4 MAY 2024
The Honorable Kathy Hochul
Governor of New York State
NYS State Capitol Building
Albany, NY 12224
RE: Application of Poestenkill (T), County of Rensselaer for WIIA Grant Funds to tear out carbon filters at Algonquin Middle School, Poestenkill, paid for in part by a May 11, 2023 WIIA Grant and replace them with Troy city water; false, misleading and/or inaccurate statements in grant application by Poestenkill; a case of taxpayer fraud?
Dear Governor Hochul:
As a follow-up to mine of 29 April 2024 concerning this above matter, according to the official record in Poestenkill regarding this grant application for WIIA funds, on August 29, 2022, that being six (6) months after the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation had issued a February 2022 Community Update to the people of Poestenkill, including the Poestenkill town board, stating therein that “Beginning in December 2021, the(Algonquin) school installed a granular activated carbon (GAC) system to provide effective long-term treatment of the contaminants to ensure clean water for the school community,” Ronald Laberge, NYSPE #065464, the engineer for the Poestenkill town board regarding this second WIIA grant application, affixed his engineering stamp to a single-page document included as Appendix M of the Poestenkill WIIA grant application wherein Laberge stated under seal that during the preparation of the engineering report titled TOWN OF POESTENKILL RENSSELAER COUNTY, NEW YORK PROPOSED WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 AUGUST 2022 that he personally had studied and evaluated the cost and effectiveness of the processes, materials, techniques and technologies for carrying out the proposed project or activity for which assistance was being sought from the New York State Clean Water State Revolving Fund and that in his professional opinion he had recommended for selection to the maximum extent practicable a project or activity that maximized the potential for efficient water use, reuse, recapture and conservation, and energy conservation taking into consideration the cost of constructing the project or activity, the cost of operating and maintaining the project or activity over the life of the project or activity and the cost of replacing the project or activity.
With regard to false, misleading and/or inaccurate statements in that document that serves as the basis for Poestenkill’s WIIA grant application to tear out the GAC filters at the Algonquin School the DEC had previously informed the taxpayers of the Averill Park Central School District in February of 2022 would provide effective long-term treatment of the contaminants to ensure clean water for the school community, at the time Laberge certified the report as a professional engineer on August 29, 2022, the report he stamped stated in section I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY that "The presence of multiple contaminants shows the priority of providing municipal water to the Algonquin Middle School and surrounding area."
In the light of the DEC statement to the people and town board of Poestenkill and taxpayers of the Averill Park Central School District in February of 2022 that the GAC filter at the Algonquin School funded in part by a $90,000 WIIA grant from your office on Amy 11, 2023 would provide effective long-term treatment of the contaminants to ensure clean water for the school community, that statement by Laberge in the Poestenkill WIIA grant application that it was a priority for Poestenkill to provide municipal water to the Algonquin Middle School was and is patently false, something Laberge would have been aware of at the time he stamped the Poestenkill grant application on 29 August 2022, because on page 10 of the August 29, 2022 Laberge engineering report that serves as the basis for the Poestenkill WIIA grant application, in II. EXISTING FACILITIES, in sub-section 2) Proposed Water District No. 2, sub-section a) titled Water Treatment and Supply, the report clearly states "Upon confirmation of the presence of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) the school began the process, with the assistance of the Rensselaer County Health Department (RCDOH), of installing a granular activated carbon system."
Going back to page one of the Poestenkill WIIA grant application, in section I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, the Laberge Report also stated that in addition to PFAS and PFOA the Town had encountered coliform in multiple wells, the presence of which multiple contaminants show the priority of providing municipal water not only to the Algonquin Middle School but to the surrounding area, as well.
As to the alleged need for Poestenkill to provide municipal water not only to the Algonquin Middle School but to the surrounding area as well because of coliform bacteria in wells likely due to the shoddy construction Poestenkill is famous for, the August 29, 2022 Laberge engineering report that serves as the basis for the Poestenkill WIIA grant application, at page 11 in II. EXISTING FACILITIES, in sub-section 2) Proposed Water District No. 2, sub-section b) Water Quality, there is a list of wells in Poestenkill that tested positive for coliform and thus, supposedly necessitated Poestenkill supplying those properties with municipal water as part of this WIIA grant application,
That list certified under stamp and seal by Ronald Laberge, NYSPE #065464 on behalf of the Poestenkill town board included 13 Cathlie Drive, which is not in water district no. 2.
The list also included 515 NY Route 255, which is a 5.8-mile-long (9.3 km) state highway located in Livingston County, New York, not Rensselaer County.
And if 515 NY Route 255 was somehow a typographical error that made it past the scrutiny of engineer Laberge at the time he stamped the document after reading it over carefully, and was really supposed to be 515 NY Route 355, it would still be a gross error because that address is on Rt. 355 in Poestenkill past where Weatherwax Rd. ends towards Wynantskill and is nowhere near water district no. 2.
564 Snyders Corner Road on that list is located on Snyders Corners Road past Heckleman Lane towards Poestenkill and thus is not within water district no. 2.
9390 NY Route 66 is on Rt. 66 west of Snyders Corners Road and is not in water district no. 2.
924 NY Route 351 is north of Poestenkill and north of Hinkle Road on Rt. 351, and so is not in water district no. 2.
279 Blue Factory Road is again nowhere near water district no. 2 as is 20 JD Way.
And 71 Colehammer Road again is not in water district no. 2.
So given those obvious false, misleading and /or inaccurate statements in that Poestenkill WIIA grant application, how was it that Poestenkill was able to have this application accepted by the State of New York for further WIIA grant funds to undo what was previously done by a previous WIIA grant by your office in May of 2023?
And how is this not a case of blatant fraud on the taxpayers of New York state by the Town of Poestenkill?
Thanking you in advance for a prompt response to this taxpayer inquiry, I remain
Respectfully,
Paul R. Plante
THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
May 6th 2024 Edition
"THE WATER DISTRICT NO 2 FLIM-FLAM – UNDERSTANDING THE UP-COMING WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 REFERENDUM"
On April 25, 2024, during the circus at the Poestenkill fire house presided over by Ringmaster Tom Russell, which circus was billed as a water district no. 2 public evidentiary hearing, when it was anything but, Ringmaster Russell was heard telling his handlers and controllers in the Laberge Group that Russell planned to hold a referendum on water district no. 2 in June of 2024 that is going to be effectively limited to those who live in Algonquin Estates, such as Dominic Jacangelo, Eric Wohlleber and CCCDW chief propagandist Greg Pattenaude.
And regardless of how Democrat Russell and his Laberge handlers, controllers and puppet masters are going to choose to bill the occasion, the referendum is really coming down to this essential question, to wit:
Are YOU willing to place the responsibility for your future and your life and your health and your well-being and that of your family and loved ones in the hands of Tom Russell, Greg Pattenaude, Ronald Laberge, NYSPE #065464, Dominic Jacangelo, Frank Burzesi, Eric Wohlleber, David Hass, June Butler and assorted unknown politicians in Brunswick and the City of Troy who have absolutely no accountability whatsoever to you by giving them total control over YOUR drinking water supplies?
It really is a very simple question you are going to be asked to decide at that referendum in June of 2024 – YES, YOU are willing to entrust Tom Russell, Greg Pattenaude, Ronald Laberge, NYSPE #065464, Dominic Jacangelo, Frank Burzesi, Eric Wohlleber, David Hass, June Butler and assorted unknown politicians in Brunswick and the City of Troy who have absolutely no accountability whatsoever to you with control of your future, your life, your health, your well-being and that of your family and loved ones; or NO, YOU most certainly are not, because none of them can be trusted with something so important!
Are YOU willing to accept the word of Tom Russell, Greg Pattenaude, Ronald Laberge, NYSPE #065464, Dominic Jacangelo, Frank Burzesi, Eric Wohlleber, David Hass, June Butler and assorted unknown politicians in Brunswick and the City of Troy who have absolutely no accountability whatsoever to you that Troy water is satisfactory, safe and clean?
Are YOU willing to accept the word of Tom Russell, Greg Pattenaude, Ronald Laberge, NYSPE #065464, Dominic Jacangelo, Frank Burzesi, Eric Wohlleber, David Hass, June Butler and assorted unknown politicians in Brunswick and the City of Troy who have absolutely no accountability whatsoever to you that the one hundred eighteen (118) year old Tomhannock Reservoir is a long-term viable source of safe and clean drinking water for you, your family and your community?
Think about it and think carefully, because the count-down clock is now ticking, and the rest of your life and that of your family are at stake in the outcome.
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
May 6th 2024 Edition
"THE WATER DISTRICT NO 2 FLIM-FLAM – UNDERSTANDING THE UP-COMING WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 REFERENDUM"
On April 25, 2024, during the circus at the Poestenkill fire house presided over by Ringmaster Tom Russell, which circus was billed as a water district no. 2 public evidentiary hearing, when it was anything but, Ringmaster Russell was heard telling his handlers and controllers in the Laberge Group that Russell planned to hold a referendum on water district no. 2 in June of 2024 that is going to be effectively limited to those who live in Algonquin Estates, such as Dominic Jacangelo, Eric Wohlleber and CCCDW chief propagandist Greg Pattenaude.
And regardless of how Democrat Russell and his Laberge handlers, controllers and puppet masters are going to choose to bill the occasion, the referendum is really coming down to this essential question, to wit:
Are YOU willing to place the responsibility for your future and your life and your health and your well-being and that of your family and loved ones in the hands of Tom Russell, Greg Pattenaude, Ronald Laberge, NYSPE #065464, Dominic Jacangelo, Frank Burzesi, Eric Wohlleber, David Hass, June Butler and assorted unknown politicians in Brunswick and the City of Troy who have absolutely no accountability whatsoever to you by giving them total control over YOUR drinking water supplies?
It really is a very simple question you are going to be asked to decide at that referendum in June of 2024 – YES, YOU are willing to entrust Tom Russell, Greg Pattenaude, Ronald Laberge, NYSPE #065464, Dominic Jacangelo, Frank Burzesi, Eric Wohlleber, David Hass, June Butler and assorted unknown politicians in Brunswick and the City of Troy who have absolutely no accountability whatsoever to you with control of your future, your life, your health, your well-being and that of your family and loved ones; or NO, YOU most certainly are not, because none of them can be trusted with something so important!
Are YOU willing to accept the word of Tom Russell, Greg Pattenaude, Ronald Laberge, NYSPE #065464, Dominic Jacangelo, Frank Burzesi, Eric Wohlleber, David Hass, June Butler and assorted unknown politicians in Brunswick and the City of Troy who have absolutely no accountability whatsoever to you that Troy water is satisfactory, safe and clean?
Are YOU willing to accept the word of Tom Russell, Greg Pattenaude, Ronald Laberge, NYSPE #065464, Dominic Jacangelo, Frank Burzesi, Eric Wohlleber, David Hass, June Butler and assorted unknown politicians in Brunswick and the City of Troy who have absolutely no accountability whatsoever to you that the one hundred eighteen (118) year old Tomhannock Reservoir is a long-term viable source of safe and clean drinking water for you, your family and your community?
Think about it and think carefully, because the count-down clock is now ticking, and the rest of your life and that of your family are at stake in the outcome.
