Loading...
1978-11-06 PHA Public Hearing was held by the Town Board of the Town of Wappinger on November 6, 1978 at 7:00 P.M. at Town Hall, Mill Street, Wappingers Falls, Dutchess County, New Wick, on an Ordinance on Dadopars Snow Plowing Maintenance. Present: Louis Diehl, Supervisor Leif Jensen, Councilman Nicholas Johnson, Councilman Janet Reilly, .ouncilwoman Elaine Snowden, Town Clerk Absent: Bernice Mills, Councilwoman Supervisor Diehl opened the Hearing at 7:10 P.M. The Town Clerk offered for the record the Affidavit of Posting and Publication duly signed and notarized (attached hereto). Newspapers and radio stations had been notified and a notice had been posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board. Mrs. O'Malley, Dara Lane --asked if the wording in the Ordinance could be stronger so that the Town could call in a private contractor if the developer did not fulfill his obligation. She felt it was just a slap on the wrist to the developer. Thomas Conklin, 22 Reggie Drive --is there a possibility that the developer can give us the name of the person he engages to do the plowing. He stated that the present owner was in South Carolina, and it was impossible to contact him. Mr. Diehl, however, had information that the development was now maintained by Mr. James Klein, a local builder, who was responsible for these roads. No one else spoke. MR. JOHNSON moved to close the Hearing, seconded by Mr4.Jensen. The Hearing closed at 7:19 P.M. atuJA-Z(Ahjet, Elaine H. Snowden Town Clerk 8 73 W, TOWN TOWN BOARD: TOWN OF WAPPINGER DUTCHESS COUNTY: NEW YORK IN THE MATTER AFFIDAVIT OF OF POSTING AN ORDINANCE ON DEVELOPERS SNOW PLOWING MAINTENANCE STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss: COUNTY OF DUTCHESS ) ELAINE H. SNOWDEN, being duly sworn, deposes and says: That she is the duly elected, qualified and acting Town Clerk of the Town of Wappinger, County of Dutchess and State of New York. That on Oct. 23, 1978, your deponent posted a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing on an Ordinance on Developers Snow Plowing Maintenance, on the signboard maintained by your deponent in her office in the Town Hall of the Town of Wappinger, Mill Street, in the Village of Wappingers Falls, Town of Wappinger, Dutchess County, New York.' vCa.21uc, Elaine H. Snowden Town Clerk Town of Wappinger Sworn to before me this o f f; 1u-etiW 1978. , day Notary Public ,,,i.7),.y,r JU,1frt W. and C. D. NEWS DISPLAY ADVERTISING 8 173 G= CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING 914-297-3723 84 EAST MAIN STREET • WAPPINGERS FALLS • PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the following Ordinance was adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Wappinger at the Regular Meeting- held On Nov. 13, 197x: The following Ordinance was. In- 'troduced by Councilman Jensen,. who moved its adoption: - Introduced by Councilman Jensen `WHEREAS !here have existed in the -town subdivisions where homes haw been constructed prior to the acceptance of roads by the town, and such roads have not been properly _maintained by 1_the developers thereof, creating con. ditions of emergency when snow and ice was not removed and the roads were ssable. and +u --otherwise tt—iir•aufher)zed, --pursuant to Town Law S130 to enact I ordinances to protect and promote the ,health, safety and welfare of its citizens, how, therefore, BE IT ORDAI NED by the Town Board of the Town of Wappinger as follows: Section 1. Definition Developer: Any person, partnership, corporation or other entity engaged in the development of real estate for which approval is required of the Town Planning Board. Section 2. Any developer who shall have tendered to the Town a per formance bond pursuant to Section 277 of the Town Law or who shall have con. strutted roads in a subdivision approved by the Town Planning Board shall, if such roads have not been tendered and accepted by the town, maintain such roads in such a condition as- to make such roads passable at all times. Such Y condition shall include but not be limited to the maintenance of such roads free and clear of snow and ice, and' the maintenance of such roads- in such condition as to make such roads ac. cessible by passenger motor vehicles 10 any home within the subdivision for which a building permit has been issued. Section 3. Any first violation of this ordinance shall be punishable by 'a fine not exceeding 5250.00; any subsequent violation by the same developer shall be punishable by fines not exceeding Seconded by: Councilwoman Reilly.,. Roll Call Vote: 5 Ayes 0 Nayes Dated: Nov. 13, 1976 - STATE OF NEW YORK) ; COUNTY OF DUTCHESS) 1, ELAINE H. SNOWDEN, Town Clerk of the Town of Wappinger, Dutchess County, New York, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Wappinger duly and regularly called and held on the 13th day of November. 