EDITORIALS
Tuxedo Reserve And Related Companies....Seeing Is Believing
December 13, 2009
If you live in the Maplebrook area of Tuxedo or have exited the Village of Tuxedo Park via the South Gate in the past couple of months, you will have seen a transformation of the wooded hillside on both sides of South Gate Road just south of Hillary Court. The Orange and Rockland electric company has created a new transmission line about 100 yards wide, established pylons plus the usual fixtures & fittings of such activity. The end result is that many hundreds of trees have been cut down, leaving an ugly scar on the countryside that will last forever!
The electric company’s construction has nothing to do with the prospective developers of what is generally referred to as “Tuxedo Reserve.” However, as the well used cliché says “What you see is what you get” or in this case can expect to get if the Tuxedo Reserve development proceeds. If you have not already seen it, I urge you to take the trouble to go and look. Then just imagine the devastation multiplied maybe thousands of times over. This is what will surely happen IF the development proceeds. And then imagine how many trees will have to be removed and the environmental consequences of that, not to mention the effects on all of the wildlife that inhabit the area and the impact that all of this will have on so many related things. But that will only be the beginning. As the development unfolds we will probably face daily bouts of blasting and the assorted wreckage that will be created in order to establish build-able land for the 1195 dwellings that are planned. If this development is allowed to proceed, the community as we know it today will radically change and we will all face a deterioration in the quality of our lifestyles. Just think of what it would be like to endure possibly another 2000 vehicles adding to our already overloaded access to the only commuter road! There are many aspects of this proposed development have either not been adequately addressed and there are a number of assumptions that seem to have been made, that are either unrealistic or unsustainable.
If you have not already done so, please tell our Town Supervisor that Tuxedo Reserve is a development we do not need!! addres
Honorable Peter Dolan
1 Temple Drive
Tuxedo, NY 10987
or supervisor@tuxedogov.org
Thank you,
Alan Heywood
back to top
Changing Village Monthly Meeting Hours – A Failed Experiment with Good Intentions | November 16, 2009
For the last three months, in an effort to obtain legal advice at a reasonable cost, the Village’s monthly meetings are being started at 7:30 PM. However, in order to contain these legal costs, the Trustees go immediately into Executive Session and the public has no idea when the Trustees will open the meeting to the public. November’s public session did not begin until 8:57 PM. Not only is public participation in the monthly meetings discouraged by the current experiment, but it also holds up the Police, DPW, and Village Office participants as well.
Although the goal of containing legal costs is admirable, it is coming at the cost of limiting public attendance and participation, since the public has no idea when the Executive Committee sessions will end. Are there alternatives the Board should explore that will address both its need to contain legal costs, yet allow the public, the DPW, Police, and Village Office representatives to attend meetings that start at a specific time? Yes. There are two alternatives TPfyi would encourage the Trustees to consider.
First, explore holding just the Executive Committee sessions the day before the regularly scheduled Public Meetings. By doing this, your goal of containing legal expenses is realized and the only five people that are inconvenienced by this change are the Village’s elected officials.
Second, given that four of the five elected officials are either retired [Hayes, Pompan, Stebbins] or have complete control over their schedules [Hansen], explore with Trustee Worthy starting your Executive Session at 6:30 PM so the Village Representatives and the public have a reasonable chance of participating in a meeting that starts much closer to the historic start time of 7:30 PM.
Thank you.
David B. du Pont
back to top
Public Hearing for Tuxedo Reserve - More Changes are Sought
October 24, 2009
YOUR ATTENDANCE AT A MEETING TO BE HELD AT THE EAGLE VALLEY FIREHOUSE ON THE EVENING OF MONDAY OCTOBER 26 (7.30 pm ) IS OF GREAT IMPORTANCE!!
Over the course of the last week, all residents of the Tuxedo community should have received a letter from Target Tuxedo. This letter outlines several changes that the developers of the Tuxedo Reserve Development are seeking to the original plan. Please take the time and trouble to carefully read, analyze and digest these proposed changes which, if they are implemented, will have a dramatic effect on our community as a whole. The potential impacts of these changes range from tax & school related issues, construction and its phasing and a very substantial rise in the amount of commercial space to variations in siting and the nature & composition of the residential units (the economics of which do not make sense!)
The Town Board is fully aware that some members of the community have strong opinions regarding the proposed changes to the plan, however because the same residents come before them time and time again, they are under the impression that the community at large supports the project including the proposed changes. A Strong turn out at the October 26 meeting will send a clear message to the Board that residents are paying attention and would like a say in what gets built in this community. Supervisor Dolan and the Board NEED to know that people are paying attention. PLEASE MAKE A SPECIAL EFFORT TO ATTEND!!
THE EAGLE VALLEY FIREHOUSE IS LOCATED AT 14 SCOTT MINE ROAD I(NEAR MURPHY FIELD) N EAGLE VALLEY.
back to top
Tuxedo Reserve: Why Should We Care? | October 18, 2009
The proposed development, Tuxedo Reserve, is currently before our Town Board with amendments to the original Special Permit approved in 2004. These changes to the Special Permit, which the developer wants are extensive and should be given careful consideration.
This is the single largest development in the history of Orange County, with 1,195 housing units and 33,000 square feet of commercial space, and it will have a dramatic affect on life in Tuxedo and the surrounding area now and in the future.
Contrary to popular belief, we are not safe because the economic environment for large developments is bad right now. The common response is “Who cares? It’s not going to happen now.” However, the Special Permit, if approved, would run with the property, for whomever and whenever the development is built. The Tuxedo Reserve developer has indicated that they plan to sell some or all of the property to other developers.
Environmental concerns
This development is in a rural, environmentally sensitive area. The proposed changes include development around Mountain Lake – which was protected under the 2004 Special Permit. In addition, new development is proposed on approximately 30 acres in the Tuxedo Lake Reservoir watershed basin. The development requires extensive rock blasting that will have a significant negative impact on the environment. Of grave concern is the total of 150 acres that will be impervious roofs and pavement that could cause serious storm-water runoff problems
Traffic concerns
Increased traffic will clog roads that already are overburdened. Tuxedo Reserve is seeking to eliminated some of the traffic improvements included in the 2004 Special Permit.
Tax concerns
The applicant claims that the project is tax positive. However the assumptions they make in the SEIS are unrealistic, with extremely low estimates of school age children for whom we will have to build new schools, and high estimates of real estate values and property tax revenues.
Quality Control
The “Smart Code” proposed by the developer will only enhance their ability to flip the project to some one else and does not provide adequate protection under the zoning code of Tuxedo.
Increase in commercial space
The proposed increase in commercial space from 3,000 square feet to 33,000 square feet will compete with attempts to improve downtown Tuxedo and add truck traffic to a residential area.