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
May 7th 2024 Edition
"THE WATER DISTRICT NO 2 FLIM-FLAM – THE BATTLE OF THE TWO ANDYS; AN EPIC LEGAL STRUGGLE PLAYS ITSELF OUT IN POESTENKILL"
The two Andy’s, of course, are Andy Gilchrist, the lawyer for Poestenkill, and Andy Gilchrist, the lawyer for Brunswick, who people, those not understanding the complex way in which the mind of a lawyer works, would think were actually the same person, which they really are, but when Andy Gilchrist is acting as the lawyer for Brunswick, which might pay him better than Poestenkill, he is a real pit bull for Brunswick, and in this epic legal struggle involving the renegotiation of the WATER TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT between Brunswick and Poestenkill made on the 29th day of September, 2009, Andy Gilchrist in Brunswick is sitting in the catbird seat, and he has himself as lawyer for Poestenkill on his back and begging for mercy, because of the specific contractual language of Sections E and F of paragraph 18 of that Agreement, titled Specific issues, terms and provisions, where we have as follows:
E. Capital Improvements to the Water Distribution System of the Town of Brunswick. It is acknowledged by the parties hereto that certain capital improvements to the water distribution system of the Town of Brunswick are necessary for the furnishing of water transportation services to POESTENKILL as provided for in this Agreement.
Said improvements involve the furnishing of three (3) pre-cast pressure regulating valve pits and include installation of the pits, tapping valves and sleeves, and tees required to make the pits fully operational, together with the cost of all associated professional engineering services, including particularly but not necessarily exclusively, engineering services required for or related to site location, site work and easements; preparation of plans and specifications; construction phase services; and system start-up.
In addition, an emergency generator shall be required at the Brunswick Vanderheyden Reservoir water pump station.
The total estimated cost of such capital improvements to be furnished and paid for by BRUNSWICK — and the maximum principal amount to be reimbursed by POESTENKILL to BRUNSWICK as hereinafter set forth — is $392,500.00, broken down as follows:
Pre-cast valve pit $50,000 each x 3 pits = $150,000
Pit installation $35,000 each x 3 pits = 105,000
Engineering services $12,500 each x 3 pits = 37,500
Emergency generator $100,000 (1 required) = 100,000
Total Capital Improvements Costs $392,500
F. Reimbursement of Capital Improvements Costs. While the furnishing of the aforedescribed capital improvements to the water distribution system of the Town of Brunswick and the payment and/or financing of the costs associated therewith shall be the sole responsibility of BRUNSWICK, it is agreed that all such costs will be reimbursed to BRUNSWICK by POESTENKILL in the following manner: the principal amount of said costs (not to exceed $392,500 as set forth above) together with the financing interest and other financing costs, shall be reimbursed by the making of installment payments from POESTENKILL to BRUNSWICK in accordance with a ten (10) year bond retirement schedule.
end quotes
For Poestenkill’s Andy Gilchrist to get Brunswick’s Andy Gilchrist to give Poestenkill more water for water district no, 2, Poestenkill’s Andy Gilchrist is going to have to agree, based on those terms, to another bond of $938,000 to upgrade Brunswick’s infrastructure, just as was the case in 2009.
And whose pocket is that money going to come from?
Whose pockets did it come from the last time?
And people wonder why their property tax bills in Poestenkill are so high for the no protection of law we get in return.
Go figure!
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
May 7th 2024 Edition
"THE WATER DISTRICT NO 2 FLIM-FLAM – THE BATTLE OF THE TWO ANDYS; AN EPIC LEGAL STRUGGLE PLAYS ITSELF OUT IN POESTENKILL"
The two Andy’s, of course, are Andy Gilchrist, the lawyer for Poestenkill, and Andy Gilchrist, the lawyer for Brunswick, who people, those not understanding the complex way in which the mind of a lawyer works, would think were actually the same person, which they really are, but when Andy Gilchrist is acting as the lawyer for Brunswick, which might pay him better than Poestenkill, he is a real pit bull for Brunswick, and in this epic legal struggle involving the renegotiation of the WATER TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT between Brunswick and Poestenkill made on the 29th day of September, 2009, Andy Gilchrist in Brunswick is sitting in the catbird seat, and he has himself as lawyer for Poestenkill on his back and begging for mercy, because of the specific contractual language of Sections E and F of paragraph 18 of that Agreement, titled Specific issues, terms and provisions, where we have as follows:
E. Capital Improvements to the Water Distribution System of the Town of Brunswick. It is acknowledged by the parties hereto that certain capital improvements to the water distribution system of the Town of Brunswick are necessary for the furnishing of water transportation services to POESTENKILL as provided for in this Agreement.
Said improvements involve the furnishing of three (3) pre-cast pressure regulating valve pits and include installation of the pits, tapping valves and sleeves, and tees required to make the pits fully operational, together with the cost of all associated professional engineering services, including particularly but not necessarily exclusively, engineering services required for or related to site location, site work and easements; preparation of plans and specifications; construction phase services; and system start-up.
In addition, an emergency generator shall be required at the Brunswick Vanderheyden Reservoir water pump station.
The total estimated cost of such capital improvements to be furnished and paid for by BRUNSWICK — and the maximum principal amount to be reimbursed by POESTENKILL to BRUNSWICK as hereinafter set forth — is $392,500.00, broken down as follows:
Pre-cast valve pit $50,000 each x 3 pits = $150,000
Pit installation $35,000 each x 3 pits = 105,000
Engineering services $12,500 each x 3 pits = 37,500
Emergency generator $100,000 (1 required) = 100,000
Total Capital Improvements Costs $392,500
F. Reimbursement of Capital Improvements Costs. While the furnishing of the aforedescribed capital improvements to the water distribution system of the Town of Brunswick and the payment and/or financing of the costs associated therewith shall be the sole responsibility of BRUNSWICK, it is agreed that all such costs will be reimbursed to BRUNSWICK by POESTENKILL in the following manner: the principal amount of said costs (not to exceed $392,500 as set forth above) together with the financing interest and other financing costs, shall be reimbursed by the making of installment payments from POESTENKILL to BRUNSWICK in accordance with a ten (10) year bond retirement schedule.
end quotes
For Poestenkill’s Andy Gilchrist to get Brunswick’s Andy Gilchrist to give Poestenkill more water for water district no, 2, Poestenkill’s Andy Gilchrist is going to have to agree, based on those terms, to another bond of $938,000 to upgrade Brunswick’s infrastructure, just as was the case in 2009.
And whose pocket is that money going to come from?
Whose pockets did it come from the last time?
And people wonder why their property tax bills in Poestenkill are so high for the no protection of law we get in return.
Go figure!
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
May 8th 2024 Edition
"THE WATER DISTRICT NO 2 FLIM-FLAM – ON WHY I AM NOT STUPID ENOUGH TO VOTE 'YES' ON WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 IN POESTENKILL"
Recently, I was approached by a group of well-meaning citizens in Poestenkill, good people all, who mistaking me for a mindless eejit whose mind got retarded from reading too many engineering books, which everybody knows pollutes the purity of an otherwise empty mind and renders the book reader too stupid to understand what is going on around him in the real world the well-meaning citizens reside in, sought to cure what they thought was my benighted ignorance concerning water district no. 2 and its innumerable benefits to the town, including luring a CHIP FAB here, which needs a lot of water, because to them, I have indicated that I am not likely to vote YES for Poestenkill's water district no. 2, when everybody else knows that that is the right thing to do, or else Poestenkill wouldn't be doing it.
And taking very seriously what these people concerned for my health and well-being were telling me about these innumerable advantages that will come to Poestenkill because everybody knows, apparently except for me, that the town was extremely fortunate to receive this level of governmental funding for the project, 95% of the total with $5.2 million in tax dollars being returned to Poestenkill for investment in critical infrastructure that will ensure that a public water source will be consistently tested and treated rather than each individual homeowner having to test to see what contamination is lurking in their pipes, I informed these people who were adamant that Troy does test the public water (along with Brunswick and Poestenkill) daily with more detailed tests at other frequencies and provides annual water quality reports, that I would take the matter under advisement, and having done so, and having actually read through every page of the Laberge Report that forms the basis of these grant requests, along with Troy's 2022 water report, and a Documentary History of American Water-works article titled "Two Centuries of Public Service - History of Troy Water Works, Troy, New York," and the Capital Region PRISM AIS Lake Survey Report for the Tomhannock dated August 18th and 26th 2020 and "A STUDY OF LAKES IN RENSSELAER COUNTY, NEW YORK WITH PROPOSALS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT - FINAL REPORT" by Donald Scavia, Project Director, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, December, 1972, @p.100, where we were informed that the north end of the reservoir was stratified throughout the summer as long ago as 1972, and in the stratified section the hypolimnetic (below 12 meters) dissolved oxygen was one ppm at the end of June, while it was totally, depleted a month later and remained that way the remainder of the project, which is a sign of contamination and an important factor in determining water quality and treatment process, while Secchi disk readings indicated a fairly extensive algal bloom, and we learned therein that the reservoir was being chemically treated with copper sulphate, a powerful oxidizing agent and depending upon the dose ingested in drinking water, can lead to widespread cellular damage with the systemic effects of poisoning being seen primarily on red blood cells, gastrointestinal system, kidneys and cardiovascular system, and if the conditions in the reservoir's watershed remained uncontrolled, which they have, it may become necessary to increase the extent of chlorination needed to control the bacteria of the water which will increase costs and decrease. the aesthetic nature of the drinking water, while even then, in 1972, the City of Troy was already having problems in the filtration treatment of the water due to increased algae productivity, and the TOMHANNOCK SPILLWAY DAM I PHASE I INSPECTION REPORT by the NEW YORK DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS from August of 1981, which report contains an extensive history of the Tomhannock dam and the fact that in 1917, just eleven (11) years after the reservoir was first out into operation in 1906, the dam nearly failed because it being corrupt Troy, it was shoddily built, I would have to say that I would have to be the world's biggest idiot and very stupid, to boot, to vote YES on water district no.2 and thereby put my life, my future, my health, my well-being, and that of my community into the hands of some politicians in Troy and their crumbling infrastructure, which is as stupid as buying into a shoddily-built, crumbling condominium complex in Florida, and then getting slapped with a million-dollar repair bill for your trouble.
Water district no. 2 is NOT an investment in Poestenkill's future; to the contrary, it is an investment in stupidity.
Stay tuned, more to come.
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
May 8th 2024 Edition
"THE WATER DISTRICT NO 2 FLIM-FLAM – ON WHY I AM NOT STUPID ENOUGH TO VOTE 'YES' ON WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 IN POESTENKILL"
Recently, I was approached by a group of well-meaning citizens in Poestenkill, good people all, who mistaking me for a mindless eejit whose mind got retarded from reading too many engineering books, which everybody knows pollutes the purity of an otherwise empty mind and renders the book reader too stupid to understand what is going on around him in the real world the well-meaning citizens reside in, sought to cure what they thought was my benighted ignorance concerning water district no. 2 and its innumerable benefits to the town, including luring a CHIP FAB here, which needs a lot of water, because to them, I have indicated that I am not likely to vote YES for Poestenkill's water district no. 2, when everybody else knows that that is the right thing to do, or else Poestenkill wouldn't be doing it.
