(845) 386-1460 clerk@townofmounthope.org

Town of Mount Hope

1706 Route 211W,
Otisville,
New York 10963

WORKSHOP MEETING, TOWN OF MOUNT HOPE, SEPTEMBER 15, 2014

The workshop meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Mount Hope was held at Town Hall on September 15, 2014 at 7:30pm with the following present:  Supervisor Chad Volpe, Councilman Matthew Howell, Councilman Gary Ketcham, Councilwoman Janet Sutherland, Councilman Dominick Cambareri and Town Clerk Kathleen Myers.

 

OFFICIALS PRESENT: Deputy H’way Supt. J. Musial & Attorney D. Bavoso.

 

Following the Pledge of Allegiance, Supervisor Volpe called the public hearing to order at 7:30PM. He called for a moment of silence in remembrance of those who lost their lives in the September 11 attacks.

 

7:30pm PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING PROPOSED LOCAL LAW #4-2014 ENTITLED AMENDING THE SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING LAW OF THE TOWN OF MOUNT HOPE:

Public hearing notice was read into the record.  Supervisor Volpe opened the meeting for comments.

  1. Ketcham: in removing schools, colleges & other educational institutions from the RA district, does that cut off the future from having any kind of Cornell Center for Education Nature Education or anything like that?  You wouldn’t be able to have any educational programs anywhere in that? Atty. Bavoso: it would only be for specific uses of schools.  Educational programs can still go on in other particular uses.  It’s the establishment of new school or college or something similar to that which would be prohibited from that point on.  Also just note that in the local law anything that’s pre-existing school that was put in accordance with the zoning previously would still be permitted to continue as that.  It’s not requiring anything to shut down.  Basically, those uses would be grandfathered in and permitted to continue as they exist currently.
  2. Ketcham: like a nature center or something like that – that’s an educational institution?

Atty. Bavoso: I don’t know.  It depends on what the argument is made as the definition for it. A for profit educational center meaning you are paying to take the classes, you could probably argue that it’s not necessarily a school or college.  Or if it’s an activity or more of an activity than it is an educational institution, I think that it would still be permitted under the zoning. This is to prevent brick and mortar schools like a new elementary school or new high school or something like that from going up.

  1. Cook:  The only situation I see in the future is – I was on a school board committee for years in Warwick NY and what I learned there is a school district has the authority of eminent domain.  They more or less can do what they want.  They could come through here and say we need this property and it’s theirs.  This is a gentlemen’s agreement. I think the school district would have the upper hand.

Atty. Bavoso: It’s more geared toward private institutions and entities like that. It would still present an issue with a school district trying to establish a new school in the area.  They would still be subject to zoning requirements.  In the event a private elementary school or private high school attempted to begin in one of those zoning districts, it wouldn’t from that point forward.

  1. Dodd: without reading the whole law, we’re going from, can you just give us, without reading the whole thing what we are going to go from and what we’re changing to? Just an outline of what we already have and what law we’re changing to now?

Atty. Bavoso:  Sure.  The zoning as it exists now permits schools and educational institutions and also churches and religious institutions in the SR1, SR2, RP1, RP2 and RA zoning districts. It currently prohibits them in the LB & ORIP districts.  The change in the law would prohibit both schools, churches and religious institutions in all districts except for the ORIP district.

 

RESOLUTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING:

MOTION offered by Councilman Cambareri seconded by Councilman Howell to close the public hearing at 7:37pm.  All in favor: Howell, Ketcham, Volpe, Sutherland, Cambareri; carried.

 

AT THIS TIME, Supervisor Volpe called the regular meeting to order.

 

 

 

147

RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT PRIOR MEETING MINUTES:

MOTION offered by Councilman Cambareri seconded by Councilman Ketcham that the minutes of the Sept. 2, 2014 meeting as submitted by the Town Clerk are approved.  All in favor: Howell, Ketcham, Volpe, Sutherland, Cambareri; carried.

