Great news. Now who's paying for the repairs? I am absolutely opposed to borrowing money for the repairs and I am voting against any trustee who in favor of adding more debt to the village or raising taxes to pay for this mess.

"The DEC noted in its letter that the village will install a methane monitoring system and take other steps to guard against any future gas leakage from the old waste dump. But it also said that air quality concerns should be sent to the state and county health departments."

SO NOW we also need to pay for a methane monitoring system and take steps to guard against FUTURE gas leakage - Will that not add in more money to the cost? - $900k construction and $4-500K in renovations

I know, I know - Let's not look back, lets look forward - The concept of why we sold a perfectly functional building for $300k to spent $900k on a new building that needs $500k of renovations has not really be addressed.

What is the point Ms Vellone ? Just being anti Coyne, Kane and Edsall is not enough.

The point is we sold a perfectly functioning building for $300k and spent $900k for a building that was not built to code and now have to spend $400-500k in renovations just to get it to the code it should have been built to when we originally spent $900k - The DEC requirements are important, but they should not overshadow the fact that this project was done SO improperly from the start.

And if I remember correctly - neither Coyne nor Kane were on the Board when the building was constructed. I do not see how reminding the public not to forget that we never address the original issue is being "anti" Coyne or Kane ...

So, what do you think we should do now? You just restated the problem.

I think that instead of creating obstacles in the path of a solution and creating more expense for the village taxpayers, your group should support the present board in their efforts to provide a professional place for our DPW and safe storage for very expensive equipment.

YES Vishwa, if you read my comments carefully you will see that I directly state that the DEC requirements are VERY important, but in NO WAY should the public forget the original issue - We had a perfectly functional building and spent $900k and need $400-500k in renovations (about $1.5 million total) for a building that is only WORTH $400k ... I am not looking to throw road blocks in as you say - I am looking to keep reminding the public that it is in THEIR best interest, as taxpayers, to keep pushing to hold the 2005 Board members accountable for their actions ... Do not forget, none of the money from the sale of the old building went to pay of the 2005 Bond, so the real cost of construction was still over $900k

Vishwa - Also, how many construction sites leave their cranes and extremely expensive equipment outside? That equipment is built to last. As an analogy - How many people leave their cars outside without a covered parking spot? A covered parking spot may be beneficial to their car, but how many people spend money they cannot afford to rent a garage space? The taxpayers cannot keep affording the tax hikes caused by this project, and the equipment will not be in any dire state because it is outside ... You say I am throwing in road blocks, I say that I am pushing for the original issue to be dealt with before we spend a dime more ...

There is, absolutely, no benefit in going backwards. What would we gain even if we were able to hold 2005 board "accountable". The cost of litigation would drive this village bankrupt. It is cheaper to fix the building today than to fight about the past. The board, in 2005, acted according to their abilities and did what they thought was right so no court will hold them liable.

Who said anything about litigation? The taxpayers can hold the Board accountable without litigation. This is a small, family style community. Holding the Board accountable will serve 2 purposes - First off it will be a deterrent for ALL people seeking and holding office from doing something like this again.

Remember $900k for the construction, $400-500k for renovations to get it to proper code since it was not constructed to 2005 code in the first place - $1.5 million total for a building worth $400k ...

Secondly, there are MANY people in this community that cannot afford the tax hikes caused by improper dealings in the Village government. I am far from the only person opposed to spending more money on a building that the original construction cost is twice the value.

I am not asking for litigation, I am asking for accountability and due diligence.

The notion that the village would go bankrupt from litigation is unfounded and incorrect. I have seen the estimated costs they reasonable. Less than a used car. It is also my opinion that we have a very strong case to win.