directly purchase products, redeem gift cards, or find stores.  The court ruled against Target, as Target failed to show that the information on its website was available in another reasonable format. The court acknowledged ADA defines discrimination to include a failure to take such steps “as may be necessary to ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise treated differently than other individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services, unless the entity can demonstrate that taking such steps would fundamentally alter the nature of the goods, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation being offered or would result in an undue burden.” 42 U.S.C.S. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii). The court specifically noted the following examples of accessibility: “if a menu cannot be read by a blind person, the restaurant need not make the menu available in Braille; the restaurant could ensure that waiters are available to explain the menu”; and “while a bookstore must ensure that it communicates with its customers in formats which accommodate the disabled, a bookstore is not required to stock books in Braille.” Courts therefore recognize that there may be significant limitations on the possibility of making a website completely or fully ADA accessible.

In a more recent case, Robles v. Domino’s Pizza LLC, a blind plaintiff claimed that he could not order pizza from the Domino’s website because it was not accessible using a screen reader. The court found that although Domino’s website was not in compliance with the WCAG guidelines, their 24-hour toll free phone number, where live agents provided assistance with using the website, was enough to meet its obligations under the law.

Absent further guidance, businesses and individuals with public business websites are urged to ensure accessibility. At CMM, we are available to assist and guide you on this issue.

Lessons Learned from FCPA Enforcement in 2017

Posted: January 22nd, 2018

Published In: The Suffolk Lawyer

Tags:

The Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) enforcement efforts ended 2017 with a bang on December 22, when the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York and the DOJ Fraud Section announced $422 million in criminal penalties against Keppel Offshore & Marine Ltd and its U.S. subsidiary (“Keppel USA”).  The enforcement action ranks seventh all-time in the history of the FCPA based on the assessed penalties.

According to the deferred prosecution agreement (“DPA”), Keppel, a Singapore-headquartered offshore rig and shipbuilding company, paid $55 million in bribes to officials at Petrobras, Brazil’s state-owned oil company, and the Workers’ Party of Brazil.  The bribery scheme spanned from 2001 to 2014, helped secure a dozen contracts, and earned the company $351.8 million.  Like so many FCPA cases, the bribes were effectuated through consultants, not directly by Keppel employees.  However, Keppel and Keppel USA executives allegedly created and executed agreements with the consultants intended to facilitate the bribe payments and conceal their purpose.  The DPA quotes emails from Keppel executives establishing that the company’s senior officials were aware that the funds paid to the consultant would be used to bribe Brazilian officials.

The DOJ’s key source of information against Keppel appears to have been Jeffrey Chow, an American citizen who had worked for Keppel as in-house counsel in Singapore for over 25 years.  Chow had secretly pleaded guilty on August 29, 2017 to violating the FCPA as part of his cooperation deal with prosecutors.  While Keppel entered the DPA, Keppel USA pleaded guilty to violating the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA.  In addition to the $422 million in criminal fines Keppel agreed to pay pursuant to the DPA, Keppel USA was fined an additional $5 million as part of its plea agreement.  According to the agreements, the defendants engaged in extensive remedial measures, including terminating, disciplining, and financially sanctioning company employees involved in the scheme.  Interestingly, the criminal penalties under the DPA are to be split among the Brazilian ($211 million), Singaporean ($105 million), and U.S. ($105 million) governments.

Aside from the sheer dollar value, there are several things worth highlighting about the Keppel case.  First, despite President Trump’s public pronouncements against the FCPA and its enforcement, Keppel demonstrates the current DOJ leadership’s willingness to bring significant anti-corruption cases.  However, as only two of the top-ten FCPA enforcement actions of all time involve United States-headquartered companies (KBR/Halliburton in 2009 and Och-Ziff in 2016) one can question whether the Trump Administration will focus FCPA enforcement actions increasingly on foreign corporations as compared to past administrations.

Second, Chow’s secret guilty plea and ensuing cooperation with the DOJ’s investigation highlights how the DOJ’s increasing focus on individual criminal liability can help build larger corporate cases.  The DOJ has stated that this focus will continue in 2018.

