important post

Utica, NY

#32 Apr 30, 2012
Contact has been made with CAP-21 in Old Forge and their words were, the best thing we can do in Forestport is to make ourselves aware of what is proposed in that plan for our community.
Towns will only address this issue if their residents support them to do so.

Why then was it a big issue that information was being presented about the Needs Assessment and CAP-21. THAT INFORMATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE EVEN REMOTELY AFFECTED BY THAT PROJECT.........AND WHEN IT BEGAN TO BE KNOWN, WHY WAS SOMEONE VERBALLY ATTACKED FOR DOING THAT? ALL THIS CRAP FLYING WHEN IT WAS SOMETHING WE ALL SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BUT COULD NOT HAVE KNOWN WITHOUT THIS SITE.

YET SOMEHOW SOMEONE IS ANGRY ABOUT THAT TO THE POINT OF PUTTING THEMSELVES IN A POSITION TO HAVE A LAW SUIT FILED AGAINST THEM OVER THIS.

KEEPING WATCH..........

that we ALL should have known about in the first place.
Check it yourself

Utica, NY

#36 May 3, 2012
October 19th 2011 was the date of the Town Board Meeting that authorized submission of the TOBIE grant. You can check this yourself on the town web site. Also, searching the Town Board minutes of that meeting, and the financial report for that period it did not show any board motion to take the funds from the budget and forward the required amount with the grant proposal. If this didn't happen, then the grant would not have been acceptable.......IS this possible??
Was there documentation from TIGER why the proposal was not funded?
From Sept 2010 post

Utica, NY

#37 May 9, 2012
At the town meeting the following was discussed.
The Town intends to save its bridges.
The grant application for stimulus funds is in process. It began as a result of when Spectra Engineering did the inspection of the bridges.
The estimated costs to restore the bridges is in the neighborhood of $725,000.
The requirements for meeting the criteria of the Stimulus Funds will be clearly defined in the grant application process that is being undertaken.
There was no mention of the Planning Board participation.
Cap 21 is not a funding source in itself, they assist communities in their organization to apply for project funding as they did when Forestport got the $50,000. for the Town's waterfront revitalization. They are not a funding source for their mission.
This is a bit of the meeting discussion.
Attend the meetings and watch this develop yourself.
May 9 2012 post

Utica, NY

#38 May 9, 2012
If you were at the meeting you would know what happened there......and if you were not there you SHOULD have been. Note the post about (9/2010) It didn't go anywhere. DON'T LET TONIGHT'S MEETING JUST FADE AWAY WITHOUT SECURING A SAFE FUTURE FOR OUR TWINS......... If you missed the meeting tonight, you missed seeing Forestort residents at their best. There were not only people from downtown there, our neighbors from all over the town were there.
THANK YOU TO ALL OF YOU WHO CARED AND PLEASE HELP US ALL SAVE OUR BRIDGES.
Ya'll did good.
Keep attending

Utica, NY

#39 May 10, 2012
Everyone who had attended the past two town board meetings should keep on attending the future meetings also. You need to have a presence there to have the board understand that as a taxpayer you want to see them in action and see first hand what goes on every month. It was so refreshing to see the attendance for the animal law and the save the bridges meeting, but please keep attending......
bob

United States

#40 May 10, 2012
Its sad that people get elected to look out for your interests , and you have watch them like little kids to make sure they do ....
WHY

United States

#41 May 10, 2012
How are they not looking out for your interests? There has been not a tax on the General Fund for the last three or four years. And now that they are not jumping in line to follow Parker and "HIS" bridge they are underhanded,running the town "The Old Boys Way", to quote Parker at the meeting, and against the bridges when they have been working harder to get them rebuilt than ANYONE ELSE. There was about 60 people at the meeting, thats about 5 percent of residents that live in Town year round and vote,and not all of them were for the bridges.
Good