 

CORRESPONDENCE:

  1. Public hearing notice for Local Law #4-2014
  1. LENS overview
  1. Building Inspector’s report 8-2014
  1. Public hearing notice from T/O Mamakating
  1. FALUN GONG resolution
  1. Supervisor’s report 8-2014
  1. Complaint re: 46 Carboy Road
  1. Mount Hope fire report thru 9-15-14

 

COMMITTEE REPORTS:

POLICE DEPT:  Chief is away at school.

 

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT by Deputy Highway Supt. Musial: 

DHS Musial reminded everyone that Fall clean starts 10-2, 3, 4, 9, 10, &11.  If any seniors need help, call 386-5603 to make arrangements for pick up.  The guys go back to winter hours next week (7-3:30 M-F).  They have been working on the tennis courts for cracks/depressions.  She spoke of the grant with Orange County Community Development for $125,000.00.  We are on the short list for that money.  They are looking for people, seniors, who are interested in advancing the project to fill out a poll that we have here.  If there are interested seniors interested in supporting/going for this grant, they can stop in to the office at the highway garage.  Must be 55 & older.

 

VILLAGE OF OTISVILLE:

Ken Coppola spoke of the joint workshop meeting.  Supervisor Volpe stated that the resolution was done at last meeting.

 

HIDDEN VALLEY:

Supervisor Volpe reported that a resident called him on an odor issue from the plant.  He has spoken to Mike Brock who stated that the plant is running fine.

 

PLANNING BOARD:

Attorney Bavoso reported that the meeting is this week with 2 public hearings and 2 informals on the agenda.

 

MOUNT HOPE FIRE COMPANY by Chief J. Doty:

Chief Doty gave report.  (on file in Town Clerk’s office) One firefighter completed FF1 class – Dante Pierson. 13 members completed EVOC training this weekend.  One new member was added to the roster – Bobby Bodnar.

 

OLD SCHOOL:

  1. Ketcham reported that they completed the 2nd clean up day at the old school.  They are continuing to put together their recommendations for the building.

 

KC ENGINEERING:

Jason (KC Engineering) reported that they’ve been over to the school many times to evaluate it and to put together a proposal that the board requested.  This was to evaluate the school structurally.  It’s a fairly large building at around 22,000 Sq. ft.  It’s not a small endeavor to upgrade or repair the school.  We need a good overall understanding of what’s existing there before we get too far into anything.  We put forth a proposal to the town.  It’s been a couple months now so the town has had the opportunity to review it and we are here tonight to address any questions you have.  Councilman Cambareri: Will the report include electrical, plumbing, heating? Jason: just structural.  Most of those systems are generally poor condition.

148

KC ENGINEERING CONTINUED:

Councilman Cambareri: so as we continue further, and we decide what to do with the building, we’ll also have to take into consideration of what it will cost to upgrade the plumbing, electrical and heating into code to operational.  Jason: certainly.  I think those things are well do for a complete overhaul.  Councilman Cambareri: if we get to the point of renovations it would basically be gut and strip? Jason: I think that’s pretty safe to say.  Councilman Howell:  spoke of the minimum estimate (3.4 million) on the front page.  Does it include the upgrade to the utilities and thing of that nature?  Jason:  yes and that’s a budgetary number.  What we’re doing here is we are basing it on a cost per square foot of $150 for renovations.  You see that in buildings of the same type of thing.  It’s generally a rough number.  We put that number in there to give the board an overall magnitude of what you are getting involved in.  We didn’t want you to come back and say we didn’t know it would be this much to renovate it.  Councilman Cambareri: at $3.4 million, that’s an estimate but that would change depending on how it’s going to be built and what was going to be in it.  Jason: to finish what you’re trying to put in there;   how you finish it out would definitely make that number vary.  Councilman Cambareri: any thought as to how we would overcome the 1st floor problem making it handicap accessible?  Jason: you would have to have some kind of entrance through the gym where we know we could get in and get to that lower level.  You would be limited on entrances from the other levels.  If we investigate into the ceiling area, you may be able to raise that to the to the lower levels main hallway floor slightly and make a ramp down into there if we can get the ceiling height above that drop ceiling.  We poked around there a little bit but there’s not that much room there.  Councilwoman Sutherland: the $3.4 million that covers all 3 floors? Jason: yes that’s based on the overall square footage of the whole building which includes the gymnasium. Keep in mind that the #’s are large but as soon as you start talking about municipal projects and prevailing wage it’s significantly more than doing work on your private residences.  Or if a private group came in and purchased the building or used it for some other use.  Councilman Cambareri: spoke about asbestos documents they were provided and asked if they helped.  Jason: It was helpful.  It let us know that there was some abatement done but I think that would probably have to be resurveyed before you – if you decided ok the structural looks good, you probably have to do some more evaluation with that before you move forward with it.  Councilman Cambareri: Those evaluations wouldn’t be part of this? Jason: no this is strictly structural to let you know that the building is safe to renovate or it’s worth renovating.  Councilman Cambareri: after we got past that we would have to do more costs on plumbing, heating, electrical, asbestos abatement?  Jason: yes and I think the other thing that this report will allow you to do is that if you choose not to renovate the building at least you will have a document that you are taking to some prospective buyer or user and saying the building is worth your investment because it’s safe to renovate.  Supervisor Volpe:  So the 1st thing is to have this done to make sure that structurally it’s, it’s been vacant for awhile, to make sure that it’s safe to be in there.   Jason: yes, safe to be in there and worth the future investment that you or somebody else might make in the building itself.  Councilman Cambareri: basically this would be a selling point if we found a prospective buyer that we’ve already done this?  Jason: yes.  Supervisor Volpe: what is the difference between this and the report we had done that we had already gave to you?  Jason: for your highway building?  Supervisor Volpe: no.  Councilman Cambareri: the one previously done on the school which was basically just a plot plan.  Jason:  there wasn’t very much put in that report as far as the structure of the building but that was basically a compilation of some statistical data for Mount Hope & some old survey and an architectural plan. They were more like floor plan lay-outs.  Supervisor Volpe: So this is totally different?  Jason:  This is totally different – this is to evaluate the core of the building and the structure of the building.  F. Ketcham: I believe that some type of report like this is needed.  In discussions with the OC Dept. of Planning and an architect that also does this type of work, you need this type of thing to get your grants.  But I don’t know if you need it to that extent for the uses that we’ve been looking at anyway.  In dealing with these re-use committees that work here in Orange County.  He recommends that we get another estimate for the same type of thing.   Guys that specialize in re-use of buildings.  Jason: our structural team is experienced in types of inspections.  They do all the inspections for Port Authority and a lot of agencies in NYC.  F. Ketcham:   I don’t doubt that.  I am talking about the re-use of the old buildings here in Orange County that have been going on.  The fella we’ve been talking to is working with the Kaplan’s in Newburgh in the armory.  I recommend another estimate.

 