Third, and finally, the Keppel case is the latest in a series of recent cases in which the investigation and settlements have been multilateral in nature.  The DOJ has been structuring settlements to allow payments to be made to governments in countries where the bribery occurred or the company is headquartered.  The Telia Company’s nearly one billion dollar resolution in September 2017 was spread across the United States, Sweden, and the Netherlands.

2017 was an unprecedented year in terms of FCPA enforcement.  There is no reason to believe that enforcement in 2018 will be any less significant.

 

 

 

The information contained in this article is provided for informational purposes only and is not and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. The firm provides legal advice and other services only to persons or entities with which it has established an attorney-client relationship.

A Criminal’s Guide to Karma: Your Past Will Come Back to Haunt You… Or Will It?

Posted: January 22nd, 2018

Published In: The Suffolk Lawyer

By Patrick McCormick

The basic rule of karma is what goes around comes around. While in everyday life this principle may appeal only to the superstitious, the harsh reality is that in a court of law one mistake or bad act from your past can come back to haunt you.

In New York courts, the rule regarding the admissibility of uncharged prior bad acts is derived from the landmark case People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264 (1901). Put simply, the admissibility of uncharged prior bad acts is dependent upon why the evidence was proffered. Generally, courts will deem evidence of uncharged prior bad acts inadmissible if it is proffered as pretext to demonstrate that the defendant has a propensity to act in a certain way. However, evidence of a defendant’s uncharged prior bad acts is admissible if it demonstrates something other than propensity, such as intent, motive, knowledge, common scheme or plan, identity of the defendant, or necessary background information and context.

Recently, the Court of Appeals and the Third Department decided two cases that demonstrate the increasing scrutiny courts apply when determining the admissibility of evidence pertaining to uncharged prior bad acts: People v. Leonard, 29 N.Y.3d 1 (2017) and People v. Anthony, 152 A.D.3d 1048 (3d Dep’t 2017). While on the surface these two cases may seem to warrant similar conclusions of law as to the admissibility of the evidence at issue, a subtle distinction can be gleaned to give insight as to how courts analyze this evidentiary issue.

In Leonard, the Court of Appeals reversed the finding of the trial court holding that the trial court erred in admitting Molineux evidence. The defendant was charged with sexual assault. At trial, the victim’s boyfriend testified that the defendant approached the victim, who at the time was intoxicated and vomiting, and then knelt by the victim and inappropriately touched her while her pants were down to her knees.

In an attempt to elicit testimony from the victim regarding an earlier incident of sexual abuse by the same defendant in which the circumstances were nearly identical, the prosecutor filed a “Molineux Proffer.” The testimony described how on an earlier occasion the victim was intoxicated and asleep on her coach when the defendant approached her, pulled down her pants, and inappropriately touched her. The prosecutor argued that this testimony was relevant because it demonstrated intent, absence of mistake, background, and a common scheme or plan. Over the defendant’s objection, the trial court ruled that the testimony could be elicited.

However, on appeal, the Court of Appeals found that the testimony regarding the prior incident of sexual abuse was propensity evidence that merely sought to show that the defendant committed the charged crime because he acted that way on a prior occasion. Notably, the Court stated that the testimony at issue did not fall into the background evidence exception because it was “not necessary to clarify their relationship or to establish a narrative of the relevant events.” Leonard, 29 N.Y.3d at 8.

Shortly after Leonard was decided, the Third Department confronted a case with the identical evidentiary issue. In People v. Anthony, the Third Department affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the evidence fell within recognized Molineux exceptions. In Anthony, the victim and defendant were acquainted through a course of drug deals. During the course of drug deals, the defendant, a member of the Bloods gang, invited the victim to join the gang multiple times. The victim rejected each invitation. Unfortunately, one drug deal went south when the victim rejected a gang invitation, which incensed the defendant. The defendant pulled out a gun and fired multiple shots at the victim, ultimately killing him. The prosecutor elicited testimony regarding the defendant’s gang membership and his earlier attempts to recruit the victim, arguing it provided context for the crime. The trial court admitted the testimony.

