1985-09-26 SPM
:<.f1
A Special Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Wappinger was
held on September 26, 1985 at the Town Hall, Mill Street, Wappingers
Falls, Dutchess County, New York.
Supervisor Versace opened the meeting at 7:00 P.M.
Present:
l
Frank Versace, Supervisor
Renata Ballard, Councilwoman
Joseph Incoronato, Councilman
Irene Paino, Councilwoman
Gladys Ruit, Deputy Town Clerk
Absent:
Elaine H. Snowden, Town Clerk
Gerard McCluskey, Councilman
Others Present:
Bernard Kessler, Attorney
Ronald Evangelista, Engineer
This Meeting was called by Supervisor Versace for the purposes of
rescinding the Resolution to seek a Revenue_~nticipatiQn_Note.J.
consider the Letter of Credit for Mr. MacGeorge;and~consider
the bids for the Hilltop Drainage Project.
Notice of this meeting was sent to all Board Members on September 20,
L
1985, calling said meeting for September 26, 1985 at 7:00 P.M.
Notice was also sent to the three newspapers and four radio stations
and posted on the Bulletin Board in the Town Clerk's Office.
At the last Town Board Meeting, a motion was unanimously approved
authorizing the Comptroller to go to bid on a Revenue Anticipation
Note in the amount of $63,582 to cover the 1985 payment to New
York City, which was inadvertently omitted from the 1985 budget.
Since then, the Supervisor has informed the Board Members in his
memo of September 19, 1985 that the Town has received additional
state revenues amounting to $48,745 which he felt could be applied
toward this debt, thereby reducing the Revenue Anticipation Note
from $63,582 to $14,835.
IJ MR. VERSACE moved to rescind the motion approved at the September 17,
1985 meeting which authorized the Comptroller to go to bid on the
$63,582 R.A.N.; apply the additional state revenues in the amount of
$48,745 toward this indebtedness and authorize the Comptroller to go
to bid on the R.A.N. for $14,835, the remaining balance of payment
to New York City for 1985.
Seconded by Mr. Incoronato
Roll Call Vote: 4 Ayes 0 Nays
~~g
At Mrs. paino's request, the following letter was read into the
Minutes:
September 19, 1985
To: Town Board Members
From: Frank Versace, Supervisor
On September 17, 1985, two checks were received from the State of
New York Office of the Comptroller. The first was in the amount
of $19,608.36 and the second in the amount of $29,136.79.
-
These revenues were provided from revenue sharing monies and were
totally unexpected. The money, at this time, has been placed in
the trust and agency fund until the Board has made a decision on
its use.
Our Comptroller's office called the Office of the State Comptrollr
on the afternoon of the 17th to inquire about these funds. She
was informed that these monies could be used for any purpose and
that there were no restrictions on the use of these monies. The
checks were from per capita excess distributed to all counties,
towns and villages within the state.
My recommendation to the board would be to apply these funds to
the 1985 payment to New York City and reduce the amount of the
budget anticipation note from $68,852 to $14,835.
Thank you.
Mrs. Paino had a question relating to the second paragraph of
this letter, specifically "These revenues were provided from
I
revenue sharing monies and were totally unexpected". She differed
with this statement since she had spoken to Judy Mosher from the
New York State Department of Audit and Control who indicated that
the Supervisor was advised by their letter of May 28, 1985 that
the Town would be receiving the specific amounts as stated in the
Supervisor's Memo and also indicated the time they could expect to
receive these checks. Her question---why did the Supervisor state
that these funds were "totally unexpected".
Mr. Versace answered that he had forgotten that these monies were
forthcoming and since this notice was received in May, he had assumed
that the monies had already been received. In many instances the
Comptroller places additional revenues in the trust and agency fund
Discussion continued relating to the two incidents of forgetting to
I
until the Board determines where it will be used.
