1978-03-06 SPMC
A Special Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Wappinger
was held on March 6, 1978, at the Town Hall, Mill Street,
Wappingers Falls, New York.
-Notice of said meeting was mailed to each Board member on February
28, 1977, calling the meeting for 7:15 P.M.
purpose of considering bids for the Manhole
March 6, 1978, for the
Cover Contract, and
the Vandalism Patrol Car. Notices were also given of said meeting
to the Poughkeepsie Journal, Southern Dutchess News (W&SD News),
and the Beacon Evening News, and Radio Stations, WBNR, WHPN, WEOK,
and WKIP, and a notice was posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin
Board on February 28, 1978.
Supervisor Diehl called the meeting to order at 7:18 P.M.
Present:
Louis Diehl, Supervisor
Leif Jensen, Councilman
Nicholas Johnson, Councilman
Bernice Mills, Councilwoman
Janet Reilly, Councilwoman
Gladys Ruit, Deputy Town Clerk
Mr. Diehl stated that the ,purpose of the meeting was to consider
awarding bids for RaiOing Manhole Covers Contract and the Vandalism
Patrol Car.
The following report was received:
Town Board
Town of Wappinger
Mill Street
Wappingers Falls,
Re:
February 27, 1978
N.Y.
Raising Manhole Covers Contract
Town of Wappinger
Dear Board Members:
On February 24, 1978, bids were received
mentioned project. The bid results were
B&D Excavating Corp.
Wilson Excavators, Inc.
Dave Alexander, Inc.
and opened for the above
as follows:
$20,275.00
21,700.00
25,000.00
We have examined the bid of B & D Excavating Corp., the apparent
low bidder and have found a mathematical error in the bid. This
error, however, is not significant since it will lower the bid
by approximately 5%. The unit prices have been examined and
this office feels that they are all reasonable. Unit prices
653
govern in the total bid price.
We, therefore, recommend that the contract be awarded to B&D
Excavating Corp. for the amount of $20,275.00
Thank you,
Very truly yours,
s/ Rudolph E. Lapar, P.E.
MR. DIEHL moved that the bid be awarded to B & D Excavating Corp.,
low bidder, in the amount of $20,275.00 for Raising Manhole Covers
in the Town of Wappinger and that he be authorized, as Supervisor,
to sign the contract.
Seconded by Mr. Johnson
Roll Call Vote: 5 Ayes 0 Nays
The bid for the Vandalism Patrol Car was then considered by the
Board. Mr. Diehl stated that there was only one bid for the
Vandalism Patrol Car from J & B Parsons,Inc. in the amount of
$4,662.00. Since they had set aside the amount of $5,000.00
in the budget for this item, Mr. Diehl felt this was a fair price.
MR. DIEHL moved that the bid for the Vandalism Patrol Car, 1978
AMC Concord, 4 Door Sedan, as per Town Specifications, be awarded
to J & B Parsons, Inc. in the amount of $4,662.00 and that he be
authorized to sign the contract for this purchase.
Seconded by Mrs. Reilly
Roll Call Vote: 5 Ayes 0 Nays
MR. JOHNSON moved to adjourt the meeting, seconded by Mr. Jensen
and unanimously carried.
The Meeting adjourned at 7:22 P.M.
Gladys Ruit
Deputy Town Clerk
653A -
A Public Hearing was held by the Town Board of the Town of
Wappinger on March 6, 1978, at Town Hall, Mill Street, Village
of Wappingers Falls, Dutchess County, New York on a proposed Local
Law Establishing Rules and Regulations for the Goberning of
Electrical Installations within the Town.
Deputy Supervisor Jensen opened the Hearing at 7:30 P.M.
Present:
Leif Jensen, Councilman
Nicholas Johnson, Councilman
Beatrice Mills, Councilwoman
Janet Reilly, Councilwoman
Gladys Ruit, Deputy Town Clerk
Absent:
Louis Diehl, Supervisor (had to attend meeting on solid waste
in Millbrook)
Others Present:
Robert Ruit, Building Inppector
The Deputy Town Clerk offered for the record the Affidavits of
Posting and Publication duly signed and notarized. Newspapers and
radio stations had been notified, notice was posted on the Town
Clerk's Bulletin Board.