149

Councilman Cambareri:  As far as the inspection goes, obviously have to be looked at before we do anything at all.  I think there are more things that are involved even after this.  My concern is not so much the $ that we spend making this report but the $ we have to spend to draw blue prints and getting estimates.  Jason: no doubt it’s not a small amount of $.  It’s a substantial undertaking.  A building this size for municipal use is not a small project by any means.  This is all assuming that the structural report is positive.  Councilman Ketcham:  A question that a lot of people have asked me; this is an all or nothing type project could you do half of it and shut down the upper floors?  And get a C/O on what is done even when the whole thing is not totally done? Jason:  the inspection covers the whole building.  Councilman Ketcham: if you want to open just the bottom floor and close the 2 top floors could you do that? And get a legal statement that it’s all right to have people in the building.  Jason: you could do any number of things once you decide what you’re gonna do with the building.   I don’t think that you would inspect only a portion of the building.  Councilman Ketcham asked if the completion of the project could be done in phases instead of all at once.  Jason: Sure, you could have unfinished space that you would finish at a future time and it’s not usable for occupancy.  Councilman Ketcham: could it be opened as soon as it’s done?  Jason: yes.  Just to caution you with that; there could be higher dollar amounts that construction costs because you are doing things like that segmented.  It could be more expensive.  Councilman Cambareri:  preliminary work would have to all be addressed at one time? Jason:  the evaluation of it would have to be addressed all at one time but you could do it in sections as you needed to.  Raj (from KC Engineering): One comment I want to make about doing it in sections; if we find any structural defect with the structure, you cannot wait to do it segmentally.  You have to stabilize the core of the structure then you can partition into segments.  Then rehab in segments.  As long as you can insure the safety of the public using it, it would not be an issue of getting a partial C/O of a part of the building.  As a part of the demonstration we had to show the whole building in totality that it’s safe to occupy.  Councilman Ketcham stated he went to school there and one of the biggest problems is that either the heat was on or off.  There’s no zones.  Raj: when you rehab it you could consider multi-zoning. But one thing to caution the board- if you want to get additional pricing – we tried to keep a lower price than what the government center is using.  The average price they are using is $275.  We didn’t use that price.  We took the middle of the road approach knowing that there’s some quasi-municipal use. We actually used low-ball #’s.  Supervisor Volpe asked about future grants?  Raj: grant availability is very limited.  Part of the problem is for example if you go for a CDB grant, it costs 30% more.  That means if they give you $1,000,000 grant, there are a lot of regulations that come with grant money.   Grant money is beneficial when they fund the entire project.  Every grant has a requirement.  It’s incredibly complicated when you go for grant money.  Dominick asked about the lower level.  We have not done a comprehensive study on how to address the ADA issues.  This report will not address that.  If you were to follow the current ADA requirements, you may not be able to use a portion of the building.  That means after all this work you may not get 22,000 square feet.  When you are dealing with ADA, you have to have minimum slopes and landing area and also depends on type of use.  Ultimately, if you are using it for residential purpose, then the standards are different vs. municipal building the standards are different.  There’s a difference with the public access and residential use.  Councilman Cambareri: keeping that in mind, when this building is renovated, being 3 stories tall, we’re gonna have to sprinkle the entire building?  Raj: yes. Councilman Cambareri:  Will we have to put elevator in the building?  Raj: yes. Mrs. Maurizzio:  you’re not qualifying the safety of the building? You’re saying it’s structurally sound for renovation? In other words you’re not saying you have to tear it down, you’re saying…Raj: we’re not saying until we inspect.  When we finish our inspection, we would be able to say.  Mrs. Maurizzio asked what their report is tonight?  Raj: we’re not making any report.  We are presenting to the board this is what it will cost for us to evaluate.  Supervisor Volpe: Thanked Jason and Raj.

 

LOCAL LAW #4-2014 ENTITLED AMENDING THE SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING LAW OF THE TOWN OF MOUNT HOPE:

Atty. Bavoso stated that as far as the local law goes, the town is actually not permitted to take action yet because it’s a change to the zoning law it has to go to county planning for their comments.  They have to comment within 30 days and that was delivered to OC Planning today.  The board can however because it’s a change to the zoning law, it’s subject to SEQRA – which means this board has to declare lead agency and a negative declaration.

150

RESOLUTION TO DECLARE LEAD AGENCY:

MOTION offered by Councilman Cambareri seconded by Councilman Howell that the Town of Mount Hope Town Board, Orange County NY declares lead agency status under SEQRA for proposed Local Law #4-2014 – a local law amending the schedule of district regulations of the zoning law of the Town of Mount Hope; be it hereby resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Mount Hope, Orange County, NY., does pursuant to the provisions of the SEQRA designate itself as lead agency for the purposes of  SEQRA review of Local Law #4-2014 being entitled a local law AMENDING THE SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING LAW OF THE TOWN OF MOUNT HOPE.  All in favor: Howell, Ketcham, Volpe, Sutherland, Cambareri; carried.