And taking very seriously what these people concerned for my health and well-being were telling me about these innumerable advantages that will come to Poestenkill because everybody knows, apparently except for me, that the town was extremely fortunate to receive this level of governmental funding for the project, 95% of the total with $5.2 million in tax dollars being returned to Poestenkill for investment in critical infrastructure that will ensure that a public water source will be consistently tested and treated rather than each individual homeowner having to test to see what contamination is lurking in their pipes, I informed these people who were adamant that Troy does test the public water (along with Brunswick and Poestenkill) daily with more detailed tests at other frequencies and provides annual water quality reports, that I would take the matter under advisement, and having done so, and having actually read through every page of the Laberge Report that forms the basis of these grant requests, along with Troy's 2022 water report, and a Documentary History of American Water-works article titled "Two Centuries of Public Service - History of Troy Water Works, Troy, New York," and the Capital Region PRISM AIS Lake Survey Report for the Tomhannock dated August 18th and 26th 2020 and "A STUDY OF LAKES IN RENSSELAER COUNTY, NEW YORK WITH PROPOSALS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT - FINAL REPORT" by Donald Scavia, Project Director, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, December, 1972, @p.100, where we were informed that the north end of the reservoir was stratified throughout the summer as long ago as 1972, and in the stratified section the hypolimnetic (below 12 meters) dissolved oxygen was one ppm at the end of June, while it was totally, depleted a month later and remained that way the remainder of the project, which is a sign of contamination and an important factor in determining water quality and treatment process, while Secchi disk readings indicated a fairly extensive algal bloom, and we learned therein that the reservoir was being chemically treated with copper sulphate, a powerful oxidizing agent and depending upon the dose ingested in drinking water, can lead to widespread cellular damage with the systemic effects of poisoning being seen primarily on red blood cells, gastrointestinal system, kidneys and cardiovascular system, and if the conditions in the reservoir's watershed remained uncontrolled, which they have, it may become necessary to increase the extent of chlorination needed to control the bacteria of the water which will increase costs and decrease. the aesthetic nature of the drinking water, while even then, in 1972, the City of Troy was already having problems in the filtration treatment of the water due to increased algae productivity, and the TOMHANNOCK SPILLWAY DAM I PHASE I INSPECTION REPORT by the NEW YORK DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS from August of 1981, which report contains an extensive history of the Tomhannock dam and the fact that in 1917, just eleven (11) years after the reservoir was first out into operation in 1906, the dam nearly failed because it being corrupt Troy, it was shoddily built, I would have to say that I would have to be the world's biggest idiot and very stupid, to boot, to vote YES on water district no.2 and thereby put my life, my future, my health, my well-being, and that of my community into the hands of some politicians in Troy and their crumbling infrastructure, which is as stupid as buying into a shoddily-built, crumbling condominium complex in Florida, and then getting slapped with a million-dollar repair bill for your trouble.
Water district no. 2 is NOT an investment in Poestenkill's future; to the contrary, it is an investment in stupidity.
Stay tuned, more to come.
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
May 9th 2024 Edition
"THE WATER DISTRICT NO 2 FLIM-FLAM – ON THE TROY WATER AGREEMENT AS A LEGALLY BINDING DOCUMENT ON THE PEOPLE OF POESTENKILL"
First and foremost among the documentary evidence Democrat "Slippery Tom" Russell is skillfully keeping concealed from the people of Poestenkill as he and his engineer Laberge masterfully pull the wool over the eyes of the unsuspecting people of Poestenkill with regard to the true costs of this water district no. 2, is a legal document, a contract, that is legally binding on the town of Poestenkill and ALL the people in Poestenkill who are foolish enough to have hooked up to Troy water, which contract was entered into by the town of Poestenkill on the 21st day of October, 2008 (hereinafter called the "Agreement", the "Contract', or the "Agreement and Contract"), by and between the Town of Poestenkill (hereinafter called the "Buyer), and the City of Troy, a municipal corporation within the County of Rensselaer, State of New York, acting by and through its Mayor, with the approval of its City Council (hereinafter called the “City”).
In sub-section D of Section 201 of ARTICLE Ill, GENERAL PROVISIONS, the contract states thusly:
Obligations of the Buyer. The Buyer understands and agrees to the following obligations, limitations, and commitments, in return for the City's agreement to permit connection by the Buyer to the City's waterworks.
Should the City impose restrictions on water use on its customers (e.g., sprinkling bans) the Buyer shall conform to such restrictions within all areas covered by this contract.
The imposition of said restrictions shall be within the sole and exclusive discretion of the City.
end quotes
Sub-section F. states in clear and unequivocal contractual language that the Buyer, Poestenkill, shall agree to compensate the City for a minimum of 100,000 gallons per day during the life of this agreement, regardless of whether or not Poestenkill uses a drop of that water, which is a great deal for Troy.
Sub-section A. of Section 204 of the contract, titled "Impairment of Supply," states again in clear and unambiguous contract language that the furnishing of water by the City under this Agreement shall not impair the furnishing of water by the City to its customers, and the City may not be compelled to furnish water to the Buyer, Poestenkill, continuously in the case of accident, or in the event that the water mains or their appurtenance or the source upon which this supply is dependent are impaired, and that the City (Troy) shall in the first instance be the sole judge in all these matters, and its decisions shall, if and to the extent they are reasonable, be final and binding upon the Buyer.
And then we come to Section 307, titled "Expansion and/or Upgrading of City's Waterworks," where we have what "Slippery Tom" and his engineer Laberge DO NOT want us to know about, as they spin these bogus numbers of theirs around to gull and mislead the people of Poestenkill as to how much this fiasco is really going to cost us, what with Troy's crumbling infrastructure, to wit:
Should the City upgrade or otherwise modify its waterworks to provide improvements not related to capacity, either in response to federal, state, or local authorities, or other justifiable cause, the Buyer shall make payments to the City to offset the costs incurred by the City in the proportion of the Buyer's planned utilization in such said waterworks.
This may include, but not be limited to, water treatment plant upgrades, reservoir and transmission main improvements, and mains 16 inches and larger that are used for the purpose of inter-municipal supply.
In all cases, the City shall, in the first instance, be the sole and final judge as to all improvements, additions or expansions to the waterworks, and the City's decisions shall, to the extent they are reasonable, be final and binding upon the Buyer.
end quotes
Talk about hidden costs, alright!
As to that contract being binding on the people of Poestenkill, Section 407, titled "Third Parties," states as follows:
The Buyer (Poestenkill) assumes sole responsibility for compliance with this Agreement by those users of its waterworks whose water is delivered from the City waterworks.
The City shall deal directly with the Buyer which shall, in turn, make certain that all users and customers comply with terms of this Agreement and with any rules and regulations of the Board of the City, as applicable.
end quotes
And then we have Section 410, which states "This Agreement shall be in full force and effect and shall be binding on the Buyer and the City for forty (40) years from the effective date, as long as neither the City nor the Buyer shall be in substantial breach of this Agreement or in substantial default of its obligations hereunder."
So, given that contract binds every water user in Poestenkill to having to pay to upgrade Troy's shoddily built and now crumbling infrastructure, why are "Slippery Tom" Russell and his engineer Laberge trying so very hard to keep this vital information affecting all of our futures away from us?
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
May 9th 2024 Edition
"THE WATER DISTRICT NO 2 FLIM-FLAM – ON THE TROY WATER AGREEMENT AS A LEGALLY BINDING DOCUMENT ON THE PEOPLE OF POESTENKILL"
First and foremost among the documentary evidence Democrat "Slippery Tom" Russell is skillfully keeping concealed from the people of Poestenkill as he and his engineer Laberge masterfully pull the wool over the eyes of the unsuspecting people of Poestenkill with regard to the true costs of this water district no. 2, is a legal document, a contract, that is legally binding on the town of Poestenkill and ALL the people in Poestenkill who are foolish enough to have hooked up to Troy water, which contract was entered into by the town of Poestenkill on the 21st day of October, 2008 (hereinafter called the "Agreement", the "Contract', or the "Agreement and Contract"), by and between the Town of Poestenkill (hereinafter called the "Buyer), and the City of Troy, a municipal corporation within the County of Rensselaer, State of New York, acting by and through its Mayor, with the approval of its City Council (hereinafter called the “City”).
In sub-section D of Section 201 of ARTICLE Ill, GENERAL PROVISIONS, the contract states thusly:
Obligations of the Buyer. The Buyer understands and agrees to the following obligations, limitations, and commitments, in return for the City's agreement to permit connection by the Buyer to the City's waterworks.
Should the City impose restrictions on water use on its customers (e.g., sprinkling bans) the Buyer shall conform to such restrictions within all areas covered by this contract.
The imposition of said restrictions shall be within the sole and exclusive discretion of the City.
end quotes
Sub-section F. states in clear and unequivocal contractual language that the Buyer, Poestenkill, shall agree to compensate the City for a minimum of 100,000 gallons per day during the life of this agreement, regardless of whether or not Poestenkill uses a drop of that water, which is a great deal for Troy.
Sub-section A. of Section 204 of the contract, titled "Impairment of Supply," states again in clear and unambiguous contract language that the furnishing of water by the City under this Agreement shall not impair the furnishing of water by the City to its customers, and the City may not be compelled to furnish water to the Buyer, Poestenkill, continuously in the case of accident, or in the event that the water mains or their appurtenance or the source upon which this supply is dependent are impaired, and that the City (Troy) shall in the first instance be the sole judge in all these matters, and its decisions shall, if and to the extent they are reasonable, be final and binding upon the Buyer.
And then we come to Section 307, titled "Expansion and/or Upgrading of City's Waterworks," where we have what "Slippery Tom" and his engineer Laberge DO NOT want us to know about, as they spin these bogus numbers of theirs around to gull and mislead the people of Poestenkill as to how much this fiasco is really going to cost us, what with Troy's crumbling infrastructure, to wit:
Should the City upgrade or otherwise modify its waterworks to provide improvements not related to capacity, either in response to federal, state, or local authorities, or other justifiable cause, the Buyer shall make payments to the City to offset the costs incurred by the City in the proportion of the Buyer's planned utilization in such said waterworks.
This may include, but not be limited to, water treatment plant upgrades, reservoir and transmission main improvements, and mains 16 inches and larger that are used for the purpose of inter-municipal supply.
In all cases, the City shall, in the first instance, be the sole and final judge as to all improvements, additions or expansions to the waterworks, and the City's decisions shall, to the extent they are reasonable, be final and binding upon the Buyer.
end quotes
Talk about hidden costs, alright!
As to that contract being binding on the people of Poestenkill, Section 407, titled "Third Parties," states as follows:
The Buyer (Poestenkill) assumes sole responsibility for compliance with this Agreement by those users of its waterworks whose water is delivered from the City waterworks.
The City shall deal directly with the Buyer which shall, in turn, make certain that all users and customers comply with terms of this Agreement and with any rules and regulations of the Board of the City, as applicable.
end quotes
And then we have Section 410, which states "This Agreement shall be in full force and effect and shall be binding on the Buyer and the City for forty (40) years from the effective date, as long as neither the City nor the Buyer shall be in substantial breach of this Agreement or in substantial default of its obligations hereunder."
So, given that contract binds every water user in Poestenkill to having to pay to upgrade Troy's shoddily built and now crumbling infrastructure, why are "Slippery Tom" Russell and his engineer Laberge trying so very hard to keep this vital information affecting all of our futures away from us?
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
May 10th 2024 Edition
"THE WATER DISTRICT NO 2 FLIM-FLAM – AND WHERE OH WHERE IS ALL THE SUPPOSED CLEAN, WELL-REGULATED WATER FROM TROY WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE GETTING?"
First of all, if one were looking for evidence of just how absurd it is to vote YES for the Pattenaude Plan to hook up the Algonquin School to the uncertain supply of water from Troy, one need look no further than sub-section D of Section 201 of ARTICLE Ill, GENERAL PROVISIONS, where the forty (40) year contract between Troy and Poestenkill states thusly:
Obligations of the Buyer. The Buyer understands and agrees to the following obligations, limitations, and commitments, in return for the City's agreement to permit connection by the Buyer to the City's waterworks.