Mr. Jensen asked if anyone wanted to speak on this Local Law.
Frank Bettina, Chelsea Road --why is this law needed in this Town
after all these years. What is the benefit, what is your reasoning?
We have an electrical inspector and all work has to be passed by him.
We have so many lawns now, it's like Times Square.
Mr. Jensen explained that at the present time there is no provision
for the inspectors to inspect additions.
Mr. Bettina insisted we do not need this law, we have underwriters
to do these inspections.
Mr. Jensen said it was the understanding of the Town Board that the
underwriters will only inspect new constructions, not additions.
The Building Inspector explained the process of this law. Actually
there will be no change for builders or„private citizens, it will give
them a better opportunity to get the service of the electrical under-
writers. Up to now, although the underwriters have bean doing most
of the inspections, but not all of them, they have not been legally
i
6'5 3 a
designated as agents of the Town. Sometimes they do not leave their
stickers to show the premises have been properly inspected. This law
will make it mandatory that the underwriters are agents of the Town
and responsible to the Town and this will protect our taxpayers and
the builders. No change in procedures, except a report to the
Building Inspector's office.
Karol Sekely, Cedar Knolls, this is not needed, it's just another
law. Instead of one dictator we're getting a number of dictators.
Charles Cortellino, Russ Place --we are one of the few towns that
do not have this regulations, but why did the towns feel that they
needed it.
Mr. Ruit responded that unless the Town adopts this law, the way the
law reads presently, he, as Building Inspecot has no legal right to
require the underwriter inspector to inspect for a Certificate of
Occupancy. We have no stipulation with the underwriters that they have
to leave inspection certificates and the outcome is that people are
inconvenienced on additions and new constructions. The underwriters
will not cooperate until this is passed. To go one step further, if
something happens due to an electrical hazard causing a fire and
people have to go to court, the underwriter will represent the Town
in court, if this law is adopted, otherwise they will not.
Mrs. Mills asked Mr. Ruit if the surrounding towns had this law.
Mr. Ruit replied that Poughkeepsie had passed it a couple of months
ago. Mr. Lansbury, District Manager spoke to him .and gave him a list
of the towns that had passed this law, because they had the same
problems we did and he offered his assistance if we had any questions.
Mr. Ruit stressed the fact there would be no change in procedures,
we were looking for convenience in getting C.O's. He felt it was
not fair for him to hold people up until they got inspection, but
at the same time he was not given the power to demand inspections,
to they are caught in the middle.
Mr. Bettina asked how many people are held up, again he said we do
not need so many laws.
Mr. Johnson asked him if he was an electrician, and he #eplied that
he was, but he acting now as a home owner. Mr. Johnson then asked
him why he felt this would hinder him as a homeowner. Mr. Bettina
said it was not for the benefit of the Town of Wappinger, eventually
6536
we will wind up like the City of Beacon.
Mr. Johnson told him he was not stating specific problems, he was
being too general just saying we would be like Beacon.
Mr. Sekely asked if this would affect the homeowner, he wanted to
make sure. Mr. Ruit replied this was in reference to changes in
construction that would require a building permit.
Mr. Ruit went on to say that in one daily paper, he believed the
Poughkeepsie Journal, they skirted the law, did not get into specifics
and left people with the impression that anything they touched had to
be inspected right away. The inspectors are not looking to go into
people's houses and look for old violations, it is for a legal
purpose, nothing else..Actually it is just to legally declare these
inspectors as agents of the Town - if we need service from them, we
have ground to stand on.
No one else spoke.
Mr. Jensen moved to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Mrs. Mills
and carried.
The Hearing closed at 7:48 P.M.
I .c
Gladys Y2uit
Deputy Town Clerk
11
1;
6531
TOWN BOARD: TOWN OF WAPPINGER
DUTCHESS COUNTY: NEW YORK
IN THE MATTER AFFIDAVIT OF
OF
A PROPOSED LOCAL LAW ESTABLISHING
RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE
GOVERNING OF ELECTRICAL INSTALLATIONS
WITHIN THE TOWN.