The current Town Board appears to acquiesce the developer’s requests for rushing through the legal process, with a lack of respect for those who question the process and/or oppose it. Please attend the public hearing on Monday, October 26, at 7:30 PM; it may be the last time for your voice to be heard.
back to top
Map of The Tuxedo Reserve Development | October 18, 2009
back to top
Trustee Civility – Why It Is Needed | April 12, 2009
I recently attended a Special Trustee Meeting, whose sole purpose was to review the upcoming fiscal year’s budget. At this public meeting [I believe three members of the public were present counting myself], one Trustee accused another of being, “…too lazy to go through…” the entire DPW budget, as part of a discussion pertaining to the existing Village Budget draft. When at the end of this meeting, the accusing Trustee was asked to apologize for his/her remarks, the Trustee refused to do so.
I served for six years as a Trustee and Deputy Mayor, and during that entire time, I recall numerous occasions when we as a group of five elected members disagreed with each other, but at no point in time did any of us resort to name calling or disrespect. Why? We live in a very small community where we are neighbors first, and then part time unpaid elected officials second. The rules of common sense dictate if the public is to respect the job we have been elected to do and if we are to function together as a cooperative team regardless of our respective points of view on any issue, public meetings are no place for Trustee disrespect or name calling. By running for public office, it is assumed by the electorate that the individuals running have the maturity, patience, diplomacy and judgment to work politely and respectfully with both one’s fellow Trustees and members of the public.
This was certainly not the case here, and an apology will hopefully be forthcoming.
David B. du Pont
back to top
Our Thoughts On The Donald Hanson Lawsuit | January 28, 2009
As expected, the recent Donald Hanson lawsuit against our Village and its Trustees, is gaining notoriety. Much of the complaint is a civil rights claim, citing ethnic imbalances within Tuxedo Park as compared with national averages and disputing the legitimacy of our Gated Community status. The suit also calls attention to
Mr. Hanson's dispute with his neighbor as well as his issues with the Village's permitting process for new construction. The document alleges damages of $25
million, and this figure alone has peaked some emotions in our Village. However, over the decades, it has not been uncommon for a resident, feeling aggrieved, to target the Gates, the Club, the Boards, the Good Old Boys, the Newbies and the Tax Assessment Process as consummate villains. Perhaps there has been past culpability here, but the Hanson case seems quite different.
First, this is probably the only matter before our current Board of Trustees about which all members seem to agree! In addition, the Village Engineer, Village Attorney and Village Building Inspector also appear to concur with the BOT. Second, the Hanson project, while extensive, is one of great merit, employing good design, fine materials and attention to detail. It will be a sizeable tax ratable for our Village too. So why is there a conflict?
Those who have watched this house expansion on Tower Hill Road for the last 5 years would probably agree that the work crew, although capable, is simply comprised of too few in relation to the extensive project scope. As a result, the site is often considered unkempt while deliveries and construction activity have tended to exceed the hours and days allowed by ordinance. Also, noise, runoff, mud and site disturbance have troubled some neighbors. Finally, Mr. Hanson's building-approval is said to have expired and he has, more recently, ignored an associated Stop-Work Order.
Last year, the BOT was beseeched by several residents, especially weekenders, to limit noise and deferrable site activity such as leaf blowing, mowing and certain building construction. Although Village Code has always included these types of controls, the Board embraced this stricter stance, and it is creditable that they are steadfastly adhering to those principles and Code-revisions, which were adopted.
Given the integrity of our Mayor and Trustees, and the genuine commitment of Mr. Hanson to his dream, it would seem a remote possibility that these two parties could not resolve their differences. Indeed, the Hanson suit has fulfilled its mission of gaining our attention, but it simultaneously has highlighted the stamina and resolve of our volunteer Board of Trustees to uphold State Statutes and Village Ordinances.
We can all be thankful for Mr. Hanson's massive investment in Tuxedo Park, and correspondingly, we can be quite proud of our Village Government for its efforts to protect the safety and tranquility of our unique community.
back to top
Tuxedo Reserve....What's the Rush? | October 7, 2008
As most people know by now, The Related Companies, developers of the 1200 unit Tuxedo Reserve project, have submitted an amendment to their Special Permit, which contains MAJOR changes to the plan. If approved, these changes will alter both the scope of the project as well as life as we have all come to know it in the Town of Tuxedo. What people may not be aware of, however, is the extent to which the applicant is attempting to rush the new plan through the review process. While it took the Town nearly 10 years to review and approve the original plan, the applicant now expects the Planning Board to issue an approval for the new plan in less than 45 days.
At the September 22 Town Board meeting representatives for the developer presented the Board with an entirely new Master Plan for the project. There are countless reasons for residents to be concerned about many of the proposed changes, some of which are briefly outlined below:
- In the new plan, many of the homes have been converted from single-family houses to multifamily residences. This change will lower the overall worth of the homes and thus reduce the tax base for the project.
- The developer seeks to increase the amount of retail space in the area known as “The Commons” by 10 times the previously approved amount. . In fact, when looking at the new plan, one can easily see that the proposal is for an entirely new “downtown” area. While the developer states that the increase in retail space is necessary to support the increase in population, this is not necessarily true. What will happen to the present Downtown Tuxedo when a new downtown area is introduced? The developer suggests that the two retail areas will be synergistic rather than competitive, but they are not at all specific about the types of businesses they hope to introduce. When approving the initial plan, the previous Town Board made the revitalization of Downtown Tuxedo a cornerstone of their approval, denying the applicant’s original request for a large amount of retail space. Now that the Board has completely turned over, the applicant appears to be attempting to reverse this decision by reintroducing the increased amount of retail space in their amended plan.
- The original plan had all of the “designated active adult units” situated in one area of the development. In the revised plan however, these apartments and condos have been spread throughout the development and many of them have been relocated to the commons area and placed above retail space, thus creating a much more urban environment in this area.
- The new plan shows development around Mountain Lake, which is an area that was supposed to remain green and undeveloped according to the original plan. The Applicant is now referring to this area of land as “highly developable” and are proposing to build several three-story homes in this area. Despite the fact that the proposed homes will be in close proximity to the lake, the Applicant has stated that they are not planning any additional environmental impact studies before proceeding.
- The Applicant has presented the Town with a body of standards to regulate this Project, which will be known as the “Smart Code”. These standards, including zoning, architectural and landscaping components would be unique to each neighborhood within the project and would over-ride the existing Town Code. In other words, the Applicant is seeking to set their own standards and rules by which their project will be constructed (thus avoiding the need for variances.)
There are several other important issues with the proposed revision including (but not limited to) run-off from pesticides into the aquifer, (the developer claims that by eliminating lawns in the Commons area they are eliminating the need for pesticides) and the repositioning of an emergency access road on South Gate Road. (In their new Master Plan, the Town has indicated that they would like to pave this road over, making it a permanent entrance to the development and a “link” between Maple Brook and Downtown Tuxedo.)