Should the City impose restrictions on water use on its customers (e.g., sprinkling bans) the Buyer shall conform to such restrictions within all areas covered by this contract.
The imposition of said restrictions shall be within the sole and exclusive discretion of the City.
end quotes
So, on a whim, per the signed contract, the City of Troy can impose water use restrictions on the Algonquin Middle School, and per the signed contract, the Algonquin Middle School can do nothing about those water restrictions, and we taxpayers of the Averill Park School District are supposed to be brain-dead enough to think that that is a good plan for the school district to adopt?
Are we really that stupid?
Or are we all supposed to be idiots and respect Greg Pattenaude and embrace that absurdity and stupidity as a great idea so we don't hurt Greg's feelings pursuant to an order or directive from our superior Tom Russell at the April 25, 2024 public hearing to not shoot Greg's absurd idea down?
Where the health and well-being of school children at the Algonquin School is at stake, should Greg Pattenaude's "feelings" trump facts that controvert the feelings of Mr. Pattenaude because Tom Russell says that is the right thing to do?
And what about all this supposedly well-regulated water from Troy that councilman Burzesi, NYSPE #070866, was talking about at 1:14:10 into the official record of the April 25, 2024 water district no. 2 public hearing at the Poestenkill fire house https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8r1X3GYZE8 ?
I have gone through the 21 October, 2008 Agreement and Contract by and between the Town of Poestenkill and the City of Troy from front to back and back to front with a fine-toothed comb, and NOWHERE in that contract do I find any promise by Troy to deliver "well-regulated" water to Poestenkill at any time, nor does that Agreement and Contract obligate Troy in any way to deliver well-regulated water to Poestenkill, and if we go to the 29 September, 2009 Agreement by and between the TOWN OF BRUNSWICK and the TOWN OF POESTENKILL to transport water to Poestenkill, we see from the following in that contract that councilman Burzesi, NYSPE #070866, is talking through his hat and talking like a fool when he says Troy will deliver Poestenkill "well-regulated" water to Poestenkill, to wit:
IT IS HEREBY AGREED by and between the parties hereto, pursuant to the authority of the Constitution of the State of New York and Article 5-C of the General Municipal Law of the State of New York, and in consideration of the services to be performed and the water to be transported by BRUNSWICK and the compensation to be paid by POESTENKILL, as follows:
1. In accordance with the terms of this Agreement, BRUNSWICK shall deliver water to POESTENKILL to the extent that TROY supplies water to BRUNSWICK, and subject to the limitations set forth in this paragraph, for the use of POESTENKILL pursuant to the supply agreement between TROY and POESTENKILL and also subject to any limitations of BRUNSWICK's infrastructure to deliver same.
POESTENKILL shall accept such water as it is chlorinated, treated and purified by TROY and BRUNSWICK.
In this regard, it is specifically acknowledged by POESTENKILL that it may have to chlorinate and/or otherwise treat the water received from BRUNSWICK in order to meet the requirements of the drinking water standards of the New York State Health Department (including especially those set forth in 10 NYCRR Part 5, Subpart 5-1 Public Water Systems) and the Rensselaer County Health Department.
end quotes
So, not only is that Troy water not "well-regulated," but it is not even treated in order to meet the requirements of the drinking water standards of the New York State Health Department (including especially those set forth in 10 NYCRR Part 5, Subpart 5-1 Public Water Systems) and the Rensselaer County Health Department, which means it is not even potable, limiting conditions which Poestenkill clearly accepted for itself and imposed on itself willingly and voluntarily when it executed that twenty-year contract and agreement with Brunswick on 29 September, 2009.
Which takes us to 1:08:36 of the Official Record where we have Tom Russell's trusted chief science and technology advisor Greg Pattenaude, also the chief propagandist for Eric Wohlleber's CCCDW speaking on the record as follows:
I'd like to reiterate two things that I said last May, one clean water is vital.
The January 2022 amendment to the state constitution says we as citizens of New York are entitled to clean water.
I believe that the proposed municipal water district does just that and just as the town board created a process to allow the creation of a water district no. 1 to ensure that residents in that district would have clean water, I believe the creation of water district no. 2 will and must do the same for those residents.
end quotes
Now, this being America where Greg's intellectual liberty is both protected and promoted, he can believe anything he wants to believe about Troy water, but should his "feelings" about the water being "clean" trump the plain facts about Troy water not being even potable, which limiting condition Poestenkill clearly accepted for itself and imposed on itself willingly and voluntarily when it executed that twenty-year contract and agreement with Brunswick on 29 September, 2009?
And how about former Poestenkill town supervisor Dominic Jacangelo @ 1:23:53 of the Official Record stating as follows:
Let me begin with saying generally I very much support this project.
I think municipal water service is the way to get consistent safe as it can be water to a residential community.
Nobody knows what goes on in their well day to day but in a municipal water system you're pretty well assured that what you're getting is as clean as it can be and I think that's very important.
end quotes
And Tom Russell @ 1:43:47 of the Official Record:
I've looked the report from Troy on what they do, how they um, their water is tested on a regular basis and it comes up satisfactory and clean.
end quote
In the light of the contract language in the 29 September, 2009 Agreement by and between the TOWN OF BRUNSWICK and the TOWN OF POESTENKILL to transport water to Poestenkill, where it was specifically acknowledged by and between the parties hereto, pursuant to the authority of the Constitution of the State of New York and Article 5-C of the General Municipal Law of the State of New York that POESTENKILL may have to chlorinate and/or otherwise treat the water received from BRUNSWICK in order to meet the requirements of the drinking water standards of the New York State Health Department (including especially those set forth in 10 NYCRR Part 5, Subpart 5-1 Public Water Systems) and the Rensselaer County Health Department, are either of them credible?
Think it over, as the referendum on the Pattenaude Plan to connect the Algonquin School to Troy water is rapidly approaching!
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
May 10th 2024 Edition
"THE WATER DISTRICT NO 2 FLIM-FLAM – AND WHERE OH WHERE IS ALL THE SUPPOSED CLEAN, WELL-REGULATED WATER FROM TROY WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE GETTING?"
First of all, if one were looking for evidence of just how absurd it is to vote YES for the Pattenaude Plan to hook up the Algonquin School to the uncertain supply of water from Troy, one need look no further than sub-section D of Section 201 of ARTICLE Ill, GENERAL PROVISIONS, where the forty (40) year contract between Troy and Poestenkill states thusly:
Obligations of the Buyer. The Buyer understands and agrees to the following obligations, limitations, and commitments, in return for the City's agreement to permit connection by the Buyer to the City's waterworks.
Should the City impose restrictions on water use on its customers (e.g., sprinkling bans) the Buyer shall conform to such restrictions within all areas covered by this contract.
The imposition of said restrictions shall be within the sole and exclusive discretion of the City.
end quotes
So, on a whim, per the signed contract, the City of Troy can impose water use restrictions on the Algonquin Middle School, and per the signed contract, the Algonquin Middle School can do nothing about those water restrictions, and we taxpayers of the Averill Park School District are supposed to be brain-dead enough to think that that is a good plan for the school district to adopt?
Are we really that stupid?
Or are we all supposed to be idiots and respect Greg Pattenaude and embrace that absurdity and stupidity as a great idea so we don't hurt Greg's feelings pursuant to an order or directive from our superior Tom Russell at the April 25, 2024 public hearing to not shoot Greg's absurd idea down?
Where the health and well-being of school children at the Algonquin School is at stake, should Greg Pattenaude's "feelings" trump facts that controvert the feelings of Mr. Pattenaude because Tom Russell says that is the right thing to do?
And what about all this supposedly well-regulated water from Troy that councilman Burzesi, NYSPE #070866, was talking about at 1:14:10 into the official record of the April 25, 2024 water district no. 2 public hearing at the Poestenkill fire house https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8r1X3GYZE8 ?
I have gone through the 21 October, 2008 Agreement and Contract by and between the Town of Poestenkill and the City of Troy from front to back and back to front with a fine-toothed comb, and NOWHERE in that contract do I find any promise by Troy to deliver "well-regulated" water to Poestenkill at any time, nor does that Agreement and Contract obligate Troy in any way to deliver well-regulated water to Poestenkill, and if we go to the 29 September, 2009 Agreement by and between the TOWN OF BRUNSWICK and the TOWN OF POESTENKILL to transport water to Poestenkill, we see from the following in that contract that councilman Burzesi, NYSPE #070866, is talking through his hat and talking like a fool when he says Troy will deliver Poestenkill "well-regulated" water to Poestenkill, to wit:
IT IS HEREBY AGREED by and between the parties hereto, pursuant to the authority of the Constitution of the State of New York and Article 5-C of the General Municipal Law of the State of New York, and in consideration of the services to be performed and the water to be transported by BRUNSWICK and the compensation to be paid by POESTENKILL, as follows:
1. In accordance with the terms of this Agreement, BRUNSWICK shall deliver water to POESTENKILL to the extent that TROY supplies water to BRUNSWICK, and subject to the limitations set forth in this paragraph, for the use of POESTENKILL pursuant to the supply agreement between TROY and POESTENKILL and also subject to any limitations of BRUNSWICK's infrastructure to deliver same.
POESTENKILL shall accept such water as it is chlorinated, treated and purified by TROY and BRUNSWICK.
In this regard, it is specifically acknowledged by POESTENKILL that it may have to chlorinate and/or otherwise treat the water received from BRUNSWICK in order to meet the requirements of the drinking water standards of the New York State Health Department (including especially those set forth in 10 NYCRR Part 5, Subpart 5-1 Public Water Systems) and the Rensselaer County Health Department.
end quotes
So, not only is that Troy water not "well-regulated," but it is not even treated in order to meet the requirements of the drinking water standards of the New York State Health Department (including especially those set forth in 10 NYCRR Part 5, Subpart 5-1 Public Water Systems) and the Rensselaer County Health Department, which means it is not even potable, limiting conditions which Poestenkill clearly accepted for itself and imposed on itself willingly and voluntarily when it executed that twenty-year contract and agreement with Brunswick on 29 September, 2009.
Which takes us to 1:08:36 of the Official Record where we have Tom Russell's trusted chief science and technology advisor Greg Pattenaude, also the chief propagandist for Eric Wohlleber's CCCDW speaking on the record as follows:
I'd like to reiterate two things that I said last May, one clean water is vital.
The January 2022 amendment to the state constitution says we as citizens of New York are entitled to clean water.
I believe that the proposed municipal water district does just that and just as the town board created a process to allow the creation of a water district no. 1 to ensure that residents in that district would have clean water, I believe the creation of water district no. 2 will and must do the same for those residents.
end quotes
Now, this being America where Greg's intellectual liberty is both protected and promoted, he can believe anything he wants to believe about Troy water, but should his "feelings" about the water being "clean" trump the plain facts about Troy water not being even potable, which limiting condition Poestenkill clearly accepted for itself and imposed on itself willingly and voluntarily when it executed that twenty-year contract and agreement with Brunswick on 29 September, 2009?
And how about former Poestenkill town supervisor Dominic Jacangelo @ 1:23:53 of the Official Record stating as follows:
Let me begin with saying generally I very much support this project.
I think municipal water service is the way to get consistent safe as it can be water to a residential community.
