Editor:

This letter is in response to several letters written regarding the change in Town of Yates legal representation.

The Town of Somerset has spent 10 times the legal fees compared to the Town of Yates fighting the wind project. Both towns are in the same place legally in this battle against an unwanted wind project. Both towns are waiting on an application to the State Sighting Board. Which Town would you say spent their limited resources in the most economical way?

I would also ask Mr. Hoffman how successful Somerset was in their legal action against the Met Towers? As a resident of Somerset, I can understand why you would be critical of those who opposing the Town of Yates joining your legal team. Why not find a partner who is willing to reduce your costs while adding to theirs. A 50/50 split of legal cost seems to be a balanced solution to a  project which is less than 30 percent located in Yates.

Edward Urbanik

Lyndonville

Editor:

The Yates Town Board is to be congratulated for its recent decision to join forces with the Town of Somerset in retaining Dennis Vacco from the law firm Lippes, Mathias, Wexler, Friedman LLP as the town attorney representing them in matters associated with the proposed Lighthouse Wind project. It is a win/win situation for both towns in their effort to stop the industrialization of our rural community.

Mr. Vacco, a principled attorney, has vast legal experience and is unique in that he is one of the few Western New Yorkers that have held statewide office. His credentials are beyond question. Critics are totally misguided.

The alleged “excessive legal expenditures” incurred by the Town of Somerset reflect the costs necessary to defend against a lawsuit relating to the siting of two Met towers in the town. Somerset maintained that the siting of these towers was a class I SEQRA action as they were in fact part of the Lighthouse Wind project with far-reaching environmental consequences. Apex disagreed and sued to force an approval. This is an example of the extent to which Apex will go to impose their will on a community that has demonstrated again and again over the last 4 years, that industrialization of our community with large wind turbines is unacceptable. The Yates Met Tower approval involved no such lawsuit.

With regard to the Somerset Power Station effect on our community, it was in fact an economic engine for the entire area. It employed 120 or more individuals, had an annual payroll in excess of $11 million annually and was privately financed. The Barker School District benefited from the tax base. Be reminded that this district encompasses a section of Orleans County including a portion of the Town of Yates. No number of industrial wind turbine projects will ever replace the economic contribution of that plant. It is tragic that it is being driven out of business by Governor Cuomo’s misguided energy policies with no thought of conversion to natural gas, a plentiful and clean-burning fuel.

It time to stop running loose and fast with facts and figures and recognize that our elected officials are carrying out the will of the people, something they were elected to do. We must all unite behind them and send Apex home. This is what the people want.

James C. Hoffman

Town of Somerset

Editor:

A recent letter to the editor regarding the industrial wind factory project by Apex Clean Energy of Virginia states:

“Lastly, you have the 10% to 15% lake privileged, who always complain about unfair high taxes.”

As one of the “privileged” I would like to make it known that our family has never once complained about “unfair high taxes” nor have I heard any of my lake neighbors complain about “unfair” high taxes.

I am not sure what the 10-15% percent represents here … 10-15% of the citizens, of the taxpayers? Of the tax revenue? Of the voters? What does this have to do with the Right to Farm? I can tell you what lake dwellers who are part time residents don’t get: tax reduction of any sort regardless of age or economic status. We don’t complain about that either.

Most of us are subsidized only by our own hard work. We do not need to be denigrated for that.

The combining of legal forces by Somerset and Yates is intended to reduce the legal costs to both towns imposed on us by Apex Clean Energy’s industrial wind project called Lighthouse Wind, a project that has been rejected by a majority of the citizens in both towns. I applaud the Yates Town Board members who are looking out for that majority. I believe that is the way the founding fathers intended this country to operate.

Unfortunately, Article 10 has taken away Home Rule and this tenet of democracy in NY state.

Sincerely,

Susan Dudley

Lyndonville

Editor:

We (the family of Jo and RJ Gilman) would like to express our gratitude and appreciation to our friends and community for their outpouring of support during this incredibly difficult time. The loss that we feel is incredible. Jo and RJ were treasured members of our family and we are doing our best to cope with such a senseless loss.