With all these major changes being proposed, it is crucial that the various Boards take the time to not only review the details of the “new” project but also to consider the long term impacts these changes will have on the community. The Applicant, however, sees things differently. While, the amendment was officially referred to the Town Planning Board by the Town Board on September 8, 2008 that Board has not yet begun their review. On September 30, 2008 at the TAC meeting, representatives for the developer stated that they expected to see an affirmative report from the Planning Board no later than 45 days after the amendment had been referred. While they are agreeable to arranging public workshops with this Board for the purpose of detailed review, they suggested that the public presentation on September 22 should be considered a workshop and that additional workshops should be scheduled at a rate of 2 per week moving forward.
This sense of urgency from the Applicant begs the question….WHAT IS THE RUSH???? The Town has already embraced Tuxedo Reserve. Doesn’t it make sense that they should carefully review every aspect of the new plan in order to ensure that it becomes the best possible development it can be???? Especially considering the proposed Smart Code, which will override the Town Code in many areas, shouldn’t the Boards be taking their time to carefully review these new standards????? Is 45 days enough time to adequately review something that took the previous Boards 10 years to review and approve?
Resident involvement is crucial to this process. Please take a moment to review both the presentation made by the developer to Town Board on September 22, along with their Master Plan Book (page 14 outlines some of the difference between the old and new plans) and then consider these important questions.
back to top
Village of Tuxedo Park joins Citizens Statewide Lakes Assessment Program | August 13, 2008
The quality and on-going preservation of Village lakes is an issue that affects all residents alike. With this in mind, the Village has signed on to participate in the Citizens Statewide Lakes Assessment Program (CSLAP) which is a five year, all volunteer lake monitoring program run by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the New York State Federation of Lake Associations. (FOLA) Beginning this past June, under the guidance of the Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC), a group of resident volunteers began collecting biweekly water quality data from all three Village lakes and preparing the samples for analyses at a state certified laboratory. The results of these analyses will then be outlined for the Village in an annual report, which will in turn help to provide an overall picture of the current state of Village lakes. With this vital information, the Village will be able to take the necessary measures to ensure that its lakes and watershed are properly maintained.
In addition, analysis results are stored with both the DEC and FOLA. These State Agencies use the information to observe changes and trends in water quality across the state, and to gain a better understanding of the condition of the lakes in the state of New York.
The program is a win/win for the Village and the State.
Participating in CSLAP is not only an inexpensive way for the Village to gain invaluable information about the health of its lakes, it is also a way of directly involving village residents in the process of discovery and hopefully generating some much needed awareness within the community.
Testing for 2008 will end in the month of October.
TPFYI wishes to commend the EAC for seeking out this important opportunity for the Village as well as all of the volunteers who are in the field collecting and preparing samples. Your hard work will bring about a better understanding of our greatest asset and for this we are extremely grateful.
back to top
State Board of Education gives Greenwood Lake Specific Direction | July 2, 2008
On June 20, 2008 Charles Szuberia of the New York State Education Dept. sent the following letter to both John Guarracino, Superintendent of the Greenwood Lake Union Free School District and Joseph Zanetti, Tuxedo Union Free School District Superintendent, with regard to the ongoing issues between the two districts:
In reviewing the letter, please focus on the following of Szuberia‘s points, in order to gain a better understanding of our District’s current situation with Greenwood Lake.
In paragraph two, second to last sentence, Szuberia clearly lays out the only two viable tuition choices Greenwood Lake has regarding tuition costs that must be paid to Tuxedo. “Tuxedo, however, must charge Greenwood Lake tuition based either on the non-resident tuition rate (Seneca Falls formula) or the actual costs of educating students.” For the upcoming fall school year [2008-09], Tuxedo has demonstrated that the actual cost for high school tuition students was well over a thousand dollars per student higher than the Seneca Falls Formula. Thus, for the upcoming school year, it is a safe bet that Greenwood Lake’s Board will opt for the Seneca Falls formula to determine its tuition per student cost.
The first part of paragraph three is extremely important. Szuberia clearly states that the Governor’s Commission on Local Government and Efficiency “…recommends greater consolidation of school districts and services.” In other words, the State Department of Education is not in favor of creating additional small schools at any level unless there are very compelling reasons to do so, which flies in the face of Greenwood Lake’s desire to build its own small high school.
In the second part of his letter Szuberia lays out four steps Greenwood Lake must take if its request for a separate high school is to be considered. The first is that Greenwood Lake must enter into a new five-year agreement with the Tuxedo District. Assuming this cannot be done over the summer, we are looking at the school years 2009 -2014. Given that a five-year agreement with Tuxedo is a precondition Greenwood Lake must meet in order to achieve their own goal, the Tuxedo Board has no reason to make any tuition concessions to Greenwood Lake as it has done in prior five year agreements. Ergo, there is no reason for the Tuxedo taxpayer to subsidize the Greenwood Lake students.
Only after Greenwood Lake has reached a five-year agreement with Tuxedo, may it proceed with steps two though four. Step two is a road Greenwood Lake has gone done repeatedly with zero success, but this does not mean that they will stop looking for a new high school district home for its students.
Steps three and four, as laid out by Szuberia, represent very high hurdles for Greenwood Lake to overcome. Why? Given today’s construction costs, it will be extremely difficult for their Board of Education to come up with all inclusive cost numbers for a new high school, properly staffed, that has a cost per student that is less than the cost of tuitioning them into Tuxedo. Even the Greenwood Lake tax payer will be able to figure this out. Thus, Greenwood Lake’s only viable option is to find a District other than Tuxedo, where it can send its students.
As an aside, I would tell you that in this editor’s opinion, this entire ongoing debate has always had at its heart the Greenwood Lake Board of Education’s desire to control the education of its own students, and although cost has been an important issue, it has never been the main issue. Thus, sending its students to another district, will not solve the issue of “control.”
-David du Pont
back to top
Open Government – You be the Judge | June 15, 2008
As a candidate for Village Trustee, David McFadden prides himself on his belief in and commitment to “open government”. Take a moment and review the minutes from several of the public meetings chaired by David while he was Mayor, and then judge for your self how “open” our Village Government was under his guiding hand. {This information is presented in chronological order. Meeting minutes are on file in the Village Office for Public Review}
09/21/05 – BoT meeting
McFadden stated that in an effort to provide a public and open forum for the purpose of formulating design guidelines, improving the existing PB/BAR process, and insuring that the independent Planning Board and BAR have clearly defined duties, the Trustees would discuss creating a Transition Advisory Committee (“TAC”). This Committee would consist of the current PB/BAR members plus 5 to 7 other members and they would be given six months to make suggestions regarding the proposed transition. This process would provide a training period by having the senior members actively involved.
