>>>Mayor Joseph Gross said that he was unaware of the gravity of the situation until Friday afternoon<<<

Exactly when did our Mayor become aware of the situation at the DPW building? Does anyone know? Seems to me >>the gravity of the situation<< should have been apparent as soon as he was notified and the entire Board should have been apprised of the situation immediately.

It is apparent to all that our board is significantly fragmented. Perhaps there should be a
village referendum to abolish the Village and become a permanent part of the town. This extra layer of government seems to be doing no taxpayer any good. Let us all exercise our right to vote on this extremely important issue, no matter ones individual feeling on it.

I wonder if its possible to create a faction of the town creating our own building codes and enforcements. If that is possible I am all for it. my goodness we live in a village composed of only 2 square miles and we have a building we did not need on the shores of the Hudson. WOW! I don't think the 3 g's would of bobbled this one. matter of fact I know they wouldn't even dare handle it with our debt load in 2005.

>>>Joe had absolutely nothing to do with the erection of this white elephant, as far as I can tell, and don't think the gap between what he was aware of on Thursday afternoon and Friday is any indication of carelessness of any sort.<<

>>>It seems the answers to your questions are pretty apparent: Joe found out about the DPW building situation on Thursday afternoon,<<<

I NEVER mentioned ANYTHING about the current Mayor having anything to do with the erection of this "white elephant."

Secondly, I asked a question, when did our Mayor become aware of the situation at the DPW building?

The question I ask is apparent? He found out Thurs afternoon? Do you know this for sure? If so please enlighten us to how you found out exactly when he found out and WHO was the first to tell him?

Perhaps he found out on TUESDAY? Could this be true? Stephan, I'd say if you know it as fact state so and let us know the details. If you DO NOT know for certain then say so. That is the question I asked and it is anything but apparent.

I am not a village resident and I in no way want to stick my nose in the village's business but I just want to say to those who favor joining the town and the village....be careful what you wish for! The grass ain't no greener over here....BELIEVE ME!
"Semiprofessionals"? PLEASE! We have a lawyer running our town that not one resident ever cast a vote for and most don't even know his name.
Sad....very sad.

To clarify the record. On Tuesday after 4:00 pm, an attorney for the Village called me and said that the Mayor would like copies of certain files dating back to 2004 & 2005. I told him they were in storage and would be retrieved and copied. He did not indicate any urgency at the time.
On Friday, when I was in Chicago, he again called my office and said that the Mayor would really like the copies. My office told him that they were being retrieved and that when I returned from Chicago, I would review the materials that had been retrieved, make certain that all electronic records had been added to the physical files and that they were complete and then they would be delivered.
We have always been responsive to the Village's needs and continue to be so.
If anyone had asked me a specific question, the answer could have been provided sooner than the old files.
Howard Protter

This has really nothing to do with what happened or didn't happen between last Tuesday and Friday. It has everything to do with how a public building could have been planned, designed and built -- on an abandoned dump -- with virtually NONE of the safeguards NYS law is intended to provide for the safety of those who occupy every building in the state. And why? Because one or more people involved in the planning and/or construction of that public building chose -- very likely repeatedly -- not to follow state law.

Although nobody with knowledge of the so-called "LDC" (which apparently controlled the planning and construction of the building) saw fit to show up for the Trustees' meeting following its abrupt closure, we have learned from the investigation by the new building inspector (1) that none of the available plans bore the required stamp which signifies a professional engineer's approval, (2) that there was no building permit issued, (3) that no properly documented inspections of the building occurred during its construction and (4) that no certificate of occupancy ever was issued.

The single glimpse we did get into the development of the project did little to allay concerns regarding the structural integrity of the DPW building. Trustee Edsall, who was the only current trustee on the board when it was built, recalled that its foundation design was altered from a driven-pile design to a cheaper plan to save money.

Now there are reports that one or more employees in the building have sought refuge in a downstairs corner because the building shakes when the wind blows. And, apart from the questionable stability of the former dump site it sits on, apparently there also are no records of any investigation concerning the environmental safety of that site. So not only do we not know whether the building will stay upright, we don't even know whether it's "Love Canal" down there.