Nobody knows what goes on in their well day to day but in a municipal water system you're pretty well assured that what you're getting is as clean as it can be and I think that's very important.
end quotes
And Tom Russell @ 1:43:47 of the Official Record:
I've looked the report from Troy on what they do, how they um, their water is tested on a regular basis and it comes up satisfactory and clean.
end quote
In the light of the contract language in the 29 September, 2009 Agreement by and between the TOWN OF BRUNSWICK and the TOWN OF POESTENKILL to transport water to Poestenkill, where it was specifically acknowledged by and between the parties hereto, pursuant to the authority of the Constitution of the State of New York and Article 5-C of the General Municipal Law of the State of New York that POESTENKILL may have to chlorinate and/or otherwise treat the water received from BRUNSWICK in order to meet the requirements of the drinking water standards of the New York State Health Department (including especially those set forth in 10 NYCRR Part 5, Subpart 5-1 Public Water Systems) and the Rensselaer County Health Department, are either of them credible?
Think it over, as the referendum on the Pattenaude Plan to connect the Algonquin School to Troy water is rapidly approaching!
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
May 10th 2024 Supplemental Edition
"THE WATER DISTRICT NO 2 FLIM-FLAM – ANSWERS TO FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 IN POESTENKILL"
WHAT IS A REFERENDUM?
A REFERENDUM is a general vote by the electorate on a single political question that has been referred to them for a direct decision.
WHAT SINGLE POLITICAL QUESTION IS BEING PRESENTED TO THE ELECTORATE IN POESTENKILL IN THIS WATER DISTRICT NO.2 REFERENDUM?
As a land owner and taxpayer in Poestenkill, do you want your property to be included in a special taxing district known as water district no. 2 to be created in Poestenkill by the Poestenkill town board pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of New York?
WHAT IS A SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT?
Special districts are financed primarily by a special ad valorem levy or special assessment on taxable real property located within the district for municipal improvements or services especially beneficial to the particular real property being assessed and beyond benefits conferred by general taxation.
WHAT IS AN AD VALOREM LEVY?
An ad valorem tax is a tax derived from an assessed value, such as the value real estate or personal property, with a tax rate applied.
WHAT ARE THE MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS OR SERVICES ESPECIALLY BENEFICIAL TO THE REAL PROPERTY WITHIN WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 THAT ARE TO BE PROVIDED BY THE CREATION OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 2?
There will be a one-mile long water line laid along Rt. 66 to bring Troy city water easterly from the north-south water main of Poestenkill at Snyders Corners Road to the Algonquin School in Poestenkill near the intersection of Rt. 66 with Rt. 351.
WHY IS POESTENKILL RUNNING A ONE-MILE WATER LINE TO THE ALGONQUIN SCHOOL WHICH HAS ITS OWN WATER SUPPLY?
Because Poestenkill needs an excuse to tap into $5,277,567 in federal and state tax dollars, and creating an imaginary emergency at the Algonquin School is a sure-fire way for the town to tap those finds and create a windfall of riches for the Laberge Group and a source of graft and patronage for Poestenkill.
WHAT IS GRAFT?
Graft, in its simplest form, refers to the exploitation of one's official position or influence for personal gain, especially financial.
It’s a form of political corruption that can manifest in various ways that range from bribery to embezzlement.
For example, an official could divert funds from a public works project to a private entity, maybe one owned by a friend or relative, or perhaps grant a contract in exchange for a bribe or kickback.
This agreement would result in enriching both parties, and that could come at the expense of the project.
The essence of graft lies in the betrayal of public trust and the subversion of established rules for personal enrichment.
Although it is often tied to other white collar crimes like embezzlement and influence peddling, graft means, by definition, to corruptly use one’s power or influence for personal gain.
WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF GRAFT ON THE POLITICAL PROCESS IN POESTENKILL?
Graft has a profoundly corrosive effect on the political system in Poestenkill.
It undermines democracy in Poestenkill by prioritizing private gain over public interest, erodes public trust in government institutions, and diverts resources from critical public services to the pockets of corrupt officials.
This type of systemic rot can stifle economic growth, exacerbate social inequalities, and create a climate of cynicism and disenchantment among voters.
HOW MUCH WILL IT COST THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 FOR THAT ONE MILE OF WATER PIPE?
In total $5,550,000.
WHY DOES IT COST $5,550,000 TO LAY ONE MILE OF WATER PIPE ALONG RT. 66 IN POESTENKILL?
Because that is what the people of Poestenkill are willing to pay for it.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
May 10th 2024 Supplemental Edition
"THE WATER DISTRICT NO 2 FLIM-FLAM – ANSWERS TO FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 IN POESTENKILL"
WHAT IS A REFERENDUM?
A REFERENDUM is a general vote by the electorate on a single political question that has been referred to them for a direct decision.
WHAT SINGLE POLITICAL QUESTION IS BEING PRESENTED TO THE ELECTORATE IN POESTENKILL IN THIS WATER DISTRICT NO.2 REFERENDUM?
As a land owner and taxpayer in Poestenkill, do you want your property to be included in a special taxing district known as water district no. 2 to be created in Poestenkill by the Poestenkill town board pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of New York?
WHAT IS A SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT?
Special districts are financed primarily by a special ad valorem levy or special assessment on taxable real property located within the district for municipal improvements or services especially beneficial to the particular real property being assessed and beyond benefits conferred by general taxation.
WHAT IS AN AD VALOREM LEVY?
An ad valorem tax is a tax derived from an assessed value, such as the value real estate or personal property, with a tax rate applied.
WHAT ARE THE MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS OR SERVICES ESPECIALLY BENEFICIAL TO THE REAL PROPERTY WITHIN WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 THAT ARE TO BE PROVIDED BY THE CREATION OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 2?
There will be a one-mile long water line laid along Rt. 66 to bring Troy city water easterly from the north-south water main of Poestenkill at Snyders Corners Road to the Algonquin School in Poestenkill near the intersection of Rt. 66 with Rt. 351.
WHY IS POESTENKILL RUNNING A ONE-MILE WATER LINE TO THE ALGONQUIN SCHOOL WHICH HAS ITS OWN WATER SUPPLY?
Because Poestenkill needs an excuse to tap into $5,277,567 in federal and state tax dollars, and creating an imaginary emergency at the Algonquin School is a sure-fire way for the town to tap those finds and create a windfall of riches for the Laberge Group and a source of graft and patronage for Poestenkill.
WHAT IS GRAFT?
Graft, in its simplest form, refers to the exploitation of one's official position or influence for personal gain, especially financial.
It’s a form of political corruption that can manifest in various ways that range from bribery to embezzlement.
For example, an official could divert funds from a public works project to a private entity, maybe one owned by a friend or relative, or perhaps grant a contract in exchange for a bribe or kickback.
This agreement would result in enriching both parties, and that could come at the expense of the project.
The essence of graft lies in the betrayal of public trust and the subversion of established rules for personal enrichment.
Although it is often tied to other white collar crimes like embezzlement and influence peddling, graft means, by definition, to corruptly use one’s power or influence for personal gain.
WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF GRAFT ON THE POLITICAL PROCESS IN POESTENKILL?
Graft has a profoundly corrosive effect on the political system in Poestenkill.
It undermines democracy in Poestenkill by prioritizing private gain over public interest, erodes public trust in government institutions, and diverts resources from critical public services to the pockets of corrupt officials.
This type of systemic rot can stifle economic growth, exacerbate social inequalities, and create a climate of cynicism and disenchantment among voters.
HOW MUCH WILL IT COST THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 FOR THAT ONE MILE OF WATER PIPE?
In total $5,550,000.
WHY DOES IT COST $5,550,000 TO LAY ONE MILE OF WATER PIPE ALONG RT. 66 IN POESTENKILL?
Because that is what the people of Poestenkill are willing to pay for it.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
May 11th 2024 Edition
"THE WATER DISTRICT NO 2 FLIM-FLAM – CONTINUATION OF ANSWERS TO FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 IN POESTENKILL"
FAQs FROM THE OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OR EXTENSION OF TOWN SPECIAL DISTRICTS CONCERNING REQUIRED DETERMINATIONS AND METHODS OF ASSESSMENT
Q After the town board holds a public hearing upon proper notice and considers the evidence presented at the hearing concerning the proposed district establishment or extension, what generally is the next step if the town board wishes to establish the district or extension?
A The board would adopt a resolution making four determinations.
The specific determinations vary depending on whether the district or extension is being established upon petition of property owners (Town Law Article 12) or board motion subject to permissive referendum requirements (Town Law Article 12-A; see also Town Law Article 7).
In the case of a district or extension on board motion (Town Law Article 12-A), the resolution must contain determinations of the town board that
(1) the notice of hearing was published and posted as required by law and is otherwise sufficient (Town Law § 209-e[1][a]) and
[2] the establishment or extension of the proposed district is in the “public interest” (Town Law § 209-e[1][d]).
In addition, the town board must also make the following determinations under both Article 12 and 12-A proceedings:
* That all property and property owners within the proposed district or extension are benefited by the district or extension; and
* That all the property and property owners that are benefited by the proposed district or extension are included within the limits of the district or extension.
Pursuant to Town Law (§§ 193, 209-d), notice of the public hearing must be provided by posting on the signboard of the town and by publishing in the town’s official newspaper.
Additional forms of notice may also be provided, such as posting on the town’s website (see Town Law § 193[1][a]).
Q May the expenses for any district or extension be raised on either a benefit or ad valorem basis?
A Town Law § 202 contains provisions relative to assessments for the capital costs of town districts.
Assessments for water quality treatment districts always must be “in just proportion to the amount of benefit which the improvement shall confer upon” the lot or parcel (i.e., a benefit basis; Town Law § 202[2]; see also Real Property Tax Law § 102[15]).
In the case of water supply, water storage and distribution, assessments always must be “in the same manner and at the same time as other town charges” (i.e., an ad valorem basis; Town Law § 202[3]; see also Real Property Law § 102[14]).
Water districts may be assessed either on a benefit basis or an ad valorem basis, depending upon the notice of hearing in the case of an Article 12-A district or extension (Town Law § 202[3]).
For these types of districts, if the notice of hearing provides that the costs of the improvement will be assessed on a benefit basis, then the district will be on a benefit basis; otherwise, the district will be assessed on an ad valorem basis.
With limited exceptions, once a determination has been made to finance a district on an ad valorem or benefit basis, the manner of assessment for the district may not be changed (Town Law § 202[4]; 1986 Ops St Comp No. 86-88, at 135).
Any extensions to a district must be charged on the same basis (benefit or ad valorem) as the original district (Town Law § 202[5]).
The expenses of operation and maintenance of a district, if raised by assessments, also must be raised on the same basis as the capital costs of the improvement (Town Law § 202-a).
Q Are hook-up fees for a town water or sewer district included in the estimate for the “cost to the typical property?”
A No.
“Cost” for this purpose does not include hook-up fees, which are not recurring charges imposed to fund the district or extension.
In general, hook-up charges are the responsibility of the owner of each property connecting to the system.
A town may use its employees to connect a property to the water or sewer system and charge the property owner for the cost of these services (Town Law §§ 198[1][h],198[3][a]).
The service line for water from the curb to the house is generally installed by a private contractor at the owner’s expense.
Note that the notice of hearing published by the town in advance of establishing or extending the district must separately list the estimated costs of any hook-up fees, in addition to, among other things, the cost of the district or extension to the typical property (Town Law § 193[1][a], 209-d[1]).
Q Can hook-up fees be used to generate revenue for town district improvements or operations?
A No.
Towns are authorized to impose one time hook-up fees in certain circumstances for connections to town water districts (Town Law §§ 198[1][h]; 198[3][a]).
These onetime fees, however, are limited to costs incurred by the town with respect to the connections of users to the water or sewer system and may not be used to otherwise defray costs of capital improvements or operations of the district.
Q How does a town finance operating costs of a newly-formed district before assessments are levied and collected on behalf of the district?
A Local Finance Law § 24.00 generally provides that in the case of a newly established improvement district, a town may issue tax anticipation notes for the “necessary expenses incidental to the creation of such district” and “the other necessary expenses incurred or to be incurred for” the district prior to the first levy of assessments (Local Finance Law § 24.00[d][2]).
An appropriation to redeem the notes must be included in the first levy of assessments for the district (Local Finance Law § 24.00[d][3]).
The notes must mature within one year from the date of their issuance, and while the notes may be renewed, each renewal shall be for a period not exceeding one year, and the notes must be repaid within the close of the second fiscal year succeeding the fiscal year in which the notes were issued (Local Finance Law § 24.00[d][3]).
Note that when the only indebtedness proposed in connection with the establishment of a town district is tax anticipation notes, the Comptroller’s approval is not required (3 Ops State Comp No. 1990, at 125 [1947]).
In addition, for water districts, towns are authorized to impose fees upon users of the service in accordance with proper procedures (see, e.g. General Municipal Law Article 14-F; Town Law §§198[3][d], [9]).
Revenues generated by user fees may fund operating costs of a newly-formed district before assessments are levied and collected.
Q May a town supersede the provisions of Articles 12 and 12-A of Town Law by adopting an inconsistent local law?
A No.
Articles 12 and 12-A of Town Law establish a comprehensive legislative scheme evincing an intent to pre-empt local laws relating to the establishment, financing and operation of town improvement districts.
In addition, although Municipal Home Rule Law authorizes towns to adopt local laws that supersede, in certain respects, provisions of Town Law (Municipal Home Rule Law § 10[1][ii][d]), there is an express restriction on this home rule authority with respect to provisions relating to a “special or improvement district” (Municipal Home Rule Law § 10[1][ii][d][3]).
Q A town has established a district and constructed improvements in accordance with the district map, plan and report.
The town later needs to make additional improvements or repairs.
Does the town need the Comptroller’s approval before undertaking the additional improvements or repairs?
A Generally no, even where debt will be issued (Town Law § 202-b[3]).
Town Law § 202-b provides for increases and improvements of district facilities, upon notice and after a public hearing.
A town board on behalf of water districts may (1) acquire or construct additional facilities and appurtenances, (2) improve or reconstruct existing facilities and appurtenances, (3) replace obsolete, inadequate, damaged, destroyed or worn out apparatus and equipment, and (4) acquire additional apparatus and equipment without seeking Comptroller approval (Town Law § 202-b[1] and [3]).
Q What kinds of resolutions relating to town districts must be filed with the State Comptroller in connection with special districts?
A A certified copy of any resolution to establish, extend, dissolve or diminish any district or consolidate districts, adopted pursuant to articles 12 or 12-A of the Town Law or article 17-A of the General Municipal Law, is required to be filed with the State Comptroller within ten days after adoption (Town Law §§ 195[1], 209-g[1]).
In addition, a certified copy of the notice of hearing on the establishment or extension of a district, when debt will be issued but the district or extension is below the cost threshold that would require the Comptroller’s approval, must be filed with the Comptroller on or about the date of publication of the notice (Town Law §§ 193[1], 209-d[2][a]).
Filings should be addressed to the Division of Legal Services, 14th Floor, 110 State Street, Albany, NY 12236.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
May 11th 2024 Edition
"THE WATER DISTRICT NO 2 FLIM-FLAM – CONTINUATION OF ANSWERS TO FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 IN POESTENKILL"
FAQs FROM THE OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OR EXTENSION OF TOWN SPECIAL DISTRICTS CONCERNING REQUIRED DETERMINATIONS AND METHODS OF ASSESSMENT
Q After the town board holds a public hearing upon proper notice and considers the evidence presented at the hearing concerning the proposed district establishment or extension, what generally is the next step if the town board wishes to establish the district or extension?
A The board would adopt a resolution making four determinations.
The specific determinations vary depending on whether the district or extension is being established upon petition of property owners (Town Law Article 12) or board motion subject to permissive referendum requirements (Town Law Article 12-A; see also Town Law Article 7).
In the case of a district or extension on board motion (Town Law Article 12-A), the resolution must contain determinations of the town board that
(1) the notice of hearing was published and posted as required by law and is otherwise sufficient (Town Law § 209-e[1][a]) and
[2] the establishment or extension of the proposed district is in the “public interest” (Town Law § 209-e[1][d]).
In addition, the town board must also make the following determinations under both Article 12 and 12-A proceedings:
* That all property and property owners within the proposed district or extension are benefited by the district or extension; and
* That all the property and property owners that are benefited by the proposed district or extension are included within the limits of the district or extension.
Pursuant to Town Law (§§ 193, 209-d), notice of the public hearing must be provided by posting on the signboard of the town and by publishing in the town’s official newspaper.
Additional forms of notice may also be provided, such as posting on the town’s website (see Town Law § 193[1][a]).
Q May the expenses for any district or extension be raised on either a benefit or ad valorem basis?
A Town Law § 202 contains provisions relative to assessments for the capital costs of town districts.
Assessments for water quality treatment districts always must be “in just proportion to the amount of benefit which the improvement shall confer upon” the lot or parcel (i.e., a benefit basis; Town Law § 202[2]; see also Real Property Tax Law § 102[15]).
In the case of water supply, water storage and distribution, assessments always must be “in the same manner and at the same time as other town charges” (i.e., an ad valorem basis; Town Law § 202[3]; see also Real Property Law § 102[14]).
Water districts may be assessed either on a benefit basis or an ad valorem basis, depending upon the notice of hearing in the case of an Article 12-A district or extension (Town Law § 202[3]).
For these types of districts, if the notice of hearing provides that the costs of the improvement will be assessed on a benefit basis, then the district will be on a benefit basis; otherwise, the district will be assessed on an ad valorem basis.
With limited exceptions, once a determination has been made to finance a district on an ad valorem or benefit basis, the manner of assessment for the district may not be changed (Town Law § 202[4]; 1986 Ops St Comp No. 86-88, at 135).
Any extensions to a district must be charged on the same basis (benefit or ad valorem) as the original district (Town Law § 202[5]).
The expenses of operation and maintenance of a district, if raised by assessments, also must be raised on the same basis as the capital costs of the improvement (Town Law § 202-a).
Q Are hook-up fees for a town water or sewer district included in the estimate for the “cost to the typical property?”
A No.
“Cost” for this purpose does not include hook-up fees, which are not recurring charges imposed to fund the district or extension.
In general, hook-up charges are the responsibility of the owner of each property connecting to the system.
A town may use its employees to connect a property to the water or sewer system and charge the property owner for the cost of these services (Town Law §§ 198[1][h],198[3][a]).
The service line for water from the curb to the house is generally installed by a private contractor at the owner’s expense.
Note that the notice of hearing published by the town in advance of establishing or extending the district must separately list the estimated costs of any hook-up fees, in addition to, among other things, the cost of the district or extension to the typical property (Town Law § 193[1][a], 209-d[1]).
Q Can hook-up fees be used to generate revenue for town district improvements or operations?
A No.
Towns are authorized to impose one time hook-up fees in certain circumstances for connections to town water districts (Town Law §§ 198[1][h]; 198[3][a]).
These onetime fees, however, are limited to costs incurred by the town with respect to the connections of users to the water or sewer system and may not be used to otherwise defray costs of capital improvements or operations of the district.
Q How does a town finance operating costs of a newly-formed district before assessments are levied and collected on behalf of the district?
A Local Finance Law § 24.00 generally provides that in the case of a newly established improvement district, a town may issue tax anticipation notes for the “necessary expenses incidental to the creation of such district” and “the other necessary expenses incurred or to be incurred for” the district prior to the first levy of assessments (Local Finance Law § 24.00[d][2]).
An appropriation to redeem the notes must be included in the first levy of assessments for the district (Local Finance Law § 24.00[d][3]).
The notes must mature within one year from the date of their issuance, and while the notes may be renewed, each renewal shall be for a period not exceeding one year, and the notes must be repaid within the close of the second fiscal year succeeding the fiscal year in which the notes were issued (Local Finance Law § 24.00[d][3]).
Note that when the only indebtedness proposed in connection with the establishment of a town district is tax anticipation notes, the Comptroller’s approval is not required (3 Ops State Comp No. 1990, at 125 [1947]).
In addition, for water districts, towns are authorized to impose fees upon users of the service in accordance with proper procedures (see, e.g. General Municipal Law Article 14-F; Town Law §§198[3][d], [9]).
Revenues generated by user fees may fund operating costs of a newly-formed district before assessments are levied and collected.
Q May a town supersede the provisions of Articles 12 and 12-A of Town Law by adopting an inconsistent local law?
A No.
Articles 12 and 12-A of Town Law establish a comprehensive legislative scheme evincing an intent to pre-empt local laws relating to the establishment, financing and operation of town improvement districts.
In addition, although Municipal Home Rule Law authorizes towns to adopt local laws that supersede, in certain respects, provisions of Town Law (Municipal Home Rule Law § 10[1][ii][d]), there is an express restriction on this home rule authority with respect to provisions relating to a “special or improvement district” (Municipal Home Rule Law § 10[1][ii][d][3]).
Q A town has established a district and constructed improvements in accordance with the district map, plan and report.
The town later needs to make additional improvements or repairs.
Does the town need the Comptroller’s approval before undertaking the additional improvements or repairs?
A Generally no, even where debt will be issued (Town Law § 202-b[3]).
Town Law § 202-b provides for increases and improvements of district facilities, upon notice and after a public hearing.
A town board on behalf of water districts may (1) acquire or construct additional facilities and appurtenances, (2) improve or reconstruct existing facilities and appurtenances, (3) replace obsolete, inadequate, damaged, destroyed or worn out apparatus and equipment, and (4) acquire additional apparatus and equipment without seeking Comptroller approval (Town Law § 202-b[1] and [3]).
Q What kinds of resolutions relating to town districts must be filed with the State Comptroller in connection with special districts?
A A certified copy of any resolution to establish, extend, dissolve or diminish any district or consolidate districts, adopted pursuant to articles 12 or 12-A of the Town Law or article 17-A of the General Municipal Law, is required to be filed with the State Comptroller within ten days after adoption (Town Law §§ 195[1], 209-g[1]).
In addition, a certified copy of the notice of hearing on the establishment or extension of a district, when debt will be issued but the district or extension is below the cost threshold that would require the Comptroller’s approval, must be filed with the Comptroller on or about the date of publication of the notice (Town Law §§ 193[1], 209-d[2][a]).
Filings should be addressed to the Division of Legal Services, 14th Floor, 110 State Street, Albany, NY 12236.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
May 13th 2024 Edition
"THE WATER DISTRICT NO 2 FLIM-FLAM – CONTINUATION OF ANSWERS TO FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 IN POESTENKILL"
IS THE PUBLIC HEARING ON WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 IN POESTENKILL WHERE THE TOWN BOARD IS TO HEAR ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE FORMATION OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 AND TO TAKE EVIDENCE THE SAME AS THE REFERENDUM?
No, and that is an important question.
While both are part of New York State Town Law Article 12-A, they are separate steps of the process governed by two separate sections of law.
The public hearing is governed by § 209-d of Article 12-A wherein is stated that subsequent to the date of the filing of the map, plans and report in the office of the town clerk, the town board may adopt an order and enter the same in the minutes of its proceedings stating the fact that a map, plan and report describing the same are on file in the town clerk's office for public inspection and specifying the time when and the place where said board will meet and hold a public hearing to hear all persons interested in the subject thereof, concerning the same.
§ 209-e of Article 12-A then states that after the hearing held upon notice and upon the evidence given thereat, the town board shall determine by resolution whether the notice of hearing was published and posted as required by law, and is otherwise sufficient; whether all the property and property owners within the proposed district or extension are benefited thereby; whether all the property and property owners benefited are included within the limits of the proposed district or extension; and whether the establishment or extension of such district is in the public interest.
Sub-section 3 of § 209-e of Article 12-A then provides that if and when the town board shall determine in the affirmative all of the questions set forth in subdivision one of this section, the board may adopt a resolution approving the establishment of the district, which resolution shall be subject to a permissive referendum in the manner provided in Article seven of this chapter and the proposition submitted must be approved by the affirmative vote of a majority of the owners of taxable real property situate in the proposed district voting on such proposition.
IN THE CASE OF PROPOSED WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 IN POESTENKILL, WHEN WERE THE MAP, PLAN AND REPORT FILED WITH THE POESTENKILL TOWN CLERK?
In August of 2022.
IN THE CASE OF PROPOSED WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 IN POESTENKILL, WHEN WAS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO HEAR EVIDENCE HELD?
There has been no such public hearing in Poestenkill.
IF NO SUCH PUBLIC HEARING ON EVIDENCE HAS BEEN HELD, THEN HOW CAN THERE BE A REFERENDUM?
The answer to that question is that despite any laws to the contrary which in any event cannot be enforced against the supervisor anyway, supervisor Russell has made it clear on the record at the 25 April 2024 information meeting on water district no. 2 that approval of the district should be based on feelings, and since he feels it is the right thing to do, he has unilaterally decreed that there will be a referendum, and since his unilateral decree cannot be challenged, that makes the feelings of supervisor Russell the law of the land in Poestenkill as opposed to the statutory language of the written law, itself, and thus, legal or not, there will be a referendum.
WHAT THEN IS THE PROPOSITION BEING PUT FORTH BY THE TOWN OF POESTENKILL THAT IS TO BE THE SUBJECT OF THE REFERENDUM?
Shall there be formed in the Town of Poestenkill pursuant to Article 12-A of New York State Town Law a special taxing district to be known as "Poestenkill Water District No. 2," which special taxing district upon formation shall have the uncontestable right in its first year of formation pursuant to New York State Town Law § 209-b to levy as a special assessment on each property in the district so formed a LUMP SUM PAYMENT of approximately SIX THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY-SEVEN DOLLARS ($6977.27) to reimburse the Town of Poestenkill for its costs in forming water district no. 2?
WHERE IS THAT NUMBER COMING FROM AND HOW COME THAT LUMP SUM PAYMENT ABOVE AND BEYOND THE OTHER DISTRICT COSTS INCLUDING HOOK-UP HASN'T BEEN DISCLOSED AT ANY PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING ON WATER DISTRICT NO. 2?
That number comes from all of the information sheets handed out by the town and displayed as PowerPoint slides at the public information meetings where the BILL FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES due Laberge is clearly laid out and totals $767,500 for the following professional services of Laberge in connection with the formation of water district no. 2: geotechnical, legal/administrative, survey and mapping, environmental, engineering and construction observation, which number is then divided by 110, the number of parcels placed within the arbitrary boundaries of water district no. 2 by Poestenkill town supervisor Tom Russell and the Poestenkill town board.
§ 209-b of Article 12-A of New York State Town Law, titled "Appropriation for preparation of maps, plans and reports," clearly states that if the town board shall establish such district and construct the improvements or contract for the required services pursuant to the provisions of this article, the expense incurred by the town for the preparation of the maps, plans and reports therefor shall be deemed to be part of the cost of such improvement, or the rendering of such services, and the town shall be reimbursed in the amount paid therefor, or such portion of that amount which the town board, at the public hearing held pursuant to section two hundred nine-d of this article, shall allocate against such district.
Thus are the 110 property owners within the boundaries of water district no. 2 made financially responsible for the engineering costs agreed to by the town board of Poestenkill and now due Laberge for professional services rendered, and this should come as no surprise to anyone in Poestenkill who is going to be hit with this lump sum reimbursement payment to the Poestenkill town board because @ 28.13 of the official record https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=hNSIBx_mvMI of the May 11, 2023 hearing on water district no. 2, a speaker at the podium can clearly be heard to say, "another cost Laberge neglected, if you look at Town Law, if the district is formed, not only are we responsible for all the stuff he (Laberge) said but then the cost of engineering shifts over to us, the people in that district, so then we got to reimburse the town board and it's in the law if anyone wants to check Article 12-A of Town Law."
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
May 13th 2024 Edition
"THE WATER DISTRICT NO 2 FLIM-FLAM – CONTINUATION OF ANSWERS TO FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 IN POESTENKILL"
IS THE PUBLIC HEARING ON WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 IN POESTENKILL WHERE THE TOWN BOARD IS TO HEAR ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE FORMATION OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 AND TO TAKE EVIDENCE THE SAME AS THE REFERENDUM?
No, and that is an important question.
While both are part of New York State Town Law Article 12-A, they are separate steps of the process governed by two separate sections of law.
The public hearing is governed by § 209-d of Article 12-A wherein is stated that subsequent to the date of the filing of the map, plans and report in the office of the town clerk, the town board may adopt an order and enter the same in the minutes of its proceedings stating the fact that a map, plan and report describing the same are on file in the town clerk's office for public inspection and specifying the time when and the place where said board will meet and hold a public hearing to hear all persons interested in the subject thereof, concerning the same.
§ 209-e of Article 12-A then states that after the hearing held upon notice and upon the evidence given thereat, the town board shall determine by resolution whether the notice of hearing was published and posted as required by law, and is otherwise sufficient; whether all the property and property owners within the proposed district or extension are benefited thereby; whether all the property and property owners benefited are included within the limits of the proposed district or extension; and whether the establishment or extension of such district is in the public interest.
Sub-section 3 of § 209-e of Article 12-A then provides that if and when the town board shall determine in the affirmative all of the questions set forth in subdivision one of this section, the board may adopt a resolution approving the establishment of the district, which resolution shall be subject to a permissive referendum in the manner provided in Article seven of this chapter and the proposition submitted must be approved by the affirmative vote of a majority of the owners of taxable real property situate in the proposed district voting on such proposition.
IN THE CASE OF PROPOSED WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 IN POESTENKILL, WHEN WERE THE MAP, PLAN AND REPORT FILED WITH THE POESTENKILL TOWN CLERK?
In August of 2022.
IN THE CASE OF PROPOSED WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 IN POESTENKILL, WHEN WAS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO HEAR EVIDENCE HELD?
There has been no such public hearing in Poestenkill.
IF NO SUCH PUBLIC HEARING ON EVIDENCE HAS BEEN HELD, THEN HOW CAN THERE BE A REFERENDUM?
The answer to that question is that despite any laws to the contrary which in any event cannot be enforced against the supervisor anyway, supervisor Russell has made it clear on the record at the 25 April 2024 information meeting on water district no. 2 that approval of the district should be based on feelings, and since he feels it is the right thing to do, he has unilaterally decreed that there will be a referendum, and since his unilateral decree cannot be challenged, that makes the feelings of supervisor Russell the law of the land in Poestenkill as opposed to the statutory language of the written law, itself, and thus, legal or not, there will be a referendum.
WHAT THEN IS THE PROPOSITION BEING PUT FORTH BY THE TOWN OF POESTENKILL THAT IS TO BE THE SUBJECT OF THE REFERENDUM?
Shall there be formed in the Town of Poestenkill pursuant to Article 12-A of New York State Town Law a special taxing district to be known as "Poestenkill Water District No. 2," which special taxing district upon formation shall have the uncontestable right in its first year of formation pursuant to New York State Town Law § 209-b to levy as a special assessment on each property in the district so formed a LUMP SUM PAYMENT of approximately SIX THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY-SEVEN DOLLARS ($6977.27) to reimburse the Town of Poestenkill for its costs in forming water district no. 2?
WHERE IS THAT NUMBER COMING FROM AND HOW COME THAT LUMP SUM PAYMENT ABOVE AND BEYOND THE OTHER DISTRICT COSTS INCLUDING HOOK-UP HASN'T BEEN DISCLOSED AT ANY PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING ON WATER DISTRICT NO. 2?
That number comes from all of the information sheets handed out by the town and displayed as PowerPoint slides at the public information meetings where the BILL FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES due Laberge is clearly laid out and totals $767,500 for the following professional services of Laberge in connection with the formation of water district no. 2: geotechnical, legal/administrative, survey and mapping, environmental, engineering and construction observation, which number is then divided by 110, the number of parcels placed within the arbitrary boundaries of water district no. 2 by Poestenkill town supervisor Tom Russell and the Poestenkill town board.
§ 209-b of Article 12-A of New York State Town Law, titled "Appropriation for preparation of maps, plans and reports," clearly states that if the town board shall establish such district and construct the improvements or contract for the required services pursuant to the provisions of this article, the expense incurred by the town for the preparation of the maps, plans and reports therefor shall be deemed to be part of the cost of such improvement, or the rendering of such services, and the town shall be reimbursed in the amount paid therefor, or such portion of that amount which the town board, at the public hearing held pursuant to section two hundred nine-d of this article, shall allocate against such district.
Thus are the 110 property owners within the boundaries of water district no. 2 made financially responsible for the engineering costs agreed to by the town board of Poestenkill and now due Laberge for professional services rendered, and this should come as no surprise to anyone in Poestenkill who is going to be hit with this lump sum reimbursement payment to the Poestenkill town board because @ 28.13 of the official record https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=hNSIBx_mvMI of the May 11, 2023 hearing on water district no. 2, a speaker at the podium can clearly be heard to say, "another cost Laberge neglected, if you look at Town Law, if the district is formed, not only are we responsible for all the stuff he (Laberge) said but then the cost of engineering shifts over to us, the people in that district, so then we got to reimburse the town board and it's in the law if anyone wants to check Article 12-A of Town Law."
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: THE PAUL PLANTE STORY
POESTENKILL CLARION, CHRONICLE & GAZETTE
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
May 14th 2024 Edition
"THE WATER DISTRICT NO 2 FLIM-FLAM – CONTINUATION OF ANSWERS TO FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 IN POESTENKILL"
ISN'T THE REFERENDUM ABOUT SIMPLY EXTENDING A PIPE FROM SNYDERS CORNERS ROAD TO ALGONQUIN SCHOOL SO AS TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR THE POESTENKILL MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM TO PROVIDE THE ALGONQUIN MIDDLE SCHOOL WITH MUNICIPAL WATER FROM POESTENKILL?
No, and that is another important question, as it remains a source of confusion today in Poestenkill as to exactly what it is we are voting for in the referendum versus what we are not voting for, which is infrastructure.
This referendum is NOT about laying a pipe to anywhere.
The referendum is about whether or not a special taxing district to be known as "Poestenkill water district no. 2 should be formed."