Jo was a devoted mother, sister, aunt and friend. She welcomed all with coffee, a smile and a listening ear. RJ followed his mother’s lead and made the happiness and laughter of others a priority. You didn’t need to be blood to be family when it came to either of them. This loss is devastating for all who knew them.

Funeral services will be held on Saturday, April 28, with calling hours from 2 to 4 p.m. and a service to follow immediately at First Baptist Church in Albion. Interment will be held privately.

A GoFundMe page has been set up to help ease the financial burden left in the wake of this tragedy.

Sincerely,

The Gilman family

Editor:

In an April 19, 2018 letter to the editor, Mr. Howard Pierce chastises three of the relatively new elected Yates Town Board members for making what he considers an unwise fiscal decision. He is angry that the Town of Yates is going to join forces with the Town of Somerset in the last remaining legal battle against Apex Clean Energy and the Lighthouse Wind Project. I believe his anger should be targeted at Apex and not at our town representatives.

Apex Clean Energy of Charlottesville, Virginia (Virginia still has no industrial wind turbines), snuck into our two towns almost 5 years ago and started signing up lease holders before the general public was even aware they were here. When the general populations of both towns did find out about the proposed project, surveys in both towns were conducted and roughly 67 percent of the populations of both towns were opposed to the Lighthouse Wind Project being built. Despite this fact, Apex still touts that they have “widespread community support.” This translates to mean they have enough leases and land to proceed with at least part of the project.

Apex could have done the honorable thing and cancelled the project after finding out the results of the two town surveys. However, because of Article 10, which takes away our home rule, and the chance of making mega millions of dollars if the project is built, Apex has stuck around. As a result, the two towns have had to pay wind attorney fees for several years, like the ones Mr. Pierce mentioned, to try and prevent Apex from building the Lighthouse Wind Project. No more Apex means no more wind attorney fees.

In closing, I am one of the 10% to 15% of the “lake privileged” but have never complained about unfair high taxes here. I did submit a letter to the Hub awhile back stating I was paying lower taxes in Yates than in my previous location. I also mentioned how the seasonal “lake privileged” keep year-round resident taxes lower.

If 67 percent of Yates has said NO to Apex, and only 10% to 15% are the “lake privileged”, there must be a whole lot of “non-lake privileged” people here who also oppose the project. It is Apex who could have, and still could, save the two towns many thousands of dollars by not proceeding with the Lighthouse Wind Project.

Jim Bansbach

Town of Yates

Return to top

Editor:

After reading the article in the Batavia newspaper and on Orleans Hub of the audit criticizing the Supervisor of the Town of Carlton, for inaccurate and incomplete accounting records, it became very disturbing to me. This is a big business and must be handled professionally and accurately in a timely fashion.

I have never heard of not depositing checks within seven business days to ensure sufficient funds are available to cover which is usually a minimum of three business days. The audit shows a check from Orleans County for $18,733 that was not cashed for five months and then when the Supervisor was asked why, it was stated that it was lost in the mail. In my opinion, that is an unacceptable excuse. There were also Town Justice checks that were never deposited and had to be reissued several months later. This tells me there is something seriously wrong with the procedure.

Findings also show the Town Board was not totally informed on certain issues and voting by the Board was not handled properly or even brought up for a vote.

When I attended the March 13, 2018 regular monthly Board Meeting, I questioned the audit under privilege of the floor. I asked what the audit revealed and what is being done to correct the situation. I was informed that deposits were made in the past years within 30 days with no issues and that a couple of checks were shredded, but the audit didn’t share that, only that it took months to correct the missing checks. I was truly hoping that we would have been informed of some troubling areas of the audit that have been addressed and will not happen in the future, but instead we received no true explanation and it would have been “swept under the rug” if I hadn’t brought the issue up.