On appeal, the Third Department affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The Third Department noted that the defendant’s “purported gang membership fell within several Molineux exceptions, including placing testimony regarding defendant’s earlier attempt to recruit the victim in context.” Anthony, 152 A.D. at 1051. Unlike the Leonard Court, the decision in Anthony in no way expressed concern for propensity evidence.

These two cases shrewdly present how courts carefully scrutinize evidence in cases where prosecutors attempt to admit uncharged prior bad acts. In Leonard, the court deemed the evidence a mere subterfuge to demonstrate the defendant had a propensity to act a certain way. The Leonard court highlights that a court will not buy the argument that an identical uncharged prior bad act should be admitted because it is necessary provide background information or context out of fear that it will give rise to a propensity inference by those jurors who may not be thinking critically. Rather, a court is much more likely to admit evidence of prior uncharged bad acts if the evidence necessarily elucidates a narrative of events, like in Anthony.

So, for the would-be criminal defendants out there, remember: your past just might come back to haunt you.

Newsday: Campolo’s leadership featured in “Seeking Apartments, Recreation at Hauppauge Industrial Park”

Posted: January 22nd, 2018

HIA-LI says that the park’s economic impact could grow if people could also live there.

By James T. Madore
james.madore@newsday.com

@JamesTMadore

The Hauppauge Industrial Park, home to some of Long Island’s largest manufacturers, also needs apartments, sidewalks, entertainment venues, recreation options and other amenities found in villages, officials said Friday.

The park could increase its already substantial impact on the local economy if it were more attractive to people who want to walk to work or live near their job, said Terri Alessi-Miceli, CEO of HIA-LI, which represents businesses in the park and its supporters.

She and Suffolk County economic development leaders announced Friday the start of a one-year examination of the park’s future needs, both for employers and employees.

The study, to be conducted by the Regional Plan Association in Manhattan, will be paid for by the county’s Industrial Development Agency from a $100,000 research and planning fund.

The study, called an opportunity analysis, “offers us the chance to see how we can develop a sense of community in the Hauppauge Industrial Park, to do things that will keep our kids on Long Island, to create jobs,” Alessi-Miceli said at a news conference in Commack.

The 11-square-mile park has 1,350 companies that employ a total of 55,000 people.

The HIA-LI also wants to connect Stony Brook University with businesses in the park, in terms of jobs for recent graduates and research opportunities.

“The Hauppauge Industrial Park is the second largest industrial park in the country after Silicon Valley” in California, said attorney Joe Campolo, chairman of the HIA-LI board of directors. “The big difference between No. 1 and No. 2 is Silicon Valley’s collaboration with Stanford University. How do we collaborate with Stony Brook University? . . . We see a real opportunity here.”

IDA board chairman Theresa Ward, who also is Suffolk County Executive Steve Bellone’s economic development chief, said the county has invested $80 million in road improvements and other infrastructure projects in the park in recent years. She said the county wants to address the needs of companies in the park now and those who want to move there.

Three-quarters of the industrial park lies in Smithtown, which recently approved a zoning change that allows for taller buildings.

The change is significant because it paves the way for apartments, which young workers want, said Mitchell Pally, CEO of the Long Island Builders Institute.

“Young people want a different lifestyle,” he said. “We believe rental housing can be an integral part of the industrial park in the future.”

Read it on Newsday.

Campolo spotlighted in LIBN article “Officials Eye Rental Housing for LI Industrial Park”

Posted: January 19th, 2018

by David Winzelberg

Elected officials and business leaders are launching an economic study of the Hauppauge Industrial Park aimed at identifying opportunities for growth.

The study, which will be undertaken by the Regional Plan Association, will focus on ways to retain and attract employees, including redeveloping existing properties to add rental housing and creating a friendlier environment for millennials at the 11-square-mile park, which officials say is the second largest industrial park in the country.