10/19/05 – BoT meeting
McFadden changed his mind and reversed his decision to include all current members of the PB/BAR to serve on the TAC. Instead, he appointed only Celeste Gebhardt. He also announced he would personally serve as the Trustee liaison to the TAC. McFadden justified this abrupt change in plan because he felt that the PB/BAR was extremely busy and added that the TAC would be encouraged to consult with the PB/BAR members. When questioned about how members of the TAC had been chosen, McFadden responded that the decisions were his.
11/16/05 – BoT meeting
McFadden read a statement as to why current members [excluding Celeste Gebhardt] of the PB/BAR had not been appointed to serve on the TAC. His reasons were: A.) the legality of more than two members meeting at the same time without public notice, and B.) Sam Bornstein’s position that Local Law #2 was illegal.
McFadden also announced that in accordance with NYS law, he alone had the authority to make appointments to fill vacancies of unexpired terms on Village Boards. [Editor’s Note: Although this is legal under NYS law, it is not under Village law, which is more stringent than NY State laws.]
12/21/05 – BoT meeting
Celeste Gebhardt was appointed by McFadden to Chair both the TAC and the BAR subcommittee. JoAnn Hanson was appointed Chair of the Planning Board subcommittee. There was no Trustee vote recorded on these appointments.
03/15/06 – BoT meeting
During Public Comments, concern was expressed that Board appointments were being made with no public discussion by the Mayor and Trustees before hand, and specifically that the TAC was operating without the benefit of public meetings. McFadden responded, “The nondisclosure of the TAC project was not secret but strategic. They had the ability to work confidentially.”
TAC members were appointed by McFadden alone with no record of any Trustee consultation or vote.
[Editors Note: In fact the TAC was operating in secret at McFadden’s expressed instructions, and all members were told they could not discuss the content of their meetings with anyone other than the Mayor, and this included his fellow Trustees.]
David McFadden in his own Words
back to top
Involvement is the Key to an Informed Decision | June 15, 2008
Another Campaign season is coming to a close and on Tuesday, June 17, Village residents will be asked to select two of the Trustee Candidates when casting their vote. As I have been talking to people over the course of the last couple of weeks, I have been somewhat dismayed to discover the collective lack of Board Of Trustee knowledge that exists among too many residents in this community. The unfortunate fact is that during 10 months of the year many people “tune out” of Village government. The Board meetings are attended by the same small group of residents and everyone else either relies on what they hear in various conversations or they remain blissfully unaware altogether. Then, when election time arrives each June, The Village is a-buzz with parties and mailings and gossip. Based on the information obtained from these sources, residents then cast their votes and officials are elected.
As a life-long Village resident who has chosen to raise my family here, I have recently become actively interested in Village Government. I can assure other residents first hand that they should not believe everything they hear. The only way to really understand what the issues are and how they are being handled is to take time out and attend a monthly meeting. Not only will this result in a better understanding of what is going on, but it will also provide residents with first hand knowledge of how the Board members interact with one another and what effect that dynamic has on the process of governing our Village. Most importantly, it will allow people to draw their own, first hand conclusions rather than to rely on what they hear from others or what arrives in the mailbox.
After June 17, the election will be over and the Board Of Trustees will continue on to face many important issues that will affect all of us as residents. I would like to take this opportunity to strongly urge everyone to take some time out and attend one or two of the monthly meetings in the coming year. If you are unable to do this, please read my monthly meeting summaries on TPFYI, which are unbiased and fact-based. This way, when next June rolls around, everyone will be more informed and all the name-calling and sympathy voting will have less merit.
-Meg Vaught
back to top
Sterling Place Settlement One More Time | June 15, 2008
Open Response to Chris Hanson
In reply to your broadcast email of 6/13/08
The fact that you are willing to play high stakes poker in State and Federal Court with Village money demonstrates a recklessness that is unfathomable. What if the village lost the appeal, like you and David lost the lawsuit, with the judge’s ruling that your actions were “arbitrary and capricious? What kind of legal background and understanding do you have to put the Village at such financial risk?
Now you and David want to take credit for putting the Village in a difficult, precarious financial situation claiming that your actions led to the favorable settlement negotiated by Mayor Stebbins and Trustee Darby. However, you were against the settlement. You and David McFadden had no interest or made no attempts to negotiate a settlement. You and David were willing to take your chances in State and Federal Court, a reckless management style that needs to stop.
The Facts of Sterling Place
It is necessary to reply to politically motivated “information” about this settlement to present a more balanced understanding and to correct the misstatements on this subject.
- The Village spent over $50,000 in legal fees without undertaking any initiative to understand what a negotiated settlement might produce as an alternative to continued litigation.
- Settlements are most workable when both sides are uncertain about the litigation outcome and value the economic components differently.
- If the Village were to lose the NYS Appellate Court decision, the result would have substantially strengthened Sterling Place’s federal litigation that sought damages against the Village of $5 million, for which we were directly exposed without insurance coverage. This would have effectively bankrupted the Village.
- As to the concern about unconditional and unlimited water for Sterling Place, we need more customers to cover the fixed costs of our Water Plant that operates at about 45% of capacity. This fact makes the process of how we got to this point incredibly ill-conceived. By settling, we generate more revenues for our water plant, get paid a financial settlement, and create a buffer of land for the Park. We can reassert our legal arguments in the future, should the Village decide it does not want any more new customers from new developments for our Water Plant.
- The answer to the question why Sterling Place settled is that the developer’s next best alternative would cost just about as much. The Village should receive $375,000 in cash and somewhat more in value for the three lots versus Sterling Place’s cost of $750,000 to $1 million to obtain water from United Water one mile up the road.
- It is important to understand that the project would go forward no matter what the legal outcome, since an alternative supply of water was available. So, why not obtain value for the Village in a consensual settlement? Please note: Had Sterling Place “won” in court, there would be no obligation for them to settle with the Village.
Most of these comments were made at the time the settlement was announced earlier this year by the Board of Trustees. The Mayor and three Trustees who were present when the vote was taken voted in favor of the Sterling Place settlement. It is important for everyone to understand the rationale for this action, which has unfortunately been belatedly chosen for discussion at this time for divisive political purposes.
back to top
The relocation of the DPW facility: An old idea reappears in
another election cycle | June 11, 2008
During the Mayoral campaign of 2005 won by David McFadden and again during the Mayoral campaign of 2007 won by Houston Stebbins, the relocation of the DPW facility was an issue put forth by David McFadden. Now in 2008 he makes it one of his pledges again. The following letter and feasibility summary were read into the record at the May 16, 2007 Board of Trustees meeting. It outlines a brief feasibility study prepared by Jake Lindsay, which was first presented to the Board of Trustees when he was a Trustee in 1999 and more recently in an updated version that was presented to the Board of Trustees in 2007. Previous administrations have considered the options and determined that relocation of the DPW facility was not economically feasible. David McFadden, without a serious look at the feasibility issue, is resurrecting this idea. This time, at least, he pledges to do a cost study, a move he didn’t consider while he was mayor.
