Alpine Improvements
..
-\
~RBALLY ~ARTLANDAN~LEYEA LLP
1:1I~~LU J. COUALL\' II V(,~l
jUHN I. CAUI.ANn, JI
ALl AN to: Xii l'I'Ll YlA
}uN HULU!N ^DI\"~
MlrH1\1L 0, O...nnANl.I
VIN.:'!NT L, LlUl...Sk
~"'IJl 0, ~ULLIV^I' (tJlwFIJ
WIL~IAM p, BOIlLI, JR.
IUII'A hlUC:KENHOllPT l)'t'ONNUK
ALLAN n. ItAi'PlHUA (n/mer;
ANTI/OilY (,:, CARLI"I, 1X (.N))
LEAH 1. nALAUl1IlU
ANIIUI... ~IlAIl
Of'~JJlllIIIII
MILTL1N ~, HAVaN
CAlL Y LILKlI"
~ICIl^a[1 V C\)I\RALLY
iJItU'Ii.!IIW1.~
(:ARm~N ~VILLI dR J II.J
y,tI /flU tin egu,ar J".dZl,
A HI'.:KI'I'A(11-: 01' r.,1?:Oi\L. l.;Ol!NIi II I..
<@c.:u 1~6.)
RegiolUll OffiCIil
1'00 ~MJ\'KLIN AV~
N1 IIlW 1,79
Mill Rnn~)k, NY I HH
H"H77'HJ~ "1.1
HH77 6291 FAX
JIUnAV';'N Ll~IILU1N"
H MAK"~T 5THr.T
1")ll("lkUkl'~II, NY 12(,OI.\a3
/HS,.H1-1110 TUL . S4~..~s.+,+H~7 ('AX
1i..IldAIL'lftlo(O"IJuW.t.:1l1H
6iH M~lNT~'(llotu\' ST
P(l IlOll: 1(,r.
RHINUlr:K, Ny 1137<
K41.876 4091 'TII.
8H.ft76.71 ~l ~AX
lI''VW.r.nk. ^\I/,I'~'M
D\' APrOlNTMkNT:
(:1.P.A'W~"~Il, PLI.1UDA 1"~17
727-461.1144 rbL
November 14, 2002
Hon Joseph Ruggerio, Supervisor
Town ofWappinget
20 Middlebush Road
Wappingcrs Falls. New York 12590
R,: Annual Assessment Ron, benefit and 0 cI M
Wappinger! Sew~, Improvement 3..4
Wllpping~,s Sewer
Dear Supervisor Ruggerio:
I write on behalf of Alpine Improvements LLC, owners of the parcel commonly known as Alpine
Commons and which appears on the assessment roll as parcel no. 6157-02-707773. It is my
understanding, based on B recent phone conversation with the assessor, that the final number of
units was only recently determined and had not been determined at the time a notice of bearing
was sent.
This letter is written to protest the assessments as being excessive and invalid.
Litigation is presently pending as to the capital assessments. You will recall that the annual cost
of that assessment is approximately $120,000.00, three times the annual town and county (land
tax) levy. It is confiscatory as the character of use ofa Shopping center parcel, as to sewage, is
less intensive than conventional residences or office parks. For the reasons expressed in the
existing action, the 2003 assessment is also excessive and invalid.
Use benefit units and the cost is in excess of the powers conferred upon the town by the General
Municipal Law, which limits sewer charges. Your method of using benefit units detcnnined by
600~
aNV"lJ.HVf> 'XllVgijO:::>
LS8ttStSt8 !Vd tC:91 nBJ. 60/tI/II
...
.
tOO~
~RBALLY ~ARTLAND~LEYEA LLP
assessed value rather than the usage is both unneoessary for this small district where meters could
have been installed at the time of connection (Alpine has a meter) or where usage can be
detennined by generally accepted standards such as those existing for residences and office
buildings.
Our client's usage is:t 6,000 gpd, a usage equivalent to %] 8.75 homes. That number of homes
would pay a total of $2,435.00 per quarter. Alpine is being billed:t 14,650.00 or six times that
amount even though the town's treatment cost, as contracted with Tn-Municipal, is one unifoIm
rate for all its sewage treatment. There are no characteristics of the Alpine waste that require a
different or higher treatment cost.
I also note our client received a bilI recently for two months. The resolution adopted by the
board provides for quarterly billings.
1HA/jm
Enclosure
cc: S. Ifshin
K. Seid.enwunn
PLEYEA
By:
I
I
I
,
aNV1~HV~ '!11V<<HO~
LS8ttStSt8 YVd St:91 fiRL ~O/t1/11