STATE OF NEW YORK )
ss:
COUNTY OF DUTCHESS )
POSTING
GLADYS RUIT, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
That she is the duly appointed Deputy Town Clerk of
the Town of Wappinger, County of Dutchess and State of
New York.
That on February 15, 1978, your deponent posted a copy
of the attached notice of Public Hearing on a proposed Local
Law Establishing Rules and Regulations for the Governing of
Electrical Installations Within the Town, on the signboard
maintained by the Town Clerk 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.
Sworn to before me this «T
day of March 1978.
Notary Pub is
York
Gladys Ruit
Deputyrfiown Clerk
Town of Wappinger
DISPLAY ADVERTISING
and S. D.
NEWS
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING
914-297-3723
84 EAST MAIN STREET • WAPPINGERS FALLS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that
there has been duly presented to and
introduced before the Town Board of the
Tcwn of Wappinger, Dutchess County,
New York, on February 14, 1978, a
proposed Local Lawentitled'A Local
Law Establishing Rules and Regulations
for the Governing of Electrical In
stallations within the Town".
NOTICE 15 FURTHER GIVEN that
the Town Board of the Town Of Wap-
pinger will conduct a public hearing on
the aforesaid proposed Local Law at
Town Hall, Mill Street, Village of
Wappingers Fails, Dutchess County,
New York, on the 6th day of March 1978
et 7:30 P.M. on such day, at which time
all parties interested will be heard.
Elaine H. Snowden
Town Clerk
Town of Wappinger
Dated: Feb. 15, 1978
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
State of New York.
County of Dutchess.
Town of Wappinger.
Beatrice Osten
653 E
of the
Town of Wappinger. Dutchess County. New York.
being duly sworn. says that he is. and !t the several
times hereinafter was. the.iQ: S.itp,-pt11a110'
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 once in each week.
commencing on the.... 22nd. day of.....Gebxuary.
19.7P and on the following dates thereafter. namely on
and ending on the ?11.tlay of Fehruacy
19.Z$ both days inclusive.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 22nd.... day of... F.obruaxy 19.7 f,
Notary Public
My commission expires
653 F-
A
A Public Hearing was held by the Town Board of the Town of
Wappinger on March 6th, 1978, at Town Hall, Mill Street, Village
of Wappingers Falls, Dutchess County, New York, on an Ordinance
for Administering and Enforcing the State Building Construction
Code.
Deputy Supervisor Jensen opened the Hearing at 7:50 P.M.
Present:
Leif Jensen, Councilman
Nicholas Johnson, Councilman
Bernice Mills, Councilwoman
Janet Reilly, Councilwoman
Gladys Ruit, Deputy Town Clerk
Absent:
Louis Diehl, Supervisor (attended a meeting on Solid Waste in
Millbrook)
Others Present:
Robert Ruit, Building Inspector
The Deputy Town Clerk offered for the record the Affidavits of
Posting and Publication duly signed and notarized. Newspapers and
radio stations had been notified and notice posted on the Town Clerk's
Bulletin Board.
Mr. Jensen explained this was an Ordinance to mandate installations
of footing drains on residential construction and also has provisions
to allow the proper authorities to waive the requirements if the
conditions warrant this.
Mr. Jensen asked if anyone wished to speak for or against hhis
Ordinance.
No one spoke.
Mr. Johnson moved to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Mrs.
Mills and carried.
The Hearing closed at 7:58 P.M.
Gladys Ruit
Deputy Town Clerk
653 ca
TOWN BOARD: TOWN OF WAPPINGER
DUTCHESS COUNTY: NEW YORK
IN THE MATTER AFFIDAVIT OF
OF POSTING
AN ORDINANCE FOR ADMINISTERING AND
ENFORCING THE STATE BUILDING
CONSTRUCTION CODE.