One real disturbing piece of the audit was that we are a small municipality and the elected officials are just part-time. I have to differ since this is a big business and even though the elected officials are part-time, you know what is required of you when you run for office and the taxpayers expect that the job will be done correctly and to the best of your ability. As a Supervisor, you must be a team player with excellent communication skills so that everyone is lead to positive results to help our town move forward to a prosperous outlook.

Lastly, we have been informed that the books will be looked over by a CPA so that these mistakes are corrected, and the Town is not incurring additional costs from mistakes. If it takes time to correct mistakes twice, then for sure there was time to do it right once. As Town of Carlton taxpayers we need to show concern and interest of the direction of our town. There appeared to be no problem in the 2018 budget for 2% raises to reward a job well done. How about we reward our performance when it is done correctly and not just a given? Remember, your board meetings are the second Tuesday of each month at 7 p.m.

Regards,

Robin L. Roberts

Carlton

Editor:

This was the most fiscally irresponsible vote by the Yates Town Board on April 12, 2018: RESOLUTION NO.53-4/18 – Resolution to Authorize the Supervisor to Sign Agreement for Legal Services with Lippes Mathias Wexler Freedman LLP.

I am writing this letter to inform my Town of Yates fellow residents and the public what happened at the Yates Town Board meeting on April 12. By a vote of 3-2, Simon, Riggi and Suhr passed a “Resolution to Authorize the Supervisor to Sign Agreement for Legal Services with Lippes Mathias Wexler Friedman LLP.”

A. This resolution does three things, all of which concern me deeply:

1. This resolution terminates the Town of Yates association with our Wind Attorney, Mr. Dan Spitzer. Spitzer is the most knowledgeable and respected wind attorney in New York State having worked with numerous towns on wind laws for over 15 years now. For the record, Mr. Spitzer had sent a communication earlier in the day withdrawing his services as Town Wind Attorney.

2. This resolution makes an agreement with the law firm of Lippes Mathis Wexler Freedman LLP, Dennis Vacco’s firm that Somerset retained. Vacco and his firm’s experience regarding wind energy is minimal when compared to Spitzer.

3. The Town of Yates will enter into an agreement with the Town of Somerset to share attorney and engineering expenses at a 50-50 split. This is a bad deal for several reasons, mainly that Vacco charges an arm and a leg compared to Spitzer.

Both Towns have passed resolutions against the Lighthouse Wind Project and both have redone their wind laws twice. Here’s the difference: The Town of  Yates spent $37,136.47 with Mr. Spitzer, while the Town of Somerset spent $264,677.20 with Vacco’s firm.

You are entering into an agreement not knowing what it will cost or where the money will come from. Yates has $19,000 budgeted for attorney fees in 2018 while Somerset has $300,000 for attorney fees and $85,000 in engineering fees budgeted for 2018.

B. The manner in which it was put together and introduced is highly troubling:

1. This resolution was written in a non-transparent manner by Simon, Riggi and Suhr without including Councilmen Bradley and Whipple. Councilman Bradley suggested that a resolution of this magnitude should have been done by committee.

2. The actual content was not available beforehand – just the title. This means constituents can’t know what is in the resolution until the Supervisor read it aloud just prior to the vote.

Mr. Simon, I remind you, Yates is a “Right to Farm” town. We also have not had our pockets filled with a PILOT program from the power plant for the last thirty years. Your constituents are hard-working farm families, many who live below the national poverty level, many who live paycheck to paycheck, and many retired people who live on fixed incomes.

Lastly, you have the 10% to1 5% lake privileged, who always complain about unfair high taxes. The make-up of Yates doesn’t leave money for this unnecessary spending. In the last two years you haven’t brought in one penny of revenue to our town, but you continue to spend money like a drunken sailor.

This rushed and irresponsible vote (3-2) will surely be regretted by taxpayers: we simply can’t afford this decision! It will go down as the darkest day in the Town of Yates history.

Howard Pierce

Yates

Editor:

I understand a recent letter suggested flipping the party leadership in Orleans County would lead to reduced cost and spending.