put the 1985 payment to New York City in the budget for that year,
and forgetting that additional revenues would be forthcoming from
the state. In answer to Mrs. paino's statement that she wondered
about the controls of the financial status of the Town, Mr. Versace
replied that good, sound controls are there, both in the Comptroller's
l
l
l
~fY
Office and in his Office. These are just two incidences that have
occurred due to human error; it does not mean that the Town finances
are not being handled in a responsible manner. Mrs. Paino reiterated
her concern on the two forgotten incidences. Mrs. Ballard added her
comments that she could understand how these monies could be left
out of the budget since during their work sessions on the budget
there was talk of using Federal Revenue Funds, then it was determined
they were not allowed to use these funds for reimbursement to New
York City; the figure was moved from one line item to another and
resulted in being eliminated completely; the fact remains that the
debt must be paid, so why make such an issue out of it. They should
take action on the motion and conclude this matter. Mrs. Paino
felt the Town Board should have been aware of the anticipated
revenues; as a Town Board Member she should have been copied on the
letter from Audit and Control so she would be aware that these monies
were forthcoming from the State. Mr. Incoronato interjected his
opinion that if they wanted to attach blame on anyone they should
go back several generations and blame the Assessor and the Administra-
tor who applied a $300,000 assessment to the New York City Pumping
Station in Chelsea. The situation must be rectified, it carne about
by an honest error and nobody profited by it. The taxpayers are
not being short changed, as he felt was being insinuated by the
news media and by Mrs. paino---what it amounts to is interest on a
$14,000 anticipation note. At this point, Mr. Versace called a halt
to the discussion and asked for a vote on the motion.
The next item brought before the Board for their consideration was
the Letter of Credit submitted by Mr. Mac George relating to the
landscaping requirements of the site plan approval. At the last
meeting, this document was not accepted by the Town Board since it
provided for the planting of six red maple trees instead of the nine
trees required; there was also a question on the height of the trees.
There was discussion, at that meeting, relating to the amount of the
Letter of Credit and whether it was sufficient to cover replacement
of the trees if they were not the proper height; the amount submitted
was $3,300.00
Jennifer Van Tuyl, Attorney for Mr. MacGeorge, was present and
related hers and her client's efforts to comply with all requirements
of the site plan. She noted that at the special meeting held by the
?-.qD
Zoning Board of Appeals two nights ago, Mr. MacGeorge's neighbors
were satisfied that he had complied with the issues that had previously
been raised by them. An affidavit was submitted by the Attorney at
that meeting from one of the owners of Dagostino's Nursery confirming
that nine red maples and eleven Norway spruce had been ordered months
ago by her client, however, due to the warm weather they will not
be available from the supplier until the second week of October; she II
assured the Board that the trees would be planted within seventy-two
hours of their arrival in Dutchess County. The Letter of Credit has
been amended to read nine red maple trees instead of the six trees
on the original document. Ms. Van Tuyl emphasized the fact that
her client has paid for all the plantings and the amount of the
Letter of Credit is more than sufficient to cover the landscaping
requirement.
Mr. Kessler stated that he had reviewed the Letter of Credit and
noted that it was amended to provide nine red maple trees instead
of six, which was the concern of the Board at the last meeting.
He recommended that the Board accept the Letter of Credit which was
proper in form and content. II
MR. VERSACE moved to accept the Letter of Credit submitted by Mr.
MacGeorge in the amount of $3,300.00, as recommended by the Attorney.
Seconded by Mrs. Ballard
Motion Unanimously Carried
The Zoning Administrator noted that the trees that are planted are
slightly smaller and shorter than they should be, however Mr.
MacGeorge has planted 89 trees which amounts to several more than
the required number of 75 trees.
The final item for Town Board consideration was to award the bid
for the Hilltop Drainage Project.
Mr. Evangelista submitted his report to the Board indicating that
there were no bids received on this project and recommended that II
the project be placed back out to bid as soon as possible in order
to place the matter before the Board at their October 21, 1985
meeting.
L
L
u
MRS. PAINO moved to authorize Morris and Andros to rebid the
Hilltop, Edgehill Stream Cleaning Project.
Seconded by Mrs. Ballard
Motion Unanimously Carried
MR. VERSACE moved to close the Special Meeting, seconded by Mrs.
Ballard and unanimously carried.
The Special Meeting closed at 7:23 P.M.
Spl. Mtg. 9/26/85
Elaine H. Snowden
Town Clerk
By ~hjQJ &L/
"""Gladys Rult
Deputy Town Clerk
d-.9/