5/15/07
Dear Mayor and Board of Trustees,
On his Mac 4 Mayor Website, the Mayor (then Mayor McFadden) asks residents what they would like to do with the property where the DPW facility is located, assuming the DPW is moved. He gives us 3 choices.
The first question that should be asked is whether we should move the DPW facility and what the costs involved would be. The prudent first step you should take is a feasibility study on the relocation of the DPW facility. I prepared a straightforward feasibility that is shown below. I have updated this study since I last presented it to the Board of Trustees.
Feasibility Study – DPW Relocation
Existing Facility
|
8,125 sf |
|
Proposed Facility-
To meet current building codes |
10,000 sf |
|
| Building Costs |
10,000 sf @ $140 |
$1400000 |
| Salt Shed - new facility |
Lump Sum |
$150000 |
| Site Work - new facility |
Lump Sum |
$125000 |
| Clean-up Existing Site after phase I environmental |
Lump Sum allowance |
$175000 |
| Total |
|
$1850000 |
| Architectural Fees |
10% |
$185000 |
| Contingency |
10% |
$185000 |
| Total Construction |
|
$2220000 |
| |
|
|
| Costs of Land for new facility |
|
?? |
| Sale of Existing Land |
|
$900,000 +/-? |
The DPW property and the Wee Wah Beach Club property are one contiguous lot of 6.6 acres. The DPW is on approximately 2.5 acres and the Wee Wah Beach Club approximately 4.1 acres. If the DPW area is subdivided it will not meet the Village’s current 4 acres zoning.
If costs are not offset by a land sale, estimated costs would be the full $2,220,000 plus the cost of land acquisition. The DPW relocation just does not make any financial sense.
I personally think it is negligent to write about these ideas and options before a feasibility study has been done. I brought this same issue up in previous BOT meetings. It seems to be a hot issue around election time. A request for a detailed feasibility study might lend some credibility.
Sincerely,
John S. Lindsay III
back to top
LOST AND FOUND | June 7, 2008
Like it or not, our Village is in the Credit business!
Residents are given 30 days to pay their tax bills, water bills, garage rent and sometimes even court fines. Less clear-cut however, are the pass-through professional fees which accompany most every application before our Zoning Board, Planning Board, and Architectural Review Board. These transactions involve monies paid by the Village to lawyers, engineers, environmentalists, planners and other consultants, mostly during review of subdivisions and building permit applications.
These sums are supposed to be reimbursed to the Village by the various applicants seeking project review. But, there has been a significant lag time between the consultant’s analysis . . . his subsequent invoice to the Village . . . the Village’s billing to the applicant . . .and finally the applicant’s actual payment!
Our previous Budget Officer or C.F.O., meticulously audited our Village’s budgeted line items down to miniscule expenses. However, for some reason, he seems to have overlooked the aging of accounts receivable. During his tenure, delinquencies grew to over $150,000. yet no meaningful measures were implemented to collect these “overdues”.
Gratefully, Trustee Charlotte Worthy together with our current Budget Officer, Larry Darby, promptly initiated a program to chase those delinquent debtors and seek the reimbursements due. Significant monies have now been recouped, but other accounts have become so old that payment appears doubtful.
Since the Village has already “made whole” each and every consultant, any uncollected applicants’ fees are 100% subsidized by our own tax dollars.
Ms. Worthy, Mr. Darby and Mr. Ledwith have refined both the Village’s billing system and collection procedures to minimize bad debts going forward. Going back is tougher, but we acclaim their resolve to recover as much as is practically feasible.
back to top
The High Road or The Low Road | June 2, 2008
David McFadden has run for Mayor twice [elected the first time and lost the second time] and is now running for Village Trustee. In all three of his campaigns, he creates issues where none exist, with his favorite focus being on “exclusive government”. David defines “exclusive government” as government run by “a handful of individuals” whose “principle concern is maintaining a tight grip over power, not running an effective government”. See his May 29 article titled, “Breaking the Grip of One Party Government.”
In this article, David writes that the election of Charlotte Worthy and Jim Hays “…would result in a continuation of exclusive government”. He further describes “exclusive government” as voting “in lockstep” with the Mayor on issues coming before the Board Of Trustees. This neatly sidesteps Jim’s and Charlotte’s long and credible records of apolitical service to the Tuxedo community. They are both respected, skilled, knowledgeable professionals, with established track records of giving considerable time, talent and energy to furthering the interests of our community, even before deciding to run for the two open Trustee seats. To say they stand for “exclusive government”, denigrates the substantive accomplishments and character of these two candidates.
If we go backwards in time to David’s first year as Mayor, when Trustees Hansen and Vernon voted in lockstep with him on virtually every issue of substance that came before the BOT [07/2005 to 06/2006], this did not constitute exclusive government or even one party government according to David. Why? Because he was Mayor, and these two Trustees, also elected officials, consistently supported his particular legislative point of view.
We went an entire year without hearing any mention of either exclusive government or one party government. Then in the June 2006 elections, Vernon and Parker did not run, and Houston Stebbins and Larry Darby were elected. Suddenly, David no longer had a three to two lock on votes since only Hansen remained a loyal supporter. The Village voters sent David a very clear message with the election of Larry and Houston, so how did he react? Once again, the words exclusive government and one party government started to creep back into his political lexicon.
In political science 101, you are taught if you repeat something enough times with conviction, there are some people who actually start believing there may be validity to whatever it is you are saying. David states in this same article that, “It is not in our best interest when a handful of individuals run the Village government.” The reality is that under NY State law, all Villages are run by just five elected individuals – in short, a handful. What David needs to do is to stop creating issues about “tight grips on power”, “exclusive government”, “one party government”, and “polarization” and focus on the real issues that will help all Village voters decide whom to elect on June 17th.
Perhaps David McFadden feels that Village government is exclusive if he is not included.
back to top
Eau De Vie | May 28, 2008
By now all of us have received the Village’s 2007 Water Quality Audit for Tuxedo Lake ID#3503557.
TPFYI is pleased to summarize the test results as “excellent” in comparison to all listed regulatory limits. Turbidity, metals, halogens and sulfur were all at low levels, and no violations were cited in any category of listed potential contaminants.
The report cautions that all public drinking water contains some minute levels of microorganisms or pathogens. Individuals with immune system disorders are referred to the Safe Drinking Water Hotline 800-426-4791.