Utica, NY

#42 May 10, 2012
The idea if THE COMMITTEE, as I saw it, was to discuss options. understand the process, choose a less expensive design for ONE lane bridges, and to save the taxpayers money. I feel the excessive cost the town had in mind was for a TWO lane bridge. That isn't needed! Just restore them to what they were, make them safe, and get on with it. The one vs two lane bridge escalated the cost factor. Without someone bringing this to the table, we may well have been committed to debt for years with excessive cost and bridges that may have caused greater traffic problems at the entry into the village area as well as from Dutch Hill and Rte 28 access.
There is nothing wrong with options.
We would have never been offered any options. We should be happy we had someone who was able to put this presentation together.
At least now we have been presented with options and choices. We had none before, and would have had much more indebtedness than what the single lane bridges we saw at that meeting would cost us all. AND I am sure the double lane bridges would end up affecting the tax structure adversely AND our General Fund would be affected adversely also.
WHY DID IT TAKE SO LONG TO GET TO THIS POINT? AND WHY WAS THE BOARD NOT ABLE TO MEET WITH US AND REASON WITH US OVER THIS SITUATION LIKE THE BRIDGE COMMITTEE AND THE CONTRACTORS DID THAT PARKER PRESENTED? We at least have an option or two now for OUR BOARD MEMBERS TO CHOOSE FROM, AND ONE LANE BRIDGES WILL COST LITTLE COMPARED TO THE MONSTEROUS TWO LANE ONES.

No matter how you look at it, without Parker and the bridge contractors that he brought to talk with us, we NEVER had, and probably WOULD not have had any say in the matter.

That meeting was government at it's best!!
bob

United States

#43 May 10, 2012
I have to give it to Parker and Dave and the rest of the people on the bridge comm. they are doing the work for FREE ,
WHY

United States

#44 May 10, 2012
Good wrote:
The idea if THE COMMITTEE, as I saw it, was to discuss options. understand the process, choose a less expensive design for ONE lane bridges, and to save the taxpayers money. I feel the excessive cost the town had in mind was for a TWO lane bridge. That isn't needed! Just restore them to what they were, make them safe, and get on with it. The one vs two lane bridge escalated the cost factor. Without someone bringing this to the table, we may well have been committed to debt for years with excessive cost and bridges that may have caused greater traffic problems at the entry into the village area as well as from Dutch Hill and Rte 28 access.
There is nothing wrong with options.
We would have never been offered any options. We should be happy we had someone who was able to put this presentation together.
At least now we have been presented with options and choices. We had none before, and would have had much more indebtedness than what the single lane bridges we saw at that meeting would cost us all. AND I am sure the double lane bridges would end up affecting the tax structure adversely AND our General Fund would be affected adversely also.
WHY DID IT TAKE SO LONG TO GET TO THIS POINT? AND WHY WAS THE BOARD NOT ABLE TO MEET WITH US AND REASON WITH US OVER THIS SITUATION LIKE THE BRIDGE COMMITTEE AND THE CONTRACTORS DID THAT PARKER PRESENTED? We at least have an option or two now for OUR BOARD MEMBERS TO CHOOSE FROM, AND ONE LANE BRIDGES WILL COST LITTLE COMPARED TO THE MONSTEROUS TWO LANE ONES.
No matter how you look at it, without Parker and the bridge contractors that he brought to talk with us, we NEVER had, and probably WOULD not have had any say in the matter.
That meeting was government at it's best!!
The double lane bridge was required to qualify for a grant, which would not have put the town in debt. That is the whole idea of a grant. You could have had a say if you had attended the meetings when it was discussed instead of just showing up when you want to bitch about something that was done. Any of the single lane bridges are going to come directly from the taxpayers of Forestport, and don't say a grant would be paid by them too, because if we didn't get the money somebody else would and we would still be paying it and still have to finance our own bridge. In that case we would be in debt and paying for years.
Explain to me how a double lane bridge would would cause any more traffic problems than a single lane bridge?? There was about 100 cars a day when the bridges were open, are you trying to say if we build a bridge that will handle a thousand cars a day we will have thousands of cars a day going thru the Villiage. Get real! Besides I though the idea was to get traffic going thru the villiage to make more business maybe I misunderstood that. I think the board knew if this goes up for a vote it will never pass.
bob

United States

#45 May 11, 2012
well I can say that I work 2 jobs my wife works 1 , raising 3 kids and pay our bills and taxes , I'm sorry I can't make to all the meetings , but I think I do have a right to bitch
bitch

Utica, NY

#46 May 11, 2012
Is it really bitching, or is it that some have better ideas than others and open those ideas up for discussion?
What had happened at the bridge presentation was a GOOD THING! At least there were options offered, and grant money is not flowing that freely either, so we may all have to wait a considerable time longer and qualifying is much more difficult when funds begin to be scarce. Neglect of timely action on this important issue may have weakened our position for getting help with this project. The flow of funds for this need, may not be as easily available now. Time has cost us that advantage. Think about that too!!
The committee deserves credit for bringing these options forward. It was costly to them, but they did it anyway to provide alternatives to what we DID NOT KNOW WERE AVAILABLE! I doubt any of the board members would have put together options of this kind for us to be aware of! How can anyone not be pleased to be informed about options that were offered in that presentation?
13 deficient bridges