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) ss:
COUNTY OF DUTCHESS )
GLADYS RUIT, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
That she is the duly appointed Deputy Town Clerk of
the Town of Wappinger, County of Dutchess and State of
New York.
That on February 15, 1978, your deponent posted a copy
of the attached notice of Public Hearing on an Ordinance
for Administering and Enforcing the State Building Construc-
tion Code, on the signboard maintained by the Town Clerk
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.
Sworn to before me this (r)
k
V
day of March, 1978.
/^ �� t c7�t_- ter/ `�-f •� \
Notary Public
•
Gladys /Ruit
DeputjTown Clerk
Town of Wappinger
W. and 5. D.
NEWS
DISPLAY ADVERTISING
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING
914-297-3723
84 EAST MAIN STREET • WAPPINGERS FALLS
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the
Town Board of the Town of Wappirgel'
will conduct a public hearing at the
Town Hall,- MITI Street; Wappingers 1
Falls, New York an Monday, March 6th,
1971 at 7:75 o'clock P.M. EST to hear all
Administering g~and Enforcing the Ordor
inance
Building Construction Code.
At a regular meeting of the Town
Board of the Town of Wappinger on the
14th day of February 1979,
The following Ordinance was in.
traduced by Councilman Jensen, who
moved Its adoption:
WHEREAS on May 12. 1960 the Towers
Board of the Town of Wappinger duly
enacted the Town of Wappinger Or.
dinance for Administering and En.
forcing the State Building Construction
Code, and
WHEREAS the Town Board of the
Town of Wappinger does hereby enact
and ordain es follows:
SECTION 1. Section 10 of the Town
Building Code Is modified by adding
thereto subparagraph (c) as follows:
No construction of any portion of a
building other than the construction Of n
foundation shall commence until the
owner has first submitted to the building
inspector an "as built' certified plotplan showing the "as built' foundation
location on the plot Of land for which the
building permit has been issued. Such
plan shall show that such foundation is
situated and located within the
minimum -sideyard setback
requirements and shall indicate that
location of the foundation conforms to -
the "proposed construction" plOt plan -
previously submitted or conforms to
variations therefrom previously.: ap.
proved by the building Inspector as the
result of field inspection. The provisions
of this subparagraph shall only apply to
those foundations which are situated
within three (7) feet of the minimum
sideyard setback requirements as
prescribed under the zoning ordinance
or to any permit issued pursuant to a
variance granted thereunder.
SECTION 2. Section 15 of • the Town
Building Code is modified by the ad.
di tion thereto of subparagraph (d) which -
provides as follows: . No certificate Of occupancy shall be
issued for any residential building unless
prior installation, of, fooling drams hast+'
been completed enehaeid• drains
been previously approved in -writing by -
the building. inspector. The building
inspector is authorised to waive the
installation of footing drains in those,
circumstances where, In his sole
discretion, he determines the same not
t0 be necessary.
SECTION 7. The Town Building Cade
shall mean, the Town Of Wappinger
Ordinance for Administering and En.
forcing the State Building Construction
Code.
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be
effective ten days following Its adoption.
Elaine H. Snowden
Town Clerk
Town Of Wappinger
Dated: Feb. 16, 1971
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
State of New York,
County of Dutchess.
Town of Wappinger.
653
Bes9trice,,9ftea4 of the
Town of Wappinger, Dutcbeu County, New York.
being duly sworn, says that he is. find it the several
times hereinafter was. the.CR' 0;l.t9r. N).1.tohteT
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
oneweek succeuively once in each week.
commencing on the...22ga .day of...F.abruary.•.
19.7.8 and on the following dates thereafter, namely on
and ending on tbe....22ud.day of...F.ebruar�..
192 both days inclusive.
37>
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this.... 22 n3 day of... 7,abruary
Y
Notary Public
19.18
Y
My commission expires
653 S
A Public Hearing was held by the Town Board of the Town of
Wappinger on March 6th, 1978, at Town Hall, Mill Street, Village
of Wappingers Falls, Dutchess County, New York, on an application
for amendment and renewal of the cablevision franchise.