The new effort, announced at a press conference in Commack Friday, comes on the heels of an economic impact study completed last month by Stony Brook University, which identified the park as a major economic engine for Long Island. Companies inside the Hauppauge Industrial Park employ about 55,000 workers and generate more than $870 million a year in revenue and property taxes, according to the report.

The Town of Smithtown recently created an overlay zoning district that allows building heights of up to 65 feet along Motor Parkway and up to 50 feet for other parts of the park, which is currently home to some 1,350 businesses. Officials say the zoning paves the way for redevelopment of existing buildings to add rental housing and other amenities that will help attract younger employees and allow for future business expansion.

“We want to keep our young people on Long Island and make it more affordable for them,” said attorney Joe Campolo, a partner of the Campolo Middleton & McCormick law firm and newly minted chairman of the Hauppauge Industrial Association’s Board of Directors.

State Assemblyman Michael Fitzpatrick said the effort to remake the park will attract new investment and boost business.

“A strong business climate strengthens our tax base,” Fitzpatrick said. “We need more housing opportunities for millennials so companies can attract the employees they need.”

Newly elected Smithtown Supervisor Ed Wehrheim, pledged to work with HIA-LI in the initiative. He called the park “the lifeblood” of the town.

“As goes the Hauppauge Industrial Park, so goes Smithtown,” Wehrheim said.

Mitchell Pally, CEO of the Long Island Builders Institute and an HIA-LI board member, said integrating the park with people living, working and recreating will be a key component for its future success.

“Rental housing can be an integral part of making the park better than it is today,” Pally said. “We’re not stuck with the current zoning. I don’t think anything is off the table.”

Terri Alessi-Miceli, HIA-LI president, said the RPA study would likely take a year to complete and that the association will hold public meetings along the way.

“We are primed for growth,” she said.

Read it on LIBN.

Campolo Elected Chairperson of HIA-LI Board of Directors

Posted: January 10th, 2018

Ronkonkoma, NY – Joe Campolo, Managing Partner of Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, LLP and a recognized advocate for Long Island and the business community, has been elected Chairperson of the HIA-LI Board of Directors, effective January 1, 2018. As Chairperson, Campolo will continue to spearhead HIA-LI’s efforts to promote and attract investment in the Hauppauge Industrial Park, one of the largest industrial parks in the United States and a major economic driver of the regional economy. He will also focus on adding value for HIA-LI’s tens of thousands of members and attracting a new generation of business professionals to the organization.

Under Campolo’s leadership, CMM, a premier law firm with offices in Ronkonkoma and Bridgehampton, has grown from two lawyers to a robust and highly respected team of over 30 lawyers servicing clients in a wide range of practice areas, and continues to grow. Campolo also serves as the Chairman of the Advisory Board of Protegrity Advisors, a leading mergers & acquisitions and business valuation firm.

In addition to his professional roles and work with HIA-LI, Campolo is deeply involved in the community, serving on many national and local boards. He served honorably in the United States Marine Corps and is a graduate of Stony Brook University and Fordham University School of Law. An Executive Producer of Tribute, an award-winning short film, Campolo is also a published author on negotiation and business development topics. He pens a popular weekly blog, Off the Record, where he connects with the business community by sharing his refreshingly honest views on current events, critical social issues, and personal topics, which can be accessed at www.joecampolo.com.

“I look forward to building upon the incredible work of HIA-LI in growing our economy and attracting public and private investment into the crown jewel of our region – the Hauppauge Industrial Park,” Campolo said of his election.

“Joe has been a very valued HIA-LI Board and Executive Committee member for several years bringing his business expertise to our members. As Board Chair we look forward to working with him to continue to advocate for the Long Island business community,” stated Terri Alessi-Miceli, HIA-LI President/CEO.

About HIA-LI
For over 30 years, HIA-LI has been one of the recognized voices for business on Long Island and a powerful force and economic engine for regional development. HIA-LI is headquartered in and supports the Hauppauge Industrial Park, one of the largest industrial parks in the United States and a major economic driver for the region. Learn more at http://hia-li.org/.