TPFYI conveys its admiration and appreciation to the Board of Trustees and to the Village D.P.W. for safeguarding our drinking water supply. We are very fortunate not to be confronted with the containment issues facing other NY reservoirs and aquifers.
back to top
Sterling Place Settlement Revisited: The Benefits | May 2, 2008
Development in and around Tuxedo Park has always been contentious. We fight to preserve our tranquil surroundings. Unfortunately, legal approvals from the Town of Tuxedo are obtained eventually and we need to make the best of an unpleasant reality. It seems surprising that some people are extremely focused on the development of 63 homes on our northern border while at the same time a 1200 home development right on our eastern and southern border gets little notice from the same group. The demographics are the same and the impact on our schools and taxes will be dramatic; the only difference is that it 20 times larger.
The Sterling Place Settlement ends an expensive lawsuit and appeal in the New York Supreme Court and a lawsuit in the U. S. District Court. The Village will provide water service to Sterling Place at rates up to 16% in excess of the rates charged to Village residents. Sterling Forest will construct the water system, bear the entire cost and then dedicate it to the Village. In addition and perhaps most important is that lots 29,30 and 31 which border Tuxedo Park will be left “forever wild” and deeded to the Village. Sterling Forest will make an additional contribution of $25,000 for landscaping, fencing and screening to protect viewshed and protect unauthorized access to the Village and a contribution of $350,000 for improving the WeeWah Dam. The Mayor and Trustees, and especially Larry Darby, should be congratulated for their efforts.
Even if the unlikely outcome had occurred and the Village won an appeal in New York Supreme Court and won in U.S. District Court, Sterling Forest could go up Warwick Brook Road for their water at a cost that would not stop their development. You can only imagine how agreeable they would be about protecting our viewshed and protecting the Village border if that had occurred. We are better protected and compensated with the settlement.
See Legally Blunt/April 24, 2008
back to top
The Wee Wah Beach Club: Time to choose a Working Board
April 24, 2008
If you were a member of the WWBC in 2007, you should be aware that elections will shortly take place (on April 26) to select the Management Board, which is responsible for the day to day administration of this family-friendly facility, which has a ‘season’ that runs from Memorial Day to Labor Day. If you have followed the local news, you will be aware that both the renewal of the lease and all of the related issues have not been without lengthy and somewhat contentious debate at meetings of the Village Board of Trustees since the first such meeting was convened more than 3 months ago. The BOT defined the parameters of the lease and also, by right, amended the voting regulations. These now require that 5 board representatives, who were members of the WWBC in 2007, are chosen strictly and only by Village residents, with a further 5 representatives being chosen under similar criteria by residents of the Hamlet.
The Village candidates for election are:
Greg Beard Denise Gilroy
Laurie Beard Drew Goldman
Joshua Bewlay Mary Graetzer
Kerri Cavada Andy Heater
Dana Farrington Philip Lobkowicz
In a letter circulated by Greg Beard, he presents himself and his wife, and the husband/wife team of Drew Goldman and Dana Farrington on a “slate” with Philip Lobkowicz and encourages residents to vote for them as a block with the reasoning that “If we lose even one seat, we will not have the needed majority to implement improvements”. This letter raises concern over their willingness to work cooperatively. It also seems rather unusual for two husband/wife teams to run together for a working board of any corporate or non-profit organization. The other candidates include individuals who would be either new to the Board or who have years of active involvement with the WWBC.
We all know that the WWBC has managed to operate within a tight budget. The current Board is working with Village to make significant improvements that have been on their wish list for many years. Certainly, improvements are always welcome and new ideas should be encouraged. Please consider the following: While we are thankful that the Beard/Goldman/Lobkowicz team is willing to put in the long hours of this hands-on, active Board, we feel that the Village would be better served by a Board that is more fully representative of the Wee Wah Beach Club membership, perhaps including individual candidates from both the slate of Beard/Goldman/Lobkowicz and the other group of candidates.
back to top
LEGALLY BLUNT | April 24, 2008
Way back in 2005-2006, our then Mayor McFadden took a stand against “Sterling Place" and its plan to exercise its right (based on a 1953 agreement) to tap into Tuxedo Park’s water supply. As you may know, Sterling Place is a proposed 63 lot development whose parcel abuts the North end of our Village.
Mr. McFadden’s position to deny water access while at the same time openly attempting to buy out the Sterling property, triggered stiff and immediate law suits against the Village in both State Supreme Court and U.S. District Court. The Supreme Court ruled that Mayor McFadden and the Village Board acted in “an arbitrary and capricious manner” in their decision to refuse water to the Development. Despite monumental legal expenses, the Village lost, but McFadden bluntly appealed.
Now, after another year of fruitless legal expenditures, our new administration has stemmed the cash hemorrhage.
In what amounts to a peaceable settlement, our Trustees, primarily Larry Darby and Houston Stebbins, have negotiated to withdraw our Village’s appeal of judgement in N.Y. Supreme Court, while Sterling discontinues its suit against the Village and Trustees in U.S. District Court.
The down-side of the agreement is that the Village of Tuxedo Park must provide potable water service to about 60 new homes in Sterling Place. However, our purification plant appears able to satisfy this added demand.
To the positive ledger, Sterling residents will pay the Village water rate plus a surcharge of up to 16%. Further, Sterling will construct the necessary water mains and connections; then dedicate these assets to the V.T.P. At no charge, Sterling will also transfer title for lots 29, 30 and 31 to Tuxedo Park with a $25,000 landscaping and screening stipend.
Most beneficial to our beleaguered infrastructure budget is a lump sum payment of $350,000 from Sterling to the Village. These funds are ear-marked for our Wee Wah dam repairs which are sorely needed.
Attendees at the April Board of Trustees meeting were evidently very pleased with this intricate resolution since the Board, and especially Mr. Darby, received a resounding ovation.
Most important, our attendant draconian legal bills will finally cease!
TPFYI applauds the Mayor and Trustees for negotiating and ratifying this mostly favorable settlement.
back to top
Word to the Wise | April 23, 2008
The recent ransacking and robbery at 28 Pepperidge Road is a despicable and disheartening act. Our Village’s condolences go out to the McFaddens, and especially to Robin who arrived home alone to find their house in shambles and her jewelry missing. Silver and firearms were also reportedly taken.
As much as we lament this shocking intrusion, David McFadden’s relentless appeal for releasing a Police Report does not seem appropriate. If “rapid-disclosure” might, in any way, hamper a police investigation, then restraint trumps publicity.
Our community is small enough that nearly everyone became aware of the burglary within a few days. Although releasing the Police Report is within our Mayor’s purview, doing so could also jeopardize this case, especially if it involves a minor, complicity or privacy rights. The McFaddens are clearly free to circulate their collected facts and observations. Anything beyond that, such as legal strategy, suspects, valuation etc. would seem best kept confidential until deemed public by the Village’s attorney and Police Dept.