Mr. Jensen opened the Hearing at 8:00 P.M.
Present:
Leif Jensen, Councilman
Nicholas Johnson, Councilman
Bernice Mills, Councilwoman
Jet Reilly, Councilwoman
Gls Ruit, Deputy Town Clerk
Absent:
Louis Diehl, Supervisor, (attending meeting on Solid Waste in
Millbrook)
The Deputy Town Clerk offered for the record the Affidavits of
Posting and Publication duly signed and notarized. Newspapers
and radio stations were notified and notice was posted on the
Town Clerk's Bulletin Board.
The following report was received from Charles Cortellino, Chairman
of the Cablevision Committee:
February 15, 1978
COMMENTS FROM CHARLES CORTELLINO REGARDING CABLEVISION FOR
TOWN BOARD MEMBERS
Items to be considered:
1) Other cable systems: The state has not responded as to what
companies operate in New York State. The only company I contacted,
Poughkeepsie Cablevision, is not interested in coming to Wappinger.
They charge a dollar per month more than U.S. Cablevision (U.S.C.).
2) Bookkeeping:
a. Is the Home Box Office (Subscription television) all profit?
It costs the Cablevision Company $3.50 per month per subscriber and
they charge the subscriber $7.00. The costs of wire service, main-
tenance, overhead should be divided between the two services.
b. U.S.C. is co-operating with Wappingers Central School
District (WCSD) by providing hookups and some equipment. They also
pay some students for school programs that are originated on channel
ten. These sums of money should come out of WCSD funds rather than
from the subscribers. Legally, U.S.C. must provide a channel for
WCSD, but is not obligated to pay students or provide equipment.
3) Number of Channels provided: U.S.C. has taken away a channel
for HBO, which means the subscribers have lost a service. In
addition, though the subscribers would welcome some UHF channels,
the only one being considered is the educational one from
Schenectady that will be used by WCSD.
653T
4) Service:
a. At the present time, there is no provision for service
to areas where there are less than 60 homes/mile. Special
transmission districts could be instituted.
b. No provision for areas with underground utilities.
c. Picture quality still not acceptable, especially Channel 6.
d. FM reception not good. T.V. is using WQXR and WNCN to
simulcast programs. WNCN is very bad.
e. Prime time is from 8:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M. During these
hours there is no maintenance or trouble calls answered.
Charges:
a. Multi set hookups should not cost additional (similar
to Phone Company, if you own the phones).
b. Objection to payment of service in advance. At least
long term subscribers should not have to do so.
Recommendations:
Do not re -new "franchise" for more than two years. Set up
a time table for performance (as we do for road specs to check
for progress).
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Charles Cortellino
Chairman Cablevision Comm.
Mr. Cortellino added a few comments_ Just for information and
possible recommendation -- in England they have audits of reception
on a certain amount of subscriber's homes and a report is given.
They stress quality and use. He went into discussion on different
lines on the TV and causes of it. He compared our service with
other states that he knew of had added channels and other advantages.
Frank Bettina, Chelsea Road - why aren't we able to get cable in our
area.
Mr. Jensen responded that first of all there were not enough
subscribers per mile, 60 homes are needed. There is talk of having
separate cable districts, in a certain area, but those people
would have to petition the Town Board who, in turn would confer
with the cable company and the rate, instead of being $7.00 per
month, would be $8.00 or possibly even $9.00 per month.
Mr. Erichsen, General Manager --on the application for renewal of
cable franchise submitted some time ago, he wished to make a change
on Page 10A - they had agreed to allow the Town to regulate rates
for general service, since then the FCC has preempted all local
control, and therefore he wished this section deleted from the
application.
Mr. Jensen asked for a letter from the cable company to that effect.