197e, at which time a quorum was present and par. ticlpated throughout, and that the same has not been in any manner rescinded or annulled and that the same Is still in 1 force and effect and is duly entered in the minutes of said meeting. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the said Town of Wappinger this 14th day of November, 1978. Elaine H. Snowden Town Clerk Town of Wappinger AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION State of New York. County of Dutcheu. Town of Wappinger. Gisela Schmitz of the Town of Wappinger, Dutcbess County, New Ycrk. being duly sworn. says that he is, r.ad at the several times hereinafter was. tbe... iook3ceierAe s of W. & S.D. NEWS. a newspaper printed and published every Thursday in the year in the Town of Wappinger. Dutcheu County. New York, and that the annexed NOTICE was duly published in the said newspaper for ... ane... week succeuively.... once. in each week. commencing on the...15th..day of..1`:avbob t ... 19.77and on the following dates thereafter. namely on and ending on the... 2.5th . day of....Ncve r• 1978. both days inclusive. J Subscribed and sworn to before me this 15th day of Lloactinbor 19.78 Notary Public My commission expires r,Lr:RT M. CS.TEN "?r- yWi( 8 7, } A Public Hearing was held by the Town Board of the Town of Wappinger on November 6, 1978, at 7:30 P.M. at Town Hall, Mill Street, Wappingers Falls, Dutchess County, New York, on the Preliminary Budget of the Town of Wappinger for 1979 and the Federal Revenue Sharing Budget. Supervisor Diehl opened the Hearing at 7:30 O.M. Present: Louis Diehl, Supervisor Leif Jensen, Councilman Nicholas Johnson, Councilman Bernice Mills, Councilwoman Janet Reilly, Councilwoman Elaine Snowden, Town Clerk Others Present: Matthew Ryan, Comptroller The Town Clerk offered for the record the Affidavit of Posting and Publication duly signed and notarized (attached hereto). Newspapers and radio stations had been notified, and notice was posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board. Henry Semp, All Angels Hill Road, otherwise known as the Wappinger Thruway (as stated by him) --read a prepared statement on the budget. He quoted a headline in a newspaper article that said the Wappinger Tax Rate would dcpp in proposed 1979 budget; he took exception to this and asked the Board how they could hold a straight faae knowing full well that most assessments had been raised considerabley, his by $2,420; the school rate went down but he paid $126 more in taxes. The same would be true with the Town tax; although the tax rate was down, the actual amount in taxes would be more. All full time employees who depend on their salary for their livlihood deserve, and should get cost of living salaries, he felt. Other areas should be cut; necessary services not included, should be; one area that has been overlooked is that of garbage disposal. He called this a sorry mess. He went into that subject at length. He suggested that the Town send the County their share of tax money under protest, because it is the County's responsibility to supply us with landfill. 873 i - Willi Stark, Dorett Drive --agreed with the previous speaker. The statement should not have been made 'about tax rate because taxes have gone up. He urged them to look at the budget -once again and see where they could cut more. Cut it back to where it was last year. James Justvig, Daisy Lane --the President has set guidelines which should be followed by the local government; that of 7% wage increase should be followed and other costs at 5 3/4%. He finds this budget has not followed the recommended guidelines; it has gone up 8% and 3 of the salaries are over 7% ---why? Estelle Zak, Dorothy Heights ---do increases include benefits for employees? The Town Board should take a good look at this budget, economize and try to stay in line with cost of living index, including benefits. Eleanor Croshier, an employee of the Town of Wappinger---did not get. a raise this year and wanted to know why. Frances Frisina--asked Mr. Diehl about "merit" increases --the Town has not given these kind of raises since she could remember -- also an employee of the Town, she