Utica, NY

#49 May 14, 2012
The Town of Forestport has 13 bridges within its boundary's. In addition to the twins, that are structurally deficient and rated SD, there are also 11 other bridges, and 4 of these bridges are classified as SD...structurally deficient also.
It appears that $50,000. can not begin to cover minimal repairs on 6 structurally deficient town owned bridges..........
What has been included in the Highway budget towards repairs of these town owned bridges on a yearly basis?
Can that $50,000. budgeted this year be enough to repair these 6 bridges?
Something is not right here.
Who prepared and presented the budget for this tax year, and will that $50,000. be enough to keep these 6 deficient bridges SAFE......
Someone owes the tax payers some explanations re: the budget process I would say!!
native

United States

#50 May 14, 2012
The town of Forestport has 14 bridges in its boundarys , 6 owned by the town , 3 owned the state , and 3 owned by the county ... there are 2 on the cemetery road that are in limbo , nobody knows who ownes them as they were closed in the 70s
Get some help

Rome, NY

#51 May 14, 2012
13 deficient bridges wrote:
The Town of Forestport has 13 bridges within its boundary's. In addition to the twins, that are structurally deficient and rated SD, there are also 11 other bridges, and 4 of these bridges are classified as SD...structurally deficient also.
It appears that $50,000. can not begin to cover minimal repairs on 6 structurally deficient town owned bridges..........
What has been included in the Highway budget towards repairs of these town owned bridges on a yearly basis?
Can that $50,000. budgeted this year be enough to repair these 6 bridges?
Something is not right here.
Who prepared and presented the budget for this tax year, and will that $50,000. be enough to keep these 6 deficient bridges SAFE......
Someone owes the tax payers some explanations re: the budget process I would say!!
The supervisor was doing the budget himself! NO 50 thousand wont even come close!
Why

Utica, NY

#52 May 15, 2012
Why did the Supervisor do the budget himself? We have a very capable Finance Officer who should have been involved in that process, as well as reps. from the Town Board..........what happened there???
notsure

Rome, NY

#53 May 15, 2012
During his very first term he took over as budget officer and started doing the town budget, but not sure if he is still doing it or not! There was one lady doing almost everything for less than 20 thousand a year - supervisors secretary, budget officer and director of finance! He with some help forced her into early retirement because of an illness she nearly died from and created separate positions for much much more money per year! He also made the deputy supervisors position a paid position which it should not be! The man has issues to say the least with power tripping!!
sad

Utica, NY

#54 May 15, 2012
It is truly a sad situation when one finds the elected officials they had faith in and elected to represent them forget what they are in office to do.
You are not there to be a good ole boy, or girl, but you ARE there to put the community as a WHOLE first in your duties. There should be no place for personal manipulation nor thoughts of personal gain at the expense of the community as a whole. It seems this type of UP FRONT, OF AND FOR THE PEOPLE is quickly disappearing.
We have no one to blame for that but ourselves.
These past few meetings of the Town Board have been very enlightening. The electorate has begun to pay attention. The attendance should continue monthly, because it IS OUR GOVERNMENT, and we should expect nothing less than their total dedication to what is best for this commuity's future.
How about attempts to being in small businesses? Remember when Rome Specialty came here? Why not find another company who would like to LOOK US OVER for reasonable operational costs?
Don't let this spark that is igniting in the community now, to die out.
Watching it all

United States

#55 May 15, 2012
Bill Hasenauer is the budget officer ( most supervisors are) and each department is asked to submit its requests for the following year. The preliminary budget is then given to the town board to review and revise over several works sessions that are open public meetings. A public hearing is held for comments before the budget is adopted.
At the public hearing for this year's budget held last November, no one showed up at the public hearing to make any comments.
We only have ourselves to blame for the current budget.
bob

United States

#56 May 16, 2012
The bridges have been closed for 3 years and the town board was working on gitting them fixed ? and also the Horton road bridge needing repair ...They have put no money into a fund to fix them ....Its not my job to check on these things ( I don't get state retirement , medical ins. or a paycheck to do that ) they sould have a plan

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Thendara Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Justin hurley 1 hr Minx 6
Miss. President Clinton (Jun '16) 2 hr Truth 23
world's biggest case of animal abuse 3 hr haha 4
Why is port leyden town truck sanding drive ways 4 hr Get a job 5
Scams Wed Know one cares 7
kayuta lake campground (Jun '16) Wed hey lame brain 5
Lyons Falls Paper Mill (Mar '08) Tue Fer 3

Thendara Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Thendara Mortgages