6531
Mr. Erichsen then attempted to answer Mr. Bettina. In the old
franchise in 1967, the condition was 60 homes to a mile before
they could give cable service. This is no longer in effect. The
new one provides for a line extension policy which is required by
State and Federal regulations. It is presently in use in neighboring
communities. It retains the present 60 dwelling units per mile
(includes apartments) or less than 60 homes but 30 bonafide sub-
scribers in this area, they will put cable in the vicinity. If
there is less than 30 homes indicating they want service, they can
tbe
appeal to the Town Board to create a special district. As an
example, he used 21 homes asking for service and agree to pay $10.00
a month and the Town Board gives approval, also the State Commission,
they could get a special construction district. These are already
in motion in LaGrange and East Fishkill.
Bill Quimby, Jr. Theresa
Steinhaus, felt that the
provide cable service in
Boulevard, speaking for
Town Board owes them an
himself and Bill
obligation to
the Pine Ridge area. He made application
three years ago and again lasy year and has had no reply from the
company. In his area, some people can get reception with an
antenna in the attic, but others with a 50' antenna have problems with
reception. They are willing to pay and feel the Town should listen.
The number of channels is totally inadequate. They can put 50 to
70 channels on a line plus FM. Other areas in this state have it
and other states have even more. Also we should have a test pattern.
Another service is Aviation weather, which would be interesting to
the general public. We can get these services and something should
tie be done about it. Now is the time to do it, you have the manager
present and the public is asking for this action.
Mr. Erichsen said this system is a rural cable system - 61 miles of
public road, passes 4,035 homes, just passes, not services. It costs
just as much to put in cable whether it's 10 homes or 200 - everything
is based upon mileage. In this rural system the company cannot afford
to provide all these extra channels, only in a populated urban system.
The cable operators invest their money where they can get the most
return - if they cannot get 30 customers per mile at $7.00 per month,
total of $210.00 per month, they would lose money and that loss would
have to be subsidized by another request for a rate increase or the
L
653-,
company will absorb the loss and eventually shut the system down.
We are not a monopoly, if people don't like the service or the
price gets too high, they put antennas up - that's why we have
raised rates only slightly in the past ten years in comparison
to the power and telephone companies.
Mr. Cortellino asked about multi -channels. Mr. Erichsen said
$tris was not available in the Town of Wappinger.
Mr. Jensen asked if the microwave system would take care of this.
Mr. Erichsen replied the microwave system was bringing in the home
box. The FCC has severe restrictions on use of the microwave.
Lasy year they constructed a new cable line from Mt. Beacon to
the Town of Wappinger on Cider Mill Loop. They difficulty with the
Telephone Company getting clearance, the cable is now in place being
spliced. This system will be used to bring some UHF channels in
addition to the normal stations. This will be in operation in 30
to 45 days and will solve some of our problems.
Mr. Jensen said he had heard this story a year ago and wondered why
it wasn't complete yet. Does it take this length of time? We still
hear the same complaints about reception, there doesn't seem to be
much improvement although Mr. Erichsen had given us the impression
at the Public Hearing on rate increase that improvements were on the
way.
Mrs. Mills, going back to 1967, recalled a public hearing when it
was stated by this company that they would extend lines every year
throughout the Town so that eventually the whole Town could hook up to
cable. That was 11 years ago and she thought by now it would have
been a reality, instead he is stating that for a higher rate per
month, they could provide service to an area of 21 people by a
special construction district.
Mr. Quimby --what is the procedure if you want a survey, who does it?
Mr. Erichsen presented a map showing the areas they already served
and the areas they proposed to serve. The company will, at the
request of the Board conduct a survey in an area to determine the
probable number of subscribers in a six month time limit. The rates
will, of course, be affected by the number of homes per mile - it
could never be 100% because the rate would be prohibitive.
6 5 3,41
When asked by Mrs. Mills how much they had expanded, Mr. Erichsen
said about 11. and mentioned different developments. These were all
populated areas, Mrs. Mills remarked, not remote areas. There was
no problem to that (expanding in populated areas). In 11 years,
they couldn't put one line in to a sparsely populated area! Cedar
lor Hill area was used as an example.
Mr. Johnson made some recommendations --the potential customer
should be informed of the rate that would have to be charged to
give them service, so they could give an answer on whether they
kwo were really willing to pay this rate or a "forget it" attitude.