As I said last night, when you do some thing "on the cheap," you usually get what you pay for. Or maybe a more perverse result, since the debt this project created is hardly "small." The potential tragedy here is that the very safeguards which seem to have been skirted exist precisely to ensure that questions like those now unanswered are caught when they can be resolved most readily. In so many ways, this really is a shame.

So what should we do? First, perform a searching and squeaky-clean review of every aspect of the DPW project, including getting all the testing and engineering review which proves to have been "overlooked" the first time. Second, keep our fingers crossed that such a full review ends more happily than it now portends. Third, salute those who are seeking to shed some light on the conduct of a secretive, quasi-governmental group which seems to have considered their actions exempt from the laws of this state. And fourth, recognize that we still have a long way to go in reforming this Village government.

Good Morning,

>>>This has really nothing to do with what happened or didn't happen between last Tuesday and Friday.<<<

Jon,

It most certainly DOES. When two board members claim they were left out of the loop and the board begins fighting amongst themselves I think it is very pertinent to ask all questions and get the correct answers. I would like a transparent & professional board. It becomes more apparent as this administration continues that this is not the case. This is why I asked the question. Seems from Stephans answer that no one really knows what exactly what transpired between Tuesday and Friday.

I think the Village deserves to know the entire truths, no half truths or this is not important but the whole truth.

>>>But still, let's not blame Joe Gross for something that happened years ago.<<<

Stephan,

Another poster recently alluded to you being a writer? Perhaps you are a better writer then reader.

Reread my post and point out where I blamed the Mayor for ANYTHING to do with buiding the DPW building in question.

I resent the implication you make. It's a flat out lie. I am quite certain our current Mayor would NOT have built the building in question. I asked questions and you go of half-cocked with accusations. Not impressed Stephan.

I love how the mayor and his cronies (gosda and the liberal tree hugger) have split the village board up and this village apart. We have people putting in thier 2 cents who have no clue what there talking about! (Right Rick, No more training with the tower ladder outside the village? or "borrowing someone else's equipment" that makes sense when the village has a fire and the village firemen are not properly trained on thier equipment cause they have been training on other communities equipment...what a joke!

Don't blame Joe.

Ask those in attendance at these meetings:
http://cornwall-on-hudson.org/Minutes/Village%20Board/vb050602.pdf