The following states have the highest effective sales tax/income tax rates in the nation: New York, 12.7 %; Connecticut, 12.6%; New Jersey, 12.2%; Illinois, 11.0%, California and Wisconsin, 11.0%.

Which party controls a majority of those states? The party the writer is suggesting control the county?

Edward Urbanik

Lyndonville

Editor:

Will a new Orleans County administration building provide improved service to the taxpayers?  Would the plus, or minus, seven million dollars—regardless of how funded—be tax dollars well spent? Will anything the current 4-3 Republican majority decides to do serve the actual best interests of the residents of Orleans County?

In 2011, we supposedly could no longer afford to care for elderly residents in a county nursing home we had spent several millions renovating during my initial term, but we can spend millions on new “digs” for the current political crowd/“administration.” It is extremely doubtful that having improved graphics, new sidewalks, newer desks and the latest technology will help us make better—even courageous—decisions.

Any chance solar panels will cover the new facility’s roof? Who knows, emboldened by posh office space, maybe our sitting legislators will take a stand on some matters with serious implications for the future of Orleans County’s assets. Unfortunately, more comfortable chairs won’t help our representatives understand what an “asset” is. By the way, assets include not only Four Star federally-rated nursing homes but histories, hospitals, varied wildlife habitats, and visiting nurse certifications.

With the cover provided by a “Stormy” in Washington and a “Percocolation” in Albany, the burning-need-for-a-new-administration-complex-fiasco can be pulled off with only Lauricella, Lofthouse, Longer, yours truly, and a handful of others noticing. (What do those conservatives know anyway?) Most people here long ago threw up their hands in hopeless resignation that anything the 4-3 legislative majority does will actually be beneficial to the vast majority of us regular folks.

When The Villages County Nursing home just had to be sold, at least five relatives of then—and some even now—sitting legislators professed opposition and even revulsion. The 2019 county elections are a long way off, but wouldn’t payback for the current anticipated utter waste of taxpayer dollars—and another arguably bonehead play just announced—be awful? One former chairperson has to be getting restless.

One consequence of a certain flipped seat might be a change in county leadership. In fact, as things stand right now, flipping that one seat would guarantee it.

Yours so truly,

Gary Kent

Albion

Editor:

So often I read the letters to the editor and they are negative with debate and political tension. I would like to write a quick note that is positive.

My job gives me the opportunity to interact on a near daily basis with the Hoag Library staff in Albion. I wanted to send a thank you out to them for all that they do for me and other patrons.

They are always so willing to help me out with whatever they can. They greet me each day with a smile and a “Hello.” Each one takes the time to have a conversation with me when the chance is available.

I have become to feel like I am part of their “work family.” Thanks again!!!

Tammie Golden

Kent

Editor:

The table below shows the results of an empirical assessment of public comments made to the DPS website in relation to the Lighthouse Wind Project as proposed for the Towns of Yates and Somerset by APEX Clean Energy. Since the first quarter of 2015, a total of 1,155 submitted comments have been assessed, tabulated and organized by support (in favor) and opposition (opposed) to the project.

All comments made to the DPS site regarding the Lighthouse Wind Project were included in the assessment and cover the time period from Q1-2015 through March 31, 2018.  All comments were read fully in order to ascertain position regarding the industrial wind turbine project.  The positions were tabulated as “in favor” of or “opposed” to the project.

The results are as follows:

The overall results for the time period January 2015 to January 31, 2018 are as follows:

Comments In Favor of Lighthouse Wind Project = 222

Comments Opposed to Lighthouse Wind Project = 933

Percent of comments In Favor of Lighthouse Wind Project = 19%

Percent of comments Opposed to Lighthouse Wind Project = 81%

Two additional assessments were performed as part of  this comments assessment.