Sgt. Ken Sanford, in his monthly public address of 4/16/08, announced that an arrest had been made and the suspect incarcerated. As acting Chief, he prudently declined to release a name or address for the accused, and mentioned only that the suspect had been living in Tuxedo Park. Officer Jim Ascione was heralded with cracking this case.
That same evening, Sgt. Sanford and ex-Chief Wm. Bortnowski spoke at some length about the realities of 21st century life. Addressing our Board of Trustees and those attending the April meeting, Sanford and Bortnowski stressed the importance of locking your home, especially when leaving for an extended period. They also emphasized removing car keys and other simple measures to help dissuade would-be thieves.
The two suggested, and we believe rightly, that many of us have become numbed to the harsh realties of crime in America. Conditions have, for years, been so safe and secure that we may have let our collective guard down. Locking your house and your car can be an effective deterrent, at least to a non-professional criminal.
By implication, it was made clear that locking firearms away from children, adolescents and intruders is also a significant defense against gun theft and misuse. For those storing firearms within their homes, NRA’s website nrahg.org/safety/ provides helpful information on securing and safeguarding weapons from the unauthorized.
TPFYI confers its sympathies to the McFaddens for their ordeal, and extends praise to Officer Jim Ascione and the VTP Police Dept. for their swift suspect apprehension.
back to top
Lights Out | April 23, 2008
At the 3/19/08 Board of Trustees meeting, Mr. Tony Mason raised the topic of Orange and Rockland’s dubious reputation for uninterrupted electric service.
Since the company no longer generates electricity, and is primarily in the transmission business, one would think power outages might diminish in frequency and duration.
Mr. Mason’s theme was that they haven’t, and in fact, a recent storm had shut down electricity in parts of the Village for a day or two.
The BOT was sympathetic, but indicated that they enjoyed little or no influence over O&R. The Trustees seemed to feel that larger communities receive repair preference since more subscribers are affected. They also felt the outage problem frequently stems from tree branches being dislodged during a storm, and then falling onto power lines.
Ex-Mayor McFadden commented that our Zoning Code requires all property owners to maintain their front yards and trim trees along their property frontage. He suggested that electric outages could be curtailed if the Trustees only enforced this existing law.
Unfortunately, the closest relevant ordinance in our VTP Code is 75-9-H: “The exterior of all premises shall be kept free of the following matter, materials or conditions: H. Fallen trees, limbs or branches within 50 feet of a public roadway or property line.”
This requirement makes no reference to pruning those limbs still attached, nor does it speak to cutting trees or limbs considered too close to electric lines. 75-9-H deals only with the clean up of trunks and branches already fallen on the first 50’ of your property.
In fact, O & R considers it very dangerous for homeowners to be clearing live limbs close to overhead power cables.
When brought to the ex-Mayor’s attention, he quickly re-stated that the requirement for 50 ft. trimming appears in New York State’s Fire Prevention & Building Code rather than in VTP’s Code.
A subsequent review of the NYSFP & BC revealed no such ordinance or recommendation.
Please be advised NOT to attempt cutting trees or pruning branches in close proximity to telephone poles and/or electric power cables. You have no obligation to do so. Rather, call O & R’s Customer Service line: 1-877-434-4100 and ask that their contractor remove potentially hazardous branches or entire trees if deemed to threaten electric service.
back to top
Why does the Village Need More Permanent Police Officers?
April 14, 2008
The current Village Budget for its next fiscal year has allocated funding for two additional full time police officers to work with the existing two full time officers we currently employ. How will such expenditure benefit the Village community and our tax payers versus the less costly alternative of employing part time officers?
First and most importantly is the local knowledge that full time officers build up over time of the Village’s residents and its geography. Both of the other two Village emergency services [ambulance and fire] are dependent, particularly at night, for the Village Police to arrive at any scene first, leaving their vehicle lights on as a beacon for the arriving emergency service vehicles to hone in on. Ask yourselves not only how difficult it is for non-residents to find specific homes within the Park, but also how few homes have visible street numbers in obvious locations to assist first responders. Also, full time police officers come to know most of our Village residents over time to include Village children. This is enormously helpful in containing certain types of juvenile crime as well as helping officers resolve domestic dispute calls. Knowing a resident and having rapport with that individual can prove extremely useful across a broad spectrum of troublesome situations. Also, full time police officers over time learn the layouts of many of the Parks larger homes, which is also very helpful to first responders.
Second, it is a given in the work place that high turnover contributes to a breakdown in communication and poor morale. A two person police department with six to ten part time officers can hardly build a sense of team effort and accomplishment, particularly when there is ongoing turnover in the part time officer ranks. A four person department on the other hand, would afford the Village a much better work place dynamic than the current two person permanent force does. An additional benefit of having four full time officers relates to training. Currently, the entire burden of training part time officers falls on just our two full time officers. With four full time officers, not only will the burden be spread out over a larger full time staff, but the need to train part time staff will be meaningfully diminished.
The last point relates to the Town. Although it is rare for the Village Police to ask the Town Police for backup, it is not at all uncommon, particularly at night, for the Town Police to request backup from the Village Police. A rapid response by a Village Officer therefore requires reasonable knowledge of the Town roads in addition to the Village roads. As each of you knows, such knowledge only comes with time and repetition.
The downside to adding two more full time officers is cost. Full time officers will always cost more than their part time counterparts in terms of benefits, overtime pay, and mandated pay increases. Any Village administration can produce annual budgets with small increases simply by not replacing full time DPW or Police Officers who retire or leave, as has been demonstrated in the past. However, each of us as residents and tax payers have to ask ourselves, are we really safer when we replace a full time Police Officer with one or more part time officers? I think the answer is no, and that such an approach is penny wise and pound foolish. Time is the single most important factor for any emergency responder, and a knowledgeable Police Department is a time multiplier.
David du Pont
back to top
April 1, 2008 | April 2, 2008
The following Bulletin was sent out to many residents via e-mail on April1, 2008
From: David McFadden <HYPERLINK "mailto:mac@mac4tux.com"mac@mac4tux.com>
Date: April 1, 2008 1:52:51 PM EDT
To: HYPERLINK "mailto:tpsr@tpSunshineReport.com"tpsr@tpSunshineReport.com
Subject: Community Watch
Dear Residents,
Please take note that there have been several home burglaries in the Park recently including last week during spring break. These cases are under active investigation by our police department specifically acting detective PO Jim Ascione. The burglaries are more than petty theft ranging in the thousands of dollars in value. Please take extra care to secure your homes and cars if you are away and to register your home on “house-watch” with the police department. Hopefully, the administration will keep us updated on this matter over time.
Sincerely,
David C. McFadden, Publisher
The Sunshine Report
28 Pepperidge Rd.
Tuxedo Park, NY 10987
The above information is an exaggeration of the facts. There have NOT been several burglaries in the Village recently. According to Sgt. Ken Sanford, there has only been one burglary in recent weeks and the police believe they are on the trail of the culprit. In fact, distribution of the above e-mail may well have impeded their investigation. The only other burglary that has occurred within the Village took place several months back and involved the theft of several television sets.