Secondly, there are "pockets" in some areas off the main roads that
may have sufficient volume to meet the 30 subscribers per mile policy
and he felt this should be investigated and perhaps it could be less
than 6 months, maybe 3 months, thirdly, in the developments with the
underground facilities, is the company going in to these areas and
tying in with the utilities, or not.
Mr. Erichsen replied that this depends on the figure of trenching
costs - if they share it with Central Hudson, they have to pay 50%
of the costs, or if it's three companies, thby pay 1/3 of the cost.
Sometimes the cost is prohibitive and they cannot do it.
Mr. Ruit asked if it was true that Central Hudson has refused cable -
vision entry into the same trench or is it the other way around.
He was answered by Mr. Erichsen, it is not a case of refusal, but a
case of the money involved to be paid out be cable.
There was considerable discussion on cost of trenching and how this
cost was distributed and whether it was fairly done. Mr. Erichsen
460 maintained that the utilities had to go down much deeper than the
cable and they had to do the trenching anyway, so why pay equal costs.
Mr. Johnson asked about a periodic check in different locations,
perhaps while the men were repairing lines and report on reception.
Mr. Erichsen said they were now required to make three checks in
different locations and he was asked by Mr. Johnson to supply the
locations and when this checking is done. The State requires that
the same three locations are used. Permission is not needed by the
homeowners as it is done outside.
Mr. Cortellino disagreed with this - he didn't care what was on the
outside - he cared about the picture inside. He asked about channels
653
4 and 6, they show the same picture - can't FM be boosted up?
Mrs. Mills remarked that her neighbors had cable & HBO, paid the
rates, but had to buy a booster to get decent reception. Why should
that be? It comes in beautiful with
cable company bring it in that good.
Mr. Jensen asked Mr. Erichsen if
box to bring in extra channels.
want to pay for it.
Mrs. Reilly asked if the new microwave cable would improve the
picture, will the viewing be improved?
Mr. Erichsen remarked on Mr. Cortellino's recommendation for a 2
year franchise. The construction requirements placed on them by
the line extension policy require them to borrow money to construct
cable areas in the Town. Obviously the money has to be paid back and
unless they have a commitment from the Town for a 10 year franchise,
they cannot extend the plant, not with a 2 year franchise.
Mr. Cortellino - on charges - when a repairman is called for HBO,
what is it charged to, is it 1 and 2, cable & HBO.
Mr. Erichsen explained they get $.50 a month on HBO customers,
books are all kept separate. The cable customer does not subsidize
the booster, why can't the
the company would provide the
The response was yes, if they
the HBO customer and visa versa.
require separate bookkeeping.
Mrs. Mills said maybe they ought
could collect revenue from that,
Mr. Jensen asked about multi -set
first set, $1.50 each additional
per month.
Another item to be discussed was
State and Federal regulations
to do that with UHF, and they
that could be an attraction.
hook -up --the charge is $7 for the
set per month, after 2 sets, $1.00
V
via
advance payment for the service. 4140
Mr. Jensen asked Mr. Erichsen if they envisioned collecting money
after the use and would they continue present practice of collecting
in advance. Mr. Erichsen said, frankly, the company uses the
customers money. If they didn't have the use of this money, they
would have to borrow it, thus increasing the cost which, of course,
would be passed on to the customer. He maintained customer was
paying a lower rate because they were paying in advance. You can
pay a lump sum for one year service but you pay for only 11 months.
This is a saving to the customer.
L
6530
A night shift was also discussed, since the problems usually
happened at night.
Mrs. Reilly spoke in defense of cablevision saying that she had
an antenna and she could not get a serviceman between hours of
8 PM and 11PM.
Mr. Johnson questioned Mr. Erichsen on the idea of the company
bringing a line to a home and people putting their own splitter on-
is this a problem, is it legal?
Yes, it does create a problem, improper lines and connections, could
produce interference to others, Mr. Erichsen answered.
The Board requested that Mr. Erichsen receive a copy of Mr. Cortellino's
report.
Mr. Jensen then told Mr. Erichsen that they still needed further
information - when would they produce some of the services they
agreed to perform in previous presentations --what is the time limit?