1. Assessment of Multiple Submitters – Q1-2018: This assessment determines Opposition/In-favor percentages for those who multiple time to NYSDPS Matter Number:  14-F-0485 (Lighthouse Wind).  During Q1 – 2018, multiple submitters (both in-favor and opposed to Lighthouse Wind) submitted an average of 3 times.
2. Assessment of Location of Residence – Q1-2018: This assessment determines if submitters are Yates and Somerset resident taxpayers or out-of-town submitters. Resident taxpayers include part time or full time taxpaying residents in the towns of Yates/Somerset.  Results are as follows:

Results show that 61% of submitters in favor of the Lighthouse Wind Project are from outside of Yates and Somerset. In contrast, 85% of submitters opposed to the Lighthouse Wind Project are Yates and Somerset resident taxpayers. Clearly, those with the least involvement want the project imposed on Yates and Somerset.  This out-of-town effect was especially prevalent over the last two quarters. However, Yates and Somerset resident taxpayers, at risk of full exposure to this imposed project are continuing their exhortations to the State Siting Board for elimination of this toxic project, as they have done since January 2015.

The will of the people is clear. This project must not move forward. Article 10 must not be allowed to suppress Home-Rule and the will of the People.

The question now sits directly with Governor Cuomo.

Mr. Governor, when are you going to direct APEX Clean Energy to kill their Lighthouse Wind Project and get out of Yates and Somerset for good?

We’re listening and we will keep fighting.  This war does not end until APEX Clean Energy takes their Lighthouse Wind Project and vacates Yates and Somerset.

Thank You.

John B. Riggi

Councilman, Town of Yates

File photo: Father Mark Noonan, pastor of St. Mary’s Roman Catholic Church in Holley, leads prayers during ceremonies in observance of Memorial Day on May 30, 2016 at Holy Cross Cemetery in Clarendon.

Editor:

I first came to Orleans County as a seminarian for 10 weeks in 2006 to serve at St. Joseph’s and St. Mary’s Catholic Churches in Albion. I experienced many wonderful things that summer and left hoping maybe I would one day return to Orleans County as a priest. But, with only three priests living in the County, I knew that was a long shot. Yet, in 2010, Bishop Edward Kmiec assigned me as Pastor of St. Mary’s & St. Mark’s Parish in Holley and Kendall, where I have lived and served for nearly eight years. I arrived with a desire to try and make each person here feel like they were the most important person to the Catholic Church.

Recently, Bishop Richard Malone, the current Bishop of Buffalo, asked me to take a new assignment serving at the Catholic Center in Buffalo. I accepted this assignment and will complete my service as a pastor in Orleans County on Sunday, April 15th.

I want everyone in Orleans County to know how grateful I am for the opportunity to be a part of this wonderful community. I feel so much a part of this place, which has massively affected my life. Since I left law school in 1999 to become a Catholic priest I have lived, studied, and served in multiple countries. Yet, no place is as special to me as Orleans County. I have been blessed to meet so many of you, to celebrate funerals and weddings for your loved ones, to accompany you on your spiritual journey, to pray for you and with you, and simply to be a part this community which will forever be a home to me.

I love Orleans County! I’ve marveled at the beauty of the farms and country roads, the canal and the lake, and the villages on sunny days and snow days. I’ve loved being part of a community where most everyone knows one another. It always brought me joy when people would come to my door if they needed material help. It has been an awesome experience to celebrate Memorial Day and Independence Day, and especially Christmas and Easter, in a small town. What a privilege and blessing it’s been to serve the people of this community!

I hope all the people of this County will continue to grow in goodness, friendship and faith. I hope that kindness, honesty, and decency will imbue all political, institutional, and business endeavors. I pray that violence on the streets and domestic violence in homes will end, drug use will cease, and the children of this County will grow up safe from all harm. I hope that the people of this County continue to build a community of goodwill and family welfare upon the foundations laid by the generations who went before us.

Thank you for your goodness to me these many years. Be assured of my prayers for each of you!

Fr. Mark Noonan

Pastor

St. Mary’s, Holley & St. Mark’s, Kendall

Editor:

A recent news story heralded the fact that New York was going to lead a multi-state effort to block a question about citizenship in the new census. As I read this story my first question was, how much is this costing the state, since any money spent by the state, in the end, is taxpayer money?