http://cornwall-on-hudson.org/Minutes/Village%20Board/vb050707.pdf

VILLAGE OF CORNWALL-ON-HUDSON BOARD OF TRUSTEES
July 7, 2005
The Special Meeting of the Board of Trustees was called to order at 7:10 P.M., at 325 Hudson St., Cornwallon-
Hudson, N.Y.
The following Board Members were in attendance:
Mayor Edward C. Moulton, Jr.
Trustee Charles R. Hahn
Trustee Peter J. Miller
Trustee William Fogarty
Absent was: Trustee Mark J. Edsall
Also present was: DPW Superintendent Robert Gilmore, and Village Clerk Jeanne Mahoney
NEW BUSINESS
AMENDED BOND RESOLUTION DPW GARAGE FACILITY
Trustee Hahn introduced the following amended resolution and moved for its adoption.
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Village of Cornwall-on-Hudson in the County of Orange,
New York, has heretofore duly authorized the acquisition of a DPW garage facility at the estimated maximum
cost of $940,000.00, which amount was appropriated therefor pursuant to the bond resolution adopted by said
Board of Trustees on June 20, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the Board has determined to amend the plan of financing to make the application of net
proceeds from the sale of the DPW Hudson Street facility optional in the discretion of the Board and to amend
said bond resolution to reflect such amended plan of financing;
Now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF CORNWALL-ONHUDSON,
IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, NEW YORK (by the favorable vote of not less than twothirds
of all members of said Town Board) AS FOLLOWS:
Section (A). The bond resolution of said Village adopted by the Board of Trustees on June 20, 2005,
entitled:
?Bond resolution of the Village of Cornwall-on-Hudson, adopted June 20,
2005, authorizing the acquiring of a Department of Public Works garage facility,
stating that the estimated maximum cost thereof is $940,000.00, appropriating
said amount therefor, and authorizing the issuance of $940,000.00 serial bonds
to finance said appropriation,?
Is hereby amended to read as follows;
BOND RESOLUTION OF THE VILLAGE OF CORNWALL-ON-HUDSON, ADOPTED
JUNE 20, 2005, AND AMENDED JULY 7, 2005, AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION
OF A DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS GARAGE FACILITY, STATING THAT
THE ESTIMATED MAXIMUM COST THEREOF IS $940,000.00, APPROPRIATING
SAID AMOUNT THEREFOR, AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $940,000.00
SERIAL BONDS TO FINANCE SAID APPROPRIATION
WHEREAS, all conditions precedent to the financing of the capital project hereinafter described,
including the filing of a negative declaration and compliance with the provisions of the State Environmental
Quality Review Act, have been performed; and
WHEREAS, it is now desired to authorize the financing of such capital project;
NOW THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF CORNWALL-ONHUDSON
IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, NEW YORK, (by the favorable vote of not less than twothirds
of all the members of said Board) AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Village is hereby authorized to acquire a Department of Public Works garage
facility at 50 Shore Road, Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York. The estimated maximum cost of said specific
object or purpose, including preliminary costs, cost of maps, plans, surveys, estimates, advertisements, legal
documents and costs incidental hereto and the financing thereof, is $940,000.00 and the said amount is hereby
appropriated therefor. The plan of financing is the issuance of $940,000.00 serial bonds to finance said
appropriation and the levy of a tax on all the taxable real property within the Village to pay the principal of said
bonds and interest thereon as the same shall become due and payable, and net proceeds received from the sale
of the DPW Hudson Street facility (approximately $300,000.), in the discretion of the Board of trustees, may
be expended towards the cost thereof or redemption of the bonds issued therefor or be budgeted as an offset to
the taxes to pay the principal of or interest on said funds.
Section 2. Serial bonds in the principal amount of $940,000.00 are hereby authorized to be issued
pursuant to the Local Finance Law, constituting Chapter 33-a of the Consolidated Laws of the State of New
York (herein called "Law"), to finance said appropriation.
Section 3. The following additional matters are hereby determined and stated:
a) The period of probable usefulness applicable to the purpose for which said serial bonds herein
authorized are to be issued, within the limitations of Section 11.00a.11(c) of the Law, is fifteen (15) years.
b) The proposed maturity of the bonds authorized by this resolution will exceed five (5) years.
c) The proceeds of the bonds herein authorized and any bond anticipation notes issued in
anticipation of said bonds may be applied to reimburse the Village for expenditures made after
the effective date of this resolution for the purpose for which said bonds are authorized. The
foregoing statement of intent with respect to reimbursement is made in conformity with Treasury
Regulation Section 1.150-2 of the United States Treasury Department.
Section 4. The bonds authorized by this resolution and any bond anticipation notes in anticipation
of the sale of said bonds, shall contain the recital of validity prescribed by Sec. 52.00 of the Law and said
bonds and any notes issued in anticipation of such bonds, shall be general obligations of the Village, payable as
to both principal and interest by a general tax upon all the taxable real property within the Village without
limitation of rate or amount. The faith and credit of the Village are hereby irrevocably pledged to the punctual