The cable company wanted no less than a five year franchise with a
five year option. Mr. Erichsen was asked what about a two year
franchise with an option and an intent that within a certain period
of time certain services that the people have asked for would be
completed.
It was suggested that Central Hudson be contacted for an understanding
of the costs involved for trenching, how they were determined etc.
Mrs. Reilly asked how many customers there were in the Town of
Wappinger. Mr. Erichsen replied 3,150, HBO about 2%, about 600.
There are senior citizens included in this amount which was a
discounted rate, they receive a 30% discount. Hookups are the same
rate for everyone.
Mr. Jensen was very positive that at one time it was 50% discounted
and asked Mr. Erichsen to check this out.
Mr. Johnson moved to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Mrs.
Reilly and carried.
The Hearing closed at 9:50 P.M. J
1'
t/
Gladys Ruit
Deputy Town Clerk
and S. D.
NEWS
653
DISPLAY ADVERTISING CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING
914-297-3723
84 EAST MAIN STREET - WAPPINGERS FALLS
NOTICE -IS HEREBY GIVEN that
U.S. Cablevision Corp. has heretofore
made application for amendment and
renewal of its cablevision franchise for
the purpose of operating and main-
taining a community antenna television
system to furnish.television service to
residents of the Town _gf Wappinger,
exclusive of the area ibf the Town
situated within the corporate limits of
the Village of Wappingers Falls, by
means of a master antenna cable
system.
NOTICE 15 FURTHER GIVEN that
the Town Board of the Town of Wap•
pinger will conduct a public hearing
upon the aforesaid •app icatlon at the
Town Hall, Mill Street, . Wappingers
Falls, Town of Wappinger, Dutchess
County. New York, on the 6th day of
March, 1978 at 8:00 P.M. EST on such
day, at which time all interested parties
will be heard.
NOTICE I5 FURTHER GIVEN that a
copy of the proposed amendment and
renewal application is on file In the office
of the Town Clerk and may be examined
in that office by any interested person or
persons during regular b eine sSnowdenrs.
ElaiTown Clerk
Town of Wappinger
Dated: Feb. 16, 1978
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
• State of New York.
County of Dutcheu.
Town of Wappinger.
Beatrice Osten
of the
Town of Wappinger. Dutcheu County. New Yak.
being duly sworn. says that he is, iknd !t the several
times hereinafter was, theC4 : Eli tvx : P1.tb Lisbea (
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
... rine... week successtvely... O11 .. in each week,
commencing on the....22.nd. day of...Echnuaryt .. .
19.7.8and on the following dates thereafter. namely on
and ending on the...221ul.day of..rebtuarX...
197a both days inclusive.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 23nd day of...,ebeta ray 19.78
•-� �-�
Notary Public
My commission expires
•
it
IN THE MATTER AFFIDAVIT OF
TOWN BOARD: TOWN OF WAPPINGER
DUTCHESS COUNTY: NEW YORK
653 C�
1
OF POSTING
APPLICATION BY U.S. CABLEVISION
CORP. FOR AMENDMENT AND RENEWAL
OF ITS CABLEVISION FRANCHISE
IN THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER
STATE OF NEW YORK )
COUNTY OF DUTCHESS )
ss:
GLADYS RUIT, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
That she is the duly appointed Deputy Town Clerk of
the Town of Wappinger, County of Dutchess and State of
New York.
That on February 15, 1978, your deponent posted a copy
of the attached notice of Public Hearing on an Application
by U.S. Cablevision Corp. for Amendment and Renewal of its
Cablevision Franchise in the Town of Wappinger, on the
signboard maintained by the Town Clerk 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.
Sworn to before me this
day of March 1978.
otary Publ`jc
JE NE LO'NN
t' ^ry P:. , ^ C.a`e of N "ork
-
-.;C:12s3 County
C. ';,icn Expires March 33, 19.
h1.6,6_4,<2.)
" Gladys Ruiit
Deputy Twn6Clerk
Town of Wappinger