has received "cost of living" increases --never merit. The Town Board was denying certain indivi- duals "cost of living" raises, which can be given but can also be taken away. How can they establish merit and need, as it was, quoted in the paper, without even having a discussion with the employee. She had no objection to a cut-off salary, if that wee- what they were trying to accomplish, but cost of living is entirely different; that can be taken away if the economy changes. Mrs. Zak felt the employees certainly were entailed to a cost of living raise. Mr. Justvig--hadn't read the budget, just articles in the paper which said the budget went up $250,000; where is this money coming from? Mike Hirkala--Federal Revenue Sharing Funds are being utilized to keep the budget down, he questioned. You are hiding the fact that running the Town is costing more money by doing this. If these funds should be cut drastically or withdrawn, this Town is in for trouble. He would rather see this money shown, not hidden away in different accounts, then we would know exactly what it is 873 Y costing; what is it costing per head to run this government. He asked if it was true that Mr. Horton's salary and the salary of his secretary was being taken out of Federal Revenue. Mr. Diehl answered in the affirmative. Therefore, the Highway Budget was not a true budget. Salary increases for those with the higher salaries should not be 7%; increases and benefits should be quoted, not just increases. Mr. Lee Cornell, highway employee spoke on behalf of that department. They had asked for a 14% increase which the Highway Superintendent cut to 10%, now they find out it's down to 7%; the Highway is the backbone of the Town. The men are required to have a Class 3 license; they have to have a telephone because they are on 24 hour call; they cannot supplement their salary due to this 24 hour call. Most of the men are qualified to do masonry, electaical, carpentry, plumbing, mechanical work and this certainly represents a saving to the Town. They have done many chores over and above their normal duties and have not received a merit raise in eight or ten years and the cost of ling increases that they have received have never exceeded the actual cost of living, which at present, in this area is 11.5%. He asked about their extra time because of the extra 1 hour they now have to put in; how does it work out if a man is out 60 or 80 days. In essence, the highway department felt they were being dealt short in pay and benefits. They asked that the Board reconsider and bring the increase to what was requested; namely, a 10% increase as recommended by the Highway Superintendent. Mrs. Frisina, Secretary to the Highway Superintendent clarified the point that some men have 120 days accumulated time, some have only three --has the Board formulated a formula with regard to the raises; are they being considered individually? Mr. Ryan answered that the formula used was the man's eligibility for vacation time, plus the standard 12 days sick time, plus what - every personal time or other benefits they have accrued whereby he would normally be compensated for hour overtime if he was not on the job; a percentage of his base salary was arrived at on a 40 houzs a week. Mr. Horton felt they were not even getting a 7% raise on personal services --rather a 6% increase. 8731( Mr. Incoronato noted that the Board had stayed away from dis- cussion of the special districts which showed a 15% increase. The Town Budget, excluding districts, was down 4%, plus the fact that the County Budget was down 15%; secondly, Mr. Ryan's salary has gone up 8.3%, the largest increase in the budget. How can he earn an increase if he is not keeping the budget of the districts down? He objected to increases for part-time officials. What have they done --what about solid waste? Frank Versace --came in late and questioned whether a 7% increase included benefits or were they on top of the increase. He then referred to Pg. 15 of the budget, Estimated Revenues, Park and Recreation Charms, $7,100.00; what was this? Mr. Diehl answered that this was in reference to the Town Tennis Courts which they intended to charge for use; possibly family membership fee. On Page 16, A2410, Rental of Real Property, $3,000; this was rental from property on Route 9 that was donated to the Town. On page 20 B7310.0 the total read 21,756.00 and should have been 18,500.00. Henry Semp, Pg. 37 Landfill, in 1977, $5,000, in 1978, $15,000 and now 1979 back to $5,000 --why? It was explained that in 1978 this was used for clean-up, but they did not use all of that so it went into unexpended balance, now they estimate it will cost $5,000. Mr. Versace asked about the salary of the Highway Superintendent coming out of Federal Revenue --this was discussed before; the Board felt it should not be charged to the Village, but part town charge. What was the $10,300 under Recreation from Federal Revenue --this was for development of new areas and part of it for the Schlathaus property. He asked about plans for Rockingham and Angel Brook Recreation. Joseph Incoronato, questioned Vandalism account, Pg. 37, $13,300. To his knowledge, no violators had been apprehended, why not give the money to the Highway Department.; we have State Troopers and the Sheriff's Department, and now a Vandalism Patrol which is utterly ridiculous. Mike Hirkala asked how come a reduction in account A9040.8, Workmens Comp. Mr. Ryan answered we were not getting an "ex- perience rating" which amounts to no claims and therefore we were reduced. 873L. Mrs. Zak asked about the "Community Beautification" Account $500.00. -- an example would be the "Bell Site". Mike Hirkala, Pg. 14, Interfund Transfers, $25,000.00 --this was for the Town Hall Building Fund which is being built up. He also questioned $2,600 which was what they called a sinking fund for new vehicles and they would be able to pay cash for a new vehicle when it was needed. In the meantime interest was being accrued on this. Frank Versace --if the Preliminary Budget is adopted as it is, kime is it true that there would be a 314 per thousand decrease, kto however, the residents of the Town will be paying more in 1979 than they did in 1978 due to the increase in assessed values. Fran Frisina wanted to leave one more thought with the Board -- for those who were not considered for raises, Social Security would go up next year which would leave them with less take home pay than in 1978. John Buckley --when you're making $20,000.00 or $12,000,00 the cost of living goes up the same. Mike Hirkala--take a good hard look at dollars and percentages; his recommendation would be that there be no increases for those in the higher salary categories. No one else spoke. MR. DIEHL moved to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Mrs. Mills and carried. The Hearing closed at 8:48 P.M. Elaine H. Snowden Town Clerk NO. an. NEWS DISPLAY ADVERTISING CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING 914-297-3723 84 EAST MAIN STREET - WAPPINGERS FALLS LEGAL NOTICE , Notice is hereby given that the Federal Revenue Sharing Budget' of the Town of Wappinger, concurrently with the Preliminary Budget of the Town of Wappinger, for the fiscal year beginning January 1st, 1979 has been completed and filed in the office of the Town Clerk,at Mill Street, Wappin9ers Falls, N.Y., where it is available for inspection by any interested person during normal Office hours. Futher notice is hereby given that the Town Board of the Town of Wappinger will meet and review said Preliminary Budget and Federal Revenue Sharing Budget and hold a Public Hearing thereon, at the Town Hall, Mill Street, Wappingers Falls, N.Y. at 7:30 P.M. on the 6th day of November, 1978, and that at such hearing any person may be heard in favor of or against the Preliminary Budget as compiled or for or against any item or items therein contained. Recommendations may be orally or in writing. The intended use of the Federal Revenue Sharing Funds and a comparison to the Town Board budget are listed below: Category General Government Public Safety Hea!th Transportetlon Economic Assistance and Development Social Services Cut tui e'Recreation Home • Community ServIces Employee Benefits Debt Service Othci Contingency, Transfer to Capital Fund ' Total BUDGET SUMMARY, PROPOSED USE OF FRS . Operation/ ' Equipment Maintenance Capitol Outlay Total 8,500.00 .00 12,800,00 500,00 34,650 00 .00 32,970 00 50,000 00 9,400.00 32, 300, 00 5,000 00 .00 .00 12,592.00 8,500.00 113,300.00 134,650.00 82,970.00 .00 9,400.00 ,00 32,300.00 00 ,00 00 00 148,212.00 50,500.00 EXPENDITURE ENTIRE BUDGET I • Capital Outlay Total. Operation/ Maintenance 407,3713.00 I 57,248.00 .00 509,900,00 2,850.00 86,210,00 5,000.00• 14,336.00 .00 211,750.00 .00 171,326.00 12,692.00 12,000.00 407,376.00 57,248,00 ,00 509,900:00 2,850 00 86,210 00 14,336 00 211,750.00 171,326 00 12, 000.00 29,600,00 29,600,00 198,712,00 1,472,996.00 29,600,00 . 