While it is always important to take the necessary precautions when leaving one’s home for an extended period of time (i.e. locking the door and notifying the police if that helps you feel more secure) residents should realize that they are not at a greater risk for theft now than they have been in the past.
At TPFYI, we believe it is irresponsible to circulate alarming and inaccurate information through e-mail that needlessly worries hundreds of residents as well as jeopardizes police efforts. We also believe that warnings such as this should originate with the appropriate security authority or Village Executives and not an unauthorized source.
Thankfully, the Board of Trustees recognizes the importance of adding two new full time officers to our police force; it is ironic that this was opposed by David McFadden. With development on the increase both in the Village and the Town there is no better time than the present to bolster our security.
4/9/08
Now that David McFadden has stated that the burglary referred to in his Park-wide email alert occurred at his house, TPFYI would like to add the following:
First and most importantly, we are sorry for David and Robin's loss. However it is still not appropriate to spread misleading information from an unofficial source that causes undue panic among residents.
back to top
Tuxedo – Greenwood Lake Budget Impasse | April 4, 2008
On Wednesday, April 2, the Tuxedo and Greenwood Lake budget negotiating teams sat down at 7 PM for the first time in a month to discuss the 2008-09 School budget. There are just 13 days left to try and hammer out a tuition agreement. The meeting ran for about two hours with a thirty minute recess around 7:45 PM used by both sides to try and understand the new revenue based model GWL sent over to Tuxedo late last week.
The Axelrod model that Greenwood Lake initially asked Tuxedo to use in February produced a tuition cost per student of $14,236. Greenwood Lake did not like this number so it searched for a model that would take into consideration each District’s supposed wealth as tracked by New York State and found a model called the Foundation Aid Output Model. This model is a revenue based model verses a cost base model. It produced a tuition cost of roughly $10,000 for Greenwood Lake, so this became the model Greenwood Lake wanted Tuxedo to use. Why? Because the Greenwood Lake tax payer currently pays a school tax based upon an assessed amount per $1,000 of home value about 2.5 times more than a Tuxedo resident pays. Ergo, somehow this tax differential should become Tuxedo’s problem to solve and not Greenwood Lake’s.
When Tuxedo not only did not back off from the Axelrod Cost Model, but stated the one page handout Greenwood Lake provided Tuxedo’s Board to support the use of the Foundation Aid Model was unacceptable due to its complete lack of supporting detail [Greenwood Lake Board President Kathy Gilson kept saying it could be found on the internet and Tuxedo just had to plug in some numbers], the two sides took a 30 minute recess to privately discuss what direction to go in next.
After massaging the Axelrod model during the recess, Greenwood Lake came back and said it should pay $10,383.07 for tuition students. Greenwood Lake said the Axelrod model Tuxedo used had very high Indirect Costs embedded in the tuition number, and most of these Indirect Costs should be borne solely by Tuxedo. Indirect Costs include such items as equipment purchases, student transportation, contractual expenditures [graduation costs, certain 3rd party student programs, etc.]. Tuxedo Board President Hickey asked Greenwood Lake’s negotiators why they had not raised questions about the Axelrod model direct verses indirect costs at the Administrative level [Business Administrator to Business Administrator or Supervisor to Supervisor] at any time in the last five weeks that Greenwood Lake has had the detailed model Tuxedo prepared? One would think that a number of issues pertaining to Indirect Costs could have been settled, or at the very least, identified before last night’s meeting if Greenwood Lake had applied just applied a modicum of common sense to the budget process.
The number Greenwood Lake came up with for special education students {“SES”} was $12,113.58. By way of reference, in 2002 SES tuition was about $16,000 and in the current school year, this number has grown to $25,000. So where does the SES number of $12,000 come from for next year’s 40 plus Greenwood Lake special education students? Greenwood Lake’s negotiators claim they had no idea that Special Education teachers would actually assist regular teachers and students in the classroom. They assumed Special Education teachers would only help special education students, and since this is not the case the cost of Special Education teachers should be evenly shared by all students. Given that Greenwood Lake’s own SE middle school teachers do exactly the same thing as Tuxedo’s Special Education high school teachers do in the classroom, the Greenwood Lake negotiating tactic here to reduce Special Education costs is absolutely ridiculous, and represents a complete lack of good faith bargaining.
We have a situation here in which Greenwood Lake has absolutely no other school district it can turn to for the 2008-2009 school year to educate its high school students. Yet President Gilson said that not only does a day go by that Greenwood Lake is not in negotiations with NYS officials about building its own high school, but also the need for Greenwood Lake to have its own high school is not about lowering the cost of educating its own students verses Tuxedo, but about control of those students and its own high school district.
Given how little meaningful headway Greenwood Lake has made in objectively evaluating the Axelrod Model it initially asked for in February, and the attitude Greenwood Lake’s negotiating team has about the need for Tuxedo tax payers to pay a more equitable share of their property values in the form of higher school taxes to subsidize the Greenwood Lake students, chances of reaching an Agreement in the next ten or so days are not very good. If both sides cannot reach an agreement, it will be up the New York State School Board to decide the tuition costs, and this in turn could well end up being some variation of the Seneca Falls Formula.
The final budget meeting is scheduled for 7:30 PM in Greenwood Lake on Tuesday April 8.
David du Pont
back to top
The Town Board of Tuxedo: What a mistake they made!
For the past year and a half Jim Hays has served on the Town Planning Board as that group grappled with the enormous development of approximately 1200 housing units called Tuxedo Reserve. Jim’s scientific background has been an asset as the Planning Board determined the impact of this development on the water supply and infrastructure of our town. Jim predicted that Tuxedo Reserve would have difficulty finding enough water and they did. Only after drilling more than 30 wells did they recover sufficient water. Yet he warns that the fact that the wells passed the test required by the DEC does not mean that these wells will be trouble free. It is important that the water company, that will be established to manage the water supply for Tuxedo Reserve, be structured so sufficient financial reserves are maintained to handle the cost of reworking wells or drilling more wells. This is important to protect the town’s taxpayers from having to shoulder these expenses.
Now that the Tuxedo Reserve development is in the middle of seeking final approval for the first phase of the development, the Town Board has decided not to reappoint Jim to the Planning Board and replaced him with Village resident Bob Thompson. After months of service, Jim was not even notified of the Town Board’s action until he showed up for a recent Technical Advisory Committee meeting! Not only is this decision a rude treatment of a dedicated volunteer but, as a local realtor, Bob’s appointment raises serious questions of conflict of interest. Furthermore the Town and the Village will suffer from the loss of Jim Hays’ scientific background that is useful in evaluating a variety of infrastructure issues.
back to top
|