payment of the principal of and interest of said bonds and any notes issued in anticipation of said bonds, and
provisions shall be made annually in the budget of the Village by appropriation for (a) the amortization and
redemption of the bonds and notes to mature in each year and (b) the payment of interest to be due and payable
in each year.
Section 5. Subject to the provisions of this resolution and of the Law and pursuant to the
provisions of Sec. 21.00 relative to the authorization of the issuance of bonds with substantially level or declining
annual debt service, and of Sec.30.00 relative to the authorization of the issuance of bond anticipation notes and
of Sec. 50.00 and Sec. 56.00 to 60.00 and 168.00 of the Law, the powers and duties of the Board of Trustees
relative to authorizing bond anticipation notes and prescribing the terms, form and contents as to the sale and
issuance of the bonds herein authorized and of any bond anticipation notes issued in anticipation of said bonds,
and the renewals of said bond anticipation notes, and relative to providing for substantially level or declining
annual debt service, are hereby delegated to the Village Treasurer, the chief fiscal officer of the Village.
Section 6. The validity of the bonds authorized by this resolution and of any notes issued in
anticipation of said bonds, may be contested only if:
(a) such obligations are authorized for an object or purpose of which the Village is not authorized to
expend money, or
(b) the provisions of the law which should be complied with at the date of the publication of such
resolution are not substantially complied with,
and an action, suit or proceeding contesting such validity is commenced within twenty days after the date of such
publication or
(c) such obligations are authorized in violation of the provisions of the constitution.
Section 7. This resolution is subject to permissive referendum.
Section 8. The object or purpose described in Section 1 hereof has been determined to be an
Unlisted Action pursuant to the regulations of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
promulgated pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, with respect to which said Board of
Trustees has made a "Negative Declaration."
Section (B) The amendment of the bond resolution set forth in Section A of this resolution shall in no
way affect the validity of the liabilities incurred, obligations issued, or actions taken pursuant to said bond
resolution, and all such liabilities incurred, obligations issued, or action taken shall be deemed to have been
incurred, issued or taken pursuant to said bond resolution, as so amended.
Section (C) The Village Clerk of said Village of Cornwall-on-Hudson shall, within ten (10) days after
the adoption of this resolution, cause to be published, in full, in the ?CORNWALL LOCAL,? a newspaper,
having a general circulation within said Village and hereby designated the official newspaper of the Village for
such publication, and posted on the sign board of the Village maintained pursuant to the Village Law, a Notice
in substantially the following form:
Section (D) Said bond resolution, as herein amended, is subject to a permissive referendum as therein
provided. In the event that a valid petition protesting against said bond resolution, as amended, and requesting
that it be submitted to the electors of said Village for their approval or disapproval is filed and the Proposition
submitted therefor is defeated, the validity of the bond resolution adopted June 20, 2005, shall not be in any
way affected and shall remain in full force and effect.
Section (E) After said bond resolution, as herein amended, shall take effect, the Village clerk is hereby
directed to cause said bond resolution as herein amended, to be published, in summary, in the newspaper
hereinabove referred to in Section C hereof, and hereby designated the official newspaper for said publication,
together with a Notice in substantially the form as prescribed by Section 812.00 of the Local Finance Law of
the State of New York.
Section (F) This resolution shall take effect immediately.
This foregoing resolution was seconded by Trustee Miller, and by a unanimous vote of 4 Ayes and 0 Nays, the
motion was carried.
Having concluded the business set before them, Trustee Miller moved to adjourn the meeting which was
seconded by Trustee Hahn and upon a vote of 4 Ayes and 0 Nays, the meeting was adjourned at 7:23 PM.

>>>The trouble with our village is that there too many people who have opinions but never step up and do anything but complain.<<<

Should each Villager not have a right to an opinion?

Should each Villager not have a right to complain?

Should each Villager not expect a transparent and truthful board?

I thought this forum was to ask questions and get to the truth and not to put words into others posts that didn't exist.

Short attention span theater here... am I missing something? If we can't find the plans and can't find the results of the tests that were done and no CO was ever issued, has anybody asked the builders for this info? Surely Burns and Whalen would have plans to a building that they built?? Doesn't the building inspector have to inspect a building at its completion? Where was Bob Gilmore? Didn't he have an office in there (with rather a spectacular view , too)how could the bldg. inspector inhabit a bldg that didn't have a co that he was in charge of issuing? Please 'splain this to me, and use short sentences and small words...
maybe if we had more tree-huggers this type of thing would occur less often...

Hey, Bill! Just looking for answers, trying to keep it simple...just like me...

as an afterthought, where did Mr. Yancewicz come from? Is he a 'local boy' or did he apply for the job listing in the New York Times?

Is he from the last administration?