1,502,596,00 • Pursuant to Section 108 of the Town Law the proposed salaries of the following Town Officers Supervisor Town Justices (2) Councilman (41 Town Clerk Superintendent of Highways Dated October 24, 1978 are hereby specif ied as follows: 17 ollows:l7 500 00 6,286.00 3,975.00 14,125.00 18,900.00 RY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD ELAINESNOWDEN H. TOWN CLERK • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION State of New York. County of Dutchess. Town of Wappinger. • Beatrice Osten of the Town of Wappinger. Dutchess County. New Yak. being duly sworn. says thtfhe. iter isiival times hereinafter was. the if W. & S.D. NEWS. a newspaper printed and published every Thursday in the' year in the Town of Wappinger. Dutchess County. New York, and that the annexed NOTICE was duly published in the said newspaper for One week successively in in each week. cogncing on the 25th day of October 19... and on the following dates thereafter, namely on , and 1 jlding on the 25n C .q1»� .day of...Q 7 .. . 19. .:both days inclusive. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2.5th day of QP.tC91PAx 19.7.$ Notary Public HENRY SEMP ALL ANGELS HILL ROAD WAPPINGERS FALLS NEW YORK 6 November 1978 Supervisor Diehl and members of the Wappinger Town Board: "Wappinger taxes will drop under proposed '79 budget". This was the headline in a recent newspaper article. I would like to know how the town's elected officials can hold a straight face when making that statement, knowing full well that the majority of homeownersassessed valuations have increased substantially since last year. In my own case, with no capital improvements, the assessed valuation on my home was increased by $2420. The school tax rate went down, but I paid $146 more in school taxes. With the proposed budget, the town tax rate will be down, but you can rest assured when your bill is received, the taxes paid to the state, county, town, fire, light, water and sewer districts will be considerably higher. In light of this, I believe the preliminary budget can be and must be improved to the benefit of the taxpayers.. All full time employees who depend on the town for their livelihood, deserve and should get cost of living wage increases, no more and no less. Cuts in other areas can and should be made. Necessary services not now given should be included in the budget. There is one area of service to the taxpayer which has been completely overlooked. That is the area of garbage disposal. This without exception, is the sorriest mess I've ever seen, and the costliest to the taxpayer. The airport dump was a complete flop from the town's beginning to the county takeover and eventual shutdown. For many years to come, we will be paying dearly for that mistake. Besides that, the county has spent over a half million dollars of our local tax money for studies and reports to solve our landfill problem, only to give up and dump the problem back to the local towns. If this is fiscal conservatism, I'll eat my hat, and for the sake of keeping politics out of this meeting, I will not say who co-sponsored that resolution. Most of you already know. After they passed that ridiculous resolution, the county legislature then offered the services of their solid waste commipioner to aid the towns in their search for a disposal site. The commipioner has since resigned, and according to the county executive, no new commissioner will be hired. So where does it now leave us, the town taxpayer? Instead of preparing town roads for winter travel, the highway department is on its third week collecting and dumping trash with the end not yet in sight. Regarding garbage, the cost to us from private collectors is skyrocketing as shown by the many complaints from irate customers. Speaking in defense of the private carter, how can you blame Mr. Galioto for raising his rates when he doesn't have a town or county landfill to go to, but must make a 60 mile round trip to Goshen, averaging 3 miles to a gallon of fuel, wear and tear on his trucks, trip down time, higher taxes on his business property and other increased cost factors too numerous to mention. (2) 8 7,3 ,j Incidently, Mr. Galioto gives a reduced rate to senior citizens having fixed incomes, something the tax collectors should take into consideration when demanding their pound of flesh. Finally, I would like to offer this further suggestion. in having the ton board vote to send the county's share of taxes under protest knowing full well that it is a county responsibility to solve the present garbage problem.