As I continued reading I came to the statement that read one of the primary reasons for a census is to ensure a “fair representation in Congress and the electoral college.” I certainly agree with that and since the constitution applies to citizens of this country (or at least it used to), I do not understand how this question could be so disagreeable to some.

When the state says they could lose a lot of money I realized that is the real concern. As citizens flock out of this tax-laden state and we continue to lose congressmen, the state evidently sees these non-citizens as a way out of the financial mess they’ve created. I do not see how this is possible, but I’m not as smart as those people in Albany that have gotten this state in this predicament.

I am not opposed to legal immigration. If you have ever witnessed a swearing-in ceremony, it is very moving. I am not opposed to migrants coming from other countries. They are necessary and, as long as they are legal, welcome. I just feel the state is grasping at straws and trying to point fingers elsewhere when they need to look in the mirror and in the end this is going to cost the taxpayers of New York.

Ken Longer

Kendall

Editor:

I have lived in the Town of Shelby for 47 years. I served my country in the United States Marine Corps then became a police officer in Washington, D.C. I am versed in the law and the U.S. Constitution.

I am retired now but still work as a real estate agent in Medina. Every 2 years I complete a continuing education course on business and ethics for my job. I believe all elected and appointed officials, and town employees, should be required to take business and ethics classes in order to maintain their positions in local government. The town of Shelby’s code of ethics for officers and employees was written in 1970 and has not been updated since, even though a local attorney recently advised it should be updated.

For those who may not be aware, the Town of Shelby passed another version of the law they call the Wildlife Protection Overlay on November 27, 2017. Our tax dollars have paid for four versions of Local Law 5 and it still violates our constitutional rights. The law is non-compliant with other local, state and federal mandates.

The town needs to be reminded that we live in a republic – not a monarchy. In a republic, my property is not the property of local officials. Representatives are chosen by the people to represent our interests – not deprive us of our rights and property.

Now, the town is raising assessments to pay for their legal fees concerning the overlay, without respect or regard for the taxpayers. I feel terrible for the people on my road and others that were not properly notified. They have no idea about what the overlay laws are concerning their property and that the law was used in an unlawful manner. No one tried to notify them.

The present Town Board members, past members, and the Planning Board should all be held accountable for their dealings in relation to Local Law 5.

Sincerely,

Bob Kwandrans Sr.

Medina

Editor:

In December an opening for the position on the Town Planning Board was advertised. I submitted my letter to the Planning Board and Shelby Town Board on January 4th. I did this when I learned at the meeting Planning Board members chose not to meet with one person, Mr. Pratt. And that the Town Board was recommending he be appointed to the Planning Board. Shouldn’t the Planning Board meet the candidate?

I thought they might be rushing the process because they didn’t have enough applicants, so I submitted a letter for the position myself. Although my submission was sent past the December 22nd deadline, I went out of my way to be respectful to each town councilman and Planning Board member and asked if it was possible for them to consider my submission.

My letter was faxed to the town hall on January 4th, copies were delivered there by hand for each member and also sent certified mail. The board appointed Mr. Pratt to the Planning Board on January 9th. To this day, there has been no acknowledgement of my letters by anyone.

The agricultural community has not been represented in local government in Shelby for most of the years the former supervisor ran the town. Town Law 271 includes a provision for the appointment of an agricultural member to the Planning Board. It is not mandatory but suggested for towns like ours with agricultural districts to “include on the Planning Board one of more members each of whom derives ten thousand dollars or more annual gross income from agricultural pursuits in said town.” That’s taken directly from Town Law 271. I respectfully brought this suggestion to the attention of the town and planning boards.

I attend meetings regularly. And, believe it or not, everything in my life is not about the quarry. And I understand if some people think I may have a conflict of interest due to the quarry, but could you give me the respect of asking me about it? All the board had to do was give everyone a few minutes of their time.

Edward M. Zelazny

Shelby