If formed, not only is that water district a special taxing district able to levy assessments on each property within the district, but that district is also in complete charge of the water delivered to each property in the district, which governing body has the uncontestable right to restrict water usage based either on its own determination, or because by contract between Poestenkill and Troy, the City of Troy has imposed on water restriction on its customers and mandates that Poestenkill do the same.
The referendum is governed by the statutory provisions of sub-section 3 of § 209-e of Article 12-A of New York State Town Law which provides in clear and unequivocal statutory language binding on the people of Poestenkill and the town board and supervisor of Poestenkill that if and when the town board shall determine in the affirmative all of the questions set forth in subdivision one of this section, the board may adopt a resolution approving the establishment of the district, which resolution shall be subject to a permissive referendum in the manner provided in Article seven of this chapter and the proposition submitted must be approved by the affirmative vote of a majority of the owners of taxable real property situate in the proposed district voting on such proposition.
The four questions set forth in subdivision one of § 209-e of Article 12-A that the town board of Poestenkill must answer in the affirmative after a hearing held upon notice and upon the evidence given thereat BEFORE there can be a referendum are as follows:
* whether the notice of hearing was published and posted as required by law, and is otherwise sufficient;
* whether all the property and property owners within the proposed district or extension are benefited thereby;
* whether all the property and property owners benefited are included within the limits of the proposed district or extension; and
* whether the establishment or extension of such district is in the public interest.
Only AFTER those four question have been answered in the affirmative by the Poestenkill town board can there be a referendum, and the key statutory language in sub-section 3 of § 209-e of Article 12-A of New York State Town Law is as follows: "the board may adopt a resolution approving the establishment of the district, which resolution shall be subject to a permissive referendum ..."
So it is clearly the town board resolution approving the establishment of the district which shall be subject to the referendum, not any infrastructure within the district, if formed, which infrastructure cannot come until after the district is established and formed.
WHERE THE NOTICE OF HEARING FOR WATER DISTRICT NO.2 PUBLISHED BY THE TOWN OF POESTENKILL IN ADVANCE OF ESTABLISHING WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 DID NOT SEPARATELY LIST THE ESTIMATED COSTS OF ANY HOOK-UP FEES, DOES THAT MAKE THE HEARING NOTICE DEFECTIVE AND THEREFORE INSUFFICIENT?
Where New York State Town Law § 193[1][a] and § 209-d require that the notice of hearing published by the town in advance of establishing Poestenkill water district no. 2 must separately list the estimated costs of any hook-up fees, and where the town of Poestenkill has failed to detail such costs in its notice of hearing, then the notice of hearing is clearly not sufficient, although it is expected that Poestenkill will claim that it is.
§ 209-d of Article 12-A of New York State Town Law states in clear and unequivocal statutory language binding on the town of Poestenkill that subsequent to the date of the filing of the map, plans and report in the office of the town clerk as required in section two hundred nine-c of this article, the town board may adopt an order and enter the same in the minutes of its proceedings reciting a description of the boundaries of the proposed district in a manner sufficient to identify the lands included therein as in a deed of conveyance, the improvements proposed, the maximum amount proposed to be expended for the improvement, the estimated cost of hook-up fees, if any, to, and the cost of the district or extension to, the typical property and, if different, the typical one or two family home, the proposed method of financing to be employed, the fact that a map, plan and report describing the same are on file in the town clerk's office for public inspection and specifying the time when and the place where said board will meet and hold a public hearing to hear all persons interested in the subject thereof, concerning the same.
The board shall cause a copy of such order to be published at least once in the official paper, the first publication thereof to be not less than ten nor more than twenty days before the day set therein for the hearing as aforesaid, and shall also cause a copy thereof to be posted on the sign-board of the town maintained pursuant to subdivision six of section thirty of this chapter, not less than ten nor more than twenty days before the day designated for the hearing as aforesaid.
If a water district is proposed, such order may contain a statement that the cost of constructing the water system shall be assessed by the town board in proportion as nearly as may be to the benefit which each lot or parcel will derive therefrom.
Prior to the publication of the order, the board shall cause to be prepared, and file for public inspection with the town clerk, a detailed explanation of how the estimated cost of hook-up fees, if any, to, and the cost of the district or extension to, the typical property and, if different, the typical one or two family home, was computed.
If that has not been done, as is the case herein in Poestenkill with regard to the public hearing notice for water district no. 2, then by definition, the hearing notice is defective, and by being defective, the hearing notice is not sufficient.
WHERE THE CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL STATUTORY LANGUAGE OF § 209-d OF ARTICLE 12-A OF THE NEW YORK STATE TOWN LAW STATES THE TOWN BOARD MAY ADOPT AN ORDER AND ENTER THE SAME IN THE MINUTES OF ITS PROCEEDINGS RECITING A DESCRIPTION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPOSED DISTRICT IN A MANNER SUFFICIENT TO IDENTIFY THE LANDS INCLUDED THEREIN AS IN A DEED OF CONVEYANCE, HAS THAT BEEN DONE IN THE CASE OF PROPOSED POESTENKILL WATER DISTRICT NO. 2?
There is no record of a description of the boundaries of proposed Poestenkill water district no. 2 being recited in a manner sufficient to identify the lands included therein as in a deed of conveyance.
The map shown by Poestenkill as proposed water district no. 2 has no metes and bounds description or any other identification for that matter, such as a title block in the lower right hand corner.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Dedicated to the protection and preservation of intellectual liberty in Poestenkill
May 14th 2024 Edition
"THE WATER DISTRICT NO 2 FLIM-FLAM – CONTINUATION OF ANSWERS TO FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 IN POESTENKILL"
ISN'T THE REFERENDUM ABOUT SIMPLY EXTENDING A PIPE FROM SNYDERS CORNERS ROAD TO ALGONQUIN SCHOOL SO AS TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR THE POESTENKILL MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM TO PROVIDE THE ALGONQUIN MIDDLE SCHOOL WITH MUNICIPAL WATER FROM POESTENKILL?
No, and that is another important question, as it remains a source of confusion today in Poestenkill as to exactly what it is we are voting for in the referendum versus what we are not voting for, which is infrastructure.
This referendum is NOT about laying a pipe to anywhere.
The referendum is about whether or not a special taxing district to be known as "Poestenkill water district no. 2 should be formed."
If formed, not only is that water district a special taxing district able to levy assessments on each property within the district, but that district is also in complete charge of the water delivered to each property in the district, which governing body has the uncontestable right to restrict water usage based either on its own determination, or because by contract between Poestenkill and Troy, the City of Troy has imposed on water restriction on its customers and mandates that Poestenkill do the same.
The referendum is governed by the statutory provisions of sub-section 3 of § 209-e of Article 12-A of New York State Town Law which provides in clear and unequivocal statutory language binding on the people of Poestenkill and the town board and supervisor of Poestenkill that if and when the town board shall determine in the affirmative all of the questions set forth in subdivision one of this section, the board may adopt a resolution approving the establishment of the district, which resolution shall be subject to a permissive referendum in the manner provided in Article seven of this chapter and the proposition submitted must be approved by the affirmative vote of a majority of the owners of taxable real property situate in the proposed district voting on such proposition.
The four questions set forth in subdivision one of § 209-e of Article 12-A that the town board of Poestenkill must answer in the affirmative after a hearing held upon notice and upon the evidence given thereat BEFORE there can be a referendum are as follows:
* whether the notice of hearing was published and posted as required by law, and is otherwise sufficient;
* whether all the property and property owners within the proposed district or extension are benefited thereby;
* whether all the property and property owners benefited are included within the limits of the proposed district or extension; and
* whether the establishment or extension of such district is in the public interest.
Only AFTER those four question have been answered in the affirmative by the Poestenkill town board can there be a referendum, and the key statutory language in sub-section 3 of § 209-e of Article 12-A of New York State Town Law is as follows: "the board may adopt a resolution approving the establishment of the district, which resolution shall be subject to a permissive referendum ..."
So it is clearly the town board resolution approving the establishment of the district which shall be subject to the referendum, not any infrastructure within the district, if formed, which infrastructure cannot come until after the district is established and formed.
WHERE THE NOTICE OF HEARING FOR WATER DISTRICT NO.2 PUBLISHED BY THE TOWN OF POESTENKILL IN ADVANCE OF ESTABLISHING WATER DISTRICT NO. 2 DID NOT SEPARATELY LIST THE ESTIMATED COSTS OF ANY HOOK-UP FEES, DOES THAT MAKE THE HEARING NOTICE DEFECTIVE AND THEREFORE INSUFFICIENT?
Where New York State Town Law § 193[1][a] and § 209-d require that the notice of hearing published by the town in advance of establishing Poestenkill water district no. 2 must separately list the estimated costs of any hook-up fees, and where the town of Poestenkill has failed to detail such costs in its notice of hearing, then the notice of hearing is clearly not sufficient, although it is expected that Poestenkill will claim that it is.
§ 209-d of Article 12-A of New York State Town Law states in clear and unequivocal statutory language binding on the town of Poestenkill that subsequent to the date of the filing of the map, plans and report in the office of the town clerk as required in section two hundred nine-c of this article, the town board may adopt an order and enter the same in the minutes of its proceedings reciting a description of the boundaries of the proposed district in a manner sufficient to identify the lands included therein as in a deed of conveyance, the improvements proposed, the maximum amount proposed to be expended for the improvement, the estimated cost of hook-up fees, if any, to, and the cost of the district or extension to, the typical property and, if different, the typical one or two family home, the proposed method of financing to be employed, the fact that a map, plan and report describing the same are on file in the town clerk's office for public inspection and specifying the time when and the place where said board will meet and hold a public hearing to hear all persons interested in the subject thereof, concerning the same.
The board shall cause a copy of such order to be published at least once in the official paper, the first publication thereof to be not less than ten nor more than twenty days before the day set therein for the hearing as aforesaid, and shall also cause a copy thereof to be posted on the sign-board of the town maintained pursuant to subdivision six of section thirty of this chapter, not less than ten nor more than twenty days before the day designated for the hearing as aforesaid.
If a water district is proposed, such order may contain a statement that the cost of constructing the water system shall be assessed by the town board in proportion as nearly as may be to the benefit which each lot or parcel will derive therefrom.
Prior to the publication of the order, the board shall cause to be prepared, and file for public inspection with the town clerk, a detailed explanation of how the estimated cost of hook-up fees, if any, to, and the cost of the district or extension to, the typical property and, if different, the typical one or two family home, was computed.
If that has not been done, as is the case herein in Poestenkill with regard to the public hearing notice for water district no. 2, then by definition, the hearing notice is defective, and by being defective, the hearing notice is not sufficient.
WHERE THE CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL STATUTORY LANGUAGE OF § 209-d OF ARTICLE 12-A OF THE NEW YORK STATE TOWN LAW STATES THE TOWN BOARD MAY ADOPT AN ORDER AND ENTER THE SAME IN THE MINUTES OF ITS PROCEEDINGS RECITING A DESCRIPTION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPOSED DISTRICT IN A MANNER SUFFICIENT TO IDENTIFY THE LANDS INCLUDED THEREIN AS IN A DEED OF CONVEYANCE, HAS THAT BEEN DONE IN THE CASE OF PROPOSED POESTENKILL WATER DISTRICT NO. 2?
There is no record of a description of the boundaries of proposed Poestenkill water district no. 2 being recited in a manner sufficient to identify the lands included therein as in a deed of conveyance.
The map shown by Poestenkill as proposed water district no. 2 has no metes and bounds description or any other identification for that matter, such as a title block in the lower right hand corner.
TO BE CONTINUED ...