 

RESOLUTION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION:

MOTION offered by Councilman Cambareri seconded by Councilman Howell the Town Board of the Town of Mount Hope, Orange County, NY., making a negative declaration under SEQRA for proposed Local Law #4-2014 a local law AMENDING THE SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING LAW OF THE TOWN OF MOUNT HOPE be it hereby RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Mount Hope, Orange County, NY., does pursuant to the provisions of the SEQRA and pursuant to the advice of the town attorney of Mount Hope, determine that there is no evidence that significant environmental impact will result from the approval of said local law.  Accordingly, the Town Board of the Town of Mount Hope, Orange County, NY., does adopt a “negative declaration” pursuant to SEQRA.  All in favor: Howell, Ketcham, Volpe, Sutherland, Cambareri, carried. 

 

Attorney Bavoso added that we wait for Orange County Planning. He expects that since there’s 3 weeks until the next meeting; that by the 2nd meeting in October we should their comments back and the board could take action then.

 

KC ENGINEERING PROPOSAL:

Supervisor Volpe stated that winter is coming.  Do we want to move forward?  Do we want more pricing.  Councilman Cambareri stated we eventually will need this.  He would like to get one more firm’s pricing.  Councilman Ketcham:  agrees with comment earlier that we need to determine if the building is safe for occupancy.  If it’s not fit for that then the project is over.  Supervisor Volpe asked if the board wanted to vote.  F. Ketcham stated that he has someone who would like to give an estimate on it.  Both the OC Planning Dept. and the other architect are saying that it is a feasible project.  Councilman Cambareri: it has to be apples to apples. F. Ketcham: he’s been through the building already.  Councilwoman Sutherland: what does he charge?  F. Ketcham: does not know.  Supervisor Volpe asked Frank to get this proposal by the 29th so the board can review it for the next board meeting.

 

LENS OVERVIEW:

Councilman Howell stated that this program is something offered by the DMV.  It’s an overview for any eligible driver that you could enter in the system. He discussed this with Paul.  Everyone in the police department would be enrolled in it.  This gives the town a safety net.  We can monitor who is driving town vehicles.  It’s a free program through the state.  A roster is established and we would be automatically notified of any driver license events. Supervisor Volpe: he spoke to Paul and Dean and neither had a problem with it.  The turnaround time is 45-60 days before it would be up and running.

 

RESOLUTION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE LENS OVERVIEW PROGRAM:

MOTION offered by Councilman Cambareri seconded by Councilwoman Sutherland to participate in the LENS Overview program. All in favor: Howell, Ketcham, Volpe, Sutherland, Cambareri, carried.

 

RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SUPERVISOR’S REPORT:

MOTION offered by Councilman Howell seconded by Councilwoman Sutherland to approve the Supervisor’s report for August 2014 as presented.  All in favor: Howell, Ketcham, Volpe, Sutherland, Cambareri, carried.

 

151

2015 TENTATIVE BUDGET:

AT THIS TIME, Supervisor Volpe stated that the 2015 Tentative Budget is complete.  Town Clerk Kathleen Myers distributed the 2015 Tentative Budget packets to the board members.  Meeting dates were discussed.

 

RESOLUTION TO SCHEDULE BUDGET MEETING DATES:

MOTION offered by Councilwoman Sutherland seconded by Councilman Howell to schedule the budget meeting dates as follows:  Sept. 29 at 6:30pm and Sept. 30 at 7:00pm. All in favor: Howell, Ketcham, Volpe, Sutherland, Cambareri, carried.

  

RESOLUTION TO AUDIT THE CLAIMS:

MOTION offered by Councilman Ketcham seconded by Councilwoman Sutherland to approve the following bills:

GENERAL A:#508538$ 50,323.14

GENERAL B:#7579$   4,574.66

HIGHWAY:#139149$ 29,413.73

SEWER:#8284$     993.55

All in favor: Howell, Ketcham, Volpe, Sutherland, Cambareri; carried.

 

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

Ed L’Estrange (Falun Gong):  Mr. L’Estrange showed a slide show/power point re: organ harvesting in China by the Chinese Communist party. He explained that Falun Gong is a bit like Tai Chi.  K. Coppola asked who is allowing the organs to come to US?  Mr. L’Estrange stated they are not coming to the US.   It’s happening there.  He spoke of a tissue match and being in the labor camps.  They are taken to have medical tests.  It is torture.  He asked for the board to approve their resolution in support of putting an end to the organ harvesting in China.

  1. Furman:  asked about 7 Peaks.  Atty. Bavoso stated they are still working on the FEIS trying to address drainage issues.  He has maps for the town clerk’s office for revised plans. DEIS is on  their website.  Mr. Furman spoke of the septics/wells concerns.  Atty. Bavoso they are still subject to local zoning still have to go through the process SEQRA, FEIS, DEIS. We are still waiting on getting a copy of the file.
  2. Fairweather: asked about the status of the dog park. J. Musial: we are waiting to have another parks committee meeting probably the end of September.  L. Fairweather asked for the date and time to be emailed to her.
  3. Loeven: advised the board & Dean of a senior trip on 9-24-14.  She also clarified the budget meeting dates vs. public hearing on the budget.
  4. Dodd: He spoke re: lawsuit against the Otisville firemen. On the 9th of this month we went to court.  The Otisville made an offer to us, the ones that are suing, to re-instate us into the company – what we were suing for.  We agreed to that with no stipulations, no monetary money, no letters.  We agreed to Pinski’s offer that he made in front of Judge Sobo on the 9th.  He (Pinski) noted at that point that he had to have something voted on in front of the Judge.  The body of people that have the civil suit against the Otisville fire company and the Village of Otisville is dropped on our side.  We have have agreed to their offer.  He asked about the forming of a joint fire district.  Supervisor Volpe stated he is working on having meetings.  L. Dodd:  when both boards come up with a joint fire district, are the town & village voters going to get a vote on whether they want your plan and your proposal?  Supervisor Volpe: yes.  We will have public hearings and then people would actually vote on whether they want to move forward with it.  L. Dodd:  The village and town residents will be able to vote?  Supervisor Volpe: that would be what I wanted.  I want to have public hearings so that people are not voting with what their neighbor told them but vote on the facts.  If it did pass, it would be subject to public referendum. L. Dodd:  that means if it’s passed, both boards could still…Supervisor Volpe: somebody could go start a petition.  L. Dodd:  That could be challenged every 4 years.  Supervisor Volpe: it could be challenged as soon as we form it.  L. Dodd:  the budgets you are working with – where are you getting them from?  Supervisor Volpe: we are not there yet.  No numbers have come yet.  We just want to see if the town/village….L. Dodd: you’re working on a joint fire district when the town residents voted not to have a fire district? Councilman Cambareri: that’s correct. L. Dodd: because fire districts are astronomical in costs?

 

152

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION continued:

Councilman Cambareri: depends on how they are run and managed.  That’s the difference.  Everything we do will put out under public referendum.  The people will decide how it’s gonna happen.  Not like the 1st time where the board decided and the people had no say.  L. Dodd:   so the fire commissioners that would run this district would be elected by the tax payers.  Councilman Cambareri: no – it could be set up 2 ways.  They can be elected or appointed by the 2 boards. It will be set up 1 of those 2 ways.  L. Dodd: if you want to have a fire district where everyone has a say, why would you not want to allow the tax payers to vote for the fire commissioners?  Councilman Cambareri: if it’s set up the way it’s proposed by boards- say they’re 2 equal entities, each board will have a say and an equal # of board members; so they’d be appointed, they won’t be elected.  The board will petition people who are interested, who are qualified & then they’ll make those appointments.  L. Dodd: What would improve by that?  Councilman Cambareri: the advantages are that most fire districts that have financial problems are because the fire commissioners are firemen.  So you have the kids running the candy store.  If you set it up in a way we’d like to run it where the people are appointed, the fire company would have to have control of both boards in order to take control.  L. Dodd:  Dominick, that’s insulting to all fire districts around us.  Councilman Cambareri:  Some are managed very well.  Some are managed very poorly.  Look what happened in Greenville.  L. Dodd: who are their commissioners? They’re all firemen?  Councilman Cambareri: they were at 1 point.  They were all firemen at 1 point but 2.  They ran into so much trouble, people filed lawsuits, some commissioners quit.  Now the people have taken control back and their taxes have been cut in ½.  L. Dodd:  I don’t know their history.  Councilman Cambareri; you should because your lawyer also ran theirs.  L. Dodd: you’re forming a fire district but yet you don’t want it to be a fire district, you still want it to be a political entity.  Councilman Cambareri: this is the way we’d like it set up.  L. Dodd: my main point tonight was that the lawsuit was agreed upon by our side.  We are waiting on what the Otisville fire company has to work out.  And I am not for that the commissioners of a joint fire district ….Councilman Cambareri: we are not the only town that does that.  L. Dodd: people showed up here to vote down the idea of a fire district than show up for a presidential election, I think that would be a strong argument that why are you going down this road?  Obviously, the people don’t want it.

  1. Loeven: She wanted to clarify one thing that everything is still in the discussion phase.  Nothing has been settled, set or voted on.  Personally I wanted to go out to vote.  It hasn’t been voted on or settled at least not from the village end.
  2. Melton: he referred to August 19th minutes – permissive referendum – your own words (to Diane).  Ask Tuxedo how well the appointing of commissioners is going between the village and the town.  Not so good.  That aside, (to Chad) you want to let the people vote, but it doesn’t matter what they say because you’re still gonna do permissive referendum. (inaudible) If you have a public vote, then you’re legally bound by the results to that vote otherwise it’s a straw pole.

Supervisor Volpe: I understand that.  W. Melton: then why have the vote?  Councilman Cambareri:  Permissive referendum is always allowed.  Supervisor Volpe: it’s another safety clause.  If people don’t want it there is still another safety clause.  W. Melton: right if the people don’t want it, you could still say yes.  You still have that choice.  Supervisor Volpe:  if we vote it in, it’s still subject to permissive referendum.  Which means the board says yes and the people say no they go get a petition.  They petition it and they dissolve it.  So yes they would be able to vote in the beginning, then we would vote but yet it would still be open to permissive referendum.  W. Melton: that 3rd step is…to have a public vote, the village/town and the boards not be bound by the results of that, that doesn’t sound right.  Supervisor Volpe: if the people vote and they vote to say we don’t want it, then our talks with the village/town are over.  It stops there.  W. Melton: you said after that that the boards would still do a permissive referendum.  Not talking about a petition.  It was 1 sentence after another that there’s still a permissive referendum after the vote.  Councilman Cambareri:  It’s gonna be up to the people.  If we jointly decide we want to pursue it, it’s gonna be on the ballot.  W. Melton: so the people can vote if we have it, but they can’t vote on who runs it?  Councilman Cambareri: it depends on which way we decide to set it up.  W. Melton: there are no qualified commissioners until they take a state training to be a commissioner.  You have people that can express interest in it but as far as submitting resumes to be qualified – that doesn’t happen until after one year.  Councilman Cambareri:  no body has taken it yet right?  L. Dodd: Phil and Bob took course and Ed and Paul Barth.

 

153

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION continued:

  1. Maurizzio: Spoke re: meeting minutes of 9-2-14 and that some of her comments were incomplete.  The attorney directed the commissioners to not answer her questions and for her to submit her questions in writing.  Supervisor Volpe reminded everyone that they are to address the board. She was unhappy how she was treated and that her questions were left unanswered.  She urges the residents to go to the next district meeting.
  2. Musial:   asked what the reason was for the Falun Gong presentation.  Was it for the board to take action?  Supervisor Volpe:  we got it.

 

BOARD COMMENTS:

Councilman Howell asked for executive session to discuss contract negotiations.

Councilman Cambareri thanked Mr. L’Estrange for giving a presentation.      

 

RESOLUTION TO APPROVE FALUN GONG:

MOTION offered by Councilwoman Sutherland seconded by Councilman Howell to approve the resolutionCALLING FOR ACTION TO HELP STOP THE PERSECUTION OF 

FALUN GONG IN CHINA as written and attached to these minutes. All in favor: Howell, Ketcham, Volpe, Sutherland, Cambareri; carried.

 

RESOLUTION TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION:

MOTION offered by Councilman Howell seconded by Councilman Ketcham to enter into executive session at 9:00pm to discuss contract negotiations.  All in favor: Howell, Ketcham, Volpe, Sutherland, Cambareri; carried.

 

RESOLUTION TO RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING:

MOTION offered by Councilman Howell seconded by Councilman Cambareri to reconvene the regular meeting at 9:20pm from executive session.  NO ACTION WAS TAKEN AT THIS EXECUTIVE SESSION.  All in favor: Howell, Ketcham, Volpe, Sutherland, Cambareri; carried.

 

RESOLUTION FOR ADJOURNMENT:

MOTION offered by Councilman Sutherland seconded by Councilman Howell to adjourn the meeting at 9:20pm. All in favor: Howell, Ketcham, Volpe, Sutherland, Cambareri; carried.

 

The next meeting is scheduled for October 6, 2014 at 7:30pm.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Kathleen A. Myers, Town Clerk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

154

 

RESOLUTION CALLING FOR ACTION TO HELP STOP THE PERSECUTION OF 

FALUN GONG IN CHINA:

 

WHEREAS, Falun Dafa, also known as Falun Gong, is a peaceful spiritual practice based on the principles of Truthfulness, Compassion and Forbearance for achieving physical and spiritual wellbeing through meditation exercises; and

 

WHEREAS, Falun Gong has attracted millions of people of all ages and backgrounds in over 114 countries and regions; and

 

WHEREAS, since July 1999, China’s former president launched the “eradication” campaign against Falun Gong with the policy of ‘Defame Falun Dafa’s reputation, destroy practitioners physically, bankrupt then financially’; and

 

WHEREAS, for 15 long years, Falun Gong practitioners have been systematically detaining and torturing for their beliefs by the Chinese communist regime, as documented by the United States Department of State, the US Commission in International Religious Freedom, the European Parliament, Amnesty International, Human Right Watch and many other governmental and third party organizations; and

 

WHEREAS, “Bloody Harvest: Revised report into allegations of organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners in China”, an independent investigation conducted by former Canadian Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific David Kilgour and the respected human rights lawyer David Matas, concluded that “there has been and continues to be large scale organ seizures from unwilling Falun Gong practitioners”; and

 

WHEREAS, European Parliament passed a resolution 2013/2981 (RSP), and currently 201 US congress members co-sponsor H.Res. 281, expressing their concern over persistent and credible reports of systematic, state-sanctioned organ harvesting from large numbers of Falun Gong practitioners imprisoned for their beliefs; and

 

WHEREAS, hundreds of residents in Orange County have signed a petition to urge the US government to take all reasonable steps to bring an end to such a “new form of evil in this planet”; and

 

WHEREAS, it is also our responsibility as human beings to raise awareness necessary to stop horrific crimes against our fellow human beings no matter what the cost.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mount Hope Town Board call on the government of the United States to condemn the persecution against Falun Gong and the crime of harvesting organs from Falun Gong practitioners and other involuntary donors in China.

 

Adopted on the 15th day of September 2014.

 

________________________________ Chad Volpe